1987-08-18

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people from my constituency as well as from other constituencies both within Toronto and, indeed, from as far afield as the Northwest Territories, and Edmonton.
The petitioners point out that the Standing Committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force and they pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that legislation be enacted which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make these claims.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House a petition from the residents of Calgary South who call upon the House to pass in full Bills C-55 and C-84. Canadians are law-abiding citizens and the people of Calgary South are very angry and extremely annoyed. They want tough new legislation now to deal with this disastrous situation of bogus claimants entering Canada illegally and of course those people who are trafficking in human bodies. This petition represents the views of my riding on this very important issue.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition to the House, signed by constituents from my riding and the National Capital Region, and stating that, whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes
or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks; and whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possiblity of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food; and whereas food constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life; and whereas the imposition of theis tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, the unemployed. low income taxpayers, youth and so forth, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 17, 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. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, many well-respected and knowledgeable citizens of Canada and other countries have intimate and expert knowledge of the problems of immigration and refugees. Many of these individuals have made that knowledge and expertise available to the Government. As well, the committees of this House have made representations to the Government on the same subject. Unfortunately, the Government chose to ignore that advice.

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
In 1985 the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration tabled a report recommending major changes in the refugee determination process. Those changes were fair and would have provided protection under Canadian law and the Charter of Rights for refugees seeking asylum. Instead, the Government brought in Bill C-55 and allowed three days of debate in June. When there was a storm of protest about some of the provisions of the Bill it was left on the shelf. The Government now claims an emergency exists and appears to want it passed without delay or change. It appears to be ignoring its own committees as well as people like Rabbi Gunther Plaut who have expressed concern about this Bill.
Worse than that, the Government is doing its best to confuse Canadians as to who is a legitimate refugee and who is an immigrant. Government Members who have spoken on this Bill have made statements which suggest that refugees are somehow jumping the queue in entering Canada the way they do. In doing so those Members are either ignorant of the procedures for entry into Canada or are deliberately misleading Canadians-


Mr. McDermid:: That is not true at all.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -in order to confuse the issue and make this Bill palatable. Instead of doing that, they should be explaining clearly that there are two queues, two streams-


John Horton McDermid: Four.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -and that the bogus refugee is not replacing a legitimate immigrant under the regular process. The refugee is in a different stream. Whether they get in or not, they do not replace someone in the regular immigrant stream. A bogus refugee, when proven to be such, is excluded and sent back. He does not move over to the head of the immigrant queue. That is the situation and many government Members have tried to confuse the public. It is the process of refugee determination that is the problem.
Canadians generally are generous in their acceptance of refugees in Canada. However, it should not take five years to decide whether or not a person claiming refugee status is a legitimate refugee. The Government, quite rightly, is doing something about the determination process, but what it is doing is unacceptable to most Canadians who understand that it is moving us closer to a totalitarian approach. Most democracies and the UN cannot accept that.
Our history of dealing with refugees started badly. I refer to the Sikhs who tried to enter Canada in 1914 and the Jews who attempted to land in Montreal in 1939. Since then we have improved our image to the point where last year we won an award for our treatment of refugees. Yet we now seem to be moving to again put ourselves in the position where Canada's approach to refugees will be unacceptable to most people in this country and most people around the world. That will happen if the Government passes this Bill in its present form.
The Government has the time and the power to improve the Bill. It will be a sad day for Canada if it does not heed the advice of the experts and concerned individuals and groups who suggest that, although the Bill is needed, it is unacceptable in its present form.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity this morning to take part in the debate on Bill C-55. I must say I would welcome it even more if the Bill were better drafted than what we have here. I hope the parliamentary committee responsible for examining the Bill will be able to amend it and make it more equitable.
Mr. Speaker, some Conservative Members have been using the refugee question in recent months to restore their Government's tarnished image. For instance, in a letter sent by a Conservative Member from the Toronto area to his constituents on July 14, 1987, we read the following, and I quote:

Since my last letter we have witnessed another boatload of refugees land in Canada.
Like you, I am angry. Angry because our government acted responsibly to change the law to prevent another incident like that of the Tamils last summer so that the matter could be resolved expeditiously and fairly.
Bill C-55, which would grant the government the necessary power to curb this type of influx, has been blocked at every turn. It has been thwarted by opposition from both the Liberals and NDP along with a strong lobbying effort being directed by most churches.


Mr. Shields:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I notice that the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) says "hear, hear''. It is interesting that he would agree with the ill-conceived and erroneous comments of his colleague, the Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock), who accuses the Opposition and the churches of the mistakes for which the Government is responsible. Perhaps we in Opposition are fair game for this kind of nonsense perpetrated by the Government. I do not, however, share the "hear, hear" of the Member across when referring to the churches, whether my church, his or anyone else's.
Had the Member for Etobicoke North chosen to tell the truth he would have told his constituents that the number of refugees landing on our shores prior to the Government taking power was not very large per year. In 1985 the number increased to 8,000. That did not happen because the Government was in power. Although I do make my share of partisan remarks, this is not one of them. It is obvious that there has been an influx of refugees because conditions in certain countries are getting worse and people want to come here. In 1986 the number increased to 18,000. I understand that by May, 1987, 10,000 people had already requested refugee status. That is a dramatic increase.
For a Member on the other side to accuse the Opposition or the churches of stalling a Bill which was not even introduced
August 18, 1987

until nearly 10 months after the arrival of the Tamil refugees is somewhat less than honest. As a matter of fact, it is a lot less than honest.


Jack Wendele Shields: Why are we debating a six-month hoist? Tell us about that.


Don Boudria: Let us talk about the truth and the way in which the Government has handled this most unfortunate situation. The Government is desperately trying to cling to power using every available tool, including hitting those who are least able to help themselves; an attempt to restore public confidence in the Government. The Government has made much of the 174 refugees who arrived this year and of the Tamils who arrived last year.
I do not think it is right when people abuse our immigration laws. I know that the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) does not think that is right either. 1 know that the Minister knows better and is not the cause of this, but I disagree with his Leader, who is the cause of this mess, when he tries to perpetrate the kinds of things we saw earlier this year.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tried to convince Canadians that Parliament had to be recalled for an emergency. Two weeks later no one had gotten around to phoning the Speaker to tell him about the emergency for which the House had to be recalled. At the time he said it was an emergency, the boat had already been here for three weeks. Five weeks elapsed in that time of emergency. The whole purpose of the exercise was obviously to try desperately to have Canadians express confidence in him again. It obviously has not worked. It will not work because it is wrong.
1 am sure the Minister knows that to be the fact, but he is stuck with it as am I as an opposition Member. He cannot say he does not like it, as 1 can, because he is a member of the Cabinet. He did not invent the rule, but he has to put up with it and carry the load and the blame. That is unfair, because I think the Minister is a very fine gentleman, but he has to carry that on his shoulders.
We cannot discuss refugee policy without as well discussing immigration policy generally. We know that they are two very different things.

Two different matters, but both apply of course to people who come from other countries to join us here in Canada. Canada has always had an immigration policy, and I think we can be proud of the policy we have had during the last twenty or thirty years, and even up to now. Our immigration policy is generally one we can be proud of. However, the Minister will agree that sometimes implementation leaves something to be desired.

I have had incidents in my riding of abuses by the system. When the system abuses common sense all Members of
Immigration Act, 1976
Parliament go to see the Minister of State for Immigration knowing that he, in elected office, has the political sensitivity and sound judgment to correct some of the things that go wrong. Luckily, 1 have had many abuses corrected.
The Minister knows very well of the case of one particular woman in my riding. She came here on a visa with her husband and they bought a farm in my constituency. 1 only relate this case to give an example of how the system sometimes frustrates everyone and causes abuse.
That constituent of mine was a battered wife. She saw advertisements on television and decided that the appropriate thing to do after being beaten repeatedly was to report her husband to the police, which she did. Her husband was thrown in jail, and rightfully so. However, the immigration authorities then decided that since they both came here on the same visa if one of the two had committed a crime, which in this case was the one beating up the other, they both had to leave the country. The message to this woman was that if her husband beats her up she should not complain because she would be thrown out. That is in fact what the system said.
Luckily I was able to contact the Minister and he was compassionate enough to say that it would not work that way. The woman and her children, who were both born in Canada, were allowed to stay while the husband was thrown out. I have no difficulty with his being thrown out in the circumstances.
That is one example of an abuse. If I had another three or four minutes I could relate a number of others to describe the frustration with the system which may cause people to try to enter the country by other means. The honest and right way of doing it sometimes does not work.
I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I strongly advise Hon. Members to reject Bill C-55. The Bill must be amended to prevent phony refugees from entering Canada, while ensuring that genuine refugees will always be welcome in this country.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days of debate on immigration legislation, on both Bills C-84 and C-55, I have heard a multitude of complaints from the Opposition. Yet if there is anyone who should be concerned and should complain, and should commend the Government and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) for his humanitarian instincts, it is one of my constituents, Mr. Fred Nachbauer of Nelson, British Columbia. He reads press articles from across the nation, and it appeared to him that Canada had allowed Sikhs to hit the shores of Nova Scotia and come in as legitimate refugees, which they are not.
Mr. Nachbauer was born in Germany and came to Canada with his parents at 11 months of age. Prior to 1976, he had to

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
reach the age of 14 in order to make a decision as to what citizenship he wanted, be it Canadian or German. By virtue of his parents' wishes he moved to the United States for a time. Over a period of years, both in Canada and the United States, he shared, with six brothers and sisters, a unity of family with wonderful parents. When that family returned to Canada, Fred decided to remain in the United States while continuing his education to seek his university degree.
The story becomes much more complex after that. Ultimately, Fred Nachbauer returned to Canada and his case fell between the cracks with the narrow interpretation of the Immigration Appeal Board that he should be deported to Germany. Tie did not speak German and had only been to Germany for one year since the time he was 11 months old.
I have spent time with Fred, his brothers and sisters, and his wonderful parents. I have also spent time with the Minister. I must tell the Flouse and Canadians that the Minister demonstrated the kind of compassion and understanding which, unfortunately, by virtue of whatever the circumstances, was not demonstrated by the Immigration Appeal Board at the time. I cannot condemn the Immigration Appeal Board, for it went by the book, but it failed to examine the parameters.
At this time I want to thank the Minister for all his endeavours on behalf of my constituent, and indeed on behalf of all Canadians.
Let me move to another matter that disturbs me deeply. I watched Rabbi Plaut on Canada AM last week. Canada was condemned for its handling of the recent pseudo refugees who landed in Nova Scotia. It was condemned for Bill C-84 and Bill C-55.
It is ironic that these pious words should flow from a man who selectively condemns Canada while choosing to ignore the record of Israel and the Palestinian refugees.
What is the immigration policy of Israel in terms of the Palestinian refugees? He chooses to ignore that babies who are kidnapped or bought on the black market or otherwise from their mothers in Peru or Brazil are allowed into Israel unencumbered. It may well be argued that those babies will be provided with a better life, but clearly they have jumped the legitimate process.
Rabbi Plaut, by his words, condemned all Members of Parliament, regardless of Party, who have taken the time and effort to write to Jewish prisoners of conscious in the Soviet Union. Parliamentarians of all stripes have followed that process for many years. They have written letters to prisoners and letters to the Soviet Government. It is a frustrating experience to all of us, but it is a joy when one wins a case, as I have experienced.
I suggest that when Rabbi Plaut speaks out against the efforts of the majority of parliamentarians in this House, he condemns us for our humanitarian actions. What about humanitarian actions? He condemns the outstanding humanitarian record of this Government and its Secretary of State for
External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who is a humanitarian of the first order.
He condemns Canadians for turning back the Jewish refugee ship, the St. Louis, from our shores in 1939. I was 12 years old when the St. Louis was turned back. There are very few Members who were much older than that. Most of the Members in this House were not even born when the St. Louis reached the shores of Canada, yet we are condemned for the actions of parliamentarians and the Government in 1939.
While I have not had the opportunity to examine the reasons for that action, whatever the reason may be, I find those actions to be most regrettable. I am sure that Canadians have apologized for it time and time again. Why must Rabbi Plaut raise it in the context of the current debate?
This Party, this Government, has a record of human rights unequalled by any other Party or any other Government. During the John Diefenbaker Government, Douglas Jung of Vancouver was the first Chinese Canadian to sit in the House. Lincoln Alexander was the first black elected to the House. He became Minister of Labour in the Clark Government and is now an outstanding public servant and Lieutenant Governor for the Province of Ontario. He was appointed by a Conservative Government under our Prime Minister. We led the world in our humanitarian effort to aid Ethiopians.
Let us compare Bill C-55 with the current legislation. According to the old system, there are seven separate stages in the refugee determination process, which takes up to five years. Bill C-55 provides four separate stages which hopefully will take no more than 12 months. 1 am astounded by the hyprocrisy that has been demonstrated by the Opposition.
The position of the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) with respect to Bill C-55 and C-84 was best depicted in an editorial cartoon which needed no words. For those watching this debate on television, the cartoon depicted the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party like this, pointing in both directions. Nothing else needed to be said because it spoke volumes for the position taken by that man and his Party.
Let us examine the position taken by the New Democratic Party. It is worthy to point out that the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) said: "I do not see any need to recall Parliament this summer at considerable expense". At a time when Canadians are outraged, that is the educated response of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said: "I do not think it is really worth while, but of course that is up to the Speaker". Then, of course, we have the sage advice of the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who said: "If we continue to get on our shores individuals who suddenly come up and say, 'Look, we are refugees, take us in', I think we will probably have no choice but to seek a middle ground, and the middle ground that I am talking about is something like a holding centre or a detainment centre, what is commonly known as a refugee camp". I cannot but conclude-
August 18, 1987


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member would not wish to suggest that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. March;) is a member of the New Democratic Party. Those comments were not made by a member of our Party.
[DOT] (M40)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) has the floor.


Robert Hylton Brisco: For the record, Mr. Speaker, I skipped from the NDP to the Liberal Party without the Member being aware of that transition. However, if he feels more comfortable about it, I will identify the Hon. Member for York West as a Member of the Liberal Party.
In conclusion, I would like to quote the Leader of the Liberal Party. Upon the arrival of the boat off the shores of Nova Scotia, he said: "That boat might well have been apprehended and could have been turned back because this is not a legitimate refugee process". Enough said.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-55 and indicate my opposition to the principles involved in this Bill.
1 believe all Members of our Party, as well as other parties, acknowledge that we have a very serious problem. There is a need to clean up the refugee determination process. However, we want to make it very clear that we do not feel this Bill addresses that problem in a serious and fair-minded way, one that is suitable for Canada in 1987.
I want to try to address the concerns of Canadians, particularly the concerns of my constituents who know that something terrible wrong has happened to the whole refugee determination process. Feeling that something has gone wrong, they tend to support Government legislation which claims to correct the situation. I want to try to show why this legislation cannot be supported by fair-minded people.
Let us begin by trying to establish a few facts on which I hope all Members can agree. First, over the last few years, Canada has had a fairly enlightened and progressive refugee policy. This was recognized by the world community last year when the United Nations presented the Nansen Medal to the Canadian people. Second, we can all recognize that the global refugee problem is becoming more serious. It has changed since the Second World War when the refugee problem was mostly centred in Europe. We received refugees from war-torn Europe. Later we received a great many from behind the Iron Curtain. For the last few years the centres of refugees have moved to the Third World and we received a great many refugees in the late 1970s from Southeast Asia. Today Central America is producing a great many refugees. It is at that point that we are starting to close the door.
The situation in Africa is one that staggers the imagination. There we have not only the typical convention refugee, the
Immigration Act, 1976
person who is fleeing from some kind of persecution, but we also have ecological and economic refugees.
It is estimated that in our world today there are between 13 million and 15 million refugees. Indeed, it has been said that over the last 30 years, 700 refugees per day have been created by the turmoil in our world. When 174 of these refugees land on our shores, we suddenly declare a national emergency and Parliament has to brought back into session.
The third fact which I believe can be objectively agreed upon is that western countries have become more restrictive in their refugee determination policy. Denmark, which had one of the most open policies, has now tended to close the door. The United States has recently passed very restrictive legislation. This legislation is intended to clamp down on illegal immigrants, many of whom are refugees, and it puts very severe penalties upon anyone who harbours those refugees or gives them employment.
The American refugee determination process has been rather slanted. One can get some idea of this from the fact that in 1982, out of 12,000 Salvadorans who applied for refugee status in the United States, only 26 were granted that status. This is obviously a very slanted process in the United States. So western countries have become more restrictive in their refugee policies.
Canada, because of an outmoded refugee determination policy, has become subject to abuse. We have seen a great many phoney refugee claimants. We have seen scams such as that of the would-be immigrants from Portugal, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who claimed they were being persecuted for their faith, a claim which was denied not only by the Government of Portugal but also by the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves.
Such an obviously untrue claim is nevertheless, processed through our rather cumbersome machinery and it takes up to five years, as many Hon. Members have pointed out, before the final determination is made. Because it takes so long, these phoney refugees have by then put down some roots in the community and are sometimes able to make a claim on compassionate grounds that they should be allowed to stay.
It takes up to five years before the end of the process for bogus refugees. That, of course, has to be cleaned up. As this dodge has become successful for some, it encourages still more phoney refugees to try the same kind of tactic. The result is that Canada has become known as a soft touch for phoney refugees. This kind of abuse increases resentment in Canada towards all refugee claimants. They are seen as queue-jumpers who are avoiding the normal immigration route.
In fact, refugees should be seen as quite distinct from people who are involved in the normal immigration process because it is quite a different situation.
This in turn focuses attention upon some of the more visible minorities who apply for refugee determination and it encourages a form of racism. It is important to eliminate this kind of

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
abuse. Although the abuse might be widespread and practised by people from many different countries, it tends to focus on one or two highly visible groups. This kind of focusing appeals to the latent racism or xenophobia which, I suppose, is found in all people and certainly Canadians are not immune.
We can see this if we look at the situation from the perspective of our history. In 1947 Mackenzie King indicated that there were not going to be any changes in our very selective and discriminatory immigration policy. He said he did not want to see anything which would result in "a fundamental alteration in the character of our population".
In the past we have had a lot of tension between Protestants and Catholics in this country. I can remember in the early 1950s when a moderator of the United Church, to which I belong, complained about our immigration process at that time because he said we were opening the doors to too many Catholics. He was not a particularly bigoted individual. He was a little bit behind his time and was playing on an old Protestant fear that Catholics were going to overrun the country.
The turning back of the St. Louis, to which a previous speaker referred, was based on the anti-Semitism which was then very prevalent in Canada and is still found just beneath the surface in the lives of many Canadians.
Governments have sometimes played on this kind of racism. The Winnipeg general strike of 1919 was led largely by British trade unionists or people who were descendant from British stock. Yet, in an attempt to give the impression that the Winnipeg general strike was of Bolshevik origin, a few people with Slavic names were arrested and deported. That kind of playing on xenophobia is unacceptable and we do not want to see it in 1987.
The 1976 Immigration Act specifically recognized the refugee category. In 1987 there is confusion in our thinking and in our feeling about refugees and how they relate to the whole immigration process.
First, there is a concern about the question of fairness. There is a legitimate objection to queue-jumping, if that is what is happening. When people abuse the process that has to be stopped.
Second, there is a fear of being overwhelmed by refugees. I pointed out that there are about 15 million refugees throughout the world. Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister suggested that there are five billion people all wanting to come to Canada. That was rather irresponsible of him.
Third, there is the fear of many Canadians that our traditional values will be swamped by an influx of people from different cultures. Different peoples with different cultures do bring different values, but do we have so little confidence in our own values, so little belief in the things that are important
to us that we feel they will not be able to stand up in a multicultural society.?
Fourth, there is a concern about jobs. At some levels this is a valid concern. Certainly in times of high unemployment, if there is a great influx of unskilled workers, then it can depress wages at the bottom end of the scale. For that reason there has been a decrease in the whole immigration rate over the last few years. But in the long run we recognize that an increase in immigration results in a larger market, a larger consumer market. We bring in entrepreneurs, which is good for the economy in the long run.
What has been the reaction to this on the part of the Government? When the Plaut Report was brought in the Government ignored it, except to ask the standing committee to make recommendations on it. But when the standing committee brought in its report it was also ignored by the Government.
Finally, last spring the Government announced an administrative crackdown and then later on in the spring it tabled this legislation. It was not brought forward for debate until the last couple of weeks in June. Now the Government declares that there is an emergency. We have had a crisis building for years.
Bill C-55 does not address this problem in an acceptable way because it does not give the benefit of due process to the claimants. It allows the deportation of them to a so-called safe third country. But there is no such thing as a safe third country. No country is entirely safe for all people.
The Bill does not allow the possibility of refugee claimants to have lawyers representing them at an early stage. It allows for the elimination of up to 80 per cent of the refugee claimants before they ever reach the determination process. For this reason we oppose Bill C-55.
We urge the Government to bring in a process that is more in line with the recommendations made by Rabbi Gunther Plaut or by the Government's own Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks I have listened with some interest to the observations of members of the Opposition on the subject of refugees. 1 have heard them make some very curious statements. 1 propose to examine some of these statements during my remarks in the next few minutes.
Yesterday the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) representing the NDP, and a little later the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) representing the Liberal Party, spoke at length on the merits of refugees and the contributions they have made to the development of our country. They made these remarks as though someone were denying these facts, an inference totally unfounded and certainly not a view offered from anyone on this side of the House these past several days.
August 18, 1987

However, it was their choice of words in voicing their views yesterday which particularly interested me. Their observations, echoed by other members of both their Parties, clearly indicated that our prime concern as parliamentarians must be to help, to give comfort and refuge to those who reach our shores seeking asylum. This we are bound to do by UN agreement and by common decency and charity. This is our paramount duty and responsibility according to those Members opposite.
Indeed, we should be listening to the representations of Canadians, we were advised. This was said yesterday and in the days preceding. I beg to differ with this interpretation. I am of the view that as a parliamentarian my first duty is to Canada and my second is to my own constituents. My task is relatively easy in this particular matter. My duty to Canada and my duty to my constituents are one and the same.
What is that duty in this instance? On this topic of refugees my duty is to ensure that we have in place a refugee policy, a refugee determination process that is clearly and readily understood, fair, humane and enforceable. That is our prime duty to Canada as parliamentarians.
It is clear to anyone even slightly familiar with the current refugee problem that our rules are not clearly and readily understood. Consequently, they are neither fair nor humane, and most certainly they are not enforceable.
In other circumstances, members of the Opposition have had much to say about perception. Rules and procedures must not only be fair and just but be seen to be fair and just. My constituents do not believe the current situation to be fair or just. They do not believe the current administration of the refugee process to be fair or just to Canada or to them individually as Canadians. They are outraged at the flagrant abuse of the current system. They expect-indeed they demand-that Parliament, namely, all of us here on both sides of the House, accept our responsibilities and revise the rules, clarify the process, stop the abuses, deal firmly and appropriately with those profiteers who have conspired to circumvent the rules, those who have traded in cargoes of human misery.
How do I know that this is what my constituents feel? It is as a result of the hundreds of telephone calls I have received, as well as the hundreds of letters, numerous office appointments and countless chance meetings.
We as a Government have presented legislation to deal with this issue. What have we had as a response from the Opposition? After all, we are at the second reading stage, the stage at which basic principles are being debated. We are not in committee. We are not at third reading stage, a stage at which we might be debating the recommendations of the committee. No, we are debating the basic principles. Others have covered very adequately these principles.
What is the contribution of members of the Opposition, to give the Bill a six-month hoist, to shelve the matter until next February so that it can compete for attention with the next
Immigration Act, 1976
Budget now produced annually every February? The production of a Budget every February is yet another positive constructive action introduced by the Government. But what the opposition Parties really mean with their six-month hoist is that we should have no immigration rules, no refugee barriers, a policy of, "you all come". I do not hold that view, and neither do my constituents.
Of course we need immigrants for the country to grow. It has been said many times in this debate that immigrants have in the past and will continue in the future to make a very substantial contribution to our country, to the growth and development of Canada. Of course we must accept our share of legitimate political refugees. We do require a meaningful process by which we can determine who is and who is not a legitimate political refugee. Opposition Members have clearly indicated an unwillingness to clarify or more closely define such a process.
Indeed, we are accused of having a desire to punish those who illegally aid or abet illegal refugees who arrive on our shores or at our borders. Those who encourage illegal activity deserve to be punished. Since when are immigration or refugee laws any different from the other laws of this land? Are the opposition Members now arguing that robbery is acceptable if a person has some charitable activity in mind for the proceeds? Hypocrisy is alive and well on the opposition benches.
Opposition Members pretend to be against queue-jumpers. When it comes time to deal meaningfully with the problem, they do not want to deal with the issue. They would rather listen to the immigration lawyers, special interest groups, and even foreigners with vested interest, instead of the millions of ordinary Canadians who want an orderly, fair, and enforceable set of regulations to protect the health and security of our society.
It is entirely legitimate that we should confine refugee applicants until their state of health is determined, and whether they are a security risk. Equally, we have a right to determine who they are, how they arrived, and from where they came. Apparently, the Opposition is not interested in such matters. They pretend to be concerned about queue-jumpers, about fraudulent refugee claimants, and then resist reasonable efforts on the part of the Government to develop a fair and sensible process. No, Mr. Speaker, their response is to banish the subject until some time in 1988. That clearly underscores their view of the priority of this matter. They might just as well state honestly and openly that they do not believe Canada should have any refugee determination rules. Actions speak louder than words. There is no doubt of the effect of their actions.
Canadians expect us to deal promptly with this issue. We on this side of the House intend to proceed. The proposals contained in Bill C-55 compare very favourably with the

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
regulations observed by our international friends and allies. Bill C-55 will serve us well, and it merits speedy adoption.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton). He is a Member of Parliament I have respected since he has come to this area. I have served with him on committees, and I have always felt that he is a fair-minded person. 1 looked forward to hearing the manner in which he would present a defence for this piece of legislation, and I will take into account his criticism of the points raised by members of the Opposition when dealing with this Bill.
No one is arguing with the concerns of the Hon. Member or his constituents for a fair determination system for refugees. There presently is a system which was built in a time when there was not the same type of pressure, but it did conform to our international obligations.
The first question 1 wish to pose to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and other Conservative Members, is why are they supporting a Bill that clearly contravenes our obligations under the United Nations Convention for Refugees?


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Not so.


John Horton McDermid: That is in your opinion.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is so.
If 1 may quote from our Immigration Act it states:
-fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees and
to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and the
persecuted-
Perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware of the fact that in February of this year the Government cancelled or eliminated a special refugee status that had been established for oppressed and persecuted people. Under group sponsorship that allowed Canada to take people like the Baha'is from Iran, Falashas Jews from the Sudan, and Jews from Argentina, people who were not fully within the definition of convention refugees. That clause was cancelled or eliminated. The opportunity for this country to reach out to specially persecuted groups around the world was eliminated.
Is that the type of policy that the Member feels his constituents want to support? Is that the type of policy he, as a fair-minded person, is endorsing? When a person in another country is denied access to schools for their children, denied access to employment, and threatened with jail, do we as a country want to condone that? Do we want to condone the type of persecution faced by the Baha'is in Iran?


John Horton McDermid: Where does it say that in Bill C-55?


Lloyd Axworthy: I am dealing with Bill C-55. Bill C-55 is an extension of what the Government did in February under its new regulations.
Let us deal with the fundamental issue, which I do not think Conservative Members of Parliament understand, that our obligations are based upon universal access.
The Members opposite are laughing, Mr. Speaker. To them refugees are a joke. It is a way of making political points, and it is not a serious matter. If they want to continue laughing, let me say to them that ultimately the record of this House will be the historical record that they will have to live with.
The basic international commitment that we made when we signed the protocol of 1969, and successively, is that we would grant universal access. That does not mean that everybody is accepted. It means that everybody has a right to make a claim. It is quite clear under the United Nations that we can then set up our own determination procedure. That principle was endorsed by the Commons committee, obviously by a majority of Conservative Members.
Now there is legislation which contradicts that principle. How? It is clear. There is a screening proposal which automatically excludes or pre-screens one class of people when they arrive on our shores before they have a chance to make their claim. That contravenes our agreements under the convention. It is quite clear that we are setting up two classes of people. I think that probably better than anybody the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is aware of that fact. That is a clear contradiction of the principle of universal access.
In debate last week the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was probably the only honest Conservative Member because he said that was correct. We do not believe in universal access. If that is the case, let us get it on the table and say that the Government no longer agrees with its international commitments. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said so, and he was wildly applauded by other members of his caucus. But no one, including the Ministers for immigration, has had the nerve or the courage to say that is what they agree with, that they are prepared to break that commitment. That is one of the things that is wrong with Bill C-55.
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich has been a student of international obligations. I recall when he was a member of the joint committee studying external affairs that he made very eloquent statements of our need to support international obligations. He is now supporting a Bill that will break those obligations.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Not so.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member is saying, "not so". I say to Members opposite that if they do not agree with universal access then they are breaking those obligations. Clearly that is part of what this Bill is about. There cannot be pre-screening.
Another example is the refoulement procedure, a commitment made by this country time after time under UN Convention. Under Article 31 of the convention it states that a refugee
August 18, 1987

claimant is not sent back to a country from which that refugee claims persecution. That is the so-called refoulement clause. This legislation states that a person can enter Canada, they have 72 hours or three days, and then before they are sent back regardless of whether or not they are safe where they are going. That is a total and complete contradiction of Article 31 of the convention. Once again I ask Members if they know what they are doing? Do they understand that they are transgressing signed commitments? I do not think that they know what they are doing.
An interesting story appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press about the comments of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). It was dealing with Bill C-84, but let me point out that there is a clause in Bill C-84 which says that transportation companies will be required to screen refugee claimants before they board aeroplanes and to take away their documents. Then we discovered that a senior Canadian immigration official, Mr. Kirk Bell, was a member of the executive committee of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees which, several months ago, passed a resolution condemning the practice now included in Bill C-84. When asked about it, the Minister of State for Immigration said, "Gee, I didn't know about that. Somehow no one told me. Gosh, if I had only known".
It is an interesting contradiction or dilemma that a senior immigration official sits on an international body which decides that to rely upon transportation companies to screen applicants contravenes the convention, and three months later the Government brings in totally contradictory legislation and the Minister says "I didn't know".
This means that either the officials are not telling him or that the Minister is not telling the truth or that in fact the whole thing, as we suspect, has been rushed, hurried, and brought in to appease that public opinion, about which people talk, even though it will clearly violate everything Canada has stood for and will violate our international obligations.
The point is that it was not necessary. It did not have to be done that way. There was already in place a perfectly good series of models and recommendations on how to clean up the refugee determination procedure. We have the chairman of the committee in the House today, the committee which made recommendations on how it should be done. They were supported by the so-called special interest groups; for example, the Central Committee of the Mennonite Church, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the United Church of Canada. Those so-called interest groups help people who are trying to help refugees. The idea that somehow someone who is involved in helping refugees is part of the special interest group and should not be listened to is not acceptable. The very people who sometimes risk their own lives and resources to help refugees are being cast aside as having no involvement or interest in the Bill. There was a solution.
Immigration Act, 1976
Hon. Members opposite suggest that somehow the Bill will clean up a mess which was not there. The fact is that they will create a worse mess. They will be challenged before the Supreme Court in terms of contradicting Article VII of the Charter. The granting of oral hearings will create an unworkable mess at our borders. It will create a clear and disturbing reaction in the international community when they see Canada contravening its obligations. It will create a worse problem internationally because the fact of the matter is that we will be contributing to the problem, not solving it, with this piece of legislation. That is the real issue.
It is unworkable and unfair, and it will make the problem worse.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to join in the debate today. I will get to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) a little later in my remarks. Suffice it to say he was immigration Minister for some time and is part of the problem, not the solution. That is well documented, but I will talk about it later.
We are debating Bill C-55, a Bill which will change the procedure of determining refugees who claim refugee status in our country.
I represent a riding of some 220,000 people. It has grown 24 per cent between 1981 and 1986. That tremendous growth is continuing today. I believe that my constituency is a fairly good cross-section of Canada today. It has a mix of immigrants from all parts of the world. There are those who have come here as refugees. There are those who have come through the other streams of immigration.
An NDP Member today talked about two streams. There are really four streams of immigration, which I do not think people in Canada really understand. One of those streams is the refugee stream, and it is a separate one. We also have the family reunification stream, which again is separate. We have the entrepreneurial stream from which we probably realize some 5,000 or 6,000 people per year. We have the independent class, those who apply and may have skills required in Canada and are accepted as immigrants. We have four different streams.
Let me refer to what has been going on. It was going on in the years when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was the Minister of Immigration. Because the system we had for hearing refugee applications was bureaucratic and time consuming, the average wait for a hearing was five years, sometimes extending to seven years. By the time their hearings came up, whether or not they were legitimate refugees, they had purchased homes, got married, and had a couple of Canadian children. Of course the first person who went to defend them at their hearings five years later was their employer who said, "Gee, don't send him back; he is one of the best employees I have". Also the local priest or minister would support them, or even the convenor of the local soccer league

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
who would say, "he is the best coach 1 ever had. He is a pillar in the community".
Nobody is questioning whether or not they were good immigrants or good new citizens of Canada. The point was that the system allowed people to come to our shores, whether or not they were legitimate refugees, and load up the system so heavily that by the time their hearings came up it was almost impossible to take a negative position toward an individual.
When the Conservative Government took power in 1984 there were 20,000 people waiting for hearings. Word spreads pretty quickly around the world these days. All of a sudden Canada's system looked like an easy way to get into the promised land.
During the years when my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry was the Minister of Immigration he knew of these problems. His record as Minister of Immigration is not a sterling couple of years, driving a person with a record over the border to give him a ministerial permit to get them back in. His type of immigration policy is well documented.
Let us look at what has happened. Every year since 1980 immigration through the refugee system has increased and increased to the point that last year they were coming in at the rate of 1,200 per week and the system could not absorb them. The way the system was set up we could not absorb that many people.
Had we not taken action, the estimates are that 40,000 people would have come in that way this year. What we are finding out is that 85 per cent of them are not refugees as recognized by the United Nations. They may be economic refugees looking for a better future. I understand that. 1 understand perfectly why people try to come to Canada, why they want to get into our wonderful country.
1 should like to refer to what the people in my riding have said to me, as well as to the calls and letters I have received. They represent people from a broad cross-section-people from Asia, people from Europe, and those who are many generation Canadians. A big mixture and they say: "We are a generous people". I disagree with Rabbi Plaut. He does not think we are a tolerant people. He said that in Maclean's magazine. He thinks Canadian tolerance is overblown. 1 disagree with the Rabbi on that. We are a tolerant people. However, taking into account every person who wrote me and every person who called, the bottom line is "don't play us for suckers". The bottom line is, "If you want to come to Canada, if you want a better future, go through the proper routes".
Canada has accepted refugees year after year. I hear members of the Opposition say that we do not care about refugees. I would like to remind them that it was a Conservative Government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) that brought
refugees from Vietnam, the boat people, to Canada. There was an outpouring of feeling for those people. They were legitimate refugees and it was important that they come here to find a haven and that Canada play its part. As a matter of fact, Canada played a magnificent part in that emergency.
This legislation will not stop legitimate refugees from coming to Canada. Canadians are generous people. We brought in 20,000 refugees last year and we will bring in the same number this year, but they will be legitimate refugees.
What the people of my riding are telling me and what I feel most earnestly is that we cannot have people abuse our system to come to Canada. All those who are legitimate refugees and immigrants will suffer because Canadians are saying all of a sudden, "wait a minute," and a backlash against immigration is beginning. That is dangerous. We do not need and do not want that in this country. We need immigration to grow. Immigration creates employment, it does not take jobs away from anyone. I believe the estimate of the Department of Employment and Immigration is that for every immigrant that comes to Canada, a job and a half is created, so we need immigration but we want legitimate immigrants and we want a refugee system that will assure that legitimate refugees come to Canada and that Canada plays it part in the refugee system.
Bill C-84 is now in committee and we are debating Bill C-55 today. 1 might remind Hon. Members that we are debating an amendment posed by the Liberals to put this matter off for another six months. That is the motion that is on the floor, put by the critic for the Liberal Party. He made a great speech in the House the other day but never mentioned once that he had moved the amendment to put this off for six months. Canadians do not want that. We will vote against that six-month hoist. We want this Bill to get into committee. We will have hearings in committee. If there are flaws in the Bill, we will take a good look at them. We will make sure that we are doing the right thing, but to postpone this with a six-month hoist like the Liberals would like to do is hypocrisy and Canadians know it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the spouting of the last Hon. Member, one would think that there was a true emergency and that this was something the Government had just discovered this summer. As Hon. Members know, the Government sat back for three years and did absolutely nothing about the situation. Finally it introduced legislation in the House in May, brought it back for less than three-hour's-worth of debate in June and never brought it before the House of Commons again until just recently.
It is obvious that the Government did not make this issue a priority until it felt that there was some overwhelming public opinion on it as a result of the landings in Nova Scotia this summer. The Government has not shown a true commitment to reforming the immigration laws of Canada.
August 18, 1987

The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration studied this matter and members of all three Parties worked hard to produce a Bill of which all Canadians would be proud, a Bill which would recognize that there are genuine refugees and that there are problems with the immigration system, while also recognizing that there are very frequent abuses of the refugee system. The House of Commons committee studied this issue and came forward with concrete proposals. The Government has done nothing to introduce those concrete proposals to the House so we could have legislation of which all Canadians could be proud. Now, as a result of the landings in Nova Scotia, the Government wants to move quickly.
The committee to study Bill C-84 met for the first time last night and for the second time this morning. We have heard Conservative members of that committee urging that this matter be dealt with in four days. We have heard Conservative Members urge in the House that Bill C-55, the legislation we are dealing with now, be dealt with quickly.
I believe it is important that we actually look at the legislation we are passing so that we may understand its implications and ensure that we are not railroaded by public opinion of the moment. We should make sure that we do not commit in 1987 the equivalent of turning back a boat full of Jewish refugees in 1939. We should make sure that we do not have a recurrence of the way we treated Japanese Canadians in that same era. I am afraid that some Hon. Members from the government side are trying to create that same kind of public hysteria. They are building on the fears of Canadians rather than trying to make them understand the true situation.
It is obvious to me that more and more Canadians are realizing that Bills C-55 and C-84 are wrong, are faulty and were drafted without any real understanding of their implications. Reading some of the more recent editorials, 1 would point out that as informed journalists have looked at this legislation, they have realized that these Bills are bad and are ruinous to Canada's reputation for being fair.
Let me quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of August 14, 1987:
One of the reasons why thousands of people try to sneak into Canada either illegally or by claiming to be refugees is that the legal routes are unreasonably difficult. Canada discourages immigration except by people with needed skills which Canadians workers lack or with large personal fortunes.
A strong back, an adventurous spirit and a willing heart now count for nothing in the immigration system, though these were the assets which got the ancestors of most Canadians into the country.
In that respect, like many MPs, I have heard that Canadians are upset with the present immigration system. They are saying that we must do something to these people who landed in Nova Scotia because their own relatives cannot get over. That perception does exist, and again Conservative Members, the Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are trying to promote it. They are trying to say that these people who landed in Nova Scotia are taking the place of legitimate immigrants. That is not true.
Immigration Act, 1976
Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power, the immigration system of Canada is horrendous. People who should have been allowed into Canada have not been allowed in, whether they be refugees or immigrants who tried to qualify under other parts of the law. We find abuses that are heartbreaking because they keep families apart. People who want to come over here to make an honest and sincere contribution to Canada are denied that opportunity. People who would benefit us by their culture and industry are denied access to Canada.
Regardless of who is the Minister of Employment and Immigration at a particular moment, when you appeal to the Minister he or she refuses to exercise the prerogative to make exceptions. Like many MPs, I have written to the various Ministers responsible trying to get them to recognize the peculiar situations in which people find themselves. 1 have asked them to intervene, only to be refused.
It is not simply a matter of refugees landing in Nova Scotia displacing immigrant family members who are not yet in Canada. The problem is that the Government has not come to grips with the immigration situation. It does not have a policy which is fair to people from Chile, the U.K. or other parts of this world.
In my own riding there is a bank manager who wants to bring his uncle to Canada, an uncle that raised him. We have written to three successive Ministers pointing out that this is not just an uncle, but a much closer relation. The bank manager is willing to support the uncle. Yet we cannot get the support. Another constituent has an aunt in Chile and cannot bring her over. We have tried to get the Minister to act and he will not.
There are many problems with our immigration system but that is not a reason for rushing this legislation through the House. Neither Bill C-84 nor C-55 will do anything to resolve the problems I have talked about. This legislation will not create a fairer system. The problems will still exist under this legislation and people should not try to sell it as a fairer system which will allow aunts, uncles or cousins to come to Canada.
I only have a minute or two left and it is very unlikely I will have a chance to address this Bill again. If I had the time, I would like to quote from the Free Press or The Gazette, The Edmonton Journal, The Vancouver Sun or the Calgary Herald, all of which have editorials that can be found in today's Quorum pointing out how wrong the Government is with this legislation.
There are other groups, including the Manitoba Mennonite Central Committee, who are concerned. That committee wrote a letter dated August 14 to all Members of Parliament expressing their deep concern with this legislation. They point out the history of Mennonites and the fact that they may not have been allowed into this country under this legislation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who is a

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
member of that group, should look at his own history and ask himself whether his ancestors would be allowed in this country if this legislation had been passed 50 or 60 years ago.
A lot of Canadians should look at the legislation and ask if it is fair, and whether it deals with the problem in a way of which we can be proud. 1 think the answer most fair-minded Canadians will give is, no, it is not fair, it is not something of which we can be proud, and it will not address the real problems we face. For that reason I suggest the Government withdraw the legislation. If it refuses to do so, certainly we should spend the required amount of time to make sure it gets thorough study.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity afforded me today to comment on Bill C-55.
A poster was distributed by the UN High Commission for Refugees showing a picture of graffiti on a refugee camp wall which says, "Refugee go home". The caption under the picture says, "He would if he could". In that message we have the essence of refugees and what distinguishes them from other immigrants.
Immigrants seek new horizons and opportunities for settlement. These are the people referred to when we talk about the influx in the early part of this century into Canada, and in the settlement and development of western Canada. Their desire to emigrate arises from their own ambitions and a desire to break out of an old routine. Their current environment is too limited. Perhaps in the case of Polish or Ukrainian immigrants it is the opportunity to own and develop land that brings them here. There is a chance to fulfil their dreams.
Refugees, on the other hand, are a people with a stake in their community. Sometimes they are among the leaders and the most progressive. They are persecuted and forced out of their own countries because of who and what they are. They may be members of minority groups like the Ugandan Asians Canada admitted in the early 1970s. They may suffer because of their religion, like the Iranian Baha'is. They may be political dissidents, members of a particular social class or people of a certain nationality. Canada's policy is that although refugees are not voluntary migrants, they can be helped to rebuild their lives by being given an opportunity to emigrate and settle in a country like Canada. That is what our policy was all about; providing durable refuge to refugees for whom no other remedy is available.
For that reason we have two programs. One is a program of assistance. Most of our assistance involves contributions to help refugees in camps in other countries who are, like the Afghans, waiting for a political settlement so they can be repatriated to their own country. It also involves bringing large numbers of refugees to Canada as immigrants through our immigration process or programs. Other speakers have noted the details and they have been repeated time and time again in this House. However, the Government will pay for the settlement of 12,000 refugees this year. Private groups and
individuals will bring in 6,000 or more for a total exceeding 18,000.
The second program deals with protection, for refugees who simply arrive, legally or illegally, and ask for a safe haven in Canada. When dealing with true refugees, this is the first priority and this is our obligation. We are some distance from most refugee producing situations, and we are not accustomed to this role. However, for the individual refugee who simply arrives, the provision of safe haven without qualification is vital to the process. That is what Bill C-55 is all about; swift, sure and generous response to those who do not have safe haven and who would be persecuted if they were forced to go back to their own countries. I want to repeat that; a swift, sure and generous response to those who do not have safe haven and who would be persecuted if they were returned to their own countries.
This role is not discharged by this Government by simply accepting everyone who claims to be a refugee. We do not discharge the obligation of the Government simply by accepting everyone who comes to our shore and says, "I claim refuge as a refugee".
The dilemma that we face is to find a fair and effective way to separate those who need our protection from those who do not. That is really the bottom line. Our experience in Canada and that of every other major receiving country in the northern hemisphere shows that in an open refugee system the clear majority of people who claim refugee status are not refugees at all. Among real refugees many are simply changing one form of prior protection for another at the expense of those who have no protection whatsoever.
We know that people have been arriving at various points across Canada and ripping up their passports and travel documents because they had in fact already received refugee status in another country such as Germany or Holland. This must be stopped.
The principles behind Bill C-55 are, first, absolute guarantee of protection for those genuine refugees who do not have safe haven or did not have an opportunity to acquire it elsewhere. The principle of the Bill is not to allow a refugee who has refugee status in another country to come to Canada's shores and rip up their travel documents and any indication of the status they do have, and then apply for and receive that same status in Canada.
Second, we want the highest standards of procedural fairness including the benefit of the doubt to the claimant demonstrated by certain features, the first being oral proceedings. Every person arriving claiming refugee status is allowed to tell their story at a proceeding in their own language expressed in their own way. They will do this in front of two-member panels, two people will be entrusted with listening to the story and making a decision. If there is a split decision, the benefit of the doubt would go to the claimant. The proceedings
August 18, 1987

will be non-adversarial. In other words, there will not be a prosecutor attempting to trip up or in any way badger the individual making a claim for refugee status. The next point is that everyone will have a right to counsel.
This is a simple and flexible procedure to ensure speedy identification of genuine refugees and early removal of abusers. We must have that to maintain the integrity of the refugee system in Canada. We must have legislative protections for those determined to be refugees, including the right to apply for permanent residence. If we accept people as refugees, they must be legislatively protected to allow them to apply for permanent residence.
Bill C-55 constitutes a fair compromise and respects the ideals toward which well-intentioned people and countries direct themselves. This system as a whole has more safeguards and offers higher standards of procedural fairness than others in effect and is one which all Canadians may be confident will not expose anyone to the risk of persecution.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard

Anjou):	Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this morning on Bill C-55.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that before the House was recalled last week, all Members had a chance to meet with constituents in their respective ridings and had many opportunities to discuss the refugee question. Mr. Speaker, this is an international problem and, as you know, there are many countries that receive far more refugees than we do. Nevertheless, Canadians are upset about the methods used by some groups to enter Canada.
Since 1980, under the Liberal Government, there was an awareness that we might have this kind of problem and a number of studies were ordered. Toward the end of the Liberal Government's last term, the studies and recommendations were before Cabinet, and after the election, when the Conservative Government took over, it had access to the same recommendations, and at the time it could have acted on those recommendations and found solutions to the problems we are facing today.
But no! The Conservative Government decided in the fall of 1984 that it would ignore recommendations that were the result of studies that had taken several years to complete. They ordered other studies, which, as we know, reached the same conclusions.
The fact that three years later we are confronted with a crisis of this magnitude is the fault of the Conservative Government's inaction, a Government which today is trying to take advantage of popular sentiment to pass a Bill that will prevent genuine refugees frorp entering Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot here that is just a matter of semantics, but we all agree we must not let phony refugees enter Canada. However, we do not agree with the methods for
Immigration Act, 1976
dealing with this problem. We on this side of the House believe that Bill C-55 does not provide a solution. The problem is with the process. The Conservative Members tell us that Bill C-55 will provide for a screening process to determine whether refugees are genuine or not and to do so more quickly. However, after examining the Bill, we find that the process has become more complicated and will take more time.
Second, when drafting this legislation, and I am referring to Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 as well as any other immigration policy the Government may wish to table, did the Government ever wonder why we have so many phony refugees in our country? One Hon. Member said 85 per cent of our refugees were phony refugees. Is there any particular reason for this?
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you about my experience in the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou where there are a number of communities other than the Francophone or Anglophone groups. My constituents are upset, just like anyone else, when they hear about cases where people who have a brother or a sister, a cousin or other close relatives, are prepared to give their homes and their money as security to get their relatives to Canada. So they are prepared to offer every conceivable guarantee and even regular employment, yet under the terms of the existing immigration statute these people simply cannot be allowed into Canada. We are understandably indignant when we see other people coming in through the back door. In this respect we agree that something has to be done.
If the Government were to look at it this way, Mr. Speaker, I think it would promote the kind of immigration policy which at least would give hope to people who are anxious to resettle in Canada after complying with all legal requirements.
But right now, Mr. Speaker, for all practical purposes Canada's doors are shut tight. But there is a way for somebody to enter Canada: he lands here with a tourist visa, hires a lawyer, claims to be a refugee and, owing to the lengthy process involved, he is allowed to remain in this country.
After three years in office and fully cognizant with studies made and reports submitted before the last election, the Government still has no policy. People who made their move before this Government was elected did not take that problem into account. If today we had an immigration policy fully consistent with the turn of events since the beginning of this country, people who are willing to work and earn an honest living would be allowed in to resettle here and promote prosperity in this beautiful country, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take the floor in this House today. I am one of those who benefitted from the Canadian policy under which it was possible to come here and entertain every hope of success. As it happens, Mr. Speaker, I must wonder whether I would even have been able to gain entry into Canada in the 1950s if I had been faced with today's immigration laws and such measures as Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. Mr. Speaker, that is where all Hon. Members should ask themselves the question. I am pleased to see that we have here with us in the House the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Weiner). 1 am sure he is quite close to the ethnic communities in the Montreal area.
Instead of adopting stringent legislation to create the impression everywhere in the world that Canada is closing its doors completely or putting people in jail who, for humanitarian reasons, help legitimate refugees enter Canada, we should develop a comprehensive immigration policy. That is why Canadians generally are furious. We need a comprehensive immigration policy to give hope to all those who want to come to Canada. For the relatives who are here, we need a family reunification policy, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, I hope that Bill C-55 will be redrafted in its entirety. Instead of closing our doors, we should open them to all those who want to immigrate to Canada, while sending them at the same time clear and precise messages that when they come here they will have to respect. . . While in the process of integration, they will have nevertheless to take into account the Canadian context, accept Canadian tolerance, respect our laws and build a future for themselves and their children.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I still have a few minutes left. That is a debate which would definitely require more than ten minutes to truly examine all the aspects of this Bill and develop a real immigration policy. 1 hope that my colleagues, especially those who belong to the Government majority and can determine the fate of the Bill, once this debate is over, will announce an immigration policy that will give hope to those who want to come to Canada and become full-fledged citizens.


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate because of the importance of the issue and the widespread public concern. 1 have been impressed, as have other Members, by the intensity of interest on the part of the public on this issue and by the hundreds of telephone calls to my constituency office, as have been received at the offices of many other Members.
I want to bring into this debate some representation of the opinions expressed by citizens to me, because it is their opinions that provide us with the strongest argument against the entirely unwarranted amendment which the Liberal Opposition has put to the motion on Bill C-55.
Let me cite these sentences from letters that have come to me from across the country. The first is from Halifax. "Surely Canada has to be master of its own destiny". Another letter from Quebec states, "I heartily approve of your proposed tough new legislation to deal with the so-called refugees". One letter from Scarborough states, "What kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world?" Another states, "These people knew what they were doing when they paid their money to someone to illegally bring them to Canada". Another letter states, "It is extremely unfortunate that in our complacency
the silent majority will once again be the losers". Here is a letter from a Toronto person who says, "Why should these people be allowed to jump the line?" Again, from Toronto, "One has only to set foot in Canada and the patsy Canadians will spend years and millions of dollars fighting each other over whether you can remain". Again, "They have entered Canada illegally". A letter from London, Ontario states, "A clear signal must be given to the world that Canada is no dumping ground for impatient, dishonest, unreasonable people". A resident of Willowdale states, "It has been proved beyond any doubt that it is really profitable to be a violator of the law than to be law-abiding". Also from Toronto, "Protest against the cynical outlawlessness as exercised by another boatload". Another letter states, "We are incensed at the slackness of this Government". Another states, "It is likely that before this letter comes out in print the politicians who want only more votes might have caved in". A resident of Niagara Falls, Ontario states, "When are we going to stop being the immigration patsies of the world". Another letter from Saskatchewan states, "Obviously a quick one is being attempted and we cannot help but feel somewhat frustrated that this modern-day rum-running operation would have even a chance of success". A letter from Wynyard, Saskatchewan states, "1 don't care if these people had come from Iceland, Ireland or the U.S.A., what they did was wrong". From Calgary, Alberta, "I am looking forward to the day when the Government takes necessary actions to prevent the abuse of the goodwill of Canadians toward genuine refugees". A letter from Vancouver, British Columbia states, "You must know that most Canadians want these invaders put back on the boat". A letter from Surrey-White Rock states, "Unless our Government is stern about this there will be others who try this piece of international thuggery". A letter from Vancouver states, "I have real difficulty in understanding why these people have circumvented the normal means of travelling and have landed clandestinely and have suddenly acquired legal rights". Another letter from the west states, "To want to be Canadian citizens and to start the process by breaking its laws is disgusting". Another letter from Vancouver states, "People on the west coast are furious about the handling of this affair". Again, from Vancouver, "We are not allowing good people in, or at least we are delaying their entrance for months on end".
All these quotations show not only that the public is concerned but that the public wants action. We have to be aware that debating an amendment to delay consideration and voting on this Bill by six months is flying in the face of the people in Canada.
1 see that it is one o'clock. I will reserve the rest of my remarks for this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
August 18, 1987



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, for the third time this year, I rise in this House to ask the Conservative Government for an answer as to the location of the future space agency. The city of Montreal is getting impatient and wants to have that agency in its area.
The Canadian Space Agency will have a central and determinant role in the development of Canada's space industry. Its economic impact, especially on employment, will be very significant. I therefore believe it is essential that its location be announced as soon as possible. That decision has been postponed for too long. The Canadian aerospace industry is for the most part concentrated in Montreal. It is in Montreal that Canada's aerospace industry had its beginning some 25 years ago. Today, Montreal remains the capital of that industry in Canada.
Although a number of cities and provinces would like to host the Canadian Space Agency, they all recognize Montreal's importance and experience in that field. It is therefore time that this Government also recognized this and located the space agency in Montreal. Foot dragging has been going on far too long. The Government must take action and select Montreal as the capital of the Canadian aerospace industry.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have received at my riding office address two letters dated July 1987, both of them typed on House of Commons stationery and both signed by the leader of the socialist party. Mr. Speaker, these letters begin as follows, and I quote:
Dear Mr. Fontaine,
I thank you for taking some of your time to convey your preoccupations
regarding the tax system.
All four other paragraphs also contain misrepresentations.
Mr. Speaker, first of all this correspondence represents a misuse of public moneys and if it is sent to all Canadians it will cost taxpayers 500,000 $ every time.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the socialist party should explain to the House, as I have often asked him to do, why he uses
money from Canadian taxpayers' pockets for the benefit of his party, which is made out to be so honest and transparent.
Furthermore, I take the opportunity to warn the leader of the socialist party to stop sending me his fundraising letters. You socialists are wasting your time with me. Mr. Speaker, I have had just about enough of socialist harassment!



FINANCE


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) has now confirmed by letter that the Scientific Research Tax Credit is going to cost Canadians over $1 billion and has given figures that indicate that cost may go to $2 billion or the equivalent of $76 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is equal to almost half of what Canada spends annually on research and development.
This boondoggle was created by the Liberal Government, but when the Conservative Government had a chance to slay the monster it gave it new life by a grandfather clause which allowed alleged abusers to continue to take advantage of a rich tax boondoggle.
Despite assurances from the Minister that his Department would give all the necessary resources for tracking down fraudulent projects, the track record is not good. Not only have there been only four prosecutions after years of investigation but the Department has not collected one additional cent since March, 1986. A government official has now admitted that the Government is no longer going to go after many of the culprits. It is thereby giving up millions and millions of dollars which belong to Canadian taxpayers.
When is the Government going to live up to its responsibility to the Canadian people? When is the Conservative Government going to admit its responsibility and take action against abusers who have milked the ordinary taxpayers of billions and billions of their hard-earned dollars?



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have here the Quarterly Economic Review published yesterday by the Department of Finance. The highlights are found on page 1.

August 18, 1987
Real growth picked up very strongly to 6,3 per cent. The final domestic demand was also very robust, growing at 6.1 per cent.
Residential investment continued to be the strongest component of final domestic demand as housing starts rose to levels not seen since 1978. Business non-residential investment spending surged.
The trade balance improved in the first quarter. Exports of goods and the terms of trade both increased. Employment growth increased to a 4.2 per cent annual pace. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.9 per cent in June, its lowest level since February, 1982.
These, Sir, are tremendous accomplishments. 1 am proud to be a supporter of a Government which has turned the national economy completely around in such a short space of time.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: In
Montreal, Mr. Speaker, people of every political affiliation, spokesmen for business circles, the Journal de Montreal and La Presse make up a common front to bring pressure to bear on the Conservative Government and urge it to honour its commitment and designate Montreal as the site of the space agency.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House-and personally as a Quebec Member from the Montreal region I support this movement-and 1 urge Conservative Members from the Montreal region as well as the New Democratic Party to take position in this case and once and for all demonstrate that they have the interests of Quebecers at heart and are prepared to support Montreal as the site of the space agency.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, to get on the floor of this House a subject usually has to be about wars, rumours of wars, disasters and neardisasters, crises, real and imagined. I would like to say a word about something positive, encouraging and even heartwarming, something that I was impressed by during a brief
visit to the College Militaire Royal de Saint Jean, Quebec, where I saw face to face 218 young Canadians selected from many hundreds more for training as future officers in the Canadian Armed Forces. They are now undergoing an intensive program that takes them each day, seven days a week, from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., from parade square drilling to lectures on all dimensions of military service.
They are impressive for, at the age of 18 and 19, they are mature in their acceptance of discipline, their readiness to meet a challenge and to serve a cause greater than themselves. 1 refer to them because they and others at other defence colleges of Canada are an inspiring demonstration of the quality of Canadian young people.
The next time I sing the national anthem and sing: "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee" 1 will want to keep in mind these young people prepared to spend the rest of their lives doing just that.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, today marks another sad chapter in the inadequate regulation of financial institutions by Governments with the sell-off of some of the Principal Group's assets. This will not significantly help the 67,000 persons who hold uninsured contracts with Principal subsidiaries such as Associated Investors and First Investors. Had the federal Government simply insisted that all RRSP contributions be covered by deposit insurance, many of these small investors could have been secured.
Since the federal Government gives significant tax savings to RRSP contributions, it is clearly in the Government's interest to see that these contributions are as safe as possible. Instead, about $115 million of the losses by Principal's subsidiaries are lost RRSP contributions.
How much longer will it be before the small investor, who puts trust in the Government which encouraged Canadians to invest in RRSPs, gets better consumer protection? Many investors in Alberta and in other parts of Canada want that question answered today. They want the Government and Parliament to enact legislation which will enable the CDIC to give Canadians the protection to which they are entitled.



IMMIGRATION


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the people of Calgary South and, indeed, the people of all of
August 18, 1987

Canada want immediate action to deal with the present serious refugee problem. Tough legislation is needed now to deter those who abuse our generosity and those who wish to profit, and 1 repeat profit, by breaking our laws.
1 congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) on his two Bills, Bill C-84 and Bill C-55, which will stop the flow of illegal claimants abusing our country; stop queue-jumpers who are interfering with immigration to Canada; will promote family reunification; and will streamline the process to ensure a fair and quick response to people who arrive and make claims for refugee status.
Our doors will always be open to genuine refugees who need our protection. We will continue to welcome immigrants who apply through the proper channels.
A clear signal must be sent to the world now. Canadians urge speedy passage of Bill C-84 and Bill C-55.

[Translation\



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, a number of Acadian community organizations expressed their dissatisfaction concerning the Government's delay in taking action with respect to the Lefebvre monument in New Brunswick's Memramcook Valley.
It will be recalled that in 1984 a fund of $700,000 had been earmarked for this historic site which highlights the survival of Acadians. After the election of the Conservative Government the fund was frozen and then reduced to $500,000, which meant the building would not include the concert hall, the main component of this monument.
In addition, the Government wants to get rid of the property. It refuses to acknowledge the significance of this monument in the history of the Acadians, yet the federal Minister of Tourism himself had promised in Memramcook to take action at the earliest opportunity.
The Government's refusal to act in this case is an insult to the Acadian population, an insult which Acadians are not about to forget.



INTERNATIONAL OPTIC COMMISSION


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, from August 24 to 28 the fourteenth conference of the International Commission for Optics will be held in Quebec City, cosponsored by the National Research Council and Laval University.
Under the theme "Optics and the Computer Age", this Conference will focus especially on the use of optics in communications and the impact of computer science on the automation of traditional optical measurement techniques.
The last meeting of this Commission was held in 1984 in Sapporo, Japan. This year, over twenty countries will participate, including China, India, Poland, the USSR, Mexico, Australia, the United States, and of course Canada.
It will be the first time an International Optics Conference is held in Canada, and I am especially proud that Quebec City has been chosen to host this important conference as research activities play a major role in the Quebec region.
As you are probably aware, Laval University, the INRS, the GAT1Q, and so on, do a lot of work in this field, and the coming opening of the National Optics Institute in Sainte-Foy will emphasize the technological vocation of the Quebec area.
1 therefore want to wish every success to the organizers of this international event and to congratulate Laval University for acting as co-sponsor.



CELTIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, one of the last remnants of Canada's colonial past disappeared short days ago in Scotland when two Canadian pipe bands came out on top in the world championship for Highland piping and drumming. This is the first time that Canadian bands have superseded Scottish bands in this way. The 78th Fraser Highlanders, and Simon Fraser University Pipes and Drums, placed first and second respectively. They are to be commended for their excellence, and for representing Canada so well in their endeavours.
In recent years leading Canadian pipe bands have distinguished themselves by the freshness, the creativity, and the finesse which they have brought to traditional piping and drumming. The fact that this is now recognized, accepted, and even acclaimed in Scotland itself is something in which all Canadians should take pride. Canadians too are now able to say with confidence: "Here's tae us, wha's like us. Damn few, and they're a' deid!"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 18, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I know the House will allow the Speaker to express a certain satisfaction in having heard the moving and appropriate words of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) who is himself a distinguished piper. Of course the House will also have noticed that the Speaker has some particular interest in the two Fraser pipe bands that won first and second place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SALE OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT TO UNITED STATES CORPORATION

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the fight to keep West Kootenay Power and Light under Canadian control continues today in British Columbia where the Kootenay-Okanagan Electric Consumers Association is attempting to appeal the decision of the B.C. Utilities Commission to approve the sale to the U.S. based UtiliCorp.
The provincial and federal Governments have made a bad error in judgement in approving this first ever sale of a public utility to a foreign-owned company. The U.S. Government recognizes the perils of foreign ownership of its utilities, and it has banned similar actions.
The only reason the Minister responsible could give for the approval was that market forces determined the outcome, and that Canada would, in some way as yet unspecified, benefit from foreign ownership of this utility. It is a sad day when the federal Government abandons Canadian ownership of public utilities.
I urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) to stand up and prevent the foreign takeover of our public utilities. Canadians would prefer to retain ownership of our public utilities.
Frank Lauer of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association put it well when he said: "When you own the cow, you sell the milk; when you sell the cow, you buy the milk".



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, we just heard some good news from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), but I am sorry to have to bring forth some bad news.	-
Since July of this year working Manitobans have been taking home less pay thanks to the NDP provincial surtax of 2 per cent on their incomes. Most Manitobans have no choice and must still live in Manitoba and pay such excessive taxes. Others in Manitoba have options.
The Royal Bank is now in the process of relocating some of its administration from Winnipeg to Alberta. Why? The last Manitoba budget increased the capital tax on banks from 1.9 per cent to 3 per cent, costing the Royal Bank $4.5 million more. Payroll tax was increased by 50 per cent to 2.25 per cent. These anti-business taxes are driving an increasing number of employers, employees, and investments elsewhere.
The excessive taxation of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba is causing businesses to relocate. When businesses relocate, so do the jobs. It is only fortunate that these businesses and their employees can still find provinces within Canada where taxation is progressive and business is welcome.
Honestly, Mr. Speaker, with these kinds of penalties can we really blame new businesses and investors for staying away from Manitoba?



WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the recently announced western diversification initiative is good news, not only for my home province of Saskatchewan but for all western Canada.
This initiative, under the leadership of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), will assist entrepreneurs to develop new ideas into projects which will create not only jobs but will help to diversify the western Canadian economy and make us a little less vulnerable to the uncertainties of the world commodity market.
The injection of this new money, $1.2 billion, is proof positive that we have put our money where our mouth is. It represents a solid commitment on the part of the Government to assist regional development of western Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since Parliament resumed for this so-called emergency session we have asked some serious questions of the
August 18, 1987

Government on the current free trade negotiations. So far we have been rewarded with nothing but glib answers.
Since the issue is so very important, I want to put a few straightforward questions to the Prime Minister, and I think Canadians could expect some straightforward answers.
In her remarks last spring the Minister for International Trade said the following:
So far we are dealing only with trade-related investment measures. The Americans want more. We are listening.
Those were her words. I ask the Prime Minister has the Government agreed to this request from the Americans? Has the mandate of our own negotiator been extended and expanded beyond mere trade related measures?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is as it was when the Minister for International Trade replied, but I think I should make the point that as we get into the last weeks of the trade negotiations it would not be helpful to the position of Canada were we to be announcing, item by item, development by development, every change or every step along the way in the negotiating process. I trust that it is not what the Leader of the Opposition is asking for.
I want to indicate to him again that while we are prepared, indeed anxious, to provide the kind of thorough briefing that was offered to him by the Minister for International Trade the other day, we do not propose to publicize and advertise our negotiating strategy in a way which would endanger the Canadian position.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his other colleagues have given that answer before. We are not asking for tactical responses. We are asking to know the scope of the negotiations and whether the issues have now gone beyond trade related issues, whether they include the request of the United States for unfettered investment in Canada. It is a very fundamental issue and it has nothing to do with tactics.


PUBLICATION OF REPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Government has always refused to reveal any information contained in departmental studies on the impact of free trade on this country and on Canada's regions.
These departmental reports have either been kept back or heavily censored, ostensibly because publishing these reports would harm Canada's negociating position.
Could the Prime Minister, considering that Canadians are entitled to this information to form their own opinion and that today the Government is still refusing to publish these reports, inform the House that once the talks are completed, these reports will be published before the public debate and before the debate in Parliament?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Government did not refuse to publish the reports. A number of documents have been made available to the House. Explanations have been provided to a considerable extent by various Ministers during the debate in the House and on a number of other occasions.
Furthermore, thorough and serious studies made by the Economic Council of Canada, the C.D. Howe Institute, and others indicate that many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created if a free trade treaty between Canada and the United States is signed.
I understand why the Leader of the Official Opposition is now formally objecting to a free trade treaty. However, I suggest that he recall the comments made the day before yesterday by Premier Bourassa of Quebec, who said that a free trade treaty was necessary, because otherwise Quebec might be faced with irreversible economic decline.
I think it is most unfortunate that the Liberal Party in this House has taken a stance against free trade that will deal a severe blow to the economy of Quebec and which runs counter to the wishes of Quebecers.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we here in the House are not in a position to assess the Prime Minister's statement because the reports we need to judge the talks and determine the effects of free trade on this country have been censored, manipulated and kept hidden from the Canadian people. That is the problem.


PROCESS TO RATIFY POSSIBLE TREATY
John Napier Turner: the Prime Minister insists on pursuing his current dangerous course on these negotiations, will he let Parliament know now what rights we will have at the end of the day? Will this treaty be subject to review by Parliament? Will it be referred to a parliamentary committee for detailed study? Will Parliament have the jurisdiction to ratify or veto the treaty?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend is acquainted with the rights and obligations of the Government of Canada as a sovereign nation in regard to treaties concluded in the international sphere with other sovereign countries.
I have already indicated on behalf of the Government of Canada that there will be ample opportunity for all Members of Parliament to discuss and debate any matter. If and when a treaty is concluded, it shall of course be submitted for consideration in an appropriate and thoughtful way by Members of the House. My right hon. friend is of course aware of this.

By the way, the Leader of the Opposition said in French that he is unable to assess the Canadian position at the

August 18, 1987
Oral Questions
bargaining table. He said so. The fact is that we are carrying on the tightest and the most complex and confidential negotiations and in spite of this the government-


Mr. Lapierre:: Ha, ha!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Ha, ha! In spite of this ... Of course! We are carrying confidential and difficult negotiations on behalf of Canada. In spite of that, the Government of Canada has offered to the Leader of the Official Opposition to give him a thorough briefing on what is going on at the negotiation table. He refused it. It is a shame because he missed an excellent opportunity to get acquainted with the matter.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON RATIFICATION PROCESS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to raise a question with the Prime Minister. The one major flaw, of course, in the offer of the Minister for International Trade is that it did not include 25 million Canadians who have a right to know what is going on in the free trade negotiations.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister a follow-up question. He said that Parliament would be given an appropriate way of examining any proposed free trade deal. The Government has rejected the calls for full publication of reports and has rejected our call for a halt to the discussions until we know what the mandate is.
Can we get assurances from the Prime Minister that, first, Parliament will be sitting when the proposed agreement is announced October 5? Second, can we have assurance that there will be national public hearings at which all Canadians will have an opportunity to appear and make their case known? Third, can we be assured that this Parliament will have the right to recommend amendments to that agreement similar to what the U.S. Congress enjoys?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to make it clear for a long time that, despite the obvious preference of the Hon. Member, this is Canada, not the U.S. We operate by Canadian rules and in the Canadian interest. We do not intend to change our system to the American model which the Hon. Member appears to prefer.
There will be, as there has been, full parliamentary and public opportunity to consider any agreement which might be arrived at. The Prime Minister indicated that. The House of Commons will certainly be sitting during the period of time any agreement arrived at is going to be under consideration. There will be ample opportunity for that kind of consideration by Members of the House of Commons.
We have indicated to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP that we are prepared to provide them with the kind of briefings that the Hon. Member
for Yorkton-Melville sought on their behalf. Now the Hon. Member wants us to find a room and a table big enough for 25 million people to sit in on that confidential briefing.


Lloyd Axworthy: In that last comment we have seen exactly what the Hon. Minister thinks of the right of those 25 million people to know what is going on. I would remind him that his model of the Canadian way of doing things may be a closed shop but our model is that it has to be open and accountable.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nystrom:: Since when?


John Horton McDermid: Don't turn your back on him, John.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 indicated yesterday, in the interest of getting the maximum number of Members on their feet throughout Question Period, that some discipline would have to be exercised in preambles. I know the Hon. Member would want to co-operate and put his question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Minister be a little more specific in his response? Can he assure us that on October 5, when the President of the U.S., under his agreement with Congress, announces something, this Parliament will be in session so we will know exactly what that agreement proposes? Can he also assure us that subsequently there will be proper committee examination, with the full right to recommend amendments to any agreement within the period set forth under the fast-track arrangement which the Government agreed to with the U.S? It is your agreement to go by the fast-track, not ours.


Mr. Speaker:: I again want to ask Members to respect the rules and refrain from using personal terms in asking questions of Ministers, or on the part of Ministers or Prime Ministers replying to those asking questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I note the Hon. Member's question about House business. I knew he wanted to be the Leader of his Party. I did not know he wanted to be the House Leader. He asked a question which I have answered.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Before doing that, if the Government finds a single example of a Liberal Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!
August 18, 1987


John Edward Broadbent: If the Government finds a single example of a Liberal Government submitting a treaty to Parliament for consideration, please let us know.


Mr. Crosbie:: Good point.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Ask your friend.


Lloyd Axworthy: Do you want me to answer for you?


Mr. Beatty:: A lovers' quarrel.


John Edward Broadbent: My question is with regard to the plight of farmers and many businessmen who took out loans from Canadian chartered banks in the early 1980s. At that time, as the Minister knows, many farmers and small-business people borrowed money from the banks at what they assumed would be a fixed interest rate. When interest rates started going up, mystery of mysteries, they found that they were being charged a variable interest rate, the net result of which was that the sample of some 40 farmers and small-businessmen who were surveyed were being overcharged to the extent, including interest, of some $60,000.
As the Minister may know, last night in Innisfail, Alberta, a group of such farmers and small-businesspeople got together to discuss what could be done to get some economic justice restored to them. What is the Government doing to get some economic justice for these people who were dealt with unfairly?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. gentleman has been raised a number of times by Members on all sides of the House. The answer that I gave previously can be updated today.
First, there have been a series of court cases in the past dealing with this matter, the decisions on which have gone both ways. 1 have logically, therefore, suggested that matters of this sort should be dealt with in the courts.
There are subsidiary questions which the Hon. Member did not raise which are well worth looking at, one being the cost of doing the searches. I have been making inquiries and have some preliminary evidence of the cost of doing these inquiries in order to help those who are questioning the banks' practices.


ONTARIO SUPREME COURT DECISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that the most recent court decision was made at the highest level in the Ontario judicial system, the Ontario Supreme Court level. The decision came down on the side of the farmer against the bank and the bank, quite wisely in terms of the law as I understand it, decided not to appeal it. It seems that the bank recognized that justice was on the side of the farmer.
Oral Questions
The Minister seems to be implying that the farmer ought to go back to the bank to borrow another $40,000 and when the bank asks for the purpose of the new loan he will say, "I want to take you to court". The Minister would conclude, I think, that most farmers are reluctant to pursue this in the courts because it costs them so much to do that.
Will the Government at least study a whole range of such loans made in the early 1980s to find the extent of damages? It has been estimated that 30 per cent of Canadian farmers are in serious financial difficulty. When will the Government come to the aid of the farmers as quickly as it did to the aid of the banks?


Thomas Hockin: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman wants the verdict of one court case to apply to all other situations. I find that an astonishing view of justice.


John Edward Broadbent: I didn't say that.


Thomas Hockin: Yes you did.


Mr. Speaker:: He may or he may not have. That is not the way in which we refer to Hon. Members. The Hon. Minister.


Thomas Hockin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Second, on the question of fees I raise the point of doing searches. When a farmer or small-businessman believes that he has been unfairly dealt with by a bank, when he thought he had a fixed interest rate which became a variable rate, he goes to the bank and asks for his records. There are charges for that. I am considering whether those charges are reasonable and whether the research is done properly because that is integral to settling this problem in the courts.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW SAMPLE LOANS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that the Government's policy is to leave it to the individual farmer to resolve this, that the Government will help the farmer with certain service charges but not with legal costs.
Since not only many farmers are involved in this but many small-businesspeople, will the Government undertake a sample review of the loans that were made at that time to learn the extent of the damage that has been done, and then report and consider the possibility of covering all the legitimate costs of farmers and small businesses to get some justice from the very wealthy and substantial banks?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to try to assess the extent of this problem. It is not that easy. He has been in touch with the banks and they are trying to make that assessment. When I have something to report to the House, I will report.

August 18, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPORT FORWARDED BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BANKS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance. He knows that many farmers and small businessmen have been overcharged by the banks. He has a report in his office from the Inspector General of Banks which he has refused to make public. Will he make that report public?
Since the Minister has not set out any action to recover these funds for farmers and small-businessmen, will he consider establishing a Royal commission to investigate the matter and ensure that action is taken to refund these funds to farmers, many of whom have gone broke already? Perhaps some of those who are still hanging on can survive if the overcharged funds are returned to them.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is very similar to the previous set of questions. 1 can assure him that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, not the Inspector General of Banks, is making an ongoing study of this. I will report to the House when a further report is given to me.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain why there was a public inquiry almost immediately when two western banks went broke? There was over $1 billion of restitution and assistance for them. Why is it that when banks have overcharged farmers there is no public inquiry and no action to assist them? Tens of thousands of farmers are facing serious financial difficulties. Why the disparity? There is action when a bank goes broke, but when they are overcharging farmers there is no action.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, a little bit of history. The reason the Government did what it did in the case of the Northland Bank and the CCB was to bail out the farmers, not the banks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We have just learned that the Government is doing almost nothing to help farmers who have been overcharged by the banks. Could the Minister confirm that his department, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the chartered banks signed recently a memorandum of understanding whereby chartered banks
would be allowed to increase by approximately $5 billion their reserves against foreign loans deemed "risky"?
Could the Minister also confirm that, contrary to the normal practice of chartered banks, this transfer to the reserves will be made over a one-year period instead of five, and that the cost to the federal treasury will therefore be approximately $2 billion in income taxes which the banks will not have to pay? Could he confirm these facts?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a very complex issue. He has seen the press release which was issued by the Superintendent. 1 will confirm that there has been an agreement between the Superintendent and the banks to acknowledge what has happened in the public markets and the value of the debts of 34 countries, I believe it is. He has allowed the banks to reflect this in their income statements totally consistent with existing tax policy and the proposals for tax reform with which the Hon. Member is very familiar.


LOAN WRITE-OFFS-EFFECT ON TAX REVENUE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance confirm that it is the normal practice of the banks, if they have losses to write off, to write them off over five years, but that after meeting with the Superintendent and representatives of his Department the Government has agreed that the banks can write these losses off in one year?
That will mean a loss to taxpayers of something like $2 billion in revenue which the banks would have paid on their profits but will now be able to write off. Is that not a very major cost for taxpayers to have to pay as a result of mistakes made by banks on foreign loans? Why do the banks get that special treatment and farmers cannot get the time of day from the Assistant Minister of Finance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no change whatsoever in the basis on which these loans are treated for tax purposes. Whether there is a loan to a foreign country, whether there is a loan to business, whether there is a loan to an individual, if that loan goes bad or the value of that loan is reduced because of market circumstances, then the banks are allowed to take a write-off and that is a tax deductible expense.


John Edward Broadbent: It changed from five years to one year.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It was five years, now it is one. What is the difference?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is very hard to deal with a complex issue when the Hon. Members are heckling in the middle of the answer.


Mr. King:: It is hard to deal with a knucklehead.
August 18, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There may well be some truth in that comment.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jaeques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. According to the reports on the Telemedia Radio Network, some railway workers have set up picket lines in front of the CNR maintenance shops in Montreal. A disruption of rail service would certainly have devastating effects. Commuter passengers in large cities would lose an essential means of transportation. The western economy could be crippled if commodities like coal, potash, or grain stopped moving. Certainly the last thing hard-pressed farmers need is a rail strike.
What does the Government intend to do this time to avoid a repeat of the bungling, hands-off approach that led to a postal strike a month ago? Can we expect direct government action this time and, if so, of what kind?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we can certainly see from the Hon. Member's speech what he would like to have happen. There was no bungling a month ago and there will be no bungling in the next few weeks either.
The unions involved in CN and CP are meeting at the present time, through the agency of the mediator, Mr. Carson, who has been appointed. We hope they will make progress.
We have a free collective bargaining system in this country and the Government has no intention of intervening unless that becomes absolutely necessary on behalf of the public interest, at which time we will certainly act quickly.
With respect to the picketing this morning, that was not by the unions involved in these discussions in Montreal at the present time with Mr. Carson, but by the shop craft unions. I believe the demonstration is over, according to a message I received, and hopefully will not be repeated.
[Translation}


EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY PLANS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with a different minister. In the case of the postal strike, it was the Minister of Labour. Now, we are offered the same recipe which resulted in a strike, namely that the Government will not interfere, but try to settle the problem through third parties. The information I should like to get from the Government is this: Is there an emergency plan in case of a railway strike? How can we ensure the transportation of goods which is so vital in some areas of this country? Do
Oral Questions
such plans exist or will the Government maintain its hands-off policy?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely incredible. The hon. gentleman has been in the House for many years. His Party had been in government for many years and left us a collective bargaining system that applies to the railways of the country. Just because he now wishes to get some publicity, are we to change that whole system because there might conceivably be a strike? There are two parties who are sincerely trying to reach an agreement with the help of a mediator. I suggest that the Hon. Member stop his hypocritical statements-


An Hon. Member:: What action are you taking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and hope that the two parties will reach a reasonable settlement.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SUBSIDIES ISSUE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It goes back to the comments of the senior trade official from the United States whom I quoted yesterday, Mr. Cavitt. Mr. Cavitt indicated in his official briefing that the Government has accepted in principle doing away with subsidies that would include low interest and no interest loans. Has that concession in fact also been made and has the Prime Minister obtained anything in return for that give-away?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that we are not familiar with Mr. Cavitt. I think the Minister made it very clear last week that between now and the time that negotiations will conclude there will be all kinds of wishes, statements, rumours, papers flying around and so on. 1 think we should leave it to the negotiators to work out the best possible agreement they can, and then we will discuss it once that agreement is made.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Government's philosophy seems to be to give away as much as possible and then give us the chance to talk about it after the fact.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member would want to put his question and not take up too much time in argumentative preamble. The Hon. Member will please put his question.

August 18, 1987
Oral Questions


Steven W. Langdon: Will the Government please come clean with Canadians and tell us-


Charles Joseph Clark: God, you are a fraud.


Steven W. Langdon: -if these statements of concession after concession demonstrated by Mr. Cavitt are in fact accurate? Will you at least please confess that that is what is taking place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Stop spreading innuendo.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the New Democratic Party listens to the Americans and never listens to the Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is because you don't tell us anything.


Ms. Jewett:: Tell us something.


John Horton McDermid: For a Party that wants to walk away from negotiations, forget about the Americans, and to become isolationists, all they do day after day is get up and quote them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He has known, as a result of a document leaked to the public from the CNR last September, that CN is seeking to abandon over 5,000 miles of rural track. This will mean in Ontario that all cross-country traffic and all cross-Ontario traffic by rail will be routed through Metro Toronto, including much greater quantities of the deadly toxic chemicals of the sort that were involved in the Mississauga train disaster and are now routed through sparsely populated areas.
A year later, is the Minister prepared to take steps to assure, before the CTC, if necessary, that CN does not close down the lines through these sparsely populated areas?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Rip Van Kaplan.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it has been rather unkindly suggested that the Hon. Member should be better known as Rip Van Kaplan. There must be an election under way in Ontario because suddenly all the rail lines are going to disappear, according to the hon.
gentleman. What absolute twaddle and twiddle, absolute nonsensical drivel.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the document to which I am referring is signed by the Assistant VicePresident, Strategic Projects, of the CNR. If I am Rip Van Winkle, perhaps the Minister has had the answer for a year. What is the Government's position on the proposal to close down these rail lines? Is the Minister saying in his answer that the Government will oppose it, or is he saying it will do nothing?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is legislation presently in force in this country that deals with railway abandonment of branch lines and the like. It is very difficult for the railways to abandon branch lines. CN, just as CP, wants to abandon a large part of its rail trackage because it gets only 2 per cent of its traffic from about one-third of its railway trackage, and 75 per cent from a third and so on. Actually, CN would like, just as it has in the States, to abandon some of this trackage. But the laws prevent it. It has to go through a very rigorous process and if it is suggested to me that 5,000 miles of railway track be abandoned in Ontario, I would not oppose it, I would just forbid it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SWEDISH PARLIAMENTARIAN
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Karl-Erik Svartberg, Member of the Swedish Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I have a press release here from an executive of the Firestone Company saying that the accrued interest on the $13.5 million in trust would go to the employees who were left out of work, 1,300 families. I thank the Minister for having sent me the agreement. However, I would like to ask him why this statement is not in that agreement?
August 18, 1987


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we negotiated with the company in the best interests of the workers. We did consider a number of alternate solutions which would make it possible for these workers to keep their jobs.
We also concluded with the company an agreement under which interests on the $13.5 million would be earmarked for the benefit of workers. But should the plant close down and if we should find a buyer, of course this amount will go to the company.


TERMS OF AGREEMENT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, that does not appear to be in the agreement I received from the Minister. I would just like to be assured that it is not just a press release but actual confirmation in a legal agreement?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that throughout the negotiations we tried to do as we always do, which is to protect the best interests of the workers. That is what we did in the case of this company.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It concerns a federally owned uncompleted building on Walkley Road in Ottawa called the Mulligan Building. It was purchased 11 years ago by the Government at a cost of $1.98 million. It has not been used to date.
Will the Minister tell the House when it is going to be properly used by the Government? Or will this building be sold to the private sector?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for the question. I wish to indicate that this building has been left vacant since 1976 at a cost for maintenance of some $750,000. I have a plan to introduce to Treasury Board this fall involving an expenditure for renovations of some $22 million to utilize the building for two government Departments.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the unfair treatment of older workers.
After seventeen months of fighting by older workers and the Official Opposition, 46,000 older workers received a refund of their unemployment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, today there are still 42,000 older workers in Canada whose claims have been turned down. The Minister knows perfectly well that these people-in fact thousands are involved-took early retirement before January 5, 1986. They went to the offices of the Canada Employment Centre, but because of the information they were given by employees, these people have now been penalized.
My question to the Minister is quite simple: Is he willing to ask the Unemployment Insurance Commission to refund unemployment insurance benefits to all older workers in the 1985 group who were unable to file a claim? Yes or no?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative Government is doing an excellent job with respect to the early retirees. In fact we are seeing proof of this every day.
We have established criteria, however, and one of those criteria was January 5, 1986. All claims filed after that date have been referred to the Department and may be at the arbitration stage. However, I do not intend to intervene in order to change the rules.


ALLEGED ERRORS BY OFFICIALS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gareau from Brossard would appreciate it if the Minister would tell him why he was forced to take early retirement on December 20, 1985. On January 3, he goes to the employment centre, which is under the authority of the Minister. The official tells him: Sir, come back on February 2, 1986.
Why will that individual be penalized, why should he be denied a refund because an official misled him? Is the Minister ready to acknowledge the errors made by officials and give their money back to those thousands of senior workers in Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern for workers in Montreal. I hope he has the same concern for those who are waiting for development that will flow from the investments provided for in Bill C-22. We are awaiting questions from the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte Marie on the jobs that are being lost now in Montreal.

August 18, 1987
Oral Questions
As far as employment centres are concerned, applications made before January 5 will be honoured. Applications made after January 5 must be referred to employment centres and will be dealt with according to the statutes.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. I have a letter in my hand from the president of the local of Canadian Union of Postal Workers in Calgary. He writes to local private-sector sub-Post Offices that he wants to explain why the union is opposed to offering service at subPost Offices and outlets such as this.
The president of that local was fired for having circulated this letter, for having fulfilled his function of representing the workers he represents. Does the Minister realize this raises serious questions about whether the Post office is seeking a settlement or a confrontation, and strikes at the heart of democratic freedoms in this country, the freedom of association? Do you agree with my characterization of-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the facts are that there are other letters sent out by that individual which threaten businesses that might undertake franchise operations, commercial operations, on behalf of the Post Office-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -with harassment, with loss of business, and in various ways. I wonder if it is the view of the NDP that an employee of a company, be it a Crown Corporation or any other company, should be free to go out and threaten potential customers of that company and that the company should still be duty bound to keep that individual in its employ? Is that its position?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I go back-


Charles Joseph Clark: Answer.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question to this Minister-


Charles Joseph Clark: Answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question. I know Hon. Members will, of course, extend the usual courtesies.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to know directly from this Minister whether he condones the firing of this president of the union local and whether he realizes that means that Canada Post Corporation can take retribution against persons for fulfilling their function of democratically representing the workers they represent? That flies in the face of democratic human rights in this country. Does he realize that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this Government and I support the idea that unions are there to represent their members. 1 do not support the idea that any employee of any company can go out and threaten customers of that company and still expect to retain his or her employment.
This Crown corporation, managed by its management, must obey Canadian law, as do its employees and as do members of the union. There are grievance procedures within the contract. If in fact they have not been followed, the employee will get reinstated. But if in fact he has been threatening customers, I personally would rather not have him employed at the Post Office.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance will be put in his absence to the Minister of State for Finance. In the White Paper on tax reform, the minister announced he would reduce from 30 per cent to 23 per cent the tax rate on large manufacturing concerns, while increasing from 10 per cent to 12 per cent the tax rate on small manufacturing enterprises.
I would like to know why the Government, by increasing their tax rate, would penalize those 85 per cent of the Canadian manufacturing sector that created 74 per cent of jobs in Canada.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, unfortunately, the premise of the Hon. Member's question is incorrect. Therefore I cannot confirm the allegation in the question.


TAX RATE APPLICABLE TO SMALL BUSINESSES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I took the information from the White Paper which states that the small business manufacturing rate is actually 10
August 18, 1987

per cent and as of January 1, 1988, it will be 12 per cent, an increase of 2 per cent. Why does the Minister want to increase the tax rate of a small manufacturing business when he is reducing the tax rate of a big manufacturing business? Why does the Government want to penalize 85 per cent of the manufacturing sector which creates 74 per cent of the jobs? Is that clear now?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, 1 now understand the question. However, it is only half a question. The true answer is that to understand tax reform one has to understand the over-all level of corporate rates, not simply on the manufactured level but the over-all marginal rates for corporations. They will be lowered and small manufacturing will benefit as well as large.


PATENT ACT
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs deals with the Patent Act.
As we know, Quebecers are waiting for nearly $1 billion worth of investments to materialize when that bill is passed, especially since the Quebec National Assembly on two occasions expressed unanimous support for that legislation. What does the Minister intend to do to counter the systematic, Trudeaumaniac obstruction on the matter?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker,' 1 am open to suggestions. The Government will be soon introducing a motion in the House to respond to the Senate's unfortunate decision with respect to this Bill. I hope that those thousands of Quebecers who are waiting for those hundreds of millions of dollars of investment will not have to wait too long. This is too important to the future of too many Canadians to be delayed by these tactics for too much longer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHIPBUILDING
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Despite the federal Government's commitment in 1984 that it would have a shipbuilding policy for Canada there has been no policy made.
Oral Questions
In addition, workers at Halifax-Dartmouth Industries Ltd. have only 20 people working at the present time. There used to be 1,000 people at that yard.
In view of the fact that the Minister made an announcement that the refit of the ice-breaker Louis St. Laurent would be done at that yard, when will that work finally start?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should more properly be directed to me.
As a result of representations and the urging of the Minister of Public Works, we were able to announce in June that the mid-life refit of the ice-breaker Louis St. Laurent would be done at the Halifax shipyard. In the release which was made at that time it was explained that there would be two contracts, a design contract so that the design of the work could be done and all the detailed engineering done, followed by a construction contract, once we had the shipyard and an agreed to price.
It was expected that the actual construction would proceed in 1988 in accordance with the release that was issued in June. The Government is doing its best to see that government shipbuilding and ship repairing work is spread across the country. Halifax has been looked after. Unfortunately, we cannot do the work until the design is done. That is quite clear. The design work has to be done first.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Canadian Transport Commission is to be reorganized shortly with a new mandate. I think all who work for the Commission welcome this reorganization, saying it is long overdue. The employees are deeply concerned about their future and whether or not they will be part of the new mandate.
Can the Minister tell us when the Commission will be establishing its new mandate, by what date will the employees be told whether they will be part of the new Commission, and for those who will not be fortunate enough what steps will be taken to find places of employment for them in other parts of the Public Service?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our hope and expectation are that the new national transportation agency will start to function on January 1, 1988, to replace the present Canadian Transport Commission. However, there are two Bills still to be passed by Parliament as a result of some action taken by the Senate. These two Bills are coming back with amendments that we in the Government find acceptable. We will be presenting them to the House and

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
recommending them for passage. Hopefully, we can still have all the necessary work done in time for January 1, 1988.
With respect to the employees, these are all valued people. They may not all be needed since the functions of the NTA are somewhat different from the CTC. But we hope to find places for them in other aspects of government work, or certainly see that anybody who does not stay with the new national transportation agency is well looked after.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank Hon. Members for their cooperation. There was a better response in Question Period today.
There will be one final question from the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence, and that will close off Question Period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs well knows, a senior member of the Conservative caucus who is also a Chairman of a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, namely, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, sent a letter recently to the Minister in which he declared that Canada should occupy by force and take over the sovereign and independent nations of Mozambique and Angola. 1 am wondering what the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the Hon. Member that the Chair has some difficulty with his question. 1 have listened carefully to the question so far and it does not seem to refer to a matter with respect to which the Right Hon. Minister has jurisdiction. 1 would ask the Hon. Member to leave the matter with me. Perhaps we can discuss it and it may be appropriate to raise it tomorrow. In view of that I would ask the cooperation of the Hon. Member.
Orders of the Day.



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. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is as follows: Mr. Bouchard, seconded by Mr. McMillan, moves 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, seconded by Mr. Berger, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"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."
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was
negatived on [English]
the following division:
	(Division No. 225)
	YEAS
	Members	
Althousc	Gray	MalepartAxworthy	(Windsor West)	ManlyBlaikic	Guilbault	MarchiBroadbenl	(Saint-Jacques)	McCurdyCaccia	Flcap	McLaughlinCassidy	Henderson	Murphyde Corneille	Flovdebo	NicholsonDewar	Jewett	(Trinity)Dingwall	Johnston	NystromFoster	(Saint-Hcnri-	OrlikowFulton	Westmount)	OuelletGagliano	Kaplan	PennerGarneau	Keeper	PepinGauthier	Langdon	Prud'hommeLapierre	Robichaud
August 18, 1987

Rossi	Turner
Skclly	(Vancouver Quadra)
Tobin	Young-45
Toupin	
	NAYS
	Members
Andre	Friesen	NowlanBeatty	Gagnon	OberleBernier	Gottselig	O'NeilBlais-Grcnier	Graham	OostromBlenkarn	Gray	PorterBlouin	(Bonaventurc-llcs-de-	RedwayBosley	la-Madeleine)	RcimerBradley	Gustafson	RomanBrisco	Halliday	St. GermainCadieux	Hamelin	SchellcnbergCaldwell	Hardey	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cardiff	Hawkes	ScottChampagne	Hnatyshyn	(Victoria- Haliburton)(Champlain)	Holtmann	ScottClark	Howie	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Ycllowhcad)	James	ScowenClifford	Johnson	ShieldsCoates	(Bonavista-T rinity	SiddonCochrane	Conception)	SparrowCollins	Jourdenais	SpeyerComeau	Kelleher	StackhouseCote	Kcmpling	Thacker(Lac-Saint-Jean)	King	TremblayCrofton	Lawrence	(Quebec-Est)Crosbic	Layton	Tupper(St. John's West)	Lewis	TurnerCrosby	MacDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)(Halifax West)	(Timiskaming)	Van De WalkDantzer	MacKay	VankoughnetDaubney	Malone	VincentDella Noce	Marin	WarnerDomm	Martin	WeinerDorin	Mazankowski	WhiteDuguay	McCuish	WilsonDuplessis	McDermid	(EtobicokeEllis	Mclnnes	Centre)Fennell	McKinnon	WiseFerland	Moore	Witer-104Fontaine	Mulroney	Forrcstall	Nicholson	Fralcigh	(Niagara Falls)	Fretz	Nickerson


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost.
Resuming debate on the main motion. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to have a full House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps we would break with tradition. I know the importance of the legislation that is before the House and 1 know that each and every Member of the House is interested in this legislation. I naturally concluded that since everyone was still sitting here as
Immigration Act, 1976
I rose to speak, we would have a full House for this debate. I believed that that was true not because I am naive but because I thought the Government called the House back to deal with an emergency situation. Therefore, I expected that government Members would be here for the debate, and they were here for a moment.


John Horton McDermid: Look around you. Where are your colleagues?


Cyril Keeper: Of course, government Members have now fled. They have fled the Chamber-


John Horton McDermid: Let the record show that of the NDP, you are the only one in the House. Oops, sorry, Marion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that because of the Hon. Member's performance today, instead of having a full House, we have a royal flush as can be seen by looking at the House.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I will not try to top that comment. This is getting a little too risque for my tastes.
1 would like to address the legislation before the House because it is a very serious piece of legislation and it has very serious implications for Canadians and Canada's international reputation.
1 want to tell you how 1 size up the situation we are facing today. We are here in an emergency sitting of the House in the middle of the summer to deal with a Draconian piece of legislation concerning refugees. Why? Basically because of the concern of Canadians over the fact that the refugee process is not working and the Government said this is our opportunity to recover our standing in the polls. This is our opportunity to take on the Liberals and NDP and come out on the winning side of public opinion. The Government has for so long been at the bottom of the opinion polls and out of favour with the public that it saw this as its opportunity. That is why the House was called back this summer. That is why we have this legislation before us.
We should remind ourselves of what the Government said before it came into office and how it acted after it was elected in order to evaluate what it is saying in this debate. When the Conservatives ran for office, they started out by condemning the Liberal Party and the Liberal Prime Minister, now Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), for abuse of the patronage system. The now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) criticized the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in debate and won public approval. Yet what did he do once he got into office? Exactly the same thing the Liberals did. He took the same kind of immoral and depraved actions regarding the patronage system that the Liberals did. He carried on with the same kind of activity he had condemned. That is the difference

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
between the promises and the actions of the Conservative Government.
We have a parallel in this situation. The Government is promising to fix the refugee determination process. Most Canadians have come to the conclusion that the process is not working. It is being used and abused by people who simply want to come to this country without going through the normal process. That is what so many Canadians find unfair. We all recognize that the process needs to be changed, that we need an adequate and just determination process. So the Government called the House back and brought forward its legislation.
Does the legislation do what it purports to do? It is clear that it does not. One thing it does do is to give the Government the opportunity to say it is coming down hard on the abusers. Of course it is, but in the process it is also tearing apart the democratic traditions of this country. We have heard from human rights advocates across this country. We have heard from representatives of the churches. We have heard Rabbi Plaut who did a thorough study of the refugee determination process. We heard the UN say that this legislation is going to put at risk the possibility of genuine refugees coming to this country. Therefore the legislation is not doing what it purports to do, that is, eliminate the abusers while at the same time allowing for a fair and efficient determination process by which genuine refugees can come to Canada.
In fact it breaks with a generous Canadian tradition of providing a sanctuary for those whose lives are threatened elsewhere. It threatens those who are struggling against the dictatorship in Chile and who are threatened with torture and death. It tears apart the Canadian tradition of sanctuary in the name of fixing a system that is not working.
Not only that, if passed by the House in its present form, which I doubt will happen, it will be torn apart in the courts. The effort will be wasted because it does not do what it claims it will do. It should be withdrawn and humane, effective legislation, which allows for the elimination of abusers while at the same time maintaining our compassionate and open approach to people who need sanctuary, introduced.
We call upon the Government to wake up and stop trying to rush this legislation through. It should realize we are not going to let this go through quickly because we want to make sure the process takes into account not only the abusers of the system but also the human rights of those who need sanctuary.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, if you and I were to examine the mail I have received from one coast to the other, along with telephone messages in my constituency office, and I am sure it is comparable to that received by other Members, we would see that there are certain common features to the expressions of opinion which have arisen without stimulation from those on Parliament Hill. One of those features is that there has been no racism expressed by the people of Canada in their opposition to the
ingress of what they see to be illegal immigrants to this country. Over and over again I have had it said to me that the concern of the population is not based on any consideration of race at all.


Cyril Keeper: None at all?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: None at all. The Canadian people cannot be accused of racism no matter what the Opposition, including the Hon. Member, may wish to suggest. The people of Canada are saying to us that, regardless of the race of the person concerned, he or she will receive equal treatment before the law and not special privilege.
The second feature is that they want fairness for all, including those who have been waiting patiently, not without frustration, for years in their attempts to gain legal acceptance in this country. The people of this country see what seems to be manifest unfairness in the possibility of someone gaining entry to this country by what appears to them to be a trick. They are asking Parliament and the Government of Canada to provide legislation which will make that kind of fairness possible.
Next, I find a concern among Canadian people for the rule of law. We are a law-abiding people. We are a people that have historically been characterized by a commitment to order as expressed by the laws of the country. It seems to people an utter affront to that tradition of law, that respect for order, that people at will, be it a large group or one or two or three, can somehow insinuate themselves into this country in a way clearly contrary to the demands of the law and the requirements of regulations. They are, therefore, asking us to provide the Government with the authority required to re-establish the rule of law in terms of refugees.
Further, I believe that the Bill before us should be supported, not only by the government Party but by every Member of the House, because there is clearly a demand from the people for action. They have been frustrated over an extended period of time as they have seen the laws broken, traditions flaunted, and unfairness apparently rewarded. We are told that they want some action. We are trying to hurry the Bill through the House but the Liberal Opposition wants to give it an extended examination, a six-month hoist.
We are faced with the utter dismay of the people of Canada at the prospect that once again they may be thwarted. They are appealing to us, and this Bill is an answer to that appeal, an attempt to give them action in the face of need. We have been called together to make a decision.
Along with that demand for action I take it from the mail and calls that I have received that there is an extraordinary but nonetheless impressive message from the people that they wonder if anybody is really in charge. They are demanding to know whether anyone is really in control of admission into the country. If you can just show up on a beach or at an airport
August 18. 1987

and somehow, without qualifications or credentials, find yourself in the country with de facto admission for one, two, three or perhaps five years, they wonder whether the Government really is in control.
1 take that question very seriously. If the Government and the legislature of a country are not really in charge, in what sense are we a country? If we do not have control over our own borders, what kind of country are we? That is the situation to which we have come in recent times and which we are attempting to correct, and not with any lack of justice or compassion for those who legitimately merit the term and designation "refugee".
I am sure that all other Members, like myself, have read the Convention of 1951. It is clear from that document, to which this country has been a signatory and to which the Government, like others before it, is committed, that a refugee has designated, covenanted rights. The ambiguity arises over who is a refugee and who determines that. It is quite clear that the country itself determines that refugee status in accordance with the terms of the covenant and its historic application.
1 submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill before us is in accordance with that and will stand the test of challenge. We have every right, indeed every duty as a Parliament, to put our imprimatur upon it and to make it the law of the land so that the Government, elected by the people, given a mandate to govern, will truly in this instance be in charge.
I am not unaware that this Bill, like any other that has been introduced in this House since 1867, might well be improved by this amendment or that. I think it would be approaching hypocrisy if either side of the House were allowed to suggest that there is nothing that could not be clarified, nothing that could not be refined. However, in debate on second reading we are talking about the principle of the Bill, the clear message, and of that there can be no doubt if we take the people of Canada seriously.
I am aware that the opposition Parties do not take the people of Canada seriously, that they are really elitist Parties that are with the people if the people are with them and their secret knowledge of the truth. I am appealing to them through you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the ordinary Canadians, of whom they are apparently so fond, and take seriously what the ordinary Canadians are saying, namely, "give us some action, give us the rule of law, put the Government in charge again".
I have been impressed that the Liberal Opposition, for one, has opposed this Bill. It tried to give it a six-month hoist. 1 was impressed as well that less than a month ago the Liberals were saying that the Government was at fault because it had not turned the boat back. Now the Liberal Opposition wants to turn this legislation back. 1 ask them to be consistent, to be concerned, not about turning the boat back but about turning the clock ahead to today, to putting this nation in tune with the times, and to giving us legislation which can cope with this problem which is of this day and age.
Immigration Act, 1976
The legislation and rules of the past are no longer adequate. To be fair to those who drafted them, they may have met the need then, but they do not meet it now. We have need for legislation which takes seriously an entirely unprecedented development. We have 12 million refugees in various centres in the world. We have frightening population pressures in various parts of the world. There are 5 billion people sharing this globe, many of them crowded into small conurbations-16 million, 18 million, or 20 million in a massed urban sprawl. We can appreciate that there will be great pressure for many years to come on persons to find new opportunities and to offer themselves as refugees when, according to the convention, they do not meet those criteria.
We have a need for this legislation. The Government was right to call this House back through the Speaker to deal with an emergency situation in an emergency way. I hope that we will see reason and pass the Bill.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about Bill C-55 and to support my party which considers that the bill provides no solution to the tragic situation and to the international problem raised by the determination of refugee status.
Instead of being consistent with the tradition of assistance to refugees Canada can be proud of, the provisions of Bill C-55 put a stop to any progressive initiative in that area. The proposed legislation does not allow for an accessible and quick mechanism for determination of the refugee status nor does it give sufficient protection through a hearing before a qualified board and through a fair appeal procedure.
The Liberal Party is opposed to Bill C-55 because it essentially provides for a new process for the determination of refugee status without taking into account the Plaut report and all suggestions made by organizations dealing with refugees.
If the Conservative Government is serious and honest about consulting those organizations regarding the reform of the refugee determination process, it should not try to pass legislation in which the basic principles of the future process are laid down.
Besides, this view is largely shared by immigration lawyers and many humanitarian agencies. There are, among others, the concertation group for refugees, SOS Refugees, the Civil Liberties Union, the Societe quebecoise de solidarity international, the Immigration Lawyers Association, YAssociation des juristes quebecois, the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, the Standing Conference of Canadian Organization Concern for Refugees, Amnisty International and the Island Refugees Society of British Columbia.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is not opposing Bill C-55 for the sake of filibustering. This is not a partisan issue but a matter of pure common sense. For instance, if you look at the pre-screening process, it builds up a wall all around the system that we claim to improve. The pre-

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
screening process is very discretionary and it prevents the full accessibility to the process.
As well, if you look at the Refugee Board, its proceedings are supposed to be non-accusatory, but it is the Crown Prosecutor who will put forward all the relevant facts. There will be an adversarial situation with an officer working for the Department. Where will he find those facts? From the prescreening process? Why do we put together refugees and immigrants?
Of course, if you look at the appeal mechanism, that is the appeal with the agreement of the Federal Court, if the Court is unable to learn new facts, to re-evaluate the credibility of the claimant or to ask for the opinion of the NGO, it has no real power to review the procedure followed or the relevant facts. We believe that the quality of the system as a whole depends on that of the appeal mechanism. In addition, while the claimant asks for the right to appeal, he will be deported. This procedure is quite inhumane and could be unconstitutional under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians have been misinformed. Racist feelings are on the rise in Canada, and such a Bill will exacerbate the situation instead of educating Canadians.
1 believe that this is also the opinion of many Canadians. It is time to review the refugee determination process and to initiate an extensive information campaign on refugees. The great majority of Canadians do not know the difference between a refugee and an immigrant.
In the case of immigrants, the receiving country is entitled to set criteria and to accept only those who meet them. It is quite different for refugees. Canada has international obligations. Under the Geneva Convention, the refugee claimant is entitled to assistance. It is not a privilege. Most Canadians and many Members of Parliament are not aware of this. Many forget the political difficulties faced by many people in their own countries.
When you think about apartheid in South Africa, the military dictatorships and police repressions in many Latin-American countries, religious intolerance in Iran, the foreign invasion in Afghanistan, and so on, you are more willing to welcome those who fear persecution in their own countries and seek refuge in Canada.
As emphasized by Rabbi Plaut, compared with the magnitude of the global refugee problem, the task of recognizing the status of those who claim refugee status here, in Canada, is relatively small.
The information campaign which should be initiated should emphasize the economic contribution of newcomers as well as differentiate between immigrants and refugees. We have to put an end to the myth that foreigners are taking away jobs from Canadians.
Many economic studies dealing with immigration have shown that it is impossible to establish a cause-effect relationship between the number of foreigners admitted in this country and the economic situation. A number of economists maintain, however, that by increasing the number of potential consumers in a market, immigrants contribute positively to the economy. In short, it is our whole approach towards immigration which must be improved by increasing this openmindedness and generosity which have characterized Canadian men and women for so long.
This enlightenment of attitude which is urgent should go hand in hand with the reform of the refugee determination process. I feel that its implementation should offer the perfect opportunity to set in motion a refugee awareness campaign from coast to coast. This bandaid solution which the Conservative Government is suggesting today with Bill C-55 seems to be both useless and harmful. If it were adopted, I believe that the government, unfortunately, would delay reforming the refugee status determination process, contrary to what a great many groups involved with refugees are seeking.
In this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we cannot find any recommendation put forward by the special committee created to deal with Bill C-55. Although several groups appeared before the committee, unfortunately, we have the impression that the committee never existed. I wonder why the Government creates such committees. Is it simply for window-dressing purposes, when we realize that not a single recommendation made by this three-party committee which submitted a unanimous report appears in this Bill? I will say, therefore, that 1 have great reservations about Bill C-55 and will certainly vote against it.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, today I believe this country is facing problems at many different levels which will not be solved by legislation such as Bill C-55. Our concern is and certainly should be about the increasing international problem of refugees. We have a responsibility to have some input into an international solution and to seeing that the oppressive Governments that are ignoring human rights face international disciplinary action so that people will be able to stay in their own countries where they want to be, safe and secure.
I believe all Canadians are proud of our country which has been built from the different ethnic backgrounds of people who have come here in various ways, including the refugee and immigration process. 1 believe we have also been careful to ensure that people remain in contact with their own cultures so that they do not deny their roots. This has enriched the fabric of Canada and certainly made us stronger.
The kind of legislation before us does not help to maintain the international image we have had over the years. While 1 did not think this would be the first Bill to which 1 would be
August 18, 1987

speaking in the House of Commons, I felt it was important that 1 share with Members of the House the experience I had when we called for our community to adopt and sponsor 4,000 refugees in 1979. While the Government of the day had a quota of 8,000, we challenged communities across the country to sponsor these refugees. There was an overwhelming response in the country and within a month the quota was changed to 50,000.
1 believe all Canadians were very proud of the Indo-Chinese who came here, and 1 think the Government of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and his Minister of Immigration, the present Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), certainly deserve credit for their action.
It is a tragic and sad day for our country to be faced with the legislation in front of us now. It partly results from the generous action that was taken in 1979 because the number of refugees coming to Canada began to increase. Of course, the cumbersome method of defining a refugee was in place, a very cumbersome method which has not been able to respond to the need. I do not believe there is any disagreement across the country nor in this House, from what 1 have heard, about queue jumping. No one wants anyone to jump the queue. Certainly those people who arrive on our shores legally are not queue jumping. The real problem is that the present Government has cut back on family reunification by 10 per cent. Therefore, people who have applied and have been waiting for many years in the proper way, through the proper channels, are feeling bitter and angry because the numbers have been cut back.
I am disappointed when I hear some Hon. Members refer to things they heard from their constituents which do not always encompass the most altruistic kind of feelings. I can be a witness to some of the letters and phone calls I received when we put forth Project 4000. They were not always very complimentary. Some things that were said were less than what we would want to hear from people. However, I think we countered that reaction by showing that there was the other part of Canadian society who opened their arms and hearts, showing their generosity and proving we have a better country today because those 50,000 refugees came to Canada.
I feel that what has motivated many of us strongly is that we realize we are not proud of our fathers and mothers who allowed the kind of legislation to happen-and a lot of it was not legislation but regulation-that said many Jewish people had to go back and be murdered because we would not open our hearts and arms to them.
In examining this Bill we can recognize that it is just as cumbersome. We are not allowing people who are declaring themselves as refugees to have even full access to counsel. Because of this there will be people who will have to go back to
Immigration Act, 1976
the country which will persecute them before we ever realize it what we have done.
I am sure some of that rationale was expressed in these very Chambers in 1939. 1 hope we will not be part of encouraging that kind of thing to happen again. Certainly reports that have come from non-governmental organizations, from the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and from Rabbi Plaut have all recommended things which I believe Canadians can live with and be proud of. What is really being said in those reports is that we want to have a fair and efficient system. We want to have a system where people can be heard, where they can be seen to have universal accessibility.
I was quite shocked to hear yesterday that people did not understand what universal accessibility was. All we are talking about is that it does not matter what colour one's skin is or what part of the planet one comes from, we are all part of the human family and should have the right to be heard. That is all we are saying. At the moment there are about 20,000 refugees in this country who have been here for four or five years.


John Horton McDermid: More.


Marion Dewar: Yes, and probably more, because the process, has been so cumbersome. Because of this cumbersome process what we are going to do is to punish people who are running for their lives.
I come from a riding which has some very strongly committed volunteers who work day and night to help save the lives of some people from Central America. It seems to me that as these volunteers help to get these people into Canada, not only will they be seen to be criminals but certainly the people whose lives they are attempting to save will not be saved. I think that is something that is very serious. I do not think it is something that anyone in this country wants to have happen.
Surely the Government will recognize, through all the presentations made to it individually and through committee, that there is an easier way to accomplish what it wants to accomplish. I think today, the day we are speaking on this legislation, is the day to say to the Government that there is another way. We agree with the goals it is trying to attain but it is doing it in a very punitive way. Surely to goodness we are talking about a global village where we all live as part of the human family. We are saying that within that human family there are ways of dealing with each other's problems without causing chaos. Without causing chaos we can save each other's lives if we have legislation that is efficient.
I would heartily recommend to the Government that it withdraw this Bill. I believe we should begin to have a parallel system, one which deals with refugee determination efficiently and quickly as well as one which deals with immigration separately.
Right now the Canadian public is very confused about the chaos the system is in. I do not blame them for reacting the

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
way they are. However, I think the responsibility of this House is to ensure that we have a system that works, a system that is efficient, generous and fair, in the way most Canadians want their system to work.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the debate but 1 just wanted to point out to Members that this was the maiden speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. 1 want to compliment her on it. 1 may not agree with everything she says, but 1 do compliment her on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner)-Indian Affairs-Post-secondary education assistance program; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-External Affairs-Nicaragua-reported banning of Conservative Party, (b) Access to political prisoners; the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar)-Employment-retraining of laid-off older workers, (b) Request for ministerial commitment.



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.
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks on Bill C-55 by recalling once more the chain of events which led to the recall of the Parliament of Canada from recess. Going back to August of 1986, Members will recall the arrival of 150 so-called Tamil refugees off the coast of Newfoundland. When that event happened, most Canadians were prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the new arrivals and in that connection they were allowed to come into and remain in Canada. But what surprised a great many Canadians was the process by which these people entered Canada.
They were shocked in many cases to recognize and to understand, and to be told, that there was no real way these people, the so-called Tamils, could be prevented from coming into Canada or could be not allowed to stay here. This quite understandably led to a review of the refugee provisions. I think it is fair to say that that led the Government to construct the legislative provisions now contained in Bill C-55. It was introduced in the House of Commons in May, 1987. Some people say that it took too long a time, but who can judge the process? Sometimes legislation takes months, sometimes it takes years. The fact is that there was a Bill introduced in the House of Commons in May of 1987. It was debated and brought before the Members of the House of Commons on June 18, 1987. The representative of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), introduced an amendment at that time which would give the Bill a six-months hoist which would put it into oblivion. That amendment was supported by the New Democratic Party. We just voted on and defeated that amendment a few moments ago in the House of Commons. That is why we are here. It is because the opposition Parties did not want Bill C-55 processed.
That is what we are talking about in relation to refugees. We are talking about legal process. We are not talking about the status of individuals. We are not talking about the fear and pestilence that pervades many countries in the world. We are not talking about people escaping from persecution. We are talking about the legal process. This Parliament of Canada, this House of Commons, is responsible for the legal process in this country. However, what has happened is that we as Members of Parliament have abdicated that responsibility by moving amendments like the six-months hoist for legislative measures such as Bill C-55 instead of coming up with constructive legislation to deal with what is the real problem in the process.
That brings me to July 12, 1987 when there arrived on the coast of Nova Scotia 174 East Indians who entered Canada illegally and said: "We are refugees", and our system collapses because our system does not handle that situation. Why does it not handle that situation? Because once one is in Canada claiming to be a refugee then the legal process no longer works.
It was said that we were faced with our obligations under the UN Convention respecting refugees. I think Canadians were shocked and outraged to learn that under that UN Convention a person in Canada claiming to be a refugee is entitled, for example, to access to the courts and to legal counsel in connection with that access. They are even entitled to public relief. Article 23 of the convention states that the contracting state shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to its nationals. Not only do we have to accept refugees under certain circumstances, we have
August 18, 1987

to open the public coffers and pay them money, provide them with assistance and legal aid.
We all consent to that. That has been the position of the Government of Canada. We uphold the accord. But surely we must have the right to determine who comes into Canada and who is a refugee. Surely such a process has to be put in place so that we will not be faced with people who decide that they are coming to Canada, that they are going to claim to be refugees, that they are going to take advantage within our nation, our territory and our home shores, of the UN Convention, whether or not they are escaping from fear of prosecution or difficulties in another country, whether or not they are prepared to tell us what has gone on in their past history that would entitle them to special refugee status in Canada. That is why Canadians are outraged. They want to know what is happening. They want to be in a position to render a judgment. When that judgment is rendered, and rendered effectively and properly, I am sure all Canadians will support it.
I am sure that all Canadians will welcome refugees into the country. 1 am certain that all Canadians will afford such persons every item listed in the UN Convention, every guarantee of freedom and of liberty. That is what we all want. But we want to provide that sort of assistance only after a proper legal process has been observed.
Anybody-Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat-who denies the outrage of the public in this situation is simply not facing the true facts. 1 have heard members of the Opposition stand in the House and accuse the Government of fanning public outrage in this case. That is nonsense-absolute nonsense. One wonders how they can hope to represent the people of Hamilton Mountain or any other constituency across the country if they are going to make accusations like that against the Canadian people who were genuinely outraged by this event.
What we are doing is responding to that concern after trying to calm the people after trying to say: "Listen, we can take some time to resolve this problem". That was not the mood of the Canadian people. They wanted parliamentarians back at their seats working on this problem. That was the only course of action that could be sensibly taken, which is the course of action that was taken. Anyone who does not want to sit in the House of Commons to try to resolve this problem here and now has no right, in my opinion, to be here in the first place. The people told us what they wanted to do and we are trying to react to it.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), said it very well. He said that we are not here to write laws in stone. This is not Moses coming down from the mountain with the tablets. We are here to write laws of practical application to deal with real problems. We are here to cure the mischief that exists in our society and to try to do something about it. If we make a mistake, then we can correct it. We do not have to wait years or centuries. We do not have to wait for anybody else to tell us what to do; we can recognize
Immigration Act, 1976
our own errors. So we are looking at Bill C-55. It is an attempt to cure what is an obvious mischief in our system, that is, the lack of process in dealing with persons entering Canada and claiming to be refugees so that they can get the benefit of the UN Convention which we readily observe.
Bill C-84 has already been referred to committee. It is a Bill which is intended to rid us of the mischief of those people who would help people invade Canada under improper circumstances and profit by it. We now have to deal with Bill C-55 which will give us an opportunity to deal effectively, speedily and fairly with people who arrive at our doors.
People from Upper Canada often annoy us in the maritime provinces and the Atlantic coast. They sometimes think that we are a little backward. I want to point out to those people from Upper Canada that it is not easy to get an ocean-going vessel into a small place such as Pubnico Bay, a beach on the coast of Nova Scotia. It is more or less like flying an airliner into Malton Airport without consulting air traffic control and over-shooting it and landing in some small airport in some county town.
In order to get an ocean-going vessel to the coast of Nova Scotia at a point such as that one has to avoid all the normal sea routes and all the navigational aids and benefits as well as the Port of Yarmouth and the Port of Halifax. That is exactly what was done. So I say this to Hon. Members from Upper Canada. Do not be surprised when people from Nova Scotia say: "What the heck is going on here? We know that those people who arrived on that vessel were avoiding the lawful process by which people enter Canada. We know that they did not disclose their identity to the traffic controllers. We know that they strained to put the ship in that particular place. So it is no wonder that we are suspicious of those who are involved in this process, no matter what difficulties they faced at home".
How can we get rid of that suspicion? We can only get rid of it if there is a fair hearing at which the facts are disclosed. And what facts were disclosed? The facts that I heard disclosed were the tearing up of identity documents, allegations that did not fit the facts about where the group had come from, how they had arrived here and how they got off the ship and so on. By the way, it was never made clear whether there were 174 or a great many more aboard.
I am well aware that bad cases make bad law. I think that is something that we want to avoid. But I marvel at my colleagues in the Opposition who talk in general terms about refugees and who talk in general terms about immigrants and who do not want to come to grips with the mischief that exists in Canada, that is, people seeking to enter Canada illegally.
We talk about fairness in our system. In 1986, the following immigrants entered Canada. There were 7,000 from the United States; 6,800 from India; 6,400 from Vietnam; 5,800 from Hong Kong; 5,100 from Poland; 4,900 from Great Britain; 4,400 from from Jamaica; 4,100 from Philippines; 3,600 from Guyana; and 3,000 from El Salvador. Does that

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, / 976
sound like racial prejudice? Does that sound as though we were trying to exclude people from some areas and not admit people from others? That sounds like a pretty fair distribution of 50,000 people to me. Yet what does The Vancouver Sun state? It states: "PM's recall has taste of racism". 1 want to tell the editors of The Vancouver Sun that there is no racism involved in this issue. There is fairness to all Canadians involved, as well as fairness to refugees and, in particular, fairness to the immigrants who are already in Canada.
1 have people in the Punjab right now who want to come to Canada through the legitimate process. 1 have a heck of a time with the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) trying to get permission for a visitor's visa for these people. So do not tell me about racial prejudice. We want to talk about fairness, not prejudice. We want fairness. We want fairness for the people in the Punjab who want to come to Canada now. What we all fear will happen out of this is that if we do not achieve a proper process, if we do not achieve a fairness, then there will be a backlash against all immigrants. People will say: "If you cannot establish a decent process, a fair process, to bring refugees and others into the country, then do not bring anybody in. Keep them all out".
If we scratch the surface we often find, unfortunately, that there exists discrimination. But our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that we have a fair system, that we have a good system, that we have a system that will be observed by all people so that there will not be any discrimination. It is the system that prevents discrimination. The people cannot be changed but they can be made to observe a system. That is what we are trying to do with Bill C-55. I believe we are well on the way to having a fair system with this Bill, but we need some help and support from all Members of Parliament and all members of the public.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the last intervention by the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) as well as the earlier intervention by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) were a mix of rhetoric and good intention, as well as confused notions about what is the real intent, thrust and purpose of this Bill.
It was disappointing that the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, would develop a speech the way he did without bringing forward in his capacity the importance of ensuring protection for asylum seekers, legitimate asylum seekers, who are, I am sure, one of the main preoccupations of the committee which the Hon. Member chairs.
The Members opposite are aware of the preoccupations that stem and flow from this Bill. They know that there are serious flaws in this measure. There are flaws in the pre-screening system and the process itself, the safe third country concept, the refugee board, the appeal system, and other aspects. This
measure has been put together without taking into account the important principle to which Canada has adhered for decades and which has been recognized by the United Nations, that is, that asylum seekers who are in need of protection must be protected and given an opportunity to apply.
Perhaps this may sound partisan coming from a member of the Official Opposition. I wonder if the Hon. Members for Scarborough West and Halifax West realize that one of their colleagues, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, himself expressed some serious criticism of this very measure in this House as recently as five days ago. He stated it in the following terms:
-the Government intends to tighten the admission of refugees via Bill C-55, which will guarantee that the process remain arbitrary, confusing, and endless.
He further stated that the changes in the refugee determination envisaged and proposed by Bill C-55 are such that it would be practically impossible for a great number of legitimate refugees-note the word "legitimate"-to apply for refugee status. This was not said by a member of the Opposition, but by a member of the Government, one who is knowledgeable about this matter because of his role as the Chairman of the committee that studies matters related to immigration.
The same Member also commented that other rational and appropriate solutions to this problem exist, solutions that would not break an international agreement on refugees and could not be challenged in court on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Note the words that this measure in Bill C-55 contains sections that could be challenged in the courts. Unless it is modified, this measure could end up in the courts. This would tie up the Government in lengthy hearings because of badly drafted and poorly thought out legislation.
The Hon. Member for La Prairie also stated:
The best way to put the smugglers out of business is to dry up the demand for their services. The best way to stop the queue jumping is to shorten the queue. In short, if we want more orderly borders, we need more liberal borders.
It was courageous of the Hon. Member for La Prairie to issue a press release on this matter in which he commented on Bill C-55 and described it as follows:
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 UN Convention on Refugees (which we have signed and ratified) as well as our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms-
That sums it up, Mr. Speaker. That will explain why we on the opposition side put forward an amendment to hoist the measure entirely, in order to convince the Government that a clean alternative had to be introduced. That would not have been necessary if the Government had indicated that it would be willing to make certain basic changes of the type pointed out by the Hon. Member for La Prairie. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
August 18, 1987

It strikes me as curious in this debate that an element of urgency was created last week by the Government on the necessity of moving the Bill through the system as quickly as possible. In one month, it will be three years since the Government came to power. In 1984 and 1985, the Government also had the benefit of studies on the question of refugees and also of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which produced a substantial amount of information and advice upon which to draft a Bill that would meet the needs of the situation. Yet the Government took until May of this year to introduce this Bill. The Bill then sat on the Order Paper after first reading. There was no sign of urgency and no panic, everything seemed to be calm. On June 17 the Bill was brought forward for debate for three hours, and that was the end of that Bill. It was not seen again.


John Horton McDermid: What did the Liberals do?


Mr. Caccia:: Because it was so badly flawed, and because the Liberals put forward such good counter-advice on how to improve it, the Government withdrew and did not know what to do. Instead of having the honesty and saying, "There are some areas where changes can be made, give it second reading and we will get it through", and also instead of listening to the advice of its own members of caucus-the Hon. Member for La Prairie is a very reliable source-why did the Government not listen to the advice by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration? Why did it take almost three years to come forward with this piece of legislation?
Finally, we are facing this notion that we must move very quickly. The Government could have saved itself days of debate. It could have saved itself these exchanges, which I hope eventually will make some impact. On this side of the House we have repeatedly brought to the attention of the Government the flaws of this Bill and the importance of this Bill being written in such a manner that it will not be challenged in our own courts because it infringes on the Charter. That business concerns everybody. It is a very important matter. It is also important that we ensure that Bill C-55 take into account the important principle that we want to make it possible for asylum seekers in need of protection to be able to apply in this country. It has been done in the past. We are willing to support the changes that are within these basic principles. We know that it can be done, and we insist that the Government introduce the essential amendments in order to make it a viable piece of legislation that can be supported by all Canadians.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, when reflecting upon what has been occurring in the House over the last few days, there are many, including myself, who are puzzled by the events which have transpired over that period of time in view of the history of the matter that we are deliberating.
Immigration Act, 1976
It is perfectly clear that there has been a great deal of concern in the country that our refugee determination process was open to abuse and subjected to abuse. There have been a variety of reports on the issue going back three years. We have had the Plaut report, the Robinson report, and two reports of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, all of which addressed the issue within the context that the refugee determination process as it exists now has been dragged out for so long that that in itself invites abuse.
There has been within Canada not only a clear consensus that the problem exists, but a clear consensus about the cause of the problem and the solution. This has been going on for quite some time, and it went on without any action by the Government until late spring.
With a history of inaction, we are suddenly brought back to the House of Commons on an emergency basis to deal urgently with an issue, the solution to which was clear and has been clear to everybody for a long time. Therefore one would have thought that in a matter of this sort, involving as it does extremely important human and humanitarian issues, the House of Commons, this Parliament, with the co-operation of all sides could have been able to act on a consensus about the solution to the problem we are here to address.
This raises questions. In view of this consensus and the identification of the problem and the solution, what has been the behaviour upon getting back here? The Government introduced Bill C-55. It also introduced Bill C-84. If one looks at what has happened here and tries to measure what the Government and Members on the government side have been involved in, one has to be deeply suspicious about the fact that we were called back here in the middle of summer to address a matter which could have been addressed a long time ago. When one listens to the rhetoric, one is really inclined to identify something on the government side other than a pure determination to address the problem which all Canadians have identified.
We have heard screams and complaints of queue jumping. We have heard allegations of reverse racism. We have heard intimations that we who have questions about the particular legislation before us are accusing the Government of racism in questioning it.
Let me just give an example. The Hon. Member from a riding with an extremely long name, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: It is a nice name.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is a beautiful name, but it is excessive in its verbiage. Just the other day we heard him say that the Leader of the New Democratic Party had reflected upon a previous incident involving Sikhs landing on Canadian shores, and the Hon. Member, having identified within that elements

August 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
of racism, documented by all historians since that time, was accusing the Government of racism because this Bill and Bill C-84 were somehow related in a racist way to the landing of the Sikhs in Nova Scotia.
Those of us who understand the battle against discrimination and the expression of racism understand that in the absence of specified and regularized procedures with clear guidelines and opportunities for appeal, all of which elements are absent from Bill C-55, a situation is created in which individuals have an opportunity to express personal views and attitudes that could be prevented by appropriate provisions in the legislation. That is in no way to be interpreted-and I would say it would require a deliberate interpretation to see it in any other context-in a malevolent way.
Let me make a plea. The Government has submitted Bill C-55 as its solution. It is contrary in significant elements-in respect of the screening process, in respect of the concept of a safe third country, in respect of the inadequacies of its appeals and in other respects it is deficient as compared with other propositions which have been advanced. We know that the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association-a whole host of organizations interested in the refugee determination process; respectable, thoughtful, concerned Canadians represented by a variety of organizations-see the Bill as defective in significant respects.
If one looks at the suggestion of the Canadian Council of Churches, which is identical in significant elements to the proposition advanced by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, one sees that it makes it possible for everyone who would claim refugee status to have access to the determination process. It meets the requirement for appeal, eliminates the notion of a third safe country, and provides at the same time that the whole process will be over in a matter of months. Indeed, it can be argued that the Government's proposition would be more time consuming in its implementation.
My plea is a simple one. Let us recognize that there is a consensus within the House on the need for a rapid and fair determination process which will eliminate abuse. Let us set to work constructively in committee to consider amendments which will strengthen the legislation. Let us do this as parliamentarians, let us do this as Members of this noble House, and let us do this as Canadians concerned as much with abuse as we are with fairness and humanitarianism.
This should not be too much to ask. Commensurate with that proposition, I would seek from the Government an undertaking that it will not eliminate from its appointees to the legislative committee, if that be the case, those people who have not adhered to the rigid line of opportunism which the Government has struck. Bring back the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). Bring back those others who have given careful consideration to the issue. Let them join with us in constructing legislation which will be universally accepted
by Canadians, which will meet the issue of abuse, which will ensure the fairness that the vast majority of those not given to excessive rhetoric would support.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in respect of Bill C-55 which deals with amendments to the refugee determination process.
I appreciate the opportunity because I, like most Members of Parliament-and in fact I suspect that it would be all Members of Parliament-have spent this summer being deluged by telephone calls, by letters, and by personal visits from constituents in connection with the arrival on July 12 of some 173 men and one woman on the shores of Nova Scotia. The message I got, as I am sure all Members of Parliament did, was that my constituents felt that these arrivals were queue jumpers and gate-crashers. They felt that they had butted into the line-up. Canadians have all at one time or another experienced being in a line-up and having someone try to get in in front of them. By and large, we do not like that sort of thing. There was a feeling that these people were butting into the line and that in that sense, they were illegal immigrants.
Another message came to me as well and that was a message of concern for the security of Canada. 1 suppose that was underlined by the Senate special committee report on terrorism which was released, interestingly enough, during this period of time. That report said that our present refugee process constituted a gaping hole in the security of Canada. It was that sort of thing that caused another outcry from my constituents.
I found it very interesting to note which constituents that message came from. The first group it came from was a delegation of the families of the survivors of the Air India crash. They expressed to me concern about the possibility of a gaping hole in our security system caused by the refugee process.
The second group that expressed concern to me came to me just as Parliament was recalled and I was on my way back to the House of Commons. This group was composed of representatives of the Sicilian community. In my constituency, there are about 10,000 Canadians who came originally from the Pachino area of Sicily. They too conveyed the message to me that they did not want potential terrorists getting into Canada through a leaky refugee determination process.
The message came to me as well just today when I received, as I am sure did other Members of the House of Commons, a letter from the President of the Hindu Federation of Canada. He as well expressed that same concern about the gaping hole the refugee determination process leaves in our security system. The message has come to me and to other Members of Parliament from many, many sources. We have heard not only about the need to do something about queue jumpers and gate-
August 18, 1987

crashers but also about the need for plugging the security holes in the process.
By and large, the people who communicated with me said that we should ship those who arrived illegally back immediately and if we are not going to ship them all back immediately, we should detain them and then ship them back. However, I got the sense, not only from the people who called me and came to visit me, but from the people in my constituency that there was another message there. That message was that we are prepared to see genuine refugees enter Canada, no question about that, but we do not want people using the process in order to butt in and get ahead of people who have been following the rules and waiting for years to enter the country legally as immigrants.
In my view, the reason that people decided there was a group of people trying to enter the country illegally revolved around the fact that every morning and every evening when they turned on their radios or television sets or when they picked up their newspapers, they were getting reports of people who had waded ashore not at a regular port of entry but at a fishing town on the coast of Nova Scotia. They were getting reports about people who did not present their passports when they came but ripped them up on the beach. They were getting reports about people who asked news reporters where they could catch the next bus to Toronto or Montreal. They were getting reports that alleged that some of them were saying that if they were ordered to kill, they would kill.
The people were not getting the other side of the story from the press or the media. They were not being told of the true meaning of refugee status. They were not being told of the distinction between a refugee and an immigrant. They were not getting the message that we were bound by the Geneva Convention, which we had signed as far back as 1969, to accept legitimate refugees and not to turn them away. They were not getting the message that in 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada had decided that anyone who is physically present in this country, whether here legally or illegally, is entitled to all the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those rights and freedoms, of course, include the right not to be held improperly and without just cause, the right to bail, the right to counsel, and the right to a fair oral hearing. All of those things flow automatically to those who are in Canada, legally or illegally, claiming refugee status.
I found it to be most unfortunate that the media and the press were telling only one side of the story. I do not want to say that that was universal, but by and large that was so. It is understandable, then, that after hearing only one side of the story, Canadians would get up in arms. It is understandable, after hearing only one side of the story, that they would not give us much time to try to explain the other side of the story to them. Indeed, it is not an easy story to explain. It is complex and involves many different steps. When one has made up one's mind in advance because of stories read in the newspaper or seen on television, it is very difficult to accept the comments
Food and Drug Regulations
of a Member of Parliament or a constituency assistant who is trying to tell the other side of the story.
That, of course, led to the Government introducing Bill C-84 and to the debate we are having today on Bill C-55. This whole process is designed to speed up the refugee determination system, which has resulted in a backlog of something like 20,000 cases. In speeding up that process, the whole idea with which everyone agrees, whether in Opposition or Government, is to reduce the amount of time people who are not legitimate refugees are in the country and, by reducing that amount of time and sending them back when it is decided that they are not legitimate refugees, to discourage others from coming. The idea is to set up a system that is fair and equitable.
In order to set up such a system, the Government introduced in February of 1987 some control measures. Those control measures were introduced at a time when the flow of refugees was about 1,200 a week. Those control measures cut that flow down to about 500 a week, and this legislation has now tried to put in place something that will replace those temporary measures with a fair system with which Canadians will agree, a system that will allow legitimate refugees to enter the country but at the same time discourage queue jumpers from entering Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS SUGGESTED DRUG CONTENT LABELLING
Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Food and Drug Regulations in order to require the labelling of all drugs, irrespective of their intended use, in a manner that would include a quantitative list of all medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my main purpose in presenting this motion to the House for debate is to gain the support of my colleagues, and alert them to the difficulties faced by many Canadians, young and old, who take prescription and nonprescription medication without knowing its complete contents. This is a very serious matter for a person with a known allergy to or low tolerance for a certain substance. In some cases people wish to avoid a substance because they know it causes them to suffer adverse reactions. In other cases, people have experienced an adverse or allergic reaction and a list of ingredients on the product label will establish which substance caused the reaction. That way the substance in question can be

August 18, 1987
Food and Drug Regulations
avoided in the future. By labelling all ingredients in drugs a person can determine which product contains the offensive substance and can avoid that product. I consider this to be basic information.
The arguments are probably similar in some ways to the debate which took place when the Government introduced a similar requirement for foods in 1976. Many of the arguments faced by the Government in opposition to that labelling apply to my motion as well. Some of the fears were that labelling would reveal a company's secret recipes to the competition. Consumers would not utilize the labels because they would not bother to read them or, if they did, they would not understand the terms. As well, it would be costly and difficult to list ingredients on food packages. None of that happened. In fact, the consumer has greatly benefited from the introduction of food labelling legislation.
In linking food labelling to my motion I wish to point out that the April 27 issue of Maclean's magazine featured a cover story entitled "Food That Can Kill". It is evident that many of the arguments put forward in the debate over food additives also apply to my motion. The article indicated that sometime in late 1964 breweries in Quebec began putting increased amounts of a chemical called cobalt sulphate into beer. It had been used for several years to make the foam on a glass of beer last longer. However, during the next six months 48 beer drinkers in Quebec became ill and 20 died. It was the most dramatic episode in Canada so far in what has become a worldwide debate over the safety of chemical additives. We do not want anyone to have to die before making mandatory the labelling of all ingredients in drugs.
The article went on to say that individually additives may be okay, but taken together with other chemical or nutritive factors they may cause adverse reactions. It said that scientists cannot be sure that all food additives are safe because not enough is known about how they react in the body with chemicals, pesticides and insecticide residues, prescription drugs, cosmetics and other foods. I firmly believe the Canadian consumer has the right to know what a drug product contains, be it prescription or non-prescription, when they buy it or use it. This applies to all drug products which are taken internally.
A drug is not dangerous on the store or pharmacy shelf but it can be potentially dangerous when taken by a person who cannot tolerate certain substances. Studies have shown that people do read labels in order to avoid undesirable components in products. People do experience serious side effects and severe allergic reactions. Some such adverse effects could have been avoided had the person had the opportunity to read the label on the medication and find a pharmaceutical product without the agent they need to avoid.
I must pause here and give credit to the key organization responsible for my presentation of this motion for debate. The Allergy Information Association made available to me extensive material and documentation on reactions to various
substances. Normally 1 would not actively call attention to an organization. However, in this instance I believe it is important for me to set out in Hansard the address of this organization so that many people who suffer from various allergies or low tolerances to certain substances can contact the association for assistance and support. The Allergy Information Association is located at 25 Poynter Drive, Suite 7, Weston, Ontario, M9R 1 K8, telephone (416) 244-8585. I do not want this to sound like a commercial but I believe many Canadians will appreciate knowing of this association if they have or suffer from allergic reactions.
In giving credit to the A1A I should also point out that this motion touches me closely personally. As many of my colleagues know, I am the father of young twins. Unfortunately they suffer from many allergies to various substances. My wife and I have spent many restless days and nights trying various prescription medications to determine those which the children could tolerate and those to which they had a reaction. If the information was readily available, it could have saved us a lot of suffering. My son is also asthmatic, which further complicates the use of medication.
I would also like to give a great deal of credit to Dr. Ed Napke, chief of the Product Related Disease Division, Bureau of Epidemiology, Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Dr. Napke provided a great deal of information in preparation for today. He has been working in this field for 20 years and 1 consider his expertise and knowledge of great benefit in addressing this issue. I would particularly like to use a quotation of his which is:
Man is a walking test-tube. Each time a chemical is added or subtracted the
balance may be upset.
This statement seems to validate beyond question my argument for the passage of this motion.
1 should start with a simple definition of a drug. A drug is any substance of therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic indication, including medical devices and objects such as an IUCD. An adverse reaction is any action which is not of therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic benefit to the patient. I must also define the term "excipient". Medications are composed of two types of ingredients, usually termed the active and non-active. The active ingredients are, for therapeutic purposes, the raison d'etre of the drug. The inactive ingredients are more properly called excipients. They are those things used as coaters, binders, fillers, colourings and flavourings. They were originally termed inactive because they were considered inert, not adding to or affecting the intended action of the active ingredient.
The actual incidence of adverse drug reactions in the general population is not known. The incidence in the institutionalized population has been obtained from surveys of hospitalized patients where the prevalence ranges from 6 per cent to 15 per cent. In addition, 3 per cent of admissions to acute care hospitals are attributed to adverse drug reactions. Fatal drug reactions are, thankfully, quite rare.
August 18, 1987

I would have liked nothing better than to come to this House this afternoon prepared with specific numbers of Canadians who have suffered or been treated for an adverse reaction to either a prescribed or non-prescribed drug. I would like to have come prepared with exact cost figures indicating the amount of money adverse drug reactions cost the Canadian taxpayer each year. These figures would have made the Government and my colleagues realize the seriousness of this motion. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to obtain such data.
It is indeed sad that adverse drug reactions are not well identified and, when they are, are not well reported or analysed as to their bases. While I give credit to the federal Government in studying the various aspects of adverse reactions through the adverse reaction program of the Health Protection Branch, it is more and more evident that more needs to be done. The incidence of drug adverse reactions in hospital patients varies, according to the intensity of monitoring, from a low of 5 per cent to a high of 35 per cent. As many as 5 per cent of monitored patients may suffer from drug adverse reactions, or DAR, on admission to hospital, while more than 3.5 per cent of in-hospital deaths have been drug attributed. Those figure were taken from an article published more than 10 years ago. It is highly possible that the number is higher now because our society seems to be using more and more drugs.
In recent years it has been established that at least some adverse drug reactions are caused by the excipient rather than the therapeutic ingredient. Therefore it is important that the Government take action to require the labelling of all drugs which would include a quantitative list of all medical and nonmedical ingredients. In other words, the label would contain both the active and excipient ingredients.
1 can quote specific medical cases here but it would prove pointless unless everyone listening had a medical background. 1 see one or two doctors, but they are in the minority.


John Horton McDermid: But they add a lot of class to the place.


Murray Dorin: The onus seems to be on persons suffering the allergy, reaction or low tolerance to a substance to determine which products they can and cannot consume. The labelling of food has made this easier and much safer. The labelling of all drugs will have the same impact. It will make the choice easier and safer for the consumer and patient.
To bring this debate to a non-medical level let me say that colouring agents are probably the best studied and most common causes of adverse reactions in excipients. As well, one of the most common food allergens is milk. Many people, including one of my twins during the early stages, suffered from a lactose intolerance. Corn is also a common element causing an allergic reaction. Both these substances are often used as fillers in various medications.
Food and Drug Regulations
Many pharmaceutical products contain the gluten of wheat, usually as an inert excipient in capsules, tablets and suspensions. 1 am listing here but a few of the more well known substances which cause reactions in many Canadians. There are many others used in many products, but their names may not be so familiar.
Polyethylene glycol is used in many drugs and in products such as shaving lotions and milk shakes. Alcohols in pharmaceuticals are inappropriate for patients such as children and alcoholics. Alcohol is known to produce a synergistic effect with other medication. Therefore, an alcohol-containing medication should not be taken in conjunction with a medication which interacts with alcohol. Since the content of alcohol in medications is unknown, adverse reactions and lack of therapeutic benefit can result.
Celiac disease is a condition whereby wheat, rye, barley and oats and their products cannot be tolerated by the body. As drugs have fillers, it is important to know what the drug contains on the outside as a coating as well as in the inside as medication. I am fortunate enough to have become aware of this disease through the Edmonton Celiac Association.
The public is now aware of the fatal association of aspirin- acetylsalicylic acid-and Reye's syndrome. The public is probably not aware that many medications contain acetylsalicylic acid as an ingredient.
Many drug products have propylene glycol as their solvents. How many other "active ingredients" are stigmatized as causing or being associated with hypertension, cardiovascular collapse or even sudden, unexplained fatal reactions? The list is unknown since far too often the full formulation of the product is unknown except to the individual manufacturer and a few governmental drug agencies.
Similarly, metabisulphite, a common preservative in Canada in food, drink and drugs, has been found to cause acute asthmatic attacks in chronic asthmatics. More recently this preservative, used in certain intravenous products, has caused respiratory arrest in patients. Presently, inasmuch as these compounds are classified as "inactive", manufacturers are not required to list them on the product label. This makes it virtually impossible for a person to know whether he will have a reaction to a certain medication even if that person knows he or she has a low tolerance level or allergic reaction to a specific substance.
Information concerning the occurrence of these common additives in medications is virtually impossible to obtain. Specifications of dyes, preservatives, fillers, binders, lubricants, glidants, disintegrants, coatings, flavourings and sweeteners, is lacking. The care of patients sensitive to excipients is far more difficult without information on these additives.
The excipients and additives in drug formulations have been described as inert because they do not have an active role in the prevention or treatment of particular ailments. This has led

August 18, 1987
Food and Drug Regulations
to the misconception among physicians, pharmacists, drug manufacturers and the public that they are harmless and unworthy of mention. In fact, pharmacists are allowed to substitute drug formulations without regard to the excipients as long as they ensure that the active ingredients in the substitutions are the same as those in the formulation prescribed.
The Canadian public deserves to be better protected. The United States has legislation requiring complete labelling of some food, drugs and cosmetics that incorporate more than one ingredient no matter how innocuous the constituents are believed to be. 1 refer not to voting constituents this time, Mr. Speaker.
In Canada drug manufacturers are not even required to share this information with physicians or pharmacists when they introduce a new drug or reformulate a product already being marketed. Nor are pharmacists required to disclose the contents of formulations which they prepare in the absence of commercially available products.
The third stream of activity that has contributed to physicians and the paramedical professions not knowing or being aware of the product formulations is industry. Industry in the past has refused to reveal its formulations and know-how to the professions for a very good reason, namely, rivalry in business. However, with modern techniques most trade secrets can soon be unravelled whilst others can be patented. Therefore, the complete formulation should be made known to the health professionals and the general public.
In fact, the Government's Bill C-22 will provide much greater patent protection for the pharmaceutical industry and, unknowingly, the Bill actually strengthens the argument for my motion.
At one time the pharmacist and the physician did know what the excipients were in a product. There once was a time when pharmacists compounded the product and could, with some reasonable assurance, tell physicians what their patients received chemically as far as that product was concerned. Today that is not the case.
The modern pharmacist, for all his declared interest in becoming a drug information expert, often has very little knowledge, or none, of the excipients, colouring matter, particle size, et cetera, which make up a particular drug product. How can he? Sometimes even the manufacturer does not know for the manufacturer may be using a colorant or other additive which was purchased under trade name from another firm. This makes a very strong case indeed in support of the labelling of all ingredients for drugs.
One very important point in this debate-perhaps the most important factor over-all-is that the patient is at multiple risk. He suffers an ill effect, an "active" ingredient is consequently denied him and, on the other hand, a non-active ingredient which is the unsuspected culprit may show up again in the next medication he receives and produce the same
unwanted reaction once more. It is conceivable that the patient might be denied proper treatment because of his reactions to unknown ingredients.
The key element in this entire speech is that it is impossible to trace or test for allergic reactions or to treat for allergy without a complete list of excipients. The medical profession cannot treat a patient when they do not know what substances compose a drug and they cannot determine an allergic reaction to a product when they do not know what the product contains.
During the month of June there was a great deal of debate in this House on the issue of unborn foetuses. In this regard it is important to note that the developing foetus or neonatal individual is particularly susceptible to the toxic effects of drugs and other chemicals. The foetus is the unwilling recipient of whatever the mother ingests, inhales or applies to the skin.
More recent studies have confirmed a continuing high drug use during pregnancy. One study reported that women took an average of 15.6 drugs during the course of their pregnancies. This figure represents 6.4 prescription drugs and 3.2 over the counter medications during the pregnancy and six additional drugs during labour and delivery. Despite public awareness of the tragedies associated with drugs such as thalidomide and alcohol, the publicity warning pregnant women to avoid the unnecessary use of drugs during pregnancy has been ineffective.
In closing, I should note that for the manufacture of a new drug identification number Canadian drug regulations require that all submissions contain a quantitative list of ingredients including colouring agents. Although such information is regarded as confidential, the Health Protection Branch has been instrumental in bringing the consumer, physician and manufacturer together in difficult cases. This work by the HPB is to be commended but it certainly does not go far enough.
1 am certain every Member in this House has many constituents who suffer from allergies, whether to certain drugs or certain foods. This motion, while directly benefiting a minority in Canada, will indirectly benefit each and every Canadian by enabling the consumer to make the best choice with the greatest amount of relevant information. I urge all Members of this House to support the motion.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) for his proposal. In view of his eloquent and positive presentation and explanation of the matter, technically and otherwise, I think that any Member should support such an initiative, unless there is contrary evidence from the so-called experts. No only has the Hon. Member proved the importance of information brought forward by the Allergy Information Association, but he also quoted from personal experiences, personal cases.
August 18, 1987

I believe that often it is that kind of specific initiative that forces Governments, of whatever political stripe, to change something.
Unfortunately, it is too often left to some abstract individuals to develop policies, from some building in Ottawa or Hull, on the sixth floor, and often those people do not have specific field experience or are not aware of the impact.
First, 1 think it would be important to explain the thrust of the motion: it would urge the Government to bring in amendments such that each drug is labelled with a list of all ingredients. Currently medicinal ingredients are listed, but all the non-medicinal ingredients in that drug should be listed so as to inform people of the impact the drug they are taking could have on someone suffering from allergies.
On the other hand, as I told the Hon. Member earlier when he enumerated a series of learned terms only used by doctors because of their training and written on the labels of drug containers and boxes, the vocabulary used by doctors is of no help to the layman.
I therefore believe that the Hon. Member should ask that the labels for every drug include directions for use not only in technical or medical terms, but also in terms that can be understood by the public.
I believe that we should take this opportunity to ensure that all information given on pharmaceutical or food products, and this include dosage, directions for use and ingredients, be printed in large readable characters. There are thousands of senior citizens in Canada who have to take medication because of age or illness, but unfortunately, to save money, the drug companies write the directions for use in virtually unreadable print.
1 am in full agreement with the motion of the Hon. Member. If we do not force companies to make their directions easy to read, we shall not meet our objective. I believe however that we should add to the motion that directions for use should be written not only in understandable terms, but also in easy to read characters.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that this motion will receive the support of all Members of this House and that it will be agreed to as quickly as possible because, as the Hon. Member has shown, some companies are saying that they are against such an amendment as their formula could then be copied by competitors. We know what it means when people are afraid of being copied! Others say that it would be too costly. I find this unacceptable.
The first duty of Parliament must be to protect the life, health and welfare of the public. We can think about the cost later. These companies are making a lot of money. It is unacceptable that we, Members of the House of Commons, whatever our political stripe, should give in to blackmail for monetary reasons.
Food and Drug Regulations
I somebody needs a drug, it is a matter of life and death. A healthy person does not need any drugs. But when someone has to take a drug, it is important to make sure that that drug will improve his or her health, and that it will contribute to cure the disease or ease the pain related to it, but without having adverse effects on people who suffer from allergies.
I will conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that the debate will not last very long if we all agree, given that the Conservative Member . . . until we have proof to the contrary, I believe that the New Democrats will also be in agreement. On this side, we feel it is useless to go on with this debate and 1 am prepared to pass this motion right away. Let us act. 1 congragulate once more the Hon. Member. If his motion is passed rapidly and if we succeed in forcing those companies to change, we might save human lives and avoid many sufferings.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my loquacious Liberal colleague has intimated that perhaps it is unnecessary for a member of the New Democratic Party to speak because, of course, the NDP, being a Party that represents the enlightened average Canadian, would surely support a Bill of such eminent merit, as it is. It is a motion that is long past due.
The principle that the consumer should be made aware of the contents of what he or she purchases for consumption is an elementary principle that is particularly critical when it involves drugs and medicines.
The Member has suggested that inert ingredients be labelled. Before addressing that specific aspect of his proposition, perhaps he should also give attention to the fact that the consumer who goes to a drugstore to receive a prescription generally gets a little bottle with the date of the prescription, perhaps the contents, the frequency of intake, and perhaps even the size of the dose.
I would suggest that in addition to labelling and making available the inert contents of a drug or pharmaceutical, the time is long past due when a patient should know what the pharmacist and the doctor know, which is the specific characteristics of the drug in terms of its effectiveness, its appropriate dosage, its likely side effects; in terms of its potential toxicity, in terms of its incompatibility with other drugs that might be taken, and any other limitations on the use of a particular drug that would be of importance in protecting the health of an individual.
I hope that the Hon. Member, in considering the provision of the contents of a medicine with respect to excipients, would also address the need for the complete availability of all pertinent information with respect to a pharmaceutical. We know that the druggist gets the information from the original package and a great deal of information is available to the doctor. I believe it also ought to be available to patients.

August 18, 1987
Food and Drug Regulations
It is hard to imagine any drug that does not have some degree of toxicity, or limitations in terms of incompatibilities with other agents that might be consumed. It is rare to find an antibiotic or chemotherapeutic agent that does not have those limitations. Perhaps only penicillin can be classified as a commonly used drug that has no significant toxicity. But penicillin is a drug that suggests an element which is often not taken cognizance of in drugs as well as in agents. It is the idiosyncratic reaction of individuals to a variety of agencies. In other words, penicillin causes allergies, as people know.
As the Hon. Member has identified, there are a great many other ingredients that have nothing to do with the therapeutic properties of a drug but are included for a variety of reasons, such as colour, filler, binding agents, and to provide a pleasant taste.
These agents, if not identified, have the potential of causing the same kinds of effects in terms of drugs as the sulphates had with respect to food. Since the majority of us are not susceptible to these idiosyncratic reactions, too little attention has been paid to the potential danger that exists for a relative few. Because it is related to such a relative few, it should not at all be cause for lessening our concern. I was impressed by the reference made by the Hon. Member to his personal experiences and the experiences of his family with respect to a variety of substances. 1 would say to him that just over the last couple of weeks my family and I have become aware of allergic reactions which have caused a serious impediment to the activities of two of my children. The late recognition of these idiosyncrasies has caused my children considerable difficulty.
It is with congratulations and felicitations that I rise to support the Hon. Member in proposing this resolution. It is a resolution, as the previous speaker from the Liberal Party indicated, that all Members of this House, all three Parties, should be capable of supporting. The implementation of this legislation should be prepared as quickly as possible.
I will not prolong the debate so we may have an opportunity to vote positively on this motion. I would like to express my appreciation once more for having the opportunity to support this motion.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to deal with an issue which is amongst the priorities set by the Government of Canada in the field of health care. I am referring to the labelling of drugs and more precisely to the listing of the medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients they may contain.
In its 1986 publication entitled Achieving Health for all: a framework for Health Promotion, the Government of Canada identifies three areas which are poorly covered by existing
health policies and practices. The first one is prevention on which we should put greater emphasis. Various preventable diseases and injuries continue to jeopardize the health and quality of life of Canadians.
Even though most Canadians are unaffected, some nonmedicinal ingredients have been incriminated in benign or serious side effects, especially various forms of allergies.
Mr. Speaker, some non-medicinal ingredients may be used routinely in pharmaceutical products for safety reasons or for effectiveness. For example, an ingredient may be used to prevent tablets from crumbling or to maintain the sterility of a product. Others may promote the release of the active ingredient in the body after ingestion or help maintain the potency of that ingredient.
In general, non-medicinal ingredients have no detectable effect on the people taking the drug. However, in the last few years, health professionals and regulatory agencies have started to observe that some groups of Canadians show a degree of intolerance or allergy to certain ingredients.
Mr. Speaker, reports on such reactions show considerable variations. Among the most extreme I could mention a few cases of anaphylaxis, some of them followed by death. However, the responsible ingredient is seldom identified. Beside causing direct anaphylaxis, some non-medicinal ingredients have been reported to be the cause of strain-induced anaphylaxis.
Fatigue, nervousness and headaches are typical examples of symptoms related to reactions caused by non-medicinal ingredients ranking at the bottom of the scale with respect to health hazards.
A wide variety of chemical products used as non-medicinal ingredients in drugs are also added to some foods. When explaining the details of symptoms noticed in conjunction with some of these substances, I will be more specific about their more widespread use as food additives.
Sodium metabisulphite and similar compounds were often found in fruit juices, wine and beer; these substances were also sprayed on mushrooms, vegetables, potato chips and seafoods to maintain their flavour and preserve them longer. Being an oxidizing agent, bisulphite removes the oxygen required for bacterial growth and thus prevents deterioration. This is why sodium metabisulphite would also be sprayed on freshly-prepared salads in restaurants and on grocery stores fruits and vegetables stands to keep them fresh. It has been ascertained that swallowing metabisulphite may cause vomiting, skin rashes and, sometimes, congestive breath, high blood pressure and respiratory problems. However there is no explanation for the precise mechanism of reactions to metabisulphite.
It is known that monosodic glutamate, an additive often used with Chinese food, will cause wheezing respiration in some asthmatic patients. For other sensitive persons it will lead to numbness of the back of the neck, facial tension, thoracic pain and difficult breathing. Sensitive subjects showed
August 18, 1987

symptoms of the syndrome after ingesting up to three grams of MSG.
In one study, benzoates, butylated hydroxytoluene and butylated hydroxyanisole, were incriminated, respectively, in 11 and 1 5 per cent of chronic and recurrent skin rashes. These preservatives are often present in prepared foods, bread, powdered milk and potato flakes. It is hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the food we normally eat contains substances with such complicated names. The same preservatives are also found in fats, oil, margarine, mayonnaise, jam, chocolate, soft drinks and powdered beverage mixes. Although seldom causing gastro-intestinal symptoms, nitrates and nitrites have been blamed in cases of cyanosis in babies who were fed spinach.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the range of side effects is very extensive, even if only a small proportion of Canadians seem to have adverse reactions to some of these ingredients. Nor is there any doubt that some of these additives are widely used in our society and do not cause any obvious problems for most Canadians. Because of the wide variety of chemicals used in drugs available in Canada, it is impossible to eliminate completely non-medicinal ingredients from all products.
For instance, some non-medicinal ingredients are essential to prevent the growth of bacteria, fungi, and algae in medication. Granted, some Canadians may have adverse reactions associated with such substances. However, when a substitute non-medicinal ingredient cannot be found, we must not forget that various toxins released by bacteria, fungi and algae have been associated with serious intestinal, and sometimes even neurological, symptoms.
Sulphite is one of the remarquable non-medicinal ingredients which have been used in food and drugs. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that though it is impossible to eliminate it from all pharmaceutical products, its use in foods is not considered essential. Last October, the Government of Canada, therefore, limited the use of sulphites in fresh food, such as salad preparations in restaurants.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, since it is impossible to replace or eliminate all non-medicinal ingredients from all drugs, steps have been taken to protect Canadians from being uselessly exposed to non-medicinal ingredients to which they know they are sensitive or allergic. This is in fact an avoidable risk factor. In this connection, I have been advised that the Health Protection Branch has been concerned for a number of years by the presence of non-medicinal ingredients in drugs.
Approximately two years ago, associations of pharmaceutical manufacturers adopted voluntary guidelines concerning the disclosure of potentially dangerous non-medicinal ingredients. The manufacturers of prescription drugs have agreed to disclose the presence of those ingredients which had been clearly associated with symptoms of intolerance or allergy among certain patients. This disclosure has been made to the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association for inclusion in the descriptions of drugs which appear in the reference book
Food and Drug Regulations
entitled "Compendium of Pharmaceutical and Specialties". As to the makers of over-the-counter drugs, they have accepted to indicate the presence of non-medicinal ingredients on their labels.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these measures reflect both our concern for and our monitoring of the useless exposure of Canadian men and women to non-medicinal ingredients which their systems just cannot tolerate. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, these measures are only an example of the concerted commitment of the regulating agencies, the health professionals and drug manufacturers to enhancing prevention in health care.
[English\


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself somewhat uncomfortable this afternoon speaking to the motion of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin). I wish to give him a great deal of credit for the fact that he has brought this matter to the attention of the House and, more particularly, to the attention of the Government, although 1 have some fears that the Government is not as receptive to the idea as I might like to think it should be. I dare say that there are some problems that need to be worked out with respect to this matter.
1 wish to commend the Hon. Member since he has done an excellent job of presenting the problems that exist now for many people in the country who have cause to take a drug of some form and find that they have an idiosyncratic or an allergic reaction to it. I would have preferred, had I had any influence in the wording of the motion, to expand it since 1 continually come across products at my home that are bought from the drug store, the grocery store or the hardware store, be they liquids, solids or powders, which absolutely fail to mention on their labels what is in them. That is just as dangerous because if a child takes one of those products we have no way of knowing whether or not it is a dangerous product. There may be a warning printed on the product, for example, "Danger If Ingested", "Do Not Ingest" or "Keep Away From Children", but these warnings do not tell us what the actual ingredients are. That is the real hazard we should be addressing. The motion is extremely timely, but it needs to be expanded to other products which are not deemed to be drugs.
I was particularly interested in the personal references that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West made inasmuch as two of them struck a particular note with me in a personal manner as well. First, he mentioned his farpous twins. We certainly want to congratulate him on his young family by way of twins. I am interested in those twins, too, because I have heard about them and a bit about their problems since one of their babysitters is a girl who worked in my office here in Ottawa for several years. I know that she is very fond of those twins and is concerned about the problems they have by way of allergies.

August 18, 1987
Food and Drug Regulations
The Hon. Member referred to consultations that he has had with one of the officials in the Department who is in charge of the adverse reaction program, Dr. Ed Napke. Interestingly enough, Dr. Napke and I were class-mates at the University of Toronto Medical School a number of years ago. We have all enjoyed Dr. Napke's humour over the years and the very serious approach he takes to adverse drug reactions. I want to commend him for the work that he has done on behalf of the Department in this area. I think it likely that if we had a chance to talk to Dr. Napke further we would probably find that he is very sympathetic to many of the proposals included in the Hon. Member's motion.
I was also interested in the presentation made by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy). He and I have occasion to sit together on the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare. I have a great deal of respect for the contributions he makes to the deliberations of our committee. Today, for instance, he talked about the need for patients to have more information about drugs. To a large extent I think that he is right. On the other hand, as a practising physician, I would say that in the past I have never hesitated to provide a patient with the very kind of information he wants to have with respect to the adverse effects of a drug, what the synergistic effects may be with other drugs and so on. I think people are entitled to that information, although 1 have some reservation about providing it to every patient unless he or she particularly asks for it, because there are anxieties that can be produced in people if they read all the details about the adverse reports that have been documented on any given drug. However, 1 think the Hon. Member's contribution was very useful and I commend him for it.
Having said that, I am sure that there are some problems with the motion before the House. I wish to touch on those briefly. They are probably sufficient not to allow it to be passed today. I encourage the Hon. Member not to let this issue die. I think it is a very fundamental issue. He and the people who are interested in allergies with whom he has consulted have a valid concern.
I remind the Hon. Member and the House that there are other ways of pursuing this matter. In the Hon. Member's case we should undoubtedly see this issue brought before our caucus committee on health. There is no reason why the Hon. Member could not present this issue before those of us in our caucus who are interested in health care issues. There is no reason that he should not make representation to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare to ask it to consider discussing it at the level of the standing committee. Failing that, as a Member of Parliament he has a right to attend the meeting of the standing committee at which the Minister himself is present to answer for his Estimates. If I were the chairman of that committee I would want to see the Hon. Member recognized to have a chance to ask questions in this regard. I think that is a very legitimate use of the standing committee.
Having said that, there are some matters concerning this issue that are of concern to the Government. I suppose they should be put on the floor at this time. The disclosure of nonmedicinal ingredients is considered to be a solution to the problem. However, it should be interpreted in light of the full problem. The determination of which agent or agents which someone may be sensitive to is often an elusive process. This is particularly true for allergic reactions involving the gastrointestinal tract. This system, unlike other systems in the body, is relatively inaccessible as compared to organs such as the skin and it is therefore hard to see reactions. Thus, a patient's symptoms of intolerance may be heightened or modified by reactions to other substances to which concurrent exposure has occurred. These substances may be airborne, ingested or have come into contact with a patient's skin. In fact, all three modes of contact may occur simultaneously.
The whole issue of the diagnosis of what is an allergic reaction and what the allergen or cause of it may be, also is compounded or confounded, one might use either word, by the placebo effect. I wish to touch upon that for a moment.
This well documented syndrome revolves around the erroneous attribution of symptoms to some particular chemical food or circumstance of events. In this case, the presumed cause is incorrect and cannot be scientifically demonstrated to have an effect. This agent is termed a placebo. To appreciate fully the magnitude of the placebo effect, and, therefore, the gravity of its implications, I wish to summarize briefly the scope of the scientifically documented medical effects of placebos.
Almost any type of pain may respond to placebos: pain after surgery, pain during and after childbirth, dental pain, and the distress of cancer. In the treatment of 150 patients with headaches caused by tension, the common cold, sinusitis, premenstrual tension, and eye strain, one investigator found that placebos relieved pain completely in 43 per cent of cases, and partially in another 31 per cent. Others have come to similar conclusions. Cough, insomnia, seasickness, chronic bronchitis, and the common cold may all yield to the placebo. Patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvement. In some studies stomach ulcers, stomach irritation, and heartburn have shown amelioration after placebo administration in 92 per cent of patients. This showing was so impressive that certain gastroenterologists have speculated on whether most of the hundreds of older "treatments" for ulcers were not primarily placebo remedies.
Other aspects of body function such as blood pressure and sputum production, have also displayed a change due to a placebo. In the classic Cornell studies on one subject who had a serious stomach problem, placebos and manipulation of psychological beliefs produced impressive changes in the appearance and motility of the stomach lining, and in the secretion of gastric juice. The same investigators were able to prevent vomiting from an emetic in a pregnant woman by
August 18, 1987

assuring her that this nauseating drug would actually relieve the excess vomiting from which she suffered.
In Boston, dental student volunteers produced increased amounts of saliva when they were given water that was suggested to be sour, and they showed a decrease in flow when citric acid was given with the suggestion that it was tasteless.
To the great surprise of two researchers in Surrey, England, the incontinence of "deteriorated" psychotic patients changed dramatically for the better when the patients were given sugar pills three times a day. Similar results were observed in a study in Maryland of schizophrenic and senile patients.
I would add my own anecdotal observation as a physician, in my early days when we dispensed drugs from our own office, people with certain types of pain would tell us that the aspirin they had taken had no effect at all. We would give them a brown coloured aspirin and they might find complete relief or they may have taken a pink aspirin and received no relief at all. This placebo effect is very important when one is trying to assess the effect of drugs on patients. It is very readily demonstrable.
On the other hand, the placebo also has the capacity for producing many types of adverse effects. While most side effects after a placebo are hard to measure, such as nausea, thirst, headache, dizziness, sleepiness, insomnia, fatigue, depression, numbness, difficulty in concentrating, hallucinations, feelings of cold or warmth, itching, and the like, some side effects are of the kind that are verifiable by the observer. These include vomiting, tremor, fast heart beat, diarrhea, changes in blood pressure, pallor, skin rashes of alarming severity, hives, unsteadiness of gait, and swelling.
Two prominent researchers described three major reactions to placebos in 31 patients engaged in a clinical trial. One had sudden, overwhelming weakness, palpitation, and nausea within 15 minutes of taking a placebo. A second patient developed a diffuse, itchy red rash which was diagnosed by a dermatologist as a typical dermatitis from drugs. The third patient had repeated reactions within 10 minutes of taking the pills that included abdominal pain, watery diarrhea, skin rashes, and swelling of the lips.
In another study a patient who had travelled to Miami on holiday called his physician to complain that his medicine had so weakened him as to cause a near drowning accident in the surf. A hasty check of the records showed that the patient was taking a placebo.
One could go on and give further evidence of the peculiar effects of placebos, and the involvement that this strange phenomenon has on the whole taking of drugs. I can appreciate why some of our officials in the Government are loath, at this time, to see a full blown acceptance of the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.
In closing, I would certainly encourage him not to put this to rest and to make sure that he comes back with this motion again, either to committee or to the House. I compliment him
Food and Drug Regulations
for the effort that he has put into his presentation to the House today.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, first,
I wish to congratulate my colleague for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) on his motion.
Mr. Speaker, the presence of non-medicinal ingredients in drugs is always a source of concern for the Canadian Government.
It is quite usual for non-medicinal ingredients to be added in various concentrations to pharmaceutical products sold on the market to increase their safety and effectiveness. Some of these non-medicinal ingredients keep the drug active while others delay micro-biological contamination. Many of these drugs are sold in Canada, each with its own physical and chemical properties which must be taken into account in determining the dosage appropriate to the patient and his state of health.
While most of these non-medicinal ingredients can be consumed without apparent ill effect by most patients under treatment, a limited number of them have been associated with adverse side effects. The ingredients most often mentioned in such cases include sulfites, tartrazines, parabens, gluten, sugars and alcohols. For technical reasons, it is impossible to eliminate consistently all these ingredients from all drugs. Indeed, in some cases, their absence could reduce the availability of the drugs themselves.
Mr. Speaker, although a policy aimed at eliminating these non-medicinal products from all Canadian-made drugs cannot possibly protect sub-groups of Canadians against all risks of undesirable secondary effects, we must not forget that the Department of National Health and Welfare's Health Protection Branch requires that all pharmaceutical products be tested before they are marketed in this country, and that drugs so tested must contain all non-medicinal ingredients that will be added to the product sold to the public.
Checking the acceptability of a new drug makes it possible to control the harmlessness and efficiency of any non-medicinal ingredients it may include. In addition, about two years ago the associations of drug manufacturers voluntarily decided to establish guidelines concerning the disclosure of nonmedicinal ingredients. Manufacturers of prescription drugs agreed to make public the non-medicinal ingredients most commonly associated with reactions of intolerance, and they conveyed this information to the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association. For their part, manufacturers of unrestricted drugs agreed to list on labels all non-medicinal ingredients contained in their products.
There is no doubt that health professionals, drug manufacturers and regulating agencies in this sector in Canada have combined their efforts in the interest of our population.

August 18, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to commend all parties involved in this endeavour. The tables prepared by the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association are a telling example of the role which professional associations have voluntarily agreed to play. One of the first priorities of our health care system is to make Canadians increasingly aware of the various types of illnesses and injuries they might be able to avoid. Prevention means that such factors as may lead to an undesirable condition must first be identified, and then reduced or eliminated. In this context, Mr. Speaker, the spirit of co-operation which has been the hallmark of Canada's intervention with respect to non-medicinal ingredients attests to our commitment to lay even more emphasis on prevention within our health care system.
[English)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on May 14 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), in a communique related to changes to be made in the Indian post-secondary education program, made the following statement:
Education and training are important tools in today's technological society. They are even more important for Indian people in the process of developing self-government and economic self-reliance.
1 agree entirely with what the Minister said in that communique. In another interesting document entitled "A Framework for Diversification in Western Canada" we read the following on page 9:
Over time the greatest returns to Canada will result from an investment in our people. Education and training, while broadly a provincial responsibility, is of special interest to the federal Government both with respect to highly qualified workers and to native people. The federal Government is anxious to see this nation's current performance improved in these areas.
The Indian post-secondary education program has been a huge success. It certainly is the avenue which leads Indian and Inuit people from social assistance to economic independence, from welfare to personal well-being, self-respect, and selfsufficiency.
That being so, I would ask the House why there is such a schizophrenic response to the delivery of these valuable programs. I want the House and the country to know that there has been a severe capping of one of the most successful and one of the most important federal government programs in existence.
I also want the House to know what is the Minister's case. The Minister's case is that the participation rate of this program has grown. Ten years ago there were 3,500 eligible students in this Indian post-secondary education program, and today there are 12,000. The costs have grown from $8 million to S93.7 million. That is the beginning and that is the end of the Minister's case.
I want to tell the House that that is no case at all, because it does not say anything about inflation over those years. It does not say anything about the growing demand which must be met for reasons the Minister himself has given. It does not say anything at all about the fact that Indian and Inuit people are rapidly taking control over their own lives.
In that same communique the Minister said that education and training remained a priority for him. At the same time, applications for assistance under this program are to be considered on a very strict priority basis.
I cannot take the time of the House to go through all the priorities, but I want the House to know that out of the five categories described by the Minister, only categories one and two-that is, Indian and Inuit students who were enrolled in 1986-87 and are continuing on in 1987-88, and students whose applications for assistance were deferred in 1986-87-will be funded out of this allocation advanced by the Minister and approved by Parliament.
Who will be left out? Eligible high school graduates are to be left out. Mature students who are enrolling in postsecondary education for the first time are to be left out. Would you believe it, sir, that students enrolling in programs for the LL B, the law degree, for the MD, the medical degree, or for the bachelor of education degree are to be left out? If along the way one of these students in any program has dropped out and wants to return, he will have no chance at all of getting back. Those are the priorities. This means that a large number of students will be turned away.
Let me quote from the Debates of the other place. Senator Len Marchand, himself an Indian person, has said the following:
In my home band alone, which consists of 900 to 1,000 members, there are 26 students who will not receive funding for post-secondary education this fall.
From talking with members of other bands around the country, I have learned that there are literally going to be hundreds, or a few thousand, of students who will not be able to pursue post-secondary education this fall. I call this a disastrous policy.
I just learned that a very fine cultural college in Hobbema, Alberta, the Maskwachees Cultural College, has already in the
August 18, 1987

month of August had to turn down 31 applications for this program.
At this very moment, on the Alexander Reserve in Alberta, an emergency meeting is being held, attended by grassroots educational leaders who are members of the Indian community or serve the Indian community. They call the current situation a crisis. It is a crisis because we know that there is a clear link between education and future employment and economic development. There is a clear link between education and aboriginal self-government.
The Government talks about economic development, believing that it is the most important route for Indian people. It talks about Indian self-government. It uses the terminology and the phraseology. I want to tell the House and the country, however, that the Government uses all the right words, but it denies the substance thereof. I call upon the Minister to take dramatic action to show that his priorities are real and that education for Indian and Inuit students will not be denied but that this program will be met to the fullest possible extent.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the Minister to respond to my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). He has raised an interesting question. It is certainly the case that the Indian post-secondary education assistance program established by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is unique.
As the Hon. Member indicated, the budget for the program has grown substantially, from $8 million a decade ago to $93.7 million in 1987-88. Over the same period, the number of fulltime equivalent students has increased from roughly 3,500 to approximately 12,000.
I would like to highlight the major provisions of this program which has the goal of enabling Indian access to postsecondary education. Full-time students can receive financial assistance for undergraduate, masters and doctoral programs, community college diplomas and college-entrance preparation courses. The costs of tuition, books, supplies and transportation for students and dependents is covered, together with living allowances of from $120 to $184 a week, shelter and child care allowances and a special incentive for graduate students. The funding is provided as a grant; there is no loan component nor is there a means test.
This year's increased budget will mean that most of the students applying for assistance will receive it. A priority system ensures fairness and consistency in approving applications. Students who are continuing their post-secondary education programs must have first draw on the budget. This includes students who were enrolled in undergraduate programs last year and who will be enrolling in graduate programs or professional degree programs in 1987-88. Next are those who were deferred last year for lack of funds.
Adjournment Debate
In order to provide additional access to post-secondary studies, the Department's next priorities are new undergraduate and college entrants and college preparation students. Students who are beginning post-graduate studies or studies toward a second professional degree and who were not enrolled in post-secondary studies last year have been given a lower priority.
To assist individuals in achieving their personal career potential and strengthen the process of self-government and devolution of programs to bands, we must provide the opportunity within government resources for post-secondary education. The Department is now reviewing other options for student assistance and special post-secondary programs and will be discussing these with Indian leaders in the months ahead.


EXTERNAL. AFFAIRS-NICARAGUA-REPORTED BANNING OF CONSERVATIVE PARTY-ACCESS TO POLITICAL PRISONERS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on June 5 I rose in this House to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) regarding a situation in Nicaragua that was of great concern to me. Two months previously I, as chairman of the Canadian section of the IPU, along with others, visited Nicaragua. I had looked forward with some anticipation to determining the level of pluralism in that country. President Ortega assured us that pluralism was alive and well. However, there were a number of signs in that country at that time which indicated that was not true at all.
When we got back in June, we heard that the chairman of the Conservative Party had been put under house arrest and subsequently released, but that his Party had been banned.
Since that time we have seen some very promising developments in Central America. The recent proposal to bring about peace in that troubled part of the world seems to be gathering momentum. The President of the United States has made a proposal as well and has looked with some favour at least on the other proposal. I hope, and I think all Members of the House will agree, that these negotiations will bear fruit and that there will be genuine, lasting, and total peace in that part of the world.
The key to peace and stability in that part of the world, however, rests on one ingredient, and that is the willingness to provide verification. Among the people and groups in those lands the level of distrust is so high that you cannot restore confidence unless there is verification. You will recall, sir, that the Government of Nicaragua, the Sandinista Government, celebrated the inauguration of its Constitution last January. The next day it withdrew that Constitution and declared a state of emergency. It in fact withdrew all of the major provisions for civil and human rights in that country.

August 18, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I have with me a copy of that Constitution provided to me by the embassy here and I note Article 185:
The President of the Republic may suspend, within part or all of the
national territory, the rights and guarantees consecrated in this Constitution in
case of war or when demanded by national security, economic conditions or a
national catastrophe.
It goes on in the next article to indicate certain sections of the Constitution which cannot be suspended. For example, Article 33(2.1), which says that you cannot arbitrarily be detained or imprisoned. However, Article 33(2.2) can be suspended and that article says:
To be brought before a competent legal authority within 72 hours.
That is, every citizen of Nicaragua has the right to be brought before a judge or competent legal authority within 72 hours.
For years we heard about the terrors of the Somoza regime, and we understand that, and the terror of its El Chipote prison. Now we have the shocking news that the Sandinista Government is using that very same installation and denying the right to be heard before a competent legal authority. We met with mothers and wives of political prisoners in Nicaragua. We have a right to be concerned about the level of rights being respected in that country.
My question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs was simply whether he would corroborate the news that 1 had received, that the President of the Conservative Party had been apprehended and that the Party had been banned. There must be some truth to it because when we were there at a conference, we tried to organize a meeting of the opposition Party leaders and were prohibited from meeting with those people within the conference centre. We had to find a room in the hotel to do that.
I come back to my original point. We have now sent two Canadian officials there to provide Canadian aid in bringing about peace. I welcome that. I think we have taken a good initiative. I hope that Canada will do its part together with other nations which are interested in a secure and lasting peace there, that we will provide those means necessary to bring verification to any agreement so that the Cuban, Soviet and Contra troops all become disarmed, so that the people do not have to fear militarization, and that a lasting, just and secure peace can exist for the people of Nicaragua and the surrounding countries. 1 hope that we will provide the verification which will give everyone the confidence that that will be a just peace.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague asked his question on June 5, 1987. The Canadian Embassy in Costa Rica has since investigated the allegations made by the Honourable Member about human rights abuses in Nicaragua. The opposition leader to whom he referred is Mr. Maurio Rappaciolli, the leader of the Conservative Party of Nicaragua. Members of his party have
confirmed that neither their leader nor other members were detained or put under house arrest at the time of the IPU meeting.
The Conservative Party of that country was not included among the opposition parties which met IPU delegates because it has no members in the National Assembly, having boycotted the 1984 elections.
The Party attempted to organize a demonstration during the IPU meeting but was unable to do so because State Security agents surrounded its headquarters. The Party has not been banned and there appears to be no legal mechanism for doing so because it is not an officially recognized political party. This does not prevent it carrying out political activities subject to the restrictions which apply to all political parties. For instance, they cannot hold outdoor meetings without prior permission.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has confirmed that its representatives are denied access to the prisoners held in El Chipote because they are political prisoners held by the Ministry for the Interior under administrative detention. The International Committee is given full access to political prisoners once they have been brought before the courts and moved into the national penitentiary system.
The International Committee is denied access to political prisoners who are being held under administrative detention while their cases are investigated. Under the provisions of the state of emergency, there is no limit to the time prisoners can be held in this way.
Although no reliable figures are available, President Ortega said in May 1987 that there were 8,000 to 10,000 prisoners in Nicaragua of whom 60 per cent were common criminals, which presumably means that the other 3,200 to 4,000 are political prisoners. Other independent estimates range from 4,000 to 10,000.
Canada remains concerned by continuing breaches of human and civil rights in Nicaragua, especially instances of arbitrary arrest and harrassment of the churches, opposition groups, the press and trade unions. These concerns have been made known to the Nicaraguan Government on many occasions.
Canada welcomes the fact that the Central American peace plan signed in Guatemala City on August 7 by the five regional Presidents includes a commitment to representative and pluralist democratic systems of government in all countries in the region. We hope that the implementation of the peace plan will result in the lifting of the state of emergency in Nicaragua and the removal of the current restrictions on the press and opposition groups. We urge the Nicaraguan Government to fulfill the original goals of the revolution which have recently been reaffirmed in the Constitution. These goals include political pluralism, a mixed economy and nonintervention in the affairs of other states.
August 18, 1987


EMPLOYMENT-RETRAINING OF LAID-OFFOLDER WORKERS. REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) when the Government would implement the program for the adjustment of older workers that it had announced 18 months ago. The Minister said that he was negotiating with the provinces.
While the Labour Adjustment Benefit Program that was introduced by the previous Government was not totally adequate, it did something for older workers. That has been phased out and we now face a vacuum while the federal Government is negotiating with the provinces. This is a disaster for people between the ages of 54 and 65, who are left without any benefits through no fault of their own, but because plants have closed down.
We must consider a program to fill the vacuum that has been left by the phasing out of the Labour Adjustment Benefit Program. Last year, some $91 million was spent on the Labour Adjustment Benefit Program. That amount has been reduced to $82 million this year.
People in my riding of Hamilton Mountain are being laid off because of the closure of Firestone and Otis Elevator. They will be left to fall through the cracks, with nothing for them. Also, if there is no program from which older workers can quickly benefit, their situation will deteriorate more rapidly. They can adjust very well to new skill training and will enter a new job situation. However, if they are left to fall through the cracks, there will be a lot of domestic pressures and human misery.
The Minister's response that he is negotiating with the provinces is inadequate. Canadians were told 18 months ago that another program would be established. That still has not taken place, which is grossly unfair and certainly does not fulfil a promise. People 54 years old and over in my riding, as well as in others, are the ones who are suffering severely. Not only are they suffering, but their families are suffering as well.
It is not right that people who have contributed to this society by being responsible workers and taking part in this economy should be allowed to fall through the cracks. It is not fair that they should be told to wait for a couple of politicians to negotiate their welfare, which is basically what is happening.
The negotiations with the provinces are taking place behind closed doors. No one knows what is happening. The Minister responds by saying that these people will be looked after when the provinces and the federal Government get on board. The federal Government has a responsibility. It has always paid 100 cent dollars for these kinds of programs and has no right to phase one out if it is not being replaced by another, and if it has not done the negotiations before it is replaced.
Adjournment Debate
[Translation\


Jean-Guy Hudon: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to have this opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), and especially to congratulate her on being elected to the House. Since this is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking to her in the House, I think congratulations are particularly in order, all the more so because 1 had the privilege of meeting her when, as mayor of Ottawa, she invited all newly elected Members to City Hall. I may add that it was a very big reception because so many new Members were elected on September 4,1984.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this Government believes that the first line of defence in assisting older workers is not only setting up programs but providing jobs for Canadians. Our performance in this area has been quite remarkable.
With respect to the specific lay-offs mentioned by the Honourable Member, she should be aware that in the case of Firestone, my colleague the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has already indicated that he is working with the Government of Ontario and the company to find a buyer to continue operating the plant and to preserve these jobs. That is our main objective.
When this government took office in September 1984, there was the LAB program, which provided adjustment assistance to laid-off older workers and was due to expire in August 1985. There were 4,200 older workers receiving benefits under this program, total payments being about $42.2 million.
Now let me tell you what has happened since then. We extended the LAB program for one year and launched consultations with the province. I must admit that these consultations may not be proceeding as quickly as we had hoped.
We also extended the LAB designations for the communities of Gagnon, Fermont, Port-Cartier, Sept-Iles, Schefferville, Labrador City, Wabush, Asbestos and Thetford Mines.
Furthermore, in December 1985, we introduced seven new regional designations under LAB: Corner Brook, Newfoundland; Buchans, Newfoundland; Glace Bay, Nova Scotia; Murdochville, Grande Vallee, Quebec; Nelson, British Columbia; Salmon Arm, British Columbia; and Logan Lake, British Columbia.
In the February 1986 budget, we committed $125 million in new monies to the new Program for Older Worker Adjustment you described so well.
Finally, we are continuing negotiations with the provinces. As I said earlier, the process may not be as fast as we had hoped, but in any case, the Minister of Labour has met several times with the provincial ministers.
The results of these initiatives, Mr. Speaker, have been to greatly increase the federal government's assistance for older

August 18, 1987
Adjournment Debate
workers. Over 9,000 older workers are currently receiving adjustment benefits and expenditures are expected to reach $96 million this year. As a result, the federal Government's financial commitment to older worker adjustment has increased from $141 million over the five years prior to 198687 to an anticipated $510 million over the five years from 1986-87 to 1990-91.
While negotiations on the development of POWA are still ongoing, there is a growing recognition of the needs of older workers among all governments in Canada. For example,
Ontario recently introduced a modest program for retraining of older workers and we are hoping that it will join us in the more comprehensive POWA which we have proposed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, August 19, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers