1987-10-16

Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Deputy Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Senate and the House of Commons Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House can be proud of the success of parliamentary reform. That parliamentary reform has taken place not only in terms of the changes to the Standing Orders, but also in terms of the duties which all Members of Parliament perform on behalf of their Party and on behalf of the House.
These additional duties refer to the standing committee chairmen, the panel of chairmen who deal with legislative committees, as well as to the House Leaders' offices, the Deputy House Leader, the Party Whips and the caucus chairmen.
Under those circumstances, the Government has brought forward Bill C-83 after full and complete discussions with the other Party House Leaders. This Bill was introduced in June of this year but was not proceeded with at that time. There has been full discussion with the other Parties and it is my understanding that all three Parties will support this Bill.
It is not our intention to debate it at any length and we would ask that there be unanimous consent that it go to Committee of the Whole and be dealt with expeditiously as soon as second reading is completed. It is also my understanding that no recorded division will be requested.
This Bill is recognition of the work-load that all Members of Parliament take on in addition to their duties as Members. It impacts on the time they have available for those duties and impacts upon the time they have in their ridings. For those reasons, it was the opinion of Members of all three Parties that they should be compensated for undertaking those duties. I commend this Bill to the House and appreciate the support and encouragement of my colleagues.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm what the Government House Leader has said with regard to the extensive consultation about this Bill among all the Parties. I also want to confirm that we are in agreement with the procedure that the Minister has proposed for dealing with the Bill.
It has become apparent that one of the results of parliamentary reform that was put into effect some months ago has been the development of not just a more extensive and active committee system but one that involves a large number of meetings. The committee chairpersons are required not only to preside over the committee meetings but to do a lot of the behind-the-scenes organizational work. The system created as a result of the parliamentary reform, which has been effective, has resulted in many layers, if I may describe it that way, which make demands of the committee chairpersons that were not made before.
It is clear that the development of the system of the House of Commons as a result of these rule changes has placed additional duties on a number of people. There are precedents for what is proposed in this Bill in what already exists in a number of the provincial legislatures.
Due to the intent or spirit of the reports on parliamentary reform, which have been well received in the House, due to the changes in the rules to which the House has agreed, and the additional work-loads that have developed as a result, and due to the precedents which exist in a number of the provincial legislatures, I think that the Bill presented by the Deputy House Leader (Mr. Lewis) should be supported. We are ready to concur with the procedure which he has suggested.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to indicate, on behalf of my Party, support for Bill C-83. Although this Bill was introduced by the Government, as it should be, it actually flows from the recommendations of two committees of this House. A Special Committee of the Board of Internal Economy studied the matter for some time, particularly with regard to practices in various provincial legislatures and other parliaments around the world.
If we are to take seriously the recommendations for parliamentary reform we must recognize that the responsibilities of certain Members have increased tremendously, particularly those who chair committees. I believe that all

October 16, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Members understand that putting more emphasis on the work done by committees has resulted in a significantly increased work-load for committee members as well as committee chairpersons. For those reasons the Board of Internal Economy felt that the provisions of this Bill were appropriate.
The provisions of this Bill flowed also from the recommendations of the Committee on Management and Members' Services which studied the involvement of Members as they assumed the role of chairpersons of committees and held special positions within their caucus organizations.
Discussions have taken place and Parties have examined this legislation and taken positions on it. I support the comments made by the two previous speakers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the Bill be referred to Committee of the Whole?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 28, 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 third time and passed.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to get squared away because I am a little awkward on my feet.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a previous occasion in this House when one of my colleagues was in a similar situation the House gave him permission to speak from his seat. If the Member is interested, perhaps we could give him the same opportunity.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the offer. I may indeed take advantage of it before my 20 minutes are up. Having spent eight years in this Chamber I am used to trying to deliver my speech while on my feet, and I would like to at least start that way.
I would like to tell Members of the House, the people in the Gallery, and those watching us on television that I am especially happy to be here today. Except for the benefit of a seat-belt on Sunday I am absolutely certain I would not have this opportunity to speak to this Bill. I commend the use of seat-belts to those who sometimes get a little lazy in that area, as I think we all do from time to time.
My accident occurred between Geneva and Lausanne. I was in Switzerland because I had spent the previous week as a
member of the Canadian delegation to the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This organization is made up of countries and delegations from around the world that are concerned about the issue of refugees and what this Parliament is about to do with regard to refugee legislation.
It was particularly exciting to be at that meeting in Geneva because once again, in keeping with the spirit of the UNHCR decision to award us the Nansen Medal a year ago, the Canadian delegation was in the forefront of changing patterns and changing trends. We are viewed in the international community as a leading nation, if not the leading nation, when it comes to humanity, compassion and concern for the refugees of this world.
There has been so much discord within our country. Very eminent Canadians have spoken out against this legislation. Members of the Opposition and, indeed, one or two members of my own Party have spoken with conviction, passion, and concern against the legislation.
I was able to spend hours in Geneva with those who are considered to be world-wide legal experts in the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. I spent time with the Commissioner himself, with the Deputy Commissioner, with delegations from every nation in the world concerned about the Canadian legislation. There is no other conclusion possible than that this is the finest Immigration Act, that these amendments proposed by Bill C-55 will give us the finest system in the world. Nobody else comes close. As one goes to those other people and asks them to show us another nation that will provide in legislative form the rights and privileges for true refugees, they cannot come up with one.
This Chamber during third reading debate and, hopefully, the members in the other place will put this legislation into place quickly. It is indeed the model for the rest of the world to follow.
How did we come to the discord? In part, the original drafting was flawed. It is a complex piece of legislation. It is part of an over-all Immigration Act. There were mistakes made in the original drafting. People have not caught up with the reality that Members of this Chamber called the most expert witnesses in the country, questioned them, listened to them and amended that original drafting. Well over 50 amendments were made. The Bill that we will be voting on shortly, I hope, and sending to the Senate, has to be seen not in its original form but as an amended Bill.
We have to pay tribute in the House to the members who served on that legislative committee with diligence, compassion, caring and skill. We have to pay tribute to the nongovernmental organizations in the community which took the time and the trouble to come to tell us what they saw or did not see in the Bill. The group we often overlook is the task force itself, some of whose members have worked on this
October 16, 1987

problem for four or five years, through two different Governments, trying to arrive at changes that would work. They have worked long, hard and with great skill.
But in the process of consultation discord was created. Many members of the NGO community have a great deal of difficulty trusting the bureaucracy, the civil servants in the Immigration Department. With the passage of time many people in the Immigration Department have a great deal of difficulty trusting those leaders in the NGO community. The relationship has degenerated into a slanging-match. A lot of unkind things are said privately, and sometimes publicly.
I would like to say that I fail to see how any of that advances our humanitarian and compassionate consideration for the refugees of the world. It is a luxury that we enjoy a democracy in Canada where we do have freedom of speech. But what purpose is served by using ugly words, by calling others down and by spreading false rumours?
It has been a difficult process to arrive at Bill C-55. But that process is now behind us. It is time, I think, and it is time, I hope, for all those people who care about refugees in the world to come back together and begin to work together. The cause is just.
If one looks at the world today one will see that not every country enjoys a democracy. Very few countries, perhaps as many as 35 or 36, have systems of Government that we would recognize as democracies. That is out of 160 countries. Even democracies can be guilty of persecution. But in those countries that are not democracies it is almost a guarantee that persecution does occur, based on political beliefs in many cases, based on race, based on religion, based on social groups.
I think we have a particular obligation as one of the world's finest democracies, today, tomorrow, and forever to have an open-door policy, to welcome the victims of persecution. If we want the world some day to enjoy our kind of democracy and our system, then we have to offer sanctuary to those who fight for it in repressive regimes, those who are victims of that kind of behaviour in repressive regimes. If we offer sanctuary, and if other western and other democratic nations offer sanctuary, then the struggle will continue and the world will change. It will be a better place. But the failure to offer sanctuary could spell the death-knell of progress of that kind.
What about our legislation? Why do I say it is a model? Why do others say it is so terrible? I think the biggest difference between us is probably the degree of understanding we might have about the entire system. It is a complex system and it is difficult to understand. Most of the criticism comes about because people look at a piece of the system. They do not have the knowledge to see that piece in the context of the whole.
In 1978 the Immigration Act came into effect. Lying at the core of our current Immigration Act is the responsibility, the power, for the Minister of Immigration to act in a humanitarian and compassionate manner in any individual case.
Immigration Act, 1976
Much of what we have done in the last decade for refugees, and in the decade before that, has been based on that principle in the Immigration Act. Nothing we are about to do in Bill C-55 changes that. That power is there today. That obligation is there today. That power and that obligation will be there tomorrow. It will be exercised.
We heard testimony that today the Minister exercises that power at the end of a chain. When somebody faces deportation from Canada it is exercised. In the new world it will be there from the first day of arrival until the day somebody leaves. There will be instructions to utilize it up front. So when someone who is clearly a refugee arrives undocumented at our border point, having fled persecution, what I think people fail to understand is that it is the intention of the Government, the bureaucracy, and it is the power within the Act, that in that initial interview with the immigration officer a ministerial permit simply has to be issued and the person is inside Canada.
There is a bogyman out there that we will put every single arrival at the border through inquiry. That is ridiculous. It would be an enormous waste of resources. It would serve no purpose to proceed in that fashion. Humanitarian and compassionate considerations will be the first thing taken into account. People will be given permits and landed in Canada when it is clear that they have a legitimate claim to our protection.
An inquiry is based on a decision by an immigration officer at the border point, agreed to by that person's supervisor, that there is no good reason to admit this person to Canada. Two people have to reach the decision not to admit, and then our legislation takes over.
The legislation before us today states that we immediately assign a barrister and solicitor to the applicant paid for at taxpayers' expense. An inquiry will be held in front of an adjudicator, who is like a judge, and a member of the refugee board. There are two decision-makers. The claimant has a lawyer. No country in the world does that. This is still at the point of admission.
In most European nations an officer at the border says, "No", and there is no protection, there is no appeal, there is nothing.
In our system two officers have to concur. When the claimant does not agree, a lawyer is provided, and two people are provided to make the decision. If they agree with the two bureaucrats that the person does not need protection according to the clauses in the Bill, then entry cannot be denied for an additional 24 hours. This piece of legislation provides a lawyer to prepare an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada, a leave application, and a period of 24 hours for an additional appeal to the Minister.
Six people representing five organizations all must agree that this person should not be admitted to Canada. We are

October 16, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
talking about quality of protection for legitimate refugees. Is it conceivable that six people representing five different organizations who ail agree that this person has no basis to the claim to need protection would be wrong? They do not have to decide that the claim is legitimate and that the person is a refugee. They simply have to decide that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the person could be found to be a refugee. That is the manner in which the decision not to admit must be upheld.
I hear somebody state that is very fair. It is more than very fair. It may be too much protection. But it is clearly the most protection in the world, by a country mile. No country provides that protection to a claimant for potential entry into a country.
Once inside the country, as people move through the determination process, there has been a lot of concern about what people call the lack of an appeal. What is overlooked in the discussion is that we have an informal hearing with two members of a refugee board, both of whom have to say that the person is not a refugee before the status is denied. This is an informal hearing which can go on for hours. It is done in a relaxed atmosphere. Claimants may bring anyone to testify on their behalf. They can introduce any evidence. The Crown must provide evidence on past decision-making related to people of this characteristic. The statute requires that that must be part of the evidentiary base.
Let us assume that they conclude that the person is not a refugee. There is no immediate removal. There is a leave application to the Federal Court to have the case reconsidered. The estimates are that it will take at least two months for the court to decide. In the interim, we have the Act itself. There is a humanitarian and compassionate obligation on the Minister, and two months for the NGO, for the church, for a brother or a sister, for a Member of Parliament, for a barrister and solicitor familiar with the case to go directly to the Minister on appeal of this decision. That exists in the scheme of the Act and it is not being taken away. Therefore, there are two types of appeals which flow from a negative decision in terms of the statute that we are providing to the Elouse and to the nation.
Nowhere else in the world today are there those types of conditions; the provision of a barrister or solicitor, the different levels, the humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I ask myself, why do we have such anger and turmoil? Why are such statements made? The answer is that we have lived through a period of history, and we have gone through close to 10 years of the current Immigration Act. The scheme of the Act as it sits without these amendments requires employees of the Immigration Department domestically to keep their hands off refugees. They never sit in on the hearings.
The Department is currently charged with the administration of the Act and whether the person has a legal right to enter Canada. If they decide that he or she does not, they send the matter to inquiry. In inquiry the person makes a claim to be a refugee, and it must be adjourned. Therefore, all the
employees of the Department are screened out. The only other relationship that the Department has is one person does an examination under oath. Two, three, or four months later that transcript then goes to RSAC, it is appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board and to the Federal Court of Canada. But the immigration employee, the line officer, today has no compassionate power at the border, and no direction to act on behalf of refugees. They do not sit through the inquiry and hear the refugees' stories on credibility and so on.


Mrs. Finestone:: Where is the refugee right now?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Where is the refugee right now? We have some hollering from across the way as to where the refugee is. Some are inside the country on ministerial permits, some are in detention at border points.
I would say to the parliamentary committee, to the NGO community, and to the Minister that now is the time for the dialogue to be commenced. There is a watch-dog rule on the administrative implementation of this Act. The barristers and solicitors, and the NGO communities have a big role to play. The parliamentary committee through its investigative powers can ensure that the entire scheme of the Act is administered with sensitivity.
We as parliamentarians can urge the Minister to provide that type of direction to the bureaucracy, and we can pass legislation. This legislation is a model for the world to follow. We may reach a day in five or ten years time when we may find some manner to improve it. But it is far ahead of any piece of legislation that presently exists in the world in terms of its capacity to provide real protection to real refugees. I urge this Chamber to move it forward this day. I urge members in the other place to look at it, but do so quickly. Let us pass this legislation and regain our rightful place in the world as the leader in terms of legal protection for legitimate refugees.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) stated that the committee heard a wide variety of witnesses, and that it made amendments following their representations. The point that has been emphasized by our Party, and by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), is that the Government absolutely refused to deal with the fundamental concerns brought forward by the majority of those witnesses.
I would like to read to the Hon. Member the letter which was sent to concerned Members of Parliament from Donald Anderson, General Secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches, dated September 21. I ask him to comment on the substance of the letter concerning Bill C-55. It reads:
We appreciate government work to try to improve Bill C-55. Unfortunately our deep concerns remain. How can we know if a person claiming to be a refugee needs our help if we do not hear their problems? Each person claiming to be a refugee should have a right to have their individual circumstances
October 16, 1987

assessed and their case decided on its merits before competent independent decision makers. To us, this is the intent of the Convention and Protocol.
Immigration programs may legitimately choose who comes on humanitarian grounds and may set priorities on countries they may come from. We understand the attractiveness of this approach. Bill C-55 provides for exclusion of people not on the basis of their individual circumstances, but by a political cabinet decision that the country they transitted before arriving in Canada is deemed to adhere to Clause 33 of the Convention, that is, it is deemed the transit country will not return the person in any manner whatsoever to a country where he or she may face persecution. This is a far shot from our obligation to give an individual who arrives in Canada a fair hearing of his or her claim to need our protection.
Also, there is no meaningful appeal to any of the critical decisions made which can remove claimants from Canada in proposed inquiries or hearings.
We cannot accept legislation which sets aside a claimant's right to just procedures in the name of administrative convenience. We urge you to reconsider, to abandon this Bill C-55 and to speedily replace it with one conforming with the principles of allowing every claimant a hearing on the merits and a meaningful appeal. There are alternative processes we can surely all support.
I urge the Hon. Member to consider the import of the letter and the evidence of other witnesses who appeared before the committee. How can he possibly say that the committee and the Government responded to their very legitimate concerns?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for reading that letter, and 1 thank him particularly for referring to the date of it, because it clearly identifies the problem about which I spoke. The Bill was not through the House on September 21. What the Hon. Member has is a letter dealing with the original drafting, not with Bill C-55 as amended. It could not be, simply because of the date. That is the first problem.
Expressed in the letter is the concern about returning people to what has become known in the popular press as a safe third country. That whole section was amended dramatically and drastically in its wording both in the House and in committee.
First, under statute law the Cabinet of Canada is prohibited from naming a safe country unless it complies clearly with Article 33 of the Convention, which is non-refoulement.
The second major feature of the set of clauses is that the return can only be to the country from where they came, nowhere else in the world.
Let us say that people came here from France and France will not take them back. France has been where they were protected; they were not in the country of persecution. If France will not take them back, they proceed in our system. That is what the clause is all about.
One could not go to the world body and sit with those delegations without coming back to Canada with a very deep concern about the refugee claimant in the orbit phenomenon.
Refugees do not abuse the system of any nation, but bogus claimants do. Bogus claimants have a lot of resources in many cases. They take advantage of legal loopholes and they begin to swamp the generosity of people who care about refugees. It was particularly disturbing to see in the Chamber so many
Immigration Act, 1976
amendments being moved by the Opposition which provided advantages for bogus claimants, not for legitimate refugees.
Our obligation as a nation is to legitimate refugees. Our obligation, in world terms, is to kick bogus claimants out of Canada and to encourage France and Sweden to do likewise.
There is a generosity of spirit which is alive and well, but they cannot continue to abuse it, or it will disappear. The willingness of generous nations to help refugees will go down the tubes world-wide if we do not have a system to differentiate between a real refugee and a bogus claimant. We cannot provide an endless series of loopholes for bogus claimants and expect that they will not use them. The people who will not use them are legitimate refugees, because they do not have the resources.
That indeed may be a potential misunderstanding between Mr. Anderson and myself, to some extent. I know that when our enforcement people in immigration catch people who are in the country illegally and bring them to an inquiry, at the rate of about 1,000 per month, suddenly 75 per cent of them claim to be refugees. It is a magical transformation to avoid enforcement of our law. Bill C-55 corrects that. Bill C-55 is necessary to perfect our collective will to do what needs to be done for legitimate refugees.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it still depends upon the Minister's discretion and it is still at the discretion of the Minister's staff. Furthermore, the Hon. Member did not address the second question which I raised, that is, the whole question of some kind of appeal process.
The appeal process is still based upon questions of law rather than upon questions of fact, so that questions of merit are not able to come forward. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's comment on this vital concern of witnesses.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will try to give even more clarity. People arriving at one of our border points who have fled persecution have no documents, no papers, nothing. They can tell their entire story to the immigration officer they first encounter. Any action taken in relationship to that arrival must be approved by a supervisor. If it is a positive feeling that they are really refugees, they simply issue a ministerial permit and the persons are inside the country. The only people they take to inquiry, common sense tells us, are those to whom they wish to deny entry. That is what the legislation says. It is time the nation looked at what the legislation says, not at what other people say it says. That is the scheme of the Act and the amendments in Bill C-55.
If we have 3,800 people arriving from Portugal, claiming to be refugees, and telling their story to the immigration officer, it is difficult to believe the story because there is no available evidence that there is persecution in Portugal. When these people arrive at our borders, under the current situation they are here for two years or three years because of all these wasted appeals.

October 16, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Under the new system these people will go to inquiry and within seven days-perhaps it will be as few as 72 hours-they will have told their story and, if there is nothing to their story, they are gone. They have had appeals. They can appeal to the Minister and move for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
The inquiry itself is an appeal of an administrative decision made by an officer at the border point. The legislation deals with nothing except appeals and levels of appeals. Six different groups have to concur in the decision not to admit before that person is not admitted. The person has a lawyer throughout, paid for at our expense. No country in the world comes close to the degree of protection offered by Bill C-55.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act of Canada. The Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation. It reflects, or is supposed to reflect, the heart, the soul and mind of a country made up of so many people who came to these shores either under refugee or immigration status. It sets the future policy of our nation.
I listened to my hon. colleague across the way. I know he is a sincere and well meaning individual and I hope his health improves very quickly. As I see him hobbling out on his crutches, I appreciate the effort he has put forward.
I still remain unconvinced that there is a sense of humanity and sense of consideration for the true, real refugee coming to our shores. That is why I feel so strongly and say to the Minister that if this Bill goes through I hope he will watch it with great care. I hope he will bring the proper kinds of amendments to the Bill so that the three major areas of serious concern; the prescreening; the safe third country and the appeal process, will enable us to be sure that real refugees not bogus refugees will receive proper consideration.
The Member was pleading and discussing the Portugese situation, which only indicates in the strongest way the need for us to reform the immigration guidelines and the need for us to expand the definitions and the kinds of classes that we are prepared to accept in terms of general immigration, namely, the family class and the family rejoinder class.
I do not know what has happened to us in this country. I come from the Province of Quebec where large families were a way of life and only enriched the fabric of society. We have dramatically changed that concept of family in Quebec as we have done elsewhere in North America. That has not been the case in many of the European countries, the eastern countries, the South American and other countries from which immigrants come, and as a result of whom this country is much enriched. In other countries the concept of family is a much larger one. It includes nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles and grandparents.
The sooner we separate out the concerns surrounding refugee Bills, refugees coming to this country and the immigration stream, making it very clear that we are talking about two separate procedures and two separate groups in Canada the better it will be. It may seem as clear as motherhood and apple pie to Members of this House, but it certainly is not clear to the ordinary Canadian citizen.


Mr. Skelly:: What about fatherhood and apple pie?


Sheila Finestone: Fatherhood and apple pie. If the Member becomes a good baker, then that is fine with me. We could trade recipes, but that is not the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: The issue is how to bring the important concerns that are addressed in this Bill and remove the confusion found in the immigration stream and that stream which is called the refugee stream.
I find it rather ironic that we are dealing with this Bill in 1987, this being the United Nations International Year of the Homeless. What could be more relevant at the time of the world's focus on homelessness than a group of people, tens of thousands, maybe millions and millions, who are homeless not because of choice but because of instability in their home countries? They are looking for a decent home, a place to set down roots and a place to start a new life for themselves and their children.
This Bill does not answer the needs in the way that it should. Nor does it meet our responsibilities on an international scale. It is not only ironic but it is Machiavellian that we have allowed confusion to exist in the minds of Canadians. People who ask for immigrant status for their extended family but are blocked, who then see this large mass of refugees, who seem by the way in which this issue has been handled to be taking the place of nieces or nephews, it raises anger and ire on the part of our new immigrants. Confusion continues. We need a Government that will educate, lead and articulate that difference between a landed immigrant and those who come to our doors as refugees, allowing the kind of openness to those who have reached our shores in that kind of a situation.
I would suggest that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) should take a good look at the statistics with respect to the amount of family rejoinders that have taken place in Canada. Given the turmoil in the international world, we have far from kept our commitment, both in terms of the economic migrant and immigrant and the immigrant coming for family rejoinder. I would like to see the family rejoinder category enlarged and I am sure the Minister would too. I am sure there are ways in which that can be done and I hope it happens sooner rather than later.
From a historical perspective I think it is important to take a look at what Canada has done. In the 1960s and 1970s Canada was essentially selecting refugees from around the world and we were doing a very good job. We were very concerned and
October 16, 1987

manifesting a humanitarian approach as we went to refugee camps and selected immigrants. In recent years, during the 1980s, things changed. People are creative and when there is tremendous pressure around them and there seems no way out, they find alternative ways and means to enter a country. Those alternate routes are not always the most effective and efficient routes, but human beings who are looking for a new way of life and freedom in this world do accept terrible risks. That is something with which we need to concern ourselves.
In the early 1980s, as the Liberal Government saw this increasing growth of refugees, some of them bogus, some of them coming here using disreputable representatives, Rabbi Plaut was called upon to do a study and to undertake a serious examination of the needs of having an updated and new refugee Bill. A backlog of refugee claimant cases was aggravated by inaction. Rabbi Plaut said at the end of 1984 that the Government should have acted in an expeditious way to meet the growing concern. Did the Government do that? No, Mr. Speaker. What we had was no less than four different Ministers of Immigration, the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald), the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), The Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) and the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard)-do I have 10 minutes or 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member has 20 minutes. She may continue her speech after Question Period.


Sheila Finestone: Do you want me to terminate now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Sheila Finestone: I will come back on a historical retrospective after the Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.
OO)



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, tonight Overlea Secondary School in my riding will be officially renamed Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute in recognition of Canada's first astronaut in space.
The school, which serves both North York and East York students, will specialize in mathematics, science and high
technology, including computer science and space technology. It will be working in co-operation with the nearby Ontario Science Centre, NASA, the National Research Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the National Museum of Science and Spar Aerospace.
The name Marc Garneau Collegiate was chosen not only to highlight the specialized teaching program but also to provide a role model for the students. It should remind us all that this is the twenty-fifth anniversary of Canada in space, that 50 per cent of the engineers at NASA during the first days of the American Gemini program were Canadians, and that Canadians built the communications antenna and the lunar landing legs for the Apollo program.
Canadians have established themselves as world leaders in science. The students from Marc Garneau Collegiate will be our leaders of the future.



ABORTION


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend, women across Canada will demonstrate their strong opposition to Canada's unjust and discriminatory abortion law. Statistics Canada figures show that access to legal abortions is declining dramatically and 18 per cent of therapeutic abortion committees which should be approving legal abortions have approved no abortions at all.
The current law only allows abortions which are performed in hospitals with permission from a panel of three doctors who determine if continuing the pregnancy would endanger a woman's life or health. Section 251 of the Criminal Code forces women to endure unnecessary and dangerous delays. The tragic consequences of this intolerable law fall most heavily on young women, immigrant women, rural women, working-class women and women of colour.
One male columnist expressed what many women feel. To compel a woman to bear a child against her will or to force her to abide by what others define as adequate or inadequate reasons for an abortion is a form of naked authoritarian violence. It is ironic that in this developed nation women must engage in constant struggle to obtain a fundamental right while an international conference on family planning has called on Governments throughout the world to liberalize abortion laws.
I call upon the Government to repeal Sections 251 and 252 of the Criminal Code, to decriminalize abortion, and to introduce a preventive holistic health care system including public community health clinics offering a complete range of health care services, including family planning and access to abortion for women and their families.

October 16, 1987



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
1RAN-IRAQ CONFLICT-SUPPORT URGED FOR UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the Iran-Iraq conflict began affecting more of the innocent civilian population in urban areas. An attack on a school in the Iraqi capital of Bagdad resulted in the deaths of 32 and the wounding of 218 innocent civilians, mostly children.
Iran has persistently ignored repeated pleas by various international organizations to put an end to all hostilities. In view of the existing explosive situation highlighted by this incident, and the prevailing concern of possible involvement of non-belligerent third parties, I wish other Members of this House to join me in expressing sympathy to the families of the victims in Bagdad and expressing in strongest terms support for the efforts of our Government to urge the parties to the Iran-Iraq conflict to abide by the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution 598 of July 20, 1987, which will help restore the much desired peace and stability in the region and put an end to the kind of incident that was witnessed in the senseless slaughter of the children of Baghdad.



THE CENSUS


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 urge the Minister responsible for the Census to refer the Young case of Powell River immediately to the RCMP for investigation. It is apparent that the Minister's staff is not prepared or competent to undertake an investigation.
The charge that confidential medical information taken during the Census was systematically released by Census staff to commercial drug company salespeople must be investigated. The release of this confidential information obtained in the Census is unconscionable criminal behavior and must be stopped. Not only does it violate the basic rights of the respondents, but it seriously undermines the Census and the integrity of all Census takers.
The Minister must refer this case immediately to the RCMP for investigation, and if action is not taken the reasonable course would be to counsel constituents to refuse to participate in the Census.



THE LATE WILFRID MICHAUD, FADOQ REGIONAL CHAIRMAN

Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Wilfrid Michaud, Regional President of the Federation de Page d'or du Quebec, who passed away suddenly Monday night. With his wife, Therese, we mourn the loss of a dear friend and husband. Therese was proud of Wilfrid, a man of great dedication and firm convictions. Saturday night, he joked about the Senators' astonishment at his support for Bill C-22, the proposed legislation on drug patents. This from the man who lead the fight against de-indexation and who worked for St-Laurent, Pearson and the Right Hon. John Turner!
I promise to pursue the plans for a senior citizens' centre in Gatineau, one of his pet projects. The centre will be named the Wilfrid Michaud Centre. Wilfrid deplored the fragmentation of his army, as he said. We must unite. There are 18 senior citizens' clubs in the riding of Gatineau. Since some of them have few resources, we must pool the resources we have.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade deal is no deal for the farmers of the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Contrary to promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and others, supply-managed agriculture has been affected by the free trade deal. It is quite evident that the win for the Americans is a loss for Canada.
Canadian chicken imports from the United States, for instance, will increase by 20 per cent. Chicken is a supply-managed commodity. The Canadian dairy policy will be affected as well because, of course, Canadian dairy producers will now have no tariff protection for yoghurt and ice cream, products which will be free to come into Canada and will affect the livelihoods of those constituents I represent in the House of Commons.
Very clearly, the people of Canada were not told the whole truth by the Prime Minister and by the Government one more time. They will remember. Yes, they will remember.
October 16, 1987



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Scarborough continues to lead all of Metro Toronto in economic growth and job creation. In the past year, over 8,600 new jobs have been created in Scarborough, and 7,600 of those were full-time jobs. Over 450 new businesses opened last year, and in the past three years 26,000 new jobs have been created. The largest single employment increase occurred in the manufacturing sector which now employs close to one-third of all Scarborough workers.
Those manufacturers and the workers they employ know that, thanks to the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, their economic future looks very good indeed. Free trade means that Scarborough's businesses will have greater access to the U.S. market and a chance to compete for some $300 billion worth of U.S. federal government contracts.
Free trade also means that consumers in Scarborough will pay lower prices for the goods they buy and have a wider selection to choose from. The President of the Scarborough Chamber of Commerce welcomed the agreement by saying that free trade will give Scarborough an opportunity to compete in a larger market and, over time, that will help them expand and create new jobs.
Business people, workers and consumers in Scarborough welcome the free trade agreement because they know it will help our city to continue to be one of the most prosperous and industrious communities in Canada.



FORESTRY


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians associated with the Canadian forest industry were shocked and experienced a sense of betrayal when they found that the federal Government had decided to adhere to the American request to impose a 15 per cent softwood tax on exports going to the United States. They were doubly surprised when they found this 15 per cent softwood tax was now entrenched in the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
In some provinces such as British Columbia the provincial Governments have increased stumpage rates at the same time. Mr. Ike Barber, spokesperson for Slocan Timber Products Clearwater Mill indicated that the B.C. Government increased charges to that company more than 1,000 per cent.
Mills in provinces such as British Columbia are now getting it two ways-the 15 per cent surtax on exports to the U.S.; and now significant increases in stumpage and other charges. As a result, forest companies such as the Ainsworth Mill in Savona and the Balco Mill in the North Thompson Valley of British Columbia have had to close down their operations in the last few weeks.
The federal Government should get its act together. First, it should remove the 15 per cent tax which has now been entrenched in the trade deal with the U.S. Second, it should put in place programs to assist those workers who have lost their jobs and are unable to provide for their families as a result of provincial and especially federal government initiatives.



NEW BRUNSWICK


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, "Fifty-eight for the Liberals, nothing for the Conservatives and nothing for the New Democrats, in other words, 58-0 for the McKenna team". Incredible but true, that was the score after a campaign conducted by a terrific leader and his team. New Brunswick is now entering the McKenna era, and the energy and determination of the Premier Elect will give the province a new lease on life.
Nothing could hold back this tidal wave, not even the millions of dollars worth of projects announced by the federal Minister for Tourism and Small Businesses. The federal announcements during the campaign only strengthened the resolve of the people of New Brunswick to get rid of the Conservatives.

What if a federal election were called? My bet is that in New Brunswick it would be another wipe-out; 10 to nothing for the Liberals. Of course, we could not be so lucky as to have a federal election called in the coming year.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON SERVICE SECTOR OF ECONOMY

Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada did a study which indicated the free trade agreement would increase jobs in Canada by 350,000. It did not take into account the service sector which

October 16, 1987
Oral Questions
provides 70 per cent of employment in Canada. Some 80 per cent of those jobs are held by women.
We ask the Government to stop any further confirmation of the free trade agreement until it starts to look at the implications, not just for the service sector but for women. They will be left without jobs, and that is intolerable. If the Government does not act quickly and stop selling our country down the drain we are going to be in terribly destitute straits.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful to watch last evening a TV broadcast of Ida Nudel, a long-time Soviet refusenik, receiving her citizenship in Israel. I met her in Moscow in May of this year, along with well over 100 Soviet Jews who have been struggling for many years to leave the Soviet Union. One such individual was Valdimir Slepak. His ordeal and struggle to leave the U.S.S.R. lasted 17 years. Again it was wonderful to hear that two days ago Mr. Slepak was finally allowed to leave.
Before we overly applaud the U.S.S.R. for the release of those two people, let us remember that it is simply living up to its basic human rights obligations. Many thousands of Soviet citizens are still being denied exit visas. I wrote to Mr. Gorbachev this week asking for special consideration for Professor Naum Neiman and Dr. Benjamin Charney. Both have cancer and both have been waiting many years to leave the U.S.S.R. and receive better medical attention in the West. Is glasnost really working? Is it fair?



APARTHEID


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we have seen in British Columbia this week a battle over the question of apartheid. It seems to me the Canadian Government's words would ring far truer if it would follow up on the allParty resolution calling for a complete ban on all trade with South Africa.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is no doubt aware that, notwithstanding our commitment to collective sanctions, in the first six months of 1987 we saw a 37 per cent increase in trade in non-sanctioned goods. We have seen an increase of over 3,000 per cent in the trade in textiles between 1984 and 1986. It is clear that selective sanctions are not working.
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State for External Affairs' (Mr. Clark) comments about "sanction fatigue", now is the
time to move ahead with full and complete sanctions to let South Africa know that no country in this world is going to tolerate that apartheid racist regime.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the lowest form of pork-barrel politics is alive and well in the Social Credit Party in British Columbia. On Wednesday night, at a meeting in my constituency, Minister of Tourism Bill Reid spoke to a group of Socreds and said:
You know that until you get a Socred in here you're not going to get a road through.
When he was interrupted by groans and laughter he said:
Well, I mean, that's a fact of life. I'm talking to friends, I hope. I mean, that's a fact of life.
The facts of life in British Columbia, as the Socreds interpret them, are that unless people vote for that Government they are not going to get the services they are paying for in their taxes. The facts of life under a Social Credit Government are that unless people support them the whole democratic process has been rendered meaningless.
They would like a one-Party state as there is in New Brunswick. But, that is not going to happen because the NDP in British Columbia is not going to accept the plan of that Government which is to try to turn British Columbia into a system with a centralized Government, and eight satrapies responsible to the Premier but not to the people who elect the MLAs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, as reported at page 10,000 of Hansard, the Minister said:
1 signed one document. That document was tabled in the House. If there was an error made in the distribution of documents in the embassy, I cannot control that.
I have in one hand a document tabled in the House bearing the signatures of the Minister of Finance and his negotiating team colleagues. It makes no reference to Bill C-22, the drug legislation currently before Parliament. In my other hand I have a different document bearing the signatures of the
October 16, 1987

Minister of Finance and his negotiating colleagues. It was produced in and by the Canadian Embassy in Washington and given to the media. It refers specifically to Bill C-22 and the drug legislation as part of the negotiations material.
These documents are not the same. The signatures are different. The texts are different in so far as one refers to the drug legislation and one does not.
The Minister said yesterday: "I signed one document." Can he explain why his signature appears in different calligraphy, different writing, on two documents?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: That is a very easy answer to give, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member is a lawyer and knows that normally there is more than one signing page for a document like this. There is one document, the document that was signed and tabled in the House a week ago Monday, but there are two signing pages. One was for the United States and one was for Canada. Copies of those two signing pages obviously have been used in the material to which the Hon. Member has referred in the House today.


John Napier Turner: The Minister still has not explained why the documents are different. Either the Minister signed twice, is suggesting that he did not know what was in the document he signed, or he is suggesting that it was changed after he signed it.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF SECOND DOCUMENT
John Napier Turner: In
any case, Mr. Speaker, for two years the Government maintained here in the House that its drug patents Bill had no connection with the free trade talks. Now we are being told in the House that the day before the final version was signed, senior Canadian officials were still negotiating on the inclusion of this Bill in the trade agreement with United States.
First, the Minister told us he did not sign the document. Then he told the House he signed only one document. Now we have two documents, and the Minister has failed to explain why. As I said earlier, these documents are not identical. The signatures are not identical. One document refers to Bill C-22 and the other one does not. The notation of the date on the documents is different.
If the drug patents Bill was never part of the negotiations, and if the Minister only signed one document, who gave Canadian Embassy employees the second document with the signature of the Minister of Finance, mentioning this particular Bill? Perhaps you could explain that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker we are getting into the same sort of area that we covered at great length yesterday. I will not reply to the same questions for, I think, the fifth or sixth time.
Oral Questions
I will say that the Leader of the Opposition has distorted what I just said in my first answer to this question. I said that 1 signed one document. There were two signing pages, as I indicated in my first response, one for the American side and one for the Canadian side. That is normal. He should know that as a lawyer.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer I always insisted that my client read the document before he signed it.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have two different documents here. The signatures are different. Either the Minister did not first read the document on an important matter affecting the trade relationship between Canada and the United States or it was changed afterwards, or he signed both. We have not yet received a satisfactory explanation.
We have one signature on one document, we have a second signature on another document. I suggest perhaps we should have a third signature on a letter of resignation.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, here we go again. I do not have anything to add to what I said yesterday or to what I said in the first two answers I gave to the Hon. Member. There were clerical errors, as he can understand. As people were collating documents, a lot of loose pages had been taken from the document that they signed, and that I read. I read it very thoroughly because I was intimately involved with much of it.
The Hon. Member is clearly reaching a new low. He is trying to deflect the attention of people from the benefits of this agreement and the fact that it will create jobs across the country, create better jobs throughout the country, reduce prices for consumers, result in a greater variety of goods, result in a great deal of economic benefit, and result in the continuation of our social programs because they are not touched by this agreement. It will reinforce the unique identity of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister but the answer is getting well beyond the question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister told the Leader of the Opposition that normally there is more than one signing page for a document like this. Those were his exact words.
I take it that the Minister of Finance is saying that he affixed his signature to more than one signing page without first making sure that that signing page was attached to a series of pages representing the agreement which was reached. If that was the case, how could he have been so careless as to

October 16, 1987
Oral Questions
allow that to happen? EIow could he have simply put his signature on signing pages without making sure that the underlying document reflected the whole agreement? Is this not a symbol of the way the Government handled this whole matter so carelessly and sold out Canadian interests?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, now they are really groping.


John Napier Turner: We are groping for the truth.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They are really groping, going to this length. I signed the document. I signed the document that was tabled in the House a week ago Monday. I think I have said that about eight or nine times now.
All that I can presume from the way the Leader of the Opposition and the House Leader of the Liberal Party are waving this red herring across the trade agreement is that they are not capable of challenging the importance of this agreement. They know that this has protected our social programs. They know that this has protected our culture. They know that this has strengthened the Auto Pact and that this has strengthened a number of other industries across the country. They know that this will increase regional development.


NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING CANADA-AMERICAN AGREEMENT-INQUIRY WHY MINISTER ACTED SO CASUALLY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not explained why he signed a document distributed by our ambassador to reporters in Washington. The document included a clause in which the Government promised to pass Bill C-22, despite the fact it had promised the House the Bill would not be on the table.
I ask the Minister to explain why he has been so offhand about this matter, when he himself said that he was in charge of these negotiations. Why is he being so offhand about the negotiations and the agreement? Why did he give the Americans a blank cheque and sell out to the U.S?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is groping again. He does not really know what he is after, he is just trying to deflect information.
1 am holding a press release from the Canadian Embassy, dated October 13, which says in part: "At a press briefing held in Washington on October 5, concerning the results of the U.S.-Canada trade negotiations, the Canadian Embassy issued documents which contained an incorrect version."
It goes on to say that:
"The incorrect version of this text had come forward as a draft from one of the many working parties focusing on the major elements of the agreement and had been rejected by the
Canadian negotiators. At no time did the Canadian negotiators agree to the inclusion of this text as part of the Canada- U.S. agreement."
Upon discovery of this error-; clerical error:
"-the Embassy immediately issued the correct documentation."
I do not know what else I can say. We are going over and over again that which has been carefully set out by me, by the embassy, and by my colleagues a week ago today.


BRIEFING OF UNITED STATES SENATORS-REFERENCE TO BILL C-22
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: My question for the Minister of Finance concerns the same subject. Yesterday when I raised in the House the question of briefing notes that were prepared for the U.S. Treasury Secretary, that made a specific link between the free trade agreement and the passage of Bill C-22, the pharmaceutical legislation, the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada again denied the connection. He did so again just a minute ago, saying that the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on October 13 which said that the so-called connection between the drug legislation and the package was only in an earlier document.
This morning it was confirmed by three U.S. Senators that the briefing they got last week after the final agreement was produced included, as part of the package as described to them, Bill C-22. The offices of at least three U.S. Senators who are on the key Finance Committee are now saying that they have been told by U.S. officials that this was part of the agreement. Is the Minister of Finance now saying that the U.S. Senators are wrong as well?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have in my hand a press release that was issued this morning by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.


Mr. McDermid:: Read it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you very much. I will. It reads:
The document printed in Inside U.S. Trade-
-which I believe is the document to which the Leader of the New Democratic Party was referring yesterday-
-was a draft, uncleared, staff-level document that was prepared prior to
the end of the negotiation and obviously does not reflect the final results.
I think that speaks for itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all this proves is that members of the Government of Canada have been on the phone in the last 24 hours talking to their U.S. equivalents.
October 16, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONTENT OF AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 want the Minister of Finance to listen to the question for once and answer it. The question 1 asked a minute ago was about the final document, not the interim document.
1 want the Minister of Finance to explain to the House and the people of Canada why three U.S. Senators-and that is all we had time to contact so far this morning-who were briefed on the basis of the final document were told that Bill C-22 was part of the package? Is he saying that the U.S. Senators are lying?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has been known to- and I choose my words very carefully-


John Edward Broadbent: You had better.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -misinterpret what some people have said to him. I said yesterday and on Tuesday of this week that what was tabled in the House of Commons is the final document. That is the agreement. That is a fact.
If the Leader of the New Democratic Party is not going to accept that as a fact, I suggest that he stand up and tell us what he is going to accept. That is the fact.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's little homily was indeed touching.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INFORMATION PROVIDED TO UNITED STATES SENATORS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, no one is saying that what was signed and what was tabled is not the agreement. We all understand that. What is at stake here, and has been raised by both opposition Parties, is whether, in addition to what was signed in the final form, there was a side agreement which has been made clear to the U.S. Senators and U.S. officials.
Is the Minister of Finance telling us that the U.S. Senators were misinformed when they were told that as part of the overall package, including the final agreement, the Government of Canada has agreed to pass Bill C-22? Will the Government for once be fully honest with the people of Canada on this matter?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will be fully honest with the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Yes, we are saying that we are going to pass Bill C-22. We passed it once and passed it a second time. I will tell any Senator or any member of the U.S. administration that we have passed it twice.
The Leader of the Opposition should try to pull his appointed Senators into line and not try to weasel out of his responsibility as Leader of the Opposition-
Ora! Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Just do your job.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -to get that legislation passed, under the pretext of some change in the trade agreement. If he is trying to weasel out of his responsibility he should stand up and tell us why he is weaseling out.


WORKING PARTY'S REFERENCE TO BILL C-22
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that the only political Party that is operating on pretext is the Party opposite, the Conservative Party.
The Minister of Finance has made an incredible admission this morning in the House. In answer to the question of my Leader he said that up until the eleventh hour, only hours before the document was signed, the working party was including the issue of the drug Bill in the final package. He said this morning that the working party included the drug legislation.
How can he say that here in the House when for a year and a half he, his colleague the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, his colleague the Minister for International Trade, and the Prime Minister have insisted that the drug Bill was never part of the negotiations? What was the working party doing in the eleventh hour with any mention of the drug Bill in any working copy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr, Speaker, at any time in the negotiations the Americans can bring up any issue they want. That is part of negotiating. I have never said that that did not come up in the negotiations during the weekend of October 3 and 4. What I did say was that as far as Canada is concerned that is not a part of the negotiations, that is not going to be agreed upon as part of any agreement. That is why it was rejected out-of-hand as soon as it came to the table.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Minister has finally admitted that it was in fact part of the negotiations. Is he asking the Canadian people to believe that in the eleventh hour, three hours before the final document was signed, the Americans came forward with new propositions and the Canadians were entertaining new propositions on an area as critical as the drug laws of our country?
If that is the case, this free trade agreement will give us even more trouble than we thought it would. He cannot even run his own secretarial services.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the other side is sinking to new depths of despair. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East has ever been a part of negotiations she will know that things come up at various stages in

October 16, 1987
Oral Questions
negotiations. Sometimes they are things which have been discussed right from the start and sometimes they come up at a very late hour.


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 thought you said it was a clerical error.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This is another attempt to deflect the interest of Canadians from the benefits of this. We are trying to carry forward the benefits that we have brought to this country. We have been number one in job creation, number one in economic growth among industrialized countries, and number one in productivity performance. We want the free trade agreement to continue that very good record of success into the next century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FILM DISTRIBUTION LEGISLATION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I talked with three U.S. Senators' offices this morning. Each confirmed to us what Senator Baucus' office stated quite specifically, that not only was Bill C-22 part of the free trade negotiations but the film distribution question also came up during briefings and the Canadian Government's proposed legislation was part of the free trade negotiations on that issue.
1 will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Given this reality on top of the reality with regard to the drug legislation, will the Government finally come clean and tell Canadians what it has agreed to do to "solve Mr. Valenti's problem''?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that nothing was done to solve Mr. Valenti's problem. That was not part of any agreement, not the agreement that was signed here or any other elements of the agreement.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Senators, the Bill on film distribution was discussed. Is the Minister prepared to inform the House what he is going to do for Mr. Valenti? Is he going to tell Canadians what he wants to do about a major problem for Canadian culture?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, nothing.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Access to Information Act and, in particular, the Government's rejection of over 90 per cent of the recommendations of a unanimous report of a committee recommending major changes to the Access to Information Act.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the promise-filled summer of 1984, in its thirst for power, the Conservative Party made over 338 promises. One of those promises was for a more open Government. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Conservative Party at the time, promised that he would overhaul the Access to Information Act.
He said in August, 1984: "The present (Liberal) Government believes you have only limited rights to know... Conservatives believe you have every right to know''. The Prime Minister promised to "end the obsession with secrecy". My question to the Government is very simply this. Why was this promise broken?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who is away on official business, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that yesterday the Minister of Justice in a scrum outside the House, following the tabling of the response said: "We are committed to the principle and we are, in fact, by our response, indicating immediate action to make it a more effective and a more efficient vehicle for the average Canadian to get information on government operations".


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that the Conservative Government is at 23 per cent in the polls? Is it any wonder that this is the least popular Government ever in Canadian history?


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member may well want to put a preamble to his question and, of course, the Chair would accept that. But I do not think that those comments were properly a preamble. Would the Hon. Member put his question, please?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Government is refusing to provide the public with more access to government information, notwithstanding the promises it made during the last election campaign. The Government will recognize that more information makes for a more honest Government. My question to the Government is this. Why is it refusing to provide more information to the public? What is it trying to hide?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again, I can only repeat my earlier answer to the Hon. Member. I would advise him that we will ensure that the
October 16, 1987

Access to Information Act is carried through in spirit, as well as in fact, by changing the attitude of Government on openness and accessibility.


Mr. Jelinek:: It is more than the Grits ever did.


COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. The present Minister of Justice on November 27, 1984, had this to
say:
The people of Canada have a right to information and the preservation of
that right is one that we in this Party and the Government regard as the most
serious undertaking we have.
Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that with respect to the unanimous set of 108 recommendations by the justice committee the Government has decided to ignore 97 of those recommendations in terms of opening up access to information.
My question to the Hon. Minister is simply this. Why did the Government go against that unanimous set of recommendations in an effort to cover up and to keep invaluable information from flowing to the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already answered that question in response to another Hon. Member. Again, 1 can only repeat what my colleague, the Minister of Justice, said yesterday. "We are committed to the principle and we are, in fact, by our response, indicating immediate action to make it a more effective and a more efficient vehicle for the average Canadian to get information on government operations".


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have before me a quote by the present Prime Minister that he uttered on August 13, 1984, just before the last federal election. He said that the difference "between the present administration", that is the Liberal administration, "and a new Conservative Government is simply this: The present Government believes you only have limited rights to know; Conservatives believe that you have every right to know".
Very clearly, the implication of the Prime Minister was that a new Government would change in terms of its approach to access to information. Will the Minister indicate why there is absolutely no difference at all and why the Prime Minister has gone back on his promise to the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that we are not a Party that goes back on its promises.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: There is only evil in the mind of the beholder, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to quote again from the Hon. Minister of Justice. He said: "We are expanding substantially the protection to the individual. We are curtailing substantially the use of the social insurance number as a single identifying number. We are looking after protecting the concerns of the average Canadian, and I think we are doing an effective and a good job in that regard".


AGRICULTURE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for Canada's loose-leaf negotiator, the Minister of Finance, concerning the free trade agreement with the United States. On December 2, 1985, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in response to my question concerning the protection of supply management systems in agriculture: "We do not intend to place agriculture at risk in any negotiations".
Given that statement and other statements by the Prime Minister to that effect, why were tariffs dropped on dairy products, a supply management commodity? Why were tariffs removed on chicken? Why are imports of chicken from the United States increased by 20 per cent? Is this another broken promise?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker. 1 have a quote here somewhere by someone who is intimately involved in that industry who supports the agreement.
The tariffs are down. But the key element of the supply management system, the quantity restrictions, the import restrictions, remain in place. There have been some adjustments in the feather industry, but those adjustments are in line with the growth in the markets over recent years.


REMOVAL OF CHICKEN IMPORT TARIFFS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just referred to import restrictions. Does he not realize that one of those import restrictions making supply management work was the tariff restriction? How can he reconcile what he has just said now with the statement by a representative of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency who stated: "We do not agree that the chicken industry should be undermined by eliminating one of its very necessary underpinnings, tariffs". How can he reconcile his statements with what the chicken agency is saying, as well as other farming groups?

October 16, 1987
Oral Questions
Is it not true that the Government has broken another promise to the farmers of Canada? Why does it not come clean now and admit that it has done so? It has sold them out. Was this another sheet that was in the wrong place in the negotiations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric does not improve the presentation one little bit. The point that 1 made is that the key element of the supply management system is not tariffs; it is the import restrictions. Those import restrictions have been adjusted in a very minor way, consistent with the size of the economy and the growth in the economy in recent years.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Solicitor General.
Regardless of their views on capital punishment, I think virtually all Canadians agree that, in a good number of instances, jail sentences are not severe enough in relation to the crime committed. Many people believe that paroles or conditional releases are too lenient.
I wish to ask the Chairman is his committee actively dealing with these vital issues now, and when can we expect a report and recommendations?


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question, and his long-standing interest in this area. I particularly recognize his work in the area of the young offenders legislation.
I can advise the Hon. Member that the committee has started work on this major review. For example, next week we will be hearing from the Chairman of the National Parole Board. The committee hopes to respond to the concerns of the public in a thoughtful and dispassionate way, and to suggest reforms perhaps as early as the end of June, 1988.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance on the trade deal. On October 4 on CBC the Prime Minister stated that regional development programs were "untouched and unchallenged"
because of the trade deal. On October 9 the Minister of Transport stated: "There aren't any of our regional development programs that are affected by this agreement".
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he sees any contradiction between what was stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, and what was stated yesterday by the Deputy Minister of Finance, Stanley Hartt, in his appearance before the Public Accounts Committee when he stated: "We are going to have to think differently in terms of ways to promote economic development", and that some of the regional subsidy programs cannot be used in the future, such as the Michelin arrangement.
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can square that circle. Can he inform the House who is telling the truth?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it has been known for quite some time that deals comparable to the Michelin deal are liable to action and countervail in the United States. I believe that the Michelin deal was the subject of a countervail action. Nothing has changed on that.
What we have at this point is a dispute settlement mechanism that ensures that the rules for that countervail are properly administered.
I point out to the Hon. Member that on Wednesday or Thursday there was an announcement made by my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, on the project in Matane. Clearly we are able to move ahead with regional development policies that will bring ahead projects like the Matane project that are fully consistent with the trade negotiations for the specific position that we are in today.


John Edward Broadbent: Clean up our law, make it consistent with U.S. law.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Continue our regional development programs as long as they are consistent with American trade law, from the way I understand the Minister.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Right on, that is what he said.


INQUIRY WHO IS SPEAKING TRUTH
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We had Mr. Hartt and his comments on Michelin last night, and on October 13, the Minister of regional development said in the House, in answer to one of my questions, and I quote:
I can say categorically that federal programs aimed at resolving disparity
have not in any way been compromised by the Agreement signed by our two
Governments.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Mr. Hartt, the Deputy Minister of Finance, said the exact opposite.
The question is, once more: Who is telling the truth, Deputy Minister Hartt or the Minister of regional development?
October 16, 1987


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no change in our abilities to deliver regional development programs that is affected in any way by the free trade agreement. Mr. Hartt was referring to projects like Michelin which was undertaken a number of years ago, which are subject to countervail law, as the same type of program in the United States, if it was exporting into Canada, would be subject to our countervail law. So nothing has changed.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party has a great big smile on his face.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is you we are smiling at, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the New
Democratic Party is not quite sure exactly what trade law is, and he is laughing in an inane way because he does not understand the import of the question.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, following the statements made by the Deputy Minister. When we get several versions of the facts, it is often hard to tell what the truth of the matter is. My question concerns these statements, and I would ask the Minister how the free trade agreement will affect the activities of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Are regions like New Brunswick and the rest of the Atlantic Region doomed to get only minor projects, the crumbs, while major projects will be directed to the more prosperous regions of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there will be no effect whatever on the ability of the Government to deliver regional development programs to Atlantic Canada. In terms of the last part of his question, there will be no bias at all in the Government redirecting major projects to other parts of the country outside Atlantic Canada. That is in no way affected by the free trade agreement. Our ability to deliver regional development programs to all parts of Atlantic Canada will remain absolutely unchanged and unaffected by this agreement.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF STATEMENTS BY MINISTER AND DEPUTY MINISTER
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister explain the comments made by
Oral Questions
his Deputy Minister, ramely that we will have to change our perspective on our regional development programs? Where is the truth in what the Minister said just now and in what was said by the Deputy Minister yesterday before a committee of the House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question twice in reply to the member of the New Democratic Party.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-INFORMATION PROVIDED TO UNITED STATES SENATORS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. There have been very real contradictions between what the Government has been stating and what the American officials have been stating on both the written and unwritten components of the trade package, and I refer specifically to Bill C-22 as well as the film distribution industry.
If the Conservative Government's version is the accurate one, will the Minister of Finance now call the American trade officials and ask them, in fact demand, that they stop misinforming the American people through the Senators in the United States? Will the Minister of Finance do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a note that was given to me from my staff that indicates that Mr. Yeutter spoke to some member of the New Democratic Party and told him absolutely that Bill C-22 was not part of this agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF FILM DISTRIBUTION LEGISLATION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we have said clearly in the House, and we recognize, that it is not part of the official document, but clearly it is part of the deal that was made. It was a side deal by this Government to sell out the rights of Parliament to make decisions on behalf of the people of Canada.
I ask the Minister to show some good faith. If his version of the truth is the factual one as it applies to Mr. Valenti's problem, at the appropriate Order of the Day today will the Minister table the Bill with regard to the film distribution industry in order that we can see what is in it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course not.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have stated the facts on Bill C-22. I

October 16, 1987
Oral Questions
stated them on the film distribution policy. Yesterday, 1 think 1 stated them three times. I stated them also in response to my colleague from Mount Royal. That is a fact. I cannot do more than state the facts. If the Eton. Member has some integrity himself, he would accept what 1 say as the facts.


Mr. Murphy:: Table the Bill.


BILL C-22-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Yeutter may be correct in suggesting that the drug Bill is not in the final text.
It certainly was in one of the final documents signed by the Minister, and it was certainly actively-


An Hon. Member:: Look at the facts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was not in the document signed by me. You are twisting the truth again, John.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor. 1 would ask Hon. Members to give him the appropriate courtesies.


John Napier Turner: It was certainly actively negotiated during the course of the trade negotiations with the United States despite disclaimers in this House.
Would the Minister give me and Members of the House an undertaking by way of a clear statement that there was no understanding, verbal or written, given either in public or in private to the United States administration or the United States Congress by the Government of Canada, that this Government would facilitate or arrange passage of Bill C-22, the drug legislation before the House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said that in the House in response to, I believe it was, the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I will go down and 1 will speak to Mr. Baker, I will speak to Mr. Yeutter, I will speak to any Senator or any Congressman and tell him that it is the intention of the Government to see that Bill passed.
If the Leader of the Opposition would not weasel out of his responsibilities to control the non-elected Senate, the Senators from his Party who are holding up passage, holding back the will of Parliament, the will of the elected House of Commons, we would be able to move that legislation along.


John Napier Turner: It is not my duty to facilitate the passage of a bad Bill, I tell him that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


QUERY CONCERNING POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF OTHER UNDERSTANDINGS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we now have a clear statement from the Minister respecting the drug Bill, and we will have that on the record.
I want to ask him for another statement. Would he declare to the House of Commons that there has been no understanding, verbal or written, private or public, given by the Government of Canada to the United States administration or to Members of the United States Congress relating to any matter not specifically contained in the final text of the agreement, signed by him, between Canada and the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the question. Is that the same question as the first question the Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked?


John Napier Turner: No. I think we want it right on the record here that the final agreement contains the total agreement and that there is no understanding, which was given by the Minister or his colleagues or the Canadian negotiating team on behalf of the Government of Canada, either verbal or written, public or private, to either the United States administration or the U.S. Congress, on matters not specifically contained in that agreement.


Mr. Dick:: So help you God.


John Napier Turner: Yes, so help him God. That is what we want.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 have made that statement before in the House, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Just make it again, quite clearly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: For the record.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will make it again quite clearly that I do not know what the Hon. Member is digging at here.


John Napier Turner: We will see.


PASSAGE OF BILL C-22-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a single supplementary question on the same matter to get absolute clarification.
The Minister has made it clear that in terms of the final document we have all seen there is no reference to Bill C-22. There is no dispute about that.
What there is an important dispute about is the understanding that has been conveyed, for example, to at least three Senators in the U.S. Senate who have to make a decision on

October 16, 1987

this, that as part of the package agreed upon there is included in that a commitment-I repeat, part of the agreed upon package by the Government of Canada-to pass Bill C-22.
Was there a specific undertaking, as specific as that, made to the U.S. administration? Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same question which has just been asked by the Leader of the Opposition. We have made no commitment.


John Edward Broadbent: You made no commitment.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We cannot make any further commitment than what we have actually done in the House of Commons.
We passed Bill C-22 twice. The problem is with the Liberals in the Senate who are ignoring the fact that Bill C-22 will produce about 3,000 jobs, $1.4 billion in research and development spending, and tremendous benefits across the country, which will get us into the mainstream of industrialized nations in research and development, and better health care for Canadians right across the country.


TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF TELEVISION BROADCASTING
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to make a statement about the tenth anniversary of the House of Commons television broadcasting.

1 would like to bring to the attention of all Hon. Members and our television audience that today is the tenth anniversary of television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons. On October 17, 1977, the proceedings of this House were broadcast for the first time on a daily basis.
Perhaps not all Hon. Members are aware that Canada was the first country to provide this kind of daily service. Since then, a number of provincial legislatures and many other legislatures throughout the world have followed suit.

1 am sure all Hon. Members will want to join with me in taking this opportunity to thank the management and staff of the House of Commons Broadcasting Branch and Electronic Services Branch for their continuing efforts in ensuring that House television broadcasts are of the highest technical quality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata PRIVILEGE


DECORUM IN THE HOUSE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege, of which I gave you notice last evening, arises out of a rather unfortunate incident in the House of Commons involving the conduct of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).
Shortly after midnight when the Committee of the Whole was considering Bill C-86, the back-to-work legislation, I was recognized by the Chairman to speak. While I was speaking I was physically assaulted by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine. 1 should add that the Member in question appeared to be seriously impaired by alcohol.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: The Member was given an opportunity to apologize-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could understand that imputations or accusations are probably not appropriate in the Chamber. Certainly an incident happened of which the Chair has been made aware. I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude his comments and take some care in the words that he uses.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Member in question, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, was given an opportunity to apologize but refused to do so.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take the appropriate disciplinary action.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the wee hours of this morning during the postal strike debate I ejected the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) from this side of the House to the other side of the House.
I was unaware that the rules allow a Member to speak from any seat in the Chamber during committee of the Whole debate. I know that the Hon. Member for York South- Weston is a very respected Member of the House, a very effective debater, and I apologize to him. At no time in the future would I ever attempt to stifle him from entering into debate.
I apologize to the Hon. Member and to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) is aware of the rules in Committee of the Whole, he certainly is aware that he is not the Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons.

October 16, 1987
House of Commons


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Keeper:: He physically assaulted the man.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, without any equivocation at all, has given an absolute apology. I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) feels there is any necessity to continue. The Chair is in this position. Clearly an Hon. Member has said frankly to the House "I was wrong".


Cyril Keeper: He assaulted him.


Mr. Speaker:: Once that is done, it seems to me procedurally that that is the end of the issue. However, the Hon. Member for Churchill is a well respected Member of this House and I would ask him perhaps to conclude his remarks, taking into account what I have just said.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take your advice at its real value. I do think that there is no more important right for a Member of this House than the ability to get up and state his or her case on legislation before us. Any effort by any Member of this House to impede that right is completely unacceptable.
Under the rules in this House we cannot use certain words against each other. Certainly when a Member goes beyond that, he infringes on the rights not only of that one Member who is physically assaulted but of the entire House itself.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at the time this occurred we were dealing with legislation ordering people back to work. The Government was talking about violence on the picket lines and yet at the same time we had violence in the House of Commons.


Cyril Keeper: It is true.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I would also point out that what we were dealing with in the House of Commons at that moment was very stiff penalties to be levied on anyone who broke the law of this land, penalties which would impede elected people from seeking election for the ensuing five years if they broke that law.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill, who I repeat is a responsible and well respected Member, knows that this is not the place to redebate the debate of last night. I see the Hon. Member accepting that. Perhaps he could close off his remarks.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I do believe it was necessary to point out for people who were watching the debate-obviously a great number of Canadians were-that they will see a double standard if we treat this issue lightly.
I accept the apology given by the Member. I do not think it was given overly graciously but it was given and we have to accept it in this House. I believe all Members are concerned that we have strict penalties for ourselves, just as we have for others, should this ever happen again in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) raised a point of privilege. The Hon. Member involved is a very senior Member of this place and he has stated quite clearly to this House, as is appropriate, "I was wrong. I am sorry".
I think that all of us can accept what the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has said, that this incident ought not to have happened and that it ought not to happen again. I think that closes the matter, and I thank Hon. Members for their co-operation.


TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF TELEVISION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS POSSIBLE TELEVISION COVERAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to your comments on the tenth anniversary of television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons.
Perhaps I may remind the House that all parliamentarians gave their unanimous approval to the McGrath Report and recommended that the proceedings of our parliamentary committees be televised as well as those of the House.
On this tenth anniversary, it would have been appropriate for the Government House Leader to announce that the Government had finally accepted this unanimous recommendation by committee members, unanimously supported at the time by all Members of Parliament, and that it would proceed as soon as possible with also televising the proceedings of our committees, where increasingly, back-benchers are doing useful and important work that is of interest to the people of this country.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition from a number of people from British Columbia who have been watching the debate on Bill C-55.
They draw our attention to the fact that the Standing Committee on Immigration has proposed a new procedure for refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve the problems of backlogs and the unsubstantiated claims being
October 16, 1987

made. This particular initiative has widespread support among not only all Parties in Parliament, as reflected by the committee's report, but also the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and many of the groups and individuals very knowledgeable on refugee issues.
Therefore, they ask the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims for refugee claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission and to provide universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada along with the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present two petitions, both of which have been certified correct according to Standing Order 106.
The first one comes from a good cross-section of the Canadian public in Mississauga, Bramalea, Toronto, Etobicoke, Willowdale, Scarborough, Agincourt, Ottawa, Gloucester, Saint John, New Brunswick, Hull and Aylmer. The petitioners call on Parliament to change Bill C-55, the Immigration Bill, to correct some very real problems which they see in it.
The second series of petitions are also on Bill C-55. The petitioners call upon the Government and Parliament to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation employing the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission, among other things.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a good cross-section of Canadians. Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
Bill C-55 will result in many, perhaps most, refugees who reach our borders being turned away without having their claim heard on the merits of their cases and by limiting the right of appeal to points of law. This legislation ignores the reality that most refugee claims are questions of fact and credibility.
The concept of safe third country has no foundation in law and no definition and therefore subjects to the refugee process undue political and diplomatic pressures. The Standing Committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugees which if adopted would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims. That alternative has wide-spread support among all Parties in Parliament as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Conference and most other groups knowledgeable on refugee issues.
Petitions
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute the legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claims before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission universal access to such hearings to every applicant in Canada and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I too have a series of petitions mostly from cities of Toronto, Windsor and Ottawa. It is asking that the Government withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation which embodies the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants and that this be done before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission with universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada and the right to appeal on the basis of fact. The petitioners state a number of very serious complaints about the present legislation.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition from a number of Canadians pointing out the problems that exist with Bill C-55 and pointing out that a Standing Committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugees which would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and of unsubstantiated refugee claims and that this alternative has wide-spread support among groups involved with refugees.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principle of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from Canadians from Edmonton in the Province of Alberta, Windsor, Ontario, Vancouver and Halifax. These petitions have been duly certified in accordance with Standing Order 106 and they are concerned with Bill C-55's threat to Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees. It recognizes the Standing Committee's alternative that has been proposed which has wide-spread support from the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and most other groups and individuals knowledgeable on refugee issues.
The petitioners call upon Parliament and Government to withdraw Bill C-55 and to substitute legislation embodying proper principles of fair and quick oral hearings and claims for refugee claimants based on a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) has managed to do something that most Hon. Members are very unlikely ever to be able to do in this Chamber

October 16, 1987
Oral Questions
and that is to speak from a seat other than his own. However, the Chair exercised a great deal of latitude and consideration. Because the Hon. Member for St. John's East is of course well and honourably known to us all, it was perhaps appropriate not to interrupt him, but I would not want what just happened to be any example of what the Chair might be prepared to permit under other circumstances. As all Hon. Members know, they are to quite a degree rooted to their seats.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from citizens of Edmonton and Toronto and these have been duly certified. These people are urging the Government to withdraw Bill C-55 because by limiting the rights of the appeal to points of law, this legislation ignores the reality that most refugee claims are questions of fact and credibility.
Whereas the concept of a safe third country has no foundation in law and no definition and therefore subjects the refugee process to undue political and diplomatic pressures and the alternative has wide-spread support among all Parties in Parliament as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and most other groups and individuals knowledgeable on refugee issues, therefore, the undersigned have asked to have this Bill withdrawn.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to participate in debate on Bill C-55 which provides for amendments to the
Immigration Act. My colleagues and I have just tabled a number of petitions. As the House knows and perhaps the people watching do not, Hon. Members were not allowed to read the petitions at the time of presenting them, so as part of my speech on Bill C-55, I would like to read into the record one of the petitions just so it is there for public consideration. It is entitled "Petition to the Honourable House of Commons, in Parliament Assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your Petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will thereby provide a remedy, humbly sheweth
Whereas Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees, and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to assuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection, and
Whereas Bill C-55 will result in many, perhaps most, refugees who reach our borders being turned away without having their claim heard on the merits of their case, and
Whereas by limiting the right of appeal to points of law, this legislation ignores the reality that most refugee claims are questions of fact and credibility, and
Whereas the concept of "safe third country" has no foundation in law and no definition and therefore subjects the refugee process to undue political and diplomatic pressures, and
Whereas the Standing Committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims, and
Whereas the alternative has widespread support among all parties in Parliament as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and most other groups and individuals knowledgeable on refugee issues.
Therefore we the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a Refugee Board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.
That is the petition that has been circulated across Canada and been signed by hundreds if not thousands of Canadians who are very concerned about the impact of this legislation and about the manner in which those seeking to come to this land are treated.
The Bill revises the Immigration Act of 1976 mainly as it deals with people who claim refugee status in Canada, either when they arrive at a port of entry or when they are already here with visas as immigrants, students or visitors. The great majority of claimants are those arriving at a port of entry, usually without a visa. The Government, particularly the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, has over a half dozen years tried to twist the system against refugee claimants by screening out ones they consider bogus and not letting them be examined by the body authorized to determine whether or not they are refugees.
A refugee, according to the UN Treaty we signed 20 years ago, is a person outside of his country and unable or unwilling
October 16, 1987

to return through a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political outlook, or membership in a particular social group.
Canada's present law, the 1976 Immigration Act, provides a system for examination of claimants and decision by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee and Immigration Appeal Board. The system is cumbersome and it broke down two or three years ago because the number of claimants increased faster than the staff provided by the Government.
Once it had broken down, and a claimant might wait two, three or five years for a final decision, the so-called consultants and bogus refugees moved in. For a fee of several thousand dollars per head, consultants arranged to bring people in, coached to make a refugee claim which, given our strong human rights law and broken down processing system, could give them several years to earn Canadian wages before being removed from Canada. The worst example was that of Portuguese claiming to be Jehovah's Witnesses who feared persecution by the Roman Catholic Church in Portugal. The Government delayed imposing visa requirement for 14 months after the scam was known, allowing in 3,500 bogus claimants. Later came the Turks, Brazilians and others.
Quite clearly the law needs revision. The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, as a result of a study directed to it by the then Minister of State for Immigration and the House, tabled in November, 1985, its fifth report with a proposal for a swift and fair system of refugee status determination.
The committee proposed that a refugee claimant be sent directly to a refugee board without a lot of immigration procedures first. The board would decide yes or no, being trained and authorized to do so, and Immigration would take over from there; either admitting the person on refugee grounds or, if there were no other humanitarian grounds, expelling the person.
The Government was required to reply within four months but it has never provided this House with what we consider a comprehensive response to that report. Instead, it responded with Bill C-55, tabled in May of this year.
Briefly, this Bill sends a refugee claimant first to an immigration inquiry to determine whether there is any reason to not remove him or her from this country. The immigration adjudicator, a member of the refugee division at this inquiry, examines only the eligibility and credibility of the claimant. This means they do not judge the merits of his or her claim but only whether or not that person would be safe in another country which they passed through and should be removed to that country, or whether the country that the person indicates they are fleeing from is in fact a country that does not produce refugees. On either of these grounds they may prohibit him or her from going to the refugee division to state the whole claim and have it determined by that body.
Immigration Act, 1976
Although the Bill has a few good points we have opposed it essentially because of the way it will prevent most claimants from having access to an otherwise good refugee determination system, that is the refugee division. We also oppose the harsh restrictions on time provided to find a lawyer, except for the ones provided and paid for by the Minister, and the severe restrictions on the right of appeal to the courts.
The restrictions on access violates the UN Convention which requires that everyone be accorded the right to make a refugee claim, and the UN Charter of Human Rights which says every persecuted person has the right to seek protection of another Government. It also violates the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Singh case in April, 1985, that on the basis of the Charter everyone physically in Canada who makes a refugee claim has the right to be heard in person by the body that will decide on the merits of his or her claim. The Charter also guarantees the right of access to counsel. The right to appeal is implicit in Canadian law and may be defended on Charter grounds.
The Bill was tabled in May. We had an emergency session this summer, which is still going on and on and on, to deal with a separate but similar immigration Bill. However, because there was such urgency in dealing with C-55 the committee work was rushed through. There were only seven meeting days and some 40 witnesses were crammed into 44 1/2 hours. Clearly what the Government was trying to do was prevent a groundswell of opposition. It knew once the groups involved in immigration, whether it be the ethnic groups themselves who provide support for the people of their former nationality, or the churches, or labour groups or what have you, got an idea of what this Bill would really do they would develop the kind of groundswell that would be necessary to convince the Government to defeat it.
As we have seen, thousands of people have signed petitions asking the Government to change this. I get calls on a regular basis from churches in my riding who want an update and want to know what they can do, who they can write to, how they can put pressure on the Government to change this legislation. I have a copy of one such letter dated September 21 of this year from Donald Anderson, General Secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches. That is a very well respected body which has as its basis for being, aside from religion, the humanitarian aspects of our society. He writes:
We appreciate government work to try to improve Bill C-55. Unfortunately our deep concerns remain. How can we know if a person claiming to be a refugee needs our help if we do not hear their problems? Each person claiming to be a refugee should have a right to have their individual circumstances assessed and their case decided on its merits before competent independent decision makers. To us, this is the intent of the Convention and Protocol.
Immigration programs may legitimately choose who comes on humanitarian grounds and may set priorities on countries they may come from. We understand the attractiveness of this approach.
Bill C-55 provides for exclusion of people not on the basis of their individual circumstances, but by a political cabinet decision that the country they transitted before arriving in Canada is deemed to adhere to Clause 33 of the Convention, that is, it is deemed the transit country will not return the person in any manner whatsoever to a country where he or she may face persecution.

October 16, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
This is a far shot from our obligation to give an individual who arrives in Canada a fair hearing of his or her claim to need our protection.
Also, there is no meaningful appeal to any of the critical decisions made which can remove claimants from Canada in proposed inquiries or hearings.
We cannot accept legislation which sets aside a claimant's right to just procedures in the name of administrative convenience.
We urge you to reconsider, to abandon this Bill C-55 and to speedily replace it with one conforming with the principles of allowing every claimant a hearing on the merits and a meaningful appeal. There are alternative processes we can surely all support.
Let me spend a few moments going into some detail on the elements I have already referred to; first, the denial of the right to be heard which was not corrected during many attempts in committee by my colleague, the Hon. Member or Spadina (Mr. Heap). 1 would just like to compliment him for the work he has done over this long summer and fall. I want to compliment the Member for Spadina for the many hours he has spent in Ottawa and out on the hustings working with the network that developed opposition to this legislation, working with witnesses and his colleagues on the legislative committee in an attempt to convince the Government of the need to make positive changes to the legislation. He has done an excellent job. I not only compliment him, I thank him on behalf of my constituents and all those who are concerned about immigration matters.
The denial of the right to be heard has not been corrected. The main fault in Bill C-55, quite unchanged by scores of amendments attempted in the legislative committee and at report stage, is that it denies Canada's obligation to let a refugee claimant at our border state his or her case. This is called "universal access", and is supported by the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The UN Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees, which Canada signed in 1967, states unequivocally in Article 33:
No country shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories when his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or social opinion.
The recognized logic of this is that Canada has solemnly agreed not to refoule anyone inside our borders who claims to be a refugee unless and until Canada has decided that that person's claim is unfounded. The present 1976 Immigration Act reserves to the Minister, on advice of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, or to the Immigration Appeal Board, the power to decide whether a claimant is or is not a real refugee. For several years, senior officials of the Immigration Commission illegally rejected certain claims without letting the Refugee Status Advisory Committee or the Minister see them, until the former Minister stopped them. Since then, they appear to have dragged their heels-by taking many months to arrange typing of the transcript of a claimant's statement under oath for example-until the system became hopelessly backlogged.
Bill C-55 is a renewed drive by the senior officials to exclude most claimants either on the ground that they could have claimed elsewhere or on the ground that they do not have a claim worth listening to. They are to be screened out before coming to the refugee division, which will have the legal authority to decide claims, and deported. This device not only violates Article 33 of the Convention, endangering real refugees, but will also waste time on cases that do go forward to the refugee division. That is the very fault laid against our present refugee determination system.
Let us deal with the safe third country. Is there a real safe third country in the world? The first test is to decide whether the claimant spent any time, other than at an airport in transit, in a country where he or she might have been safe. This is to be decided by looking at a list, made by the Cabinet, of countries that comply with Article 33 of the Convention.
That sounds reasonable at first. However, since Canada refused to hear that person's claim, Canada has no right to assume that the other country will hear it either. Therefore, the other country may do as Canada did, and expel the claimant to somewhere else which could bring the claimant who may be a genuine refugee back to the country of actual persecution. That would violate Canada's Convention obligation not to refoule a refugee even indirectly.
We have seen an example of this only in the last couple of weeks. An individual was sent back to the safe third country, where he was immediately deported. That safe third country was our neighbour to the south. We have been talking about a continental energy policy, but I think we have a continental immigration policy to make sure that certain people do not get into the northern part of North America.
Let me turn to the credibility test. If a claimant passes the safe third country test, he or she is then required to demonstrate a credible basis for the claim. This, defined as having credible and trustworthy evidence upon which the refugee division might find a claim well founded, really means that the refugee division's work is to be done first at the screening, hastily, without a fair chance for the claimant to prepare, and by a panel including an adjudicator who is not competent to decide refugee claims.
If I had to decide for some reason that I must leave Canada because of my political or religious beliefs, I do not believe it would be something I would plan to do for some months, and therefore be able to arrange all the documentation I needed to support my claim to the country to which I was fleeing. Rather I would be probably lucky to flee with the clothes on my back. Most legitimate refugees do not have the opportunity to bring their documentation.
When I was a provincial member, I recall having a case of a citizen from the Ukraine, who was visiting Thunder Bay. She wanted to claim political asylum but there was a catch to the situation. She was divorced, but the divorce papers were in the hands of the Soviet authorities and therefore she could not use
October 16, 1987

the option of marrying a Canadian as a means of staying in Canada.
The point is that it is very easy for non progressive countries that are bound to create refugees of some type to ensure that their citizens do not have the proper documentation available to them. Furthermore, a person is a legitimate refugee likely because his political views differ from those of a fascist or military dictatorship. What assurances are there that such a government would give the Canadian Government accurate information about the refugee?
There must be a process by which each case can be examined on its merit rather than referring to a shopping list of safe third countries to which these refugees can be returned.
Canada has supported some very questionable governments in South America and other parts of the world over the years. We have seen those governments overthrown.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague, the Member for Spadina for his efforts. We will continue to speak to this Bill to give the Government time to reconsider it, and realize that what it is doing is wrong.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member agree that in some measure part of the abuse of the refugee system lies in the fact that it seems on occasion to be the only way to have access to this country? Perhaps if we could even meet the targets that are set, which we have not done for a number of years, there would be a system in which people would at least think they have a chance to have access to this country.
I agree with the Member when he says that there are many bogus claims of which he does not approve. I do not think any Member of the House approves of that activity. Frustration exists because the system has been bogged down by red tape, which I suppose is necessary in some measure in an immigration system but has been carried too far in our system and has put it into a state of inertia. Would the Member comment on that.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for his comments and his question. I agree that not only in terms of structure but in terms of philosophy we must open up this country. A number of years ago I listened to an individual, whom I will not name but who was a member of the big blue machine out of Queen's Park. He appeared on Canada AM every now and then with two other individuals, representing other political parties, who will also remain nameless. He spoke to a conference in Thunder Bay and argued very forcefully about the need to increase drastically the number of people coming to this country. The traditional family in Canada has 1.2 children, not enough even to sustain the existing population. We must, therefore, open up legal immigration.
Immigration Act, 1976
Ours is a vast country which was populated by immigrants. My father's family came to Canada in the 1790s from the United States, having gone there from the British Isles. Successive generations of my mother's family came directly from Scotland and Ireland to Canada. My family was part of the group that opened up the west. My grandfather homesteaded in Manitoba in a village called Angusville, appropriately enough. I am the son of an immigrant. With the exception of our native Canadians, we are all sons and daughters of immigrants.
The country is changing because the individuals who come here are no longer primarily from Europe. People from the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and all parts of the world come here now. We need those people to work in our factories and to buy the goods which the factories produce.
It is important to develop an immigration policy which allows people to enter the country. As the Hon. Member said, we cannot even meet our quota. We cannot even reunite families to the extent that we would like. Every week constituents of mine come into my office and tell me, for example, that they have been trying for years to get their brother out of country x or their sister or son our of country y. The red tape which they must go through is extremely frustrating.
We need a system which will ensure that those people who want to come to Canada of their own free will to start a new life and look for opportunities are able to do so. In addition, we have a responsibility to accept those legitimate refugees who are forced to leave their homeland for whatever reasons. We need a process which will ensure that the legitimate ones get through and the bogus ones do not. The process must be carried out in a timely and humane manner, in the Canadian way.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, as I begin my comments I am reminded of a question asked by Rabbi Gunther Plaut at a meeting in Montreal in the spring. He simply asked why the Government does not tell Canadians the truth. It is a pertinent question which should be asked by all Canadians, and 1 will come back to it during the course of my remarks.
We are debating today a most shameful piece of legislation which illustrates more than any other Bill before this House the duplicity and hypocrisy of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I ask that the Member not use those types of words when referring to a specific Member of the House.


David Berger: I will try to heed your admonishment, Mr. Speaker.
Most important, and regrettably, as a result of the actions of the Government, lives will be at risk and human beings will suffer. In the process Canada's international reputation is being torn to shreds.

October 16, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Canadians were deceived by the Government. We were told that there was an emergency. Parliament was called back on August 11, several weeks after 174 Sikhs arrived on the shores of Nova Scotia. The Government held them in detention for several weeks. Extraordinary measures were implemented. Canadians were led to believe that we were subject to various threats to our security. In the final analysis every single person was released by an adjudicator who came to the conclusion that the Government had no grounds whatsoever for holding these persons in detention.
It is laughable to suggest that we are in an emergency situation when we compare our situation to that of other countries. I understand that the Government of Canada was embarrassed recently at a meeting of the executive committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees because of its attitude toward refugees. Observers from the refugee-producing countries attend the meetings of this organization.
At this particular meeting there were observers from Pakistan and the Sudan, each of which receive millions of refugees. There were representatives from Somalia, Mexico and Thailand which receive hundreds of thousands of persons seeking asylum or temporary shelter. Not one of those countries are taking restrictive measures. Not one of those countries even mentioned restrictive measures. They simply asked the western countries for help by way of food, medicine, or other goods, in order to cope with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees on their borders.
If you can believe it, Mr. Speaker, Canada complained about the 30,000 or so asylum-seekers who have accumulated in our country over the past several years. We almost got booed out of the place. When the International Council of Voluntary Agencies in its statement on the protection of refugees complained about the restrictive measures and the inadequate appeals in the Bill that we are studying here today, quite understandably, the faces of the Canadian delegation turned red.
Is this the international image that we want to keep? Is this in keeping with Canada's humanitarian traditions which we have established over the past 25 or 30 years?
Where was the mellifluous Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) this past August with his words of generosity and compassion? 1 remind the House that only one year and several months ago now, in August of 1986, he said the following. These are the words which he uttered as reported in the press on August 18, 1986. He said, "It is not the presence of 155 frightened human beings searching for freedom and opportunity that is going to undermine Canada or our immigration policies". He was talking about the Tamils who had arrived in the summer of 1986.
What happened in the year? In 1986, the Prime Minister was generous in his attitude toward refugees. A year later, in
1987, he was silent. He had not a word to say. He left the dirty work to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and to the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner), who is sitting here in the House today.
The Prime Minister piped up recently and actually had the audacity to say that refugees are the wave of the future. On September 25 of this year, again as reported in the press, he said that accepting more refugees is going to be the wave of the future. May 1 suggest that the Prime Minister's words ring hollow when compared to the restrictive actions that this Government is taking? But how typical, I would suggest as well. The Government and the Prime Minister promised generosity and compassion, but we get harsh, unconscionable actions. It is no wonder that the people of Canada do not believe a word that he says. It is no wonder that the Government has sunk to such a low standing in the opinion of Canadians.
I come back to the question I asked earlier today at the opening of my remarks. Why not tell the truth? The Government and its spokesmen have misrepresented what honest, well-meaning individuals mean by the concept of universal access. They suggested that we would open the doors to all the refugees in the world, to the 15 million or 20 million of them. They even went so far as to say that we were suggesting that five billion people ought to come to Canada, if one can believe that.
I would like to refer the House to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) who, in debate in the House on August 13 of this year, as reported at page 8036 of Hansard, stated, "What 1 said was under the Singh decision," that being the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada a year or two ago in 1985, "with respect to the protection under the Charter, there is a possibility of five billion people. Anyone around the world could land on our shores . . . Therefore, potentially every person in the world can come here and claim refugee status. That confirms the numbers I quoted".
The Minister of State for Immigration now has his head buried in his papers. On that same day I was engaged in an exchange with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who said that he did not believe in the concept of universal access. The Minister, in reference to me, said, "He is saying to Canadians, and they have to understand this, that everyone who decides to come to Canada and claim refugee status should have access". The Minister of State for Immigration piped up and said, "Five billion people". "Five billion people", the Minister of State for Immigration said, as reported at page 8043 of Hansard for August 13, 1987. What kind of nerve does he have to make that type of irresponsible statement? What type of nerve does he have to suggest to Canadians that five billion people may come to our shores?
Are those the actions of a responsible Minister of the Crown? Are those the actions of a responsible Minister of State for Immigration who flouts these kinds of fears and this
October 16, 1987

kind of ridiculous notion before Canadians? Five billion people, he said. It cannot be repeated often enough.
Universal access simply means that we give all people who claim to be refugees and who manage to come to Canada a right to be heard on the merits of their claims. That does not mean that we accept them. Our only obligation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. We will have to go to the other place. The Hon. Member will be able to continue his speech when we come back.
*
* *


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. [English]
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall,
October 16, 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V.J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 16th day of October, 1987, at 1:00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable The Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[Translation\
And being returned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services-Chapter 40.
Immigration Act, 1976



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 third time and passed.
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, prior to my comments being interrupted by Royal Assent, I was explaining that the concept of universal access simply means that we give all people who manage to get to our shores and claim to be refugees a full hearing on the merits. Those who are in favour of this concept believe that we must give all persons a chance to prove their case. That does not mean that we have to accept all claimants. Indeed, under the UN Convention the only obligation we have is not to return them to a country where their lives would be in danger. Therefore, we can simply accept people on a temporary basis. If the situation in the country from which they fled corrects itself, we can return them to that country at that time.
It is totally misleading and incorrect to say that we are being flooded by millions of potential claimants. Millions of refugees are not coming to Canada. They have no desire to come here. They wish to return to their own countries. At the meeting of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees executive committee in Geneva, representatives from Somalia, Thailand, and Mexico did not ask Canada or western countries to resettle those refugees. They asked for our aid. Second, we have slammed on visas for most refugee producing countries. Third, we have imposed tremendous fines on transportation companies, so that the vast majority of refugees in the world will be left to struggle in refugee camps, to starve, to be shot at, and to be trampled on. It is misleading to suggest that those refugees in any way pose a threat to the peace of mind and way of life of Canadians, or to suggest that they are arriving in numbers which we cannot handle.
The following questions have been asked by Tory Members. Why should we help those who have managed to come here? Why not choose more from the refugee camps? They have said that they are the deserving ones, as if to say that those who come here on their own are not deserving, are not in need of our protection, or are breaking the rules to come here.
There is a very clear answer to these questions. It is precisely to allow refugees to move spontaneously on their own to a safe haven that the UN Convention exists. It was adopted after World War II when hundreds of thousands of people became victims because they had nowhere to go, no country would accept them. The UN Convention was established to

October 16, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
permit refugees to move spontaneously to seek salvation on their own. It was not to require them to stand in line or to apply at embassies abroad. The Convention was a deviation from the principle that sovereign states had total control over their borders.
Again I remind Hon. Members that it is incorrect, therefore, to suggest that under the UN Convention we are somehow subject to being flooded by hundreds of thousands of claimants from around the world.
Another great promise of the Government was to consult with Canadians. Not a single witness before the legislative committee supported the Bill. I remind the Minister of that fact. I would also suggest that Hon. Members read what the witnesses said.
In particular I should like to quote Professor William Angus from Osgoode Hall, an expert authority on administrative law. He referred to how the Government, in this Bill, was trying to limit access to the courts and to the traditional remedy which people have to apply to the courts for review of a decision made by a government agency or government board. In this case it would be the refugee division.
If we read his testimony before the committee, we see that he referred to the legislation as being unprecedented. He said that he had not seen before a situation where, in order to get the courts to review a decision made by the refugee division, one needed the permission of a judge or needed to apply for leave. Normally one does not have to ask the court for its permission; one has the right to have the court review the decision of an administrative tribunal. It is a long-standing remedy available to citizens which was developed in common law going back hundreds of years.
He went on to say that the provision in Bill C-55 was a most extraordinary provision which might be appropriate for an authoritarian state but completely inappropriate for a democracy such as we have in Canada which has the system of the rule of law. Is that not quite a statement for a professor of law to make before a parliamentary committee?
1 have struggled to find words to express the abhorrence I feel for this wicked, unjust Bill for I do not believe that it belongs on the books. We were told by witnesses that court challenges were already being prepared, that it offends the Charter, that it offends human dignity, that it offends Canadians' sense of fairness, and that it offends human nature which will not submit to arbitrary, heavy-handed measures.
In conclusion, I am reminded of the words of the poet Robert Frost who wrote the following in the poem Mending Wall:
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it.
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
As long as human beings have a breath of life, as long as they have a will to survive, they will find ways around the walls built by bureaucrats. They will find ways to save their lives. They will not linger in refugee camps.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) on his excellent and very thoughtful presentation to the House this afternoon.
For the benefit of all Hon. Members, could he tell us what he thinks in greater detail about the so-called safe third country concept? We know that although certain countries may be a safe haven for individuals coming from certain destinations, they are not necessarily a safe haven for those who come from other countries or countries with different political beliefs.
Further, perhaps the Hon. Member could inform us on what he thinks of the particular provision and what he thinks will be the long-term effect of such a clause, were it to stand up to court challenges. We recognize that there is a distinct possibility that it will not. However, in the unlikely event that it will withstand a court challenge, what does the Hon. Member think will be the long-term effect of such a clause, both in terms of what the direct result would be for individual claimants and in terms of our status as a nation, recognizing that we have been an award winning nation? I am referring to the Nansen Medal which our country merited not long ago. How does he think we will fare in that regard with this new policy?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The safe third country provision in the Bill sets up a screen. It is a way to screen claimants out of the system. It violates the principle of universal access about which I spoke earlier.
In essence it means that a good many claimants who come to Canada will not have the right to make a claim.
Since Canada happens to be a country which is fairly remote from most refugee producing countries, in essence it means that very few refugees will indeed be eligible to make claims in Canada. Estimates have been made that as many as 80 per cent of claimants will be ruled out as a result of this provision. The only ones who might be eligible, for argument's sake, are people from eastern bloc countries and Warsaw Pact countries who are on holiday to Cuba and deplane when the airplane lands to refuel in Gander. They will be eligible.
However, Afghans who spend some time in Pakistan or other countries prior to coming to Canada will not be eligible. Salvadorans who have spent some time in the United States will not be eligible to make a claim under that provision.
We are putting up a wall around our refugee determination system. For all intents and purposes we are excluding the vast majority of the refugees of the world. Furthermore, the Member will note, if he reads the provision relating to a safe
October 16, 1987

third country, that these countries will be prescribed by Cabinet. In other words, if a person is on a list prescribed by Cabinet, that person is refused, denied, access to the refugee determination system. There is no discretion whatever given to the adjudicator or the member of the refugee division at the hearing to look at the individual situation of the claimant. If the claimant is on a list, he is out of the system, excluded, and not entitled to make a claim. I understand that this is at variance with the practice in many of the European countries which have tried to implement this kind of a system. In France and West Germany there is room for individual determination, even if a person comes from a so-called safe third country.
The Member asked me to speak to the question of effect. I said earlier this summer in this debate and in an article that I wrote that tragic mistakes will be made, undeniably tragic mistakes will be made. I tried not to exaggerate the impact that this would have because we were trying to have a civilized debate. ITowever, what do I mean by saying that tragic mistakes will be made, Mr. Speaker? Very simply, lives will be lost. Human beings will suffer as a result of this particular provision and this legislation. What does it do to Canada's international reputation? As I said earlier, our international reputation is being torn to shreds. Again, I have talked to people who attended the meeting of the executive committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva recently where Canadian officials were all but booed out of the room.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I was at the meeting and there was no booing. Canada was applauded for its stand. The Member might like to get his facts straight. As for the situation in Europe today, in most cases people from other European countries are turned away at the border with no appeals. They have none of the kinds of protections we see in Bill C-55.
When the Member speaks and writes articles about a safe third country, perhaps he should read the legislation and discover its accuracy. If the Member looks at the amended Bill, as part of the eligibility requirements in an inland hearing there is absolutely no notion of a safe third country being a consideration. The notion of a safe third country will occur at a border point when, in the judgment of the immigration official, there is no need for protection in Canada. That judgment is then appealed to an inquiry with an adjudicator and a refugee board member. It can further be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada, and it is always appealable to the Minister. There are three levels of appeal in the Canadian system in those few cases which will occur at border points.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are kidding yourself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There are three levels of appeal from an administrative judgment, Mr. Speaker. The European system has no appeal in most cases from similar administrative judgments. People are sitting across the way shaking their heads. They are dead wrong.
Immigration Act, 1976


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Look at reality. What about the person who doesn't speak any English?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This system provides protection that no other place in the world provides. The Member opposite is dead wrong when he talks about what the safe third country concept will do. When he thinks it applies to inland claims, it does not, in statute, as amended, and in the Bill that we have before us today it is deliberately excluded. I was part of the group who made those amendments.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Member has a lot of gall to stand up in this House and make those kinds of statements when he says that the notion of a safe third country will be applied at the border and a judgment will be made that a person is not in need of protection. There have been articles in the paper in the last few weeks. I have spoken to lawyers who told me that there are circumstances today already under the administrative measures introduced by the Government last February 21-


Alan Redway: Name one.


David Berger: -in which people have been returned to their countries-


Alan Redway: Name one.


David Berger: -where their lives are in danger.
Mr. Red way: Name one.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Name just one.


David Berger: The hon. gentlemen are shouting,"Name one". There was an article in The Globe and Mail a week ago where Mendel Green, the very experienced Toronto attorney, was referring to a Filipino whose name I am afraid I cannot recall, but I would ask them to read this article. As I say, I have been in touch with some lawyers in Toronto in the past couple of days who have told me that there are other cases which they have not yet had the opportunity to document. There was a case I believe of a Salvadoran woman who was returned to the United States and subsequently returned to El Salvador.
I would say to the Member, it is perhaps unfortunate to say, that he has absolutely no credibility to stand up in this House and to speak on this question. He has lost his credibility among all of the people who work in this area, among church groups, humanitarian organizations, Amnesty International and knowledgeable immigration lawyers. I invite him, if he is so confident of his facts, to speak to the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner), as well as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and ask them to attend some debates that have been scheduled over the course of the next few weeks and to respond to some of the invitations they have received but which they are too afraid to attend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).

October 16, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with a representative of an organization in Vancouver, in fact, in my riding of Vancouver East. 1 am very glad the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is in the House because I will be seeking his help with this matter. The representative from Casa Latin Americana, as the organization is called, is a volunteer who gives many hours, as do other Latin American people who work in this centre providing assistance for Spanish speaking refugees from Latin America. They have quite a number, I think up to 20 volunteer teachers, who are helping with English as a second language. They have 10 or so volunteer lawyers who are helping refugees and new immigrants with legal questions, including refugees and their problems. They provide a lot of mutual help and support from each other. It is a place where people can meet and speak their own language.
Beginning over the last few years many people have come to Canada largely over the British Columbia border. This centre has unfortunately been refused ISAP federal funds. One of its main purposes is to assist in the settlement of Latin American people coming to Canada, and it has a lot of volunteer support. However, it would like to have at least one staff person, but it has been refused funds. It has also been refused funds from the Canada Employment and Immigration Department for any job development programs. I mentioned that the group has very strong support from churches, from the Spanish-speaking community, from many agencies and from many individuals in Vancouver. The Minister, I hope, will speak to me about this personally.
When I met with my friend yesterday, I asked him about some of the recent experiences he had with people coming from Latin America and he told me about a medical doctor from Guatemala for whom he had been serving as interpreter. This doctor when he was in Guatemala was performing his normal duties as a physician. At one point, he was called by the guerrilla groups to provide medical services to some of their people who were injured and dying. He went as a physician, of course, with no particular political commitment.
As a result of doing this, he was blacklisted politically by the Guatemalan Government. His wife and his daughter were subsequently killed and he was the only survivor. He himself was unconscious for about a week and it was guerrillas who took him to the hills to look after him.
Eventually he was able to leave that country and to go first to Mexico with his sister and then to the United States. Of course, his objective was to come to Canada. He arrived in Canada about four months ago, spoke very little if any English, and of course is now registered as a refugee claimant waiting to be recognized as an official refugee and to be allowed to remain permanently in Canada.
This man is seeking sanctuary in Canada as a political refugee. I am sure the Minister and the officials will probably
approve his claim. There is no question that he will face danger and perhaps death if he returns to Guatemala.
Under the present system, as I understand it, he goes to the bottom of a very long waiting list of applicants, and it could be several years before his claim is processed by the refugee determination committee. Meanwhile, of course, his future is insecure. He cannot practise his profession, but at least he is here in Canada and he is safe. He has people around him, particularly the people at Casa Latin Americana, who care about him and are willing to give him all kinds of support and help.
I would think that if this man had not arrived at the Canadian border already and were to come to the border in the future after Bill C-55 was implemented, it is highly doubtful that he would have gotten past the border point. He did not speak English, he would not have had anyone there to speak for him. I doubt if he had many documents. It would be very difficult for him. I want to return to this example a little later in my remarks because I think it illustrates a pretty typical kind of refugee situation that we are seeing very frequently now in my part of Canada and I am sure in other parts as well.
Why are we so concerned about Bill C-55? I think this is the third or fourth opportunity I have had to speak very strongly and very sincerely about my concerns and the concerns of my Party about this Bill. We all agree that it has become very obvious that there are serious flaws in our refugee system. There is no question at all that changes are needed to make it more fair and more efficient. I think the long waiting list to which I just referred is certainly one that we have all been very concerned about. I know the Minister has been concerned about this as well.
In 1985, Rabbi Gunther Plaut outlined in his report an effective and fair refugee determination system. We have all referred to this report. The main points that he advocated were also included in the report of the all-Party Standing Committee on Labour Employment and Immigration, which was a very effective and active committee that looked into these matters.
All of these proposals for reform, it seemed to me, were very, very practical and sound and based on a lot of expert evidence. They would expedite refugee procedures while also maintaining full rights to a fair hearing and appeal. They were supported, of course, by church groups, by immigration lawyers and civil rights groups and by refugee organizations right across the country.
Unfortunately, as we have all said, and this is now history, it remains most regrettable that this Conservative Government refused to consider or implement either the Plaut recommendations or those of the parliamentary committee. Instead, it introduced Bill C-55, an amendment to the Immigration Act, which is intended to establish a new refugee determination process in Canada, a process which we believe will be unfair and inhumane and will contravene both UN requirements and our Charter of Rights.
October 16, 1987

Many Canadians who are knowledgeable about the refugee situation and who have given a great deal of their time in assisting refugees have appealed repeatedly to the Government to withdraw this Bill. Even in this very final stage of debate, we appeal again to the Government to do this.
We think that it is very unfortunate that in a country with Canada's strong humanitarian traditions, we are likely to be taken backward by this Bill. 1 do not believe that the Minister, who I know has a very strong heart and feeling for people, wants to do that, but I cannot understand why he does not see the severely restrictive aspects of this Bill.
I want to refer to some of the points which concern us most which I had mentioned previously so 1 will not go into them in detail again. Legal experts and humanitarian groups that work closely with refugee claimants agree that Bill C-55 may lead to genuine refugees being forcibly removed from Canada to face arbitrary detention, torture or execution in their homelands.
As was stated by my colleague who spoke previously, one of the most offensive aspects of the Bill is the safe third country concept. I am afraid that my friend from Calgary has not convinced me to the contrary. Nor has he convinced our immigration critic who is much more knowledgeable about this and has sat through all the hearings and heard all the amendments that were referred to.
The Bill allows the Cabinet to create a list of safe countries to which refugee claimants may be removed, even without having had a chance to explain why they are seeking sanctuary in Canada. Refugee claimants will be detained at our borders or airports and can be sent back to a safe third country by only two officials, two people who will undoubtedly, as we all have, have subjective biases. They will not have a great deal of time to go into detail and will probably not speak the language of the person who is applying.
It seems quite logical to expect that that kind of a review would be a superficial one and these two persons would decide whether or not claimants do qualify then to take further steps to be processed through the Canadian refugee determination committee. Undoubtedly, many people would be culled out at that stage. I do not think there is any real protection in the process since these people are not guaranteed interpreters, legal counsel or appeal nor do they have full rights to a hearing at that stage.
We can expect that those, like the doctor from Guatemala, could very well be returned to the U.S. and from the United States could be deported within 24 hours to their countries of origin, which in many cases may be dangerous for them. In cases of refugees such as the Guatemalan doctor who spoke no English, had no lawyer or visa, the applicant would have no real opportunity for appeal. It is quite possible that that doctor would have been refused admission to Canada and that he would have then been returned by the U.S. to Guatemala and certainly to possible death and if not death, then certainly severe danger. I was talking just about Guatemalans. But what happens if we have Salvadorans who face the same kind of
Immigration Act, 1976
discrimination? We know that the U.S. accepts only about 2.6 per cent of refugee applicants from El Salvador. We also know that some people in the U.S. tracked 50 people who were returned to El Salvador and found that most of them are now dead. I was told by my friend in Vancouver that there are death squads operating in Los Angeles.
Another thing that occurs to me is the question of why we are shifting responsibility for helping refugees who want to come to Canada to these so-called safe third countries? Why are we not welcoming people ourselves and processing their applications in an efficient and fair manner in Canada? Do we not have more resources and less population pressures than Mexico, for example, which has no choice but to take people from the countries I have mentioned? I am ashamed to say that Canada has an unfortunate history of leaving refugees in refugee camps in Third World countries, or in other countries for that matter, while we cream off a few of the healthiest people. I do not think this is good enough and I hope most Members of this Elouse agree.
Since I am sure Members have had enough of my direct quotes I would like to quote some relevant criticism in an article by Michael Schelew, a Toronto lawyer and spokesman for Amnesty International on refugee affairs. This was published in The Globe and Mail on August 13. He says:
-humanitarian groups that work closely with refugee claimants have condemned Bill C-55 because it may lead to genuine refugees being forcibly removed from Canada to face arbitrary detention, torture or execution.
One of the bill's more offensive aspects is the "safe third country" concept.
This bill contains no guarantees that genuine refugees will not be returned to their country of persecution after being sent to a so-called safe third country.
The power given the Cabinet to choose safe countries will add politics to the process, seriously damage the integrity of the system and possibly put genuine refugees at risk.
Furthermore, what will become of claimants who are returned to Canada having been refused entry to a safe third country?
A very interesting point. He refers to the Sikhs who came to our shores last summer where the Dutch made it clear to Canada that they would not allow those Sikhs to re-enter that country. He said:
This refusal has confirmed the position taken by many refugee experts-and even some government officials in private-that the safe-country concept is not workable.
Another glaring deficiency in Bill C-55 is the limited right of appeal. The Federal Court of Canada will hear an appeal only if there is an error in law. Because refugee claims are primarily based upon findings of fact and credibility and not legal questions, appeals that are limited to legal technicalities have little likelihood of being heard. As a result, Bill C-55 provides no meaningful appeal mechanism by which mistakes made at the initial refugee hearing can be rectified.
It is no wonder that credible organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees have expressed grave reservations about the safe third country provisions and the inaccessible appeal procedures.

October 16, 1987
Citizenship Act
Given that the Canadian public is legitimately concerned about the abuse of Canada's inland refugee-determination procedure, the federal government is trying to sell Bill C-55 by saying that it will control abuse.
We have not heard quite as much about that in this debate as we heard all summer long. Of course, Bill C-84 was directed specifically at what the Minister claimed to be abuse. He used the term very frequently and this led the public to feel sometimes that he was equating refugee claimants with abusers. However, the articles goes on to say:
-expert reports commissioned by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees have maintained that only 10 to 15 per cent of all refugee claimants can be categorized as abusers.
I see my time is almost up so I would like to conclude by quoting Mr. Schelew once more. He said:
-many Canadians have come to the conclusion that the federal Cabinet is more concerned with vote-getting and trade than it is about protecting the integrity of a refugee-determination system that will help those genuinely in need of help. What is worse, many Canadians are now accusing the Government of encouraging the abuse of the determination procedure in order to justify restrictive refugee measures.
Canadians are proud of their humanitarian tradition of assisting the persecuted and the displaced. Bill C-55, if it becomes law, will destroy this tradition. This bill is so repugnant to Canadian values that it must be withdrawn and replaced. It is high time the Prime Minister began listening seriously to the many non-partisan opponents of this bill.
That was written in August and it remains true today. Certainly we support the points made.
1 want to make a few general points in concluding. Canada faces a falling birth rate. We have an aging population. In the years ahead we are going to have fewer and fewer young workers paying taxes and contributing to the pension system, helping to pay the cost of care for an aging population. We need people, there is no question about it. I am sure the Minister, who is concerned with population trends, would agree. We need young workers and people with young families, people who are going to bring their skills to Canada, become consumers, and stimulate our economy, create jobs and help us to compete in a competitive world. Surely we need a much more open and just immigration policy, not just for business entrepreneurs and for people from politically correct countries according to Conservative standards. We need many more people and we need a total review of our immigration policy with this in mind. We need to maintain a fair refugee policy and do away with this Bill which does not achieve any of those objectives.

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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CITIZENSHIP ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North) moved: that Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (period of residence), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to debate my Private Members' Bill, Bill C-254, which proposes to amend the Citizenship Act, period of residence. Presently, a non-Canadian spouse of a member of the Armed Forces or a public servant, either provincial or federal, who is serving his or her country abroad, must reside in Canada in order to be granted Canadian citizenship.
My Bill, while not a highly contentious issue, is of national significance to Canadians from all regions of the country, and of particular importance to the large number of individuals who, at any given time, are serving our country abroad.
The intent of Bill C-254 is to bring consistency and fairness back to the Citizenship Act, as it relates to the individuals I have already identified. There are a couple of areas that I feel lack consistency and cause essential problems for these individuals representing Canada overseas.
The first is that citizenship court judges have absolute discretion in interpreting what constitutes residency under the Act. This means that while some judges interpret residency to mean actual physical presence in Canada, others allow time spent abroad in any official capacity to count for the residency requirement.
The second area of inconsistency concerns taxation. Foreign born spouses are taxed as Canadian citizens, however they are not granted citizenship nor do they enjoy all the rights and privileges that go along with Canadian citizenship until they have fulfilled the residency requirements outlined in the current Act.
The difficulty in fulfilling these residency requirements is great, given the rotational nature of foreign employment assignments. Spouses of these Canadians who serve overseas on an on and off basis are never in Canada long enough to fulfil residency requirements of three consecutive years at any one time.
As such, each stay of less than three years in Canada is erased. Therefore, one cannot accumulate years of residence during successive stays in Canada and apply them towards residency requirements, even though they are serving the country of their spouse abroad.
October 16, 1987

The foreign service community is actively supporting this Bill and has suggested that the residency requirement of the Act is one of the major irritants of employment with the foreign service of Canada. They too would like to see the Citizenship Act amended to facilitate a fairer system for fulfilling residency requirements.
Spouses of diplomats, Armed Forces and other government personnel in other countries do not encounter the same difficulties fulfilling residency requirements as spouses of our personnel do in Canada.
Let me outline a few examples. Australia has a residency requirement of one year within two. However, the Minister responsible may waive the residency requirement. In France there is no residency requirement for foreign service spouses. In The Netherlands, foreign service spouses can acquire citizenship from abroad. In the United States, the residency requirement for foreign service spouses may be waived as a posting abroad is confirmed. These other countries recognize the importance of the service of these personnel and their spouses.
I think all Members of the House would agree that the spouses of all Canadians who are in the employ of our Armed Forces and External Affairs and Public Service abroad deserve better treatment.
Furthermore, the rotation of their assignments causes much hardship on their spouses' ability to meet the residency requirements. This makes it hard for us to keep some of our best and brightest people in these occupations to serve our country.
We as parliamentarians have a duty not to let the quality of these professional people in these occupations decline because of this minor problem that we have found in the existing Act.
I am sure all my colleagues on both sides of the House will agree that Bill C-254 is a non-partisan issue. It is an issue of fairness to those individuals v.. o are serving the Canadian public abroad.
While non-Canadian spouses are acting on the Canadian public's behalf overseas, and are taxed as Canadian citizens, they might well be denied citi xnship because of a lack of flexibility, consistency and understanding for such circumstances in the present Act.
Canadians should be proud of the quality of our representatives overseas. They are our best and brightest, and I would hate to think that someone may have to pass up a posting or leave the service altogether, therefore losing the benefit of their knowledge, in order to fulfil the requirements of a residency.
It is my sincere belief that Bill C-254 should be considered so that consistency can be brought back to the Citizenship Act and fairness restored to the treatment of Canadians and their spouses who serve this country abroad.
Citizenship Act
I want to thank members of the Opposition for their consideration in allowing this Bill to go to the legislative committee. I do not think much more would be gained by my prolonging the debate on this issue.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act, introduced by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock). First of all, the Hon. Member is to be commended for his decision to present this Bill in the House. It is a very interesting piece of legislation. It will not stir up a great deal of controversy. However, if it is passed, it can be of great benefit to many Canadians and to many people who would like to become Canadian citizens.

Earlier today I had the opportunity to have a brief meeting with the Foreign Service Community Association from which I received a brief on this issue.
The brief contains some rather interesting statistics. I want to share some information with the House which will perhaps assist other Hon. Members in understanding why such a Bill would be beneficial to many people.
First, the minimum residency requirement in Canada for the purposes of becoming a Canadian citizen is three years. It is my understanding that some have interpreted this as meaning three consecutive years. While this has not always been applied rigidly by citizenship court judges, they have done so on a number of occasions.
The Foreign Service Community Association tells us that the longest average residency of people who are married to Canadian citizens working overseas on behalf of the Government of Canada, either in the military or foreign service, is 19 months. Anyone in that situation could be denied the opportunity of applying for citizenship.
The average accumulated residency time in Canada is 23 months. Therefore, even if one could add up the accumulated residency time, which is not always recognized, they would still be short of the residency requirement by a year.
Interestingly enough, the average time the same people spend abroad on postings is 47 months. These postings with one's spouse could be in a Canadian embassy or working with the Canadian embassy for 47 months in a Canadian environment, albeit elsewhere in the world. Yet, that 47 months has been interpreted by citizenship court judges as not counting.
Statistics show that of the spouses in that situation 16 per cent have accumulated three or more years in Canada in separate periods of residence. These people cannot apply even though they technically have the amount of time required by the present law. Fifty-six per cent of the spouses have served

October 16, 1987
Citizenship Act
abroad for more than three years, but many judges have said that that does not count. Sixty-eight per cent have accumulated three or more years when time served abroad on postings is added to the time spent in Canada.
In other words, if we were to add the time spent overseas of spouses while married to a Canadian working overseas for the Government to the time spent in Canada, more than two-thirds of them would qualify to become Canadian citizens. The most revealing statistic indicates that 90 per cent have not resided in Canada for three consecutive years.
I had the opportunity to meet with a person who informed me that she had been married to a Canadian citizen for 11 years and had been working with her spouse in the foreign service. This person lived in Canada with her spouse for two-and-a-half years, then spent seven years abroad, then returned to Canada two years ago. This person is still not technically able to become a Canadian citizen. It seems to me that these are the very kinds of people for whom we should be rolling out the welcome mat.
The Bill before us would go a long way toward ensuring that some very qualified people in the foreign service do not leave in order to enable their spouses to qualify as a citizen, because that is sometimes what they have to resort to. In addition, I am sure that it would create far more harmonious family situations. It would make things much easier for everyone.
As one final piece of information, I am told that there are three spouses of Canadian foreign service people overseas who are presently stateless. They are in the same situation as are refugees applying to come to this country, even though they are married to Canadian citizens and may even work in the offices which issue visas for people to come to Canada.
Needless to say, such compelling evidence leads me to believe that this Bill should be referred to a legislative committee as soon as possible. There may be loopholes in the Bill and the legislative committee will assist us to find them.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Members of this House have no intention of passing laws that would create problems even greater then we have known in the past. At first glance, this Bill would not seem to create any problems. In any case, the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill would like to see it referred, as customary, to a legislative committee of the House, which could then call witnesses and thus give Parliament the assurance that the Bill is drafted in such a way that no abuse will be possible. Nobody wants abuse, but we do not want legislation that would discriminate against certain groups.
The fact that this Bill does not... I think the present situation discriminates against the people I met earlier today. I am therefore delighted to support this Bill, and I would urge all Members of this House to vote in favour of the proposed legislation, especially, Mr. Speaker-

In closing, let me say that it is my position that we should do everything in our capacity to give our approval to this Bill and refer it to a legislative committee this very day.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) on taking the initiative to put this Bill before the House of Commons. This Bill provides an opportunity for the House to work effectively and in greater harmony than one often sees among the Parties in order to correct an injustice which has existed for 10 years and deserved to be fixed a long time ago. I believe that we can fix this injustice.
My Party supports the Bill proposed by the Member for Etobicoke North. We have suggested, and I believe it is agreed on all sides of the House, that it be referred to a legislative committee. When it returns to the House after having been discussed and perhaps tidied up, we would be prepared to give it third reading without spending any further parliamentary time on it.
I would like to congratulate the members of the Foreign Service Community Association, three of whose representatives are in the Gallery now, for their persistent efforts to bring this matter to the attention of parliamentarians. They have prepared briefs and prepared a very elaborate, extensive, helpful survey in the spring on the situation of foreign service spouses in order to bring the problem to our attention.
The Bill will provide for credit to be given toward the time required for citizenship to any landed immigrant who is the spouse of a Government of Canada employee posted abroad or Canadian Armed Force's personnel posted abroad.
The problem is most acute, however, with the foreign service spouses because of the nature of their work. Canada's immigration service abroad, our foreign aid service abroad and, of course, our diplomatic representation abroad is all carried out through the Department of External Affairs. In that area the normal career pattern is to be abroad for two to three years, then to return to Canada, to go abroad again, and return once again to Canada. It is a bit of a roller-coaster. It is a difficult life and the spouses are really unpaid ambassadors for Canada. They are seen and treated by the people in the country where they are posted as being a representative of Canada.
The members of the community association point out rather wryly that the spouse of a Canadian posted abroad does not get the privilege of being a non-Canadian for tax purposes but has to suffer the consequences of being treated as a nonCanadian when it comes to citizenship. In other words, we take their money through taxation but will not give them credit toward the time required for citizenship even if they happen to be contributing to the Canadian Treasury.
In addition to this there is the psychological problem of not knowing what your status is. The Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) cited the example of one
October 16, 1987

spouse who has been married to a Canadian for over 10 years and has not yet succeeded in piling up a three-year uninterrupted period in Canada in order to become a citizen.
In addition to the psychological problem there is a professional problem. Spouses are increasingly working in the foreign service as well as everywhere else. On being posted back to Canada, normally to Ottawa, the foreign-born spouse of a Canadian diplomat or Canadian employee looks for a job in which to continue his or her career. One of the obvious places to look is the Government of Canada, but the Government of Canada, in employment, quite specifically discriminates against people who are not citizens. It only gives jobs to non-citizens in the event that no Canadian citizen is available.
Therefore, someone who chooses to marry a diplomat or someone else working for Canada and comes back to Canada to live cannot get citizenship and finds that they may well not be able to continue with their profession or career because the jobs in Ottawa which are most likely to be suitable require Canadian citizenship.
This is not a huge problem, but it is not a small problem either. According to the survey of 160 spouses of foreign service personnel who would like to become citizens, 108 have been married to a Canadian for more than three years. Only 26 have three years of residence in Canada. But nonetheless while they were abroad they were certainly representing Canada. Only 16, or 10 per cent, have three or more years of consecutive residence in one stretch in Canada.
That is an indication of the problem. People say, "Well, this is not quite right. If any of these men or women had married a Canadian and moved then to Canada as a landed immigrant, then after three years and a day they would be eligible for Canadian citizenship". It is just an accident that their spouse happens to be a foreign service officer that leads to this particular situation.
I would point out that this Bill affects non-diplomatic personnel as well as diplomatic personnel. While this is not the subject of the Bill, I know from contacts with my constituents in Ottawa Centre that non-diplomatic personnel, support staff, the secretaries, the people doing the ciphering and the communications work and that kind of thing, suffer some real discrimination in foreign posts. Diplomats receive tax-exempt status and have certain abilities to import products without tariffs which the non-diplomats do not have. Because the Canadian dollar is not always as strong as it was a few years ago, some of those non-diplomatic personnel find it difficult just to survive living in a foreign economy with the lower salaries they get, because they are not paid as much as the diplomats, and likewise get lower allowances. This is governed in large measure by the Geneva Convention which gives special privileges to diplomats.
As a country which has spoken up at the United Nations and elsewhere for the status of women in diplomatic life and in
Citizenship Act
diplomatic and in international postings, and as a country which is concerned about equality between different people whether they live and work at the elite level or the working level, I think Canada should be pressing very hard that the countries of the world amend the Geneva Convention in order to ensure that this discrimination against the lower paid and lower status personnel in diplomatic missions abroad should be brought to an end. I wanted to piggyback that comment in the Elouse of Commons, Mr. Speaker. But I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on a number of occasions, as well as with my own critic in that area.
I repeat, with respect to the spouses of diplomats and of other Canadian officers, in many cases they must pass a security screening for their spouse to retain their job if the marriage takes place. In other words, they are much more carefully screened than people who come through to become Canadian citizens who have very light screening.
I think this is a matter which cries out to be corrected. It is a matter of injustice that needs to be fixed. It is not an issue that affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians. But for those people who are affected it is dear and near to their hearts in a literal as well as a practical sense. I think that the House should be prepared to move, and move with alacrity, on this particular matter.
I hope that the legislative committee can complete its work and we can bring this back to the House within the course of the next three or four weeks.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments to the discussion today on the Bill presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) and on what I would call his very creative initiative. He is another hard-working Conservative Member of Parliament. I want to add something to the comments of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the statistics he reported, and to the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).
Bill C-254 is essentially proposing to change the Citizenship Act whereby any day outside of Canada shall be treated as equivalent to one day of residence in Canada for the purpose of becoming a Canadian citizen. I have lived and worked abroad many years, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in Africa and Central America. I have travelled extensively around other parts of the world and have recognized the tremendous frustrations that are being faced by foreign-born spouses. I, of course, was a Canadian living and working abroad, but I had constant contact with foreign-born spouses who were not Canadians.
The nature of my riding also lends itself to the importance of this Bill because there are a great many foreign service personnel who live in the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton. There are people from the Armed Forces who live there who

October 16, 1987
Citizenship Act
are directly affcted by this issue. So 1 am particularly pleased to be able to add a few comments on it.
The Foreign Service Community Association has been referred to as a voluntary organization that supports and represents the non-professional needs of foreign service employees and their dependants. But it is awfully concerned as well about this issue of foreign-born spouses as it applies to citizenship.
In June of this year it presented a very well researched, very well thought out brief to the Minister and the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie). I had an opportunity to meet on September 17 with the President of the association, Nancy Fraser, and the office co-ordinator, Don Jones, and some of their colleagues to talk about this proposal by my colleague from Etobicoke North. I understand there is a similar initiative taking place in the other place. We discussed their concerns and frustrations. I am very pleased to support them.
1 think this Bill is very fair. It is very reasonable. I think it is very timely to eliminate some of these obvious frustrations that foreign-born spouses have in their efforts to become Canadian citizens. It is in that spirit that 1 want to support this very timely piece of legislation and ask that it be given unanimous consent and approval here in the House of Commons this afternoon.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, as an Ottawa area Member I, too, would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) on his initiative today. 1 was pleased to be able to second the Hon. Member's motion this afternoon.
Like other Members from the National Capital Region, 1 represent a number of foreign service officers. In fact, I just returned last night from Geneva where 1 had briefings from Canadian foreign officers there involved in the GATT trade discussions. I found that the Ambassador there and his second in charge were both constituents of mine. 1 might say that they are doing an excellent job for Canada in those difficult negotiations.
Generally, 1 think we are well served by our foreign service personnel in this country. I think they are second to none anywhere. We have good reason to be proud not just of them but of their spouses and their families who also contribute a great deal to the successful work that they are able to carry out on behalf of this country all over the world.
I,	too, met recently with the president and other officers of the association of foreign service spouses and agreed to lend my support to the thrust of this Bill. 1 also just want to point out that I had agreed with a Senator from the other place to sponsor in this House a Bill which has, I believe, just come out of the Senate, Bill S-8, which deals with virtually an identical subject matter. I have not yet notified the Table Officers of that, but it may well be that I will not do so in light of what appears to be the decision, the will of the House to proceed to committee on this matter.
May I say to Hon. Members that it might be appropriate for the committee that is struck to examine Bill S-8, the Senate Bill, in order to come up with the best possible piece of legislation we can to achieve this very worthwhile objective. Once again, I extend my thanks and congratulations to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.29 p.m..
[Stage Direction]

Monday, October 19, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers