1987-08-13

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition No. 332-2601.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by residents of Canada in which they express their concern about the Government's Bill C-55. The petitioners believe that it threatens legitimate refugees. They call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55, and substitute legislation which embodies the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims before a refugee board which is independent of the Immigration Commission. The petitioners feel there should be universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition from residents of Thunder Bay. In the petition they protest the federal Government's proposal to close the direct mail unit of the Canada Employment Centre in Thunder Bay because it will result in deterioration of service at the centre at the expense of the residents of northwestern Ontario. The proposed decision will result in clients throughout northwestern Ontario having to mail their cards directly to Belleville which will result in a delay in payment of unemployment insurance benefits. All of this is as a result of the removal of the computer centre in Thunder Bay, and the courier service from Belleville.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of the Canada Employment Centre, and to instruct the Government to abandon this decision to remove the input of unemployment insurance report cards in the Thunder Bay Canada Employment Centre.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions from a number of residents of the riding of Spadina, and the City of Toronto.
O)
In this petition they point out that Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country, as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
A number of other considerations are raised in the "whereases", but the petition at the end is that Parliament and Government ensure that Bill C-55 is withdrawn and that the Department and Government substitute therefor 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.
In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table five petitions bearing the signatures of a number of my constituents who, this summer, were visiting the Byward Market. They are to the effect that the Federal Government has since September 1984 imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new increases on existing taxes, including some on medical and dental supplies, candies, sweets and soft drinks.
That the Federal Government, in its White Paper on tax reform, is considering the possibility of imposing on Canadian taxpayers a generalized sales tax on goods and services, including food, that food represents a vital element in their daily lives and that this sales tax would heavily penalize various categories of taxpayers, including the senior citizens,

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
the families, the unemployed, the low and middle income taxpayers, the young, etc.
Wherefor, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to turn down any legislation the effect of which would be to impose a sales tax on foodstuffs.
Elumbly submitted, Mr. Speaker, by some 100 Ottawa- Vanier taxpayers.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 147.


Ms. McDonald: Since their introduction, did the Government receive any letters in relation to Bill C-204. Non-smokers' Health Act and Bill C-51, Tobacco Products Control Act and, if so, in each case, how many were (o) in support (b) in opposition?


Philip Derek Lewis: I am
informed by several departments as follows:
Bill C-204, Non-Smokers' Health Act. (a) 282, (b) 22.
Bill C-51, Tobacco Products Control Act. (a) 499, (b) 1,087.
The Department of Finance has recorded the receipt of 17 letters relating to Bills C-51 and C-204. Of these, only seven named C-51 and C-204 to by name or number. Twelve writers were against the Bill and five were in favour although two of the five felt the proposals were not strong enough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 149 could be made an Order for Return, the Return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 149 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, did (a) Continental Public Relations (b) Foster [DOT]Advertising (f) Golin Harris (rf) Continental Golin Harris (t>) Advance Planning Company (/) Dalton Camp (g) Camp and Associates receive any money from the Government and, if so, in each case (i) in what amount (ii) were contracts involved and, if so, for each contract, what was the nature and the amount?
2.	Were such contracts put to public tender and (a) if so, which ones (b) if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, August 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on a point of order, I should like to indicate that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has 12 minutes remaining in his speech, with provision for ten minutes of questions or comments.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we resume listening to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader in the House, 1 want simply to clarify where we have arrived at in the House in terms of the negotiations which have taken place over the last two days between the various Parties, the various House Leaders.
1 want to make clear just what is the agreement to which we have come. My understanding as of this morning is that there has been agreement that we will limit debate at second reading to enable the Bill before us, Bill C-84, to go to committee tomorrow; that that debate will take place for the rest of today as a regular day and into tomorrow, if necessary; and that then
August 13, 1987

it will be referred to committee-in other words, that debate at second reading will terminate.
This by no means indicates our support; quite the contrary. We are concerned about its major flaws, and we are anxious that it gets into committee.
Since the two opposition Parties have agreed to enable this piece of legislation to go to the legislative committee tomorrow, at committee stage it will receive full and complete hearings, with expert witnesses appearing before the committee to ensure complete and full examination.
I simply want to make that clear because there has been some confusion. When 1 left last night we had an understanding, and it has been changed this morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing the Parliamentary Secretary, let me indicate that 1 know this is Thursday and that there should be some sort of government business later, after Question Period today, to discuss what will happen as far as the House is concerned.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 do not think this exchange should be taking place right now on the floor of the House, but I will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Equal time.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to point out to the House that there were the normal discussions between House Leaders in an effort to come to an agreement but, as 1 advised my friend at ten o'clock this morning in the corridor outside, there was no agreement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: 1 rise on a point of order for clarification. Since we have now agreed, as of this morning, to go back to the normal procedure, does that mean that we will have Private Members Business at the end of today?


Philip Derek Lewis: Obviously, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to my friend at ten o'clock this morning, we were unable to come to an agreement and that meant that a normal day would ensue.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, as is customary, there are ongoing discussions about the organization of the business of the House. We had an exchange of views about how long the debate on second reading of Bill C-84 would go.
It may well be-it is possible-that the debate will come to a conclusion tomorrow, so that a vote can be taken, a vote in which the Liberal Party will state its opposition to Bill C-84 on second reading.
Certainly at this stage I am unable to confirm any agreement and, therefore, 1 presume we are applying the normal rules provided by the Standing Orders, and I would be happy to have you, Sir, enable the debate to continue.
Immigration Act, 1976


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks yesterday I was pointing out to the House that the actions taken by the Government on this Bill and on Bill C-55 were clear contradictions to our agreements under United Nations covenants, that they trespassed upon four decades of important evolutionary work in developing an effective system of refugee determination internationally, and that it would lead to chaos in the courts as they are challenged on a whole series of infractions against the civil liberties of Canadians. In other words, this is bad legislation.
The only justification we have heard from the other side is that this is what Canadians want. They say that Canadians are outraged and that this is what public opinion demands. 1 point out, certainly from my soundings in my riding and in other parts of Manitoba and the West which 1 visited this summer, that if the primary concern of Members on the government side were to respond to public opinion, the most important thing they could do is to get rid of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Unquestionably that is the number one preoccupation of people in my riding. Certainly public opinion says, let's get rid of the Prime Minister. However, I have seen no interest by Tory Members to respond to the overwhelming, unquestionable demand by the public to get rid of the existing office holder.
On a more serious matter, I want to point out a very important historical lesson, that we have a serious scar on the question of immigration in Canada which occurred in the late 1930s and the early 1940s, when we denied the access of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany to come to this country in any substantial numbers.
As Irving Abella has pointed out in his book, that was also a demand of the Canadian public at that time. That was also the overwhelming public reaction, at which time Frederick Charles Blair, who was running the Immigration Department, built upon that public demand to demand certificates for entry. That is not far different from what the Government today is demanding.
Would we want to repeat that terrible, horrible incident in our history? No, I think Canadians have tried to correct it. We have worked since then to try to establish the alternative position. This is why it has been so important for successive Governments, Liberal and Conservative, in dealing with refugee and immigration matters, to ensure that they did not set out to create hysteria. This is why they did not respond to those kinds of demands and attempted to educate and to be interlocutors to shape those reasons, and to say that there is not a problem.
I hear the Prime Minister, going across Canada, saying that because 176 Sikhs arrived there is a wave of illegal immigration taking place. Those kinds of wild statements are being made. Let me point out that in terms of the level of spontaneous movements of people, this represents only 5 per cent of all

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
refugees. Canada, the United States, Germany and Great Britain, the industrialized countries, only accept 5 per cent of all the refugees in the world. That is hardly a vast wave.
There is a problem and we know that. As the Elon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) said yesterday, we have been asking for action for the past two and a half years. There has been the Plaut Commission and the parliamentary committee report. There were clear recommendations for dealing with the matter but the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and his Department refused to listen to those recommendations. They rejected them.
This is a gang that cannot shoot straight. This is the same group that brought us the Forget Commission. This is the same group that brought us the disastrous job programs that are destroying community colleges across Canada. It is the same group that brought us the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, changes that penalized people on retirement. These are the same people who time after time have shown an incapacity to come up with sound and rational responses to problems.
I say to Tory Members, let us find good solutions. Let us deal with the problem in a realistic, honest, rational and constructive way. However, we will not find that contained in many elements of this legislation and there is one reason for that.
The thesis that is being put forward is that we want to control the flow of refugees outside our borders, beyond the shores of Canada. That contradicts our fundamental responsibilities and obligations under the United Nations Convention which says that there must be universal access and that people have a right to apply for political asylum when they arrive at the borders of a country. That is a clear commitment, but in Bills C-55 and C-84 that commitment is being denied.
The pre-screening provision in Bill C-55 will reject people before they even have a chance. It will send them back into so-called safe countries. However, a safe country for El Salvadorans is not the United States where only 4 per cent of all refugee applications made by Central Americans are accepted while 40 per cent or 50 per cent of eastern European applications are accepted. That is a political decision that has been made in the United States, but I would ask the Minister of Immigration if he will say that the United States is not a safe country. Of course he will not, but we know full well that those who come from Guatemala or El Salvador who are sent back to that so-called safe country will be returned to Guatemala or El Salvador and will be persecuted by the death squads.
The refugee community and the churches recognize that we are breaking faith with our international obligations. However, it is not a black and white issue. It is not a matter of accepting Bills C-84 and C-55 or nothing. There are a wealth of recommendations before us that have been provided through the careful analysis of Commons committees, Royal Commissions and experts in the field. There have been agreements and consensus. It is up to government Members to tell the Minister
of Immigration that he has had bad advice, that he has received the wrong advice on how to deal with the problem.
1 can say on behalf of this Party, as did our spokesman from York West and our Leader yesterday, that we will work in Parliament to find solutions. We are prepared to co-operate in finding effective, honourable solutions to this problem, but not the kind of solutions that are contained in this Bill. Those are the wrong kind of solutions. If the interest of Members of Parliament on all sides of the House is to find solutions, let us find ones on which we can agree. Let us not become servants to bad policy, bad advice and bad legislation.
What would be required? We already know that the Bill contains serious threats to the civil liberties of Canadians by imposing penalties and fines on church organizations, humanitarian groups and refugee organizations that try to help refugees. The Minister himself in the statement we saw on television concedes that there may be some confusion.
The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) said that he proposed an amendment, but I do not think it goes far enough. 1 think we must add to that a clear distinction between those who are preying upon people for profit and using smuggling as a means and those who are acting for humanitarian reasons. If we want to bang the smugglers who are doing it for profit, then let us say that and let us bring in a Bill that says that. We will support that-


Mr. Horner:: That's what it says.


Lloyd Axworthy: It does not say that. The Bill now reads that all those who work toward helping refugees come to this border are threatened with penalties. That includes people in every single congregation across Canada who are working to bring Salvadorans to the border. 1 helped set up that church network. In 1983, we offered to bring to Canada El Salvadorans who were threatened with deportation in the United States so that they would have sanctuary and asylum. We received the co-operation in that initiative of the network of churches across Canada. This Bill would eliminate that possibility. Do we want to do that? No, we do not, so we have to change the Bill.
The Bill also contains a fundamental transgression against the rules set forward by the United Nations designed to ensure that people have proper hearings. We do not argue with the right of a Government to detain and examine people for security reasons, but not without a hearing, without any opportunity to present a case, without the right to have witnesses.
If someone arrives at this border without documents after having escaped persecution in a country that has an authoritarian Government with secret police and finds that there is a report from some international police organization indicating that he is a terrorist threat, then he should have a right to have a hearing. As I said before, that provision would put Nelson Mandela in the position of being rejected by Canada. We should change the legislation to ensure that these
August 13, 1987

people may bring evidence before the adjudicator to make their cases.
This legislation has also transgressed our international obligations by saying that we will send people back to their countries of origin, this insidious practice of refoulement. We can change that as well. It is possible to change that and to rewrite the legislation.
On the issue of transportation companies confiscating passports, there is only one country in the world of which 1 know that requires that right now and that is the Soviet Union. That is the only country that requires passports to be taken from people who arrive on planes or ships. Are we going to associate ourselves with that practice in this legislation? Of course not, and that is why we need some changes. We should not turn over to a commercial airline the responsibility of determining whether or not a person is a refugee. That is the fundamental right of a sovereign country, a right which we are now passing on.
I could go on to show all the inequities and stupidities in this legislation, but that is not to say that we should not have a means of responding to them. Let us do so in the Canadian tradition. Let us respond with leadership. Let us not become regressive, reactionary or stupid. Let us recognize that there is a serious refugee problem and that we must provide leadership. Canada has provided that leadership in the past.
The single most important thing Canada could do is to encourage the Government and successive Governments to undertake, as the highest priority of our foreign policy, international initiatives designed to come to grips with the refugee situation, to find ways of co-ordinating the actions of countries, to share the burden, to respond to those 15 million homeless people out there, to build up our traditions of competence, goodwill and tolerance internationally, traditions for which we have been recognized by every international agency up until now. Let us build upon that and provide that international leadership.
Canadians are always asking what we should do to show leadership in the world. Canada is not a big nuclear power with rockets and missiles. In coming to grips with the fundamental tragedy of refugees around the world, Canada has an opportunity to play a leadership role but we are giving up on it. We are throwing it away by passing legislation like the legislation we have before us today.
In conclusion, I would say that we believe that there are solutions to abuses, but not the solutions that are contained in this legislation. If the Government is really interested in genuine solutions then why is it not interested in revising this legislation? Let us go back to consider the recommendations of the Commons committee. Let us bring forward legislation that is decent, honourable and fair and which will deal with abuse at the same time. Let us then build upon that to provide international leadership, to show the rest of the world that Canadians can deal with the refugee issue, but in a way which shows compassion, tolerance and generosity.
Immigration Act, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, one wonders if perhaps the Hon. Member is not preaching for a call.
Does the Hon. Member agree with Mr. Sid Stevens, Director of Emergency Services for the Sun Youth Organization, who hailed the Bill as "a victory for the genuine refugee"? Mr. Stevens also said: "We will make sure the refugees who come here are the real ones". I should point out that Mr. Stevens, whose group has provided emergency aid to claimants, also said: "Throughout the whole world Canada was known as a soft touch . . . The genuine refugee who waits in line and has a good claim will benefit in the long run". Does the Hon. Member agree with those comments?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to provide quotes then 1 refer him to statements made by Amnesty International, the Canadian Coalition of Churches, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Central Committee of the Mennonite Church-any number of organizations which have said that this legislation is a travesty.
The Hon. Member reflects the fact that he does not understand the type of refugee determination system that we have accepted in Canada, one which we have honoured and built upon. It is the right of any person to make claim. It is then the right of the host country to determine how it will process that claim. Through Supreme Court decisions, and others, we have said that there must be the right to counsel, the right to present evidence at a hearing, that there should be an independent adjudication of the problem and that there should be an appeal process. In effect, that is what the Commons committee recommended. It is something that we endorse. We are prepared to accept it. It means that we can deal with the situation fairly.
If the Hon. Member is worried about soft touches, then his Government should introduce the type of recommendations that were put forward by the committee oh which his own Members constitute a majority.
The legislation drafted by this Department does not fulfil the requirements that are in place under the convention dealing with refugees, which are universal access and the right to make a claim. This legislation pre-screens claimants. It predetermines who is a genuine refugee before a chance is even given to make a case.
We are saying that if the Government is seriously interested in that problem then we will co-operate. But if in fact what it is trying to say is that it wants to transgress those international obligations, transgress Supreme Court decisions and the Charter of Rights, then we are not in agreement. 1 do not care who the Hon. Member quotes. The fact of the matter is that as a Minister of Immigration for three and one-half years I think

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I know an awful lot more about the matter than does Mr. Stevens.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) pointed out this morning that our most important initiative is to deal with the world refugee situation. 1 am sure that every Member in the House would agree with that initiative. I think it is a world responsibility, and Canada has a lead role to play, as our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has shown. He has shown leadership in terms of dealing with humanitarian issues. He has gone so far as to take a position that differs from some of the major leaders of the western world. I think that Canadians realize that the leadership is here.
As a Party, the Liberals have never listened to Canadians. Again today 1 see that the Hon. Member refuses to listen to Canadians. Canadians are saying to us in our offices across the country that they want the illegal refugee situation brought under control. The legislation brought forward by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) clearly enunciates a position that would bring the situation under control.
I cannot believe what 1 have heard this morning from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. He is a Liberal, a Liberal who has never listened to Canadians and who is proving it again today here in the House of Commons. That is totally disgusting.
The Hon. Member spoke of humanitarian issues and of the high quality of living that we have in Canada. That is correct. He says that we should be prepared to share the good that we have here in Canada. 1 am prepared to share, as is every Member in the House. We are prepared to be used but not to be abused.
When the hon. gentleman was the Minister of Employment and Immigration it is my understanding that the number of immigrants was reduced from 121,166 in 1982 to 89,177 in 1983. Can the Hon. Member tell me where there is any consistency in those figures? I would like him to explain to the House the situation when he was Minister of Immigration. I am referring here to bona fide immigrants, people who would contribute to the growth of the country and to the mosaic and the greatness of our land. As Minister he cut the number of immigrants back, and he now takes the position he presented to us this morning. Can the Hon. Member please explain why his actions were such and why he took such a position?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be very glad to enlighten the hon. gentleman, as difficult a task as that may be. First, I would like to deal with the question of listening to Canadians. If the Hon. Member really wanted to listen to Canadians the first thing he would do is get rid of his Leader. That is what Canadians really want. It is what every public opinion poll shows. If he really wants to do his job then let us
see him take the type of initiative that Canadians are demanding, that is, put in place a Prime Minister who can lead Canada.
The fact of the matter is that last December, and the Hon. Member may not know about this, all those Canadians who are vitally interested in this matter, including virtually every religious organization in the country-Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Baha'is and other groups-came together, along with all the humanitarian organizations, members of the Opposition and members of the Hon. Member's own Party, and agreed upon a solution to the problem. There was an agreement. The only people who rejected it were the Minister of Immigration and the people in his Department. Who was listening to Canadians then? Who was really listening to the consensus at that point? We would not be here this summer if that agreement had been listened to. The Minister rejected the solutions for the reasons I have set out. He and his Department are trying to subvert and undermine the commitments we have made under the United Nations' Convention on Refugees. That is what they are trying to do.
If the Hon. Member wants an answer with respect to the question why we changed, then I will tell him one thing we did not change. We brought in a great many more refugees. We brought in 100,000 refugees from Indo-China. We brought in tens of thousands of Poles during the beginnings of the Polish Solidarity movement. We brought in the Haitians and the Chileans-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The day is very young; we still have most of the day ahead of us. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting warmed up. The fact of the matter is that we did not limit our commitment to those refugees. We brought in thousands of them. The reason the numbers were cut back was because members of his own caucus, along with members of the trade unions, were demanding in a period of recession that we provide restrictions on the independent class-not the family class. In fact family class levels stayed the same. But we said at that point in time, when the unemployment rate was 12 per cent, that immigrants applying for jobs would be subject to rules which stated that they could not displace Canadians if there was a Canadian available for that job. At a time when there was a high labour surplus of course the numbers were cut back. But the situation has not changed that much under the Government of the Hon. Member.
Where are the levels now-90,000? Members opposite keep saying that the unemployment rate is down by 5 per cent. Of course the levels should go up.
At the same time, we introduced a proper examination of how we could improve the assisted relative class. We introduced improvements to the family reunification class and we
August 13, 1987

made substantial improvements in the area of refugee determination and acceptance. These are actions which are now being turned back by the Government.
1 can tell the Eton. Member that I am proud of the record of the Liberals in dealing with immigration and refugees. We have helped lead the world and we have been given international recognition. What we are objecting to now is the fact that we have a Government which is trying to turn back the clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) on debate.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to speak on Bill C-84 this morning. 1 listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). They contained a lot of rhetoric and some information. I recall quite clearly that the Government of which he was the Minister of Employment and Immigration in the early 1980s, as this problem began to grow and grow to the point where it is now, was always saying we have to do something about this. We checked Hansard which indicates that it was going to do something, it should do something, it might do something. Eventually a committee was struck. Yet this Government is doing something about it. This Government has brought forward Bill C-84 and I am prepared to go to the electorate on that tomorrow. We have the Canadian people behind us. He talked about not listening to the Canadian people. If he wants to go to the people tomorrow and say, we are not going to listen to you when we are in office, we are going to listen to the special interest groups, then let us go to the people tomorrow on this issue.


Lloyd Axworthy: Call the election today; let's go.


Ted William Schellenberg: On this issue.
Most Canadians are the children or grandchildren of immigrants. Judging by the mail I have been receiving most Canadians have a pretty reasoned point of view on this issue. They want an open door policy on refugee determination, not a back door policy. They want to close the back door. They say the baseball game is over. That is what they are telling me, at least. Strike one was the arrival of the Tamils last summer; strike two was the arrival on the shores of Nova Scotia this summer of the East Indians; and strike three is Bill C-84, and they are out. The baseball game is over as far as refugee determination is concerned.
It never ceases to amaze me that some politicians in this Chamber go on and on about how they represent ordinary Canadians, yet when those ordinary Canadians speak well and with one voice on an issue they then become part of the mob. I do not represent ordinary Canadians in Nanaimo-Alberni. I
Immigration Act, 1976
represent extraordinary Canadians and they want this Bill through right now. The Bill should be referred to committee and, quite frankly, I am pleased to hear the comments of the NDP House Leader that they are prepared to move this Bill to committee tomorrow. That is very encouraging to hear, because we are legislators, not hoisters.
I was in this House on May 15 or May 16 when Bill C-55, this Bill's predecessor, was brought forward. The NDP and Liberals ganged up and decided to hoist. The job of Government is to propose and that of the Opposition to oppose. These guys simply hoist. They want to hoist this, hoist that, and hoist everything but the Canadian flag. The Canadian flag symbolizes the value of Canadian citizenship and the value of the rights we enjoy. They are not to be handed out to simply anyone who arrives on our shores. That is what this Bill will address.
Ironically enough, if you check the record, the Liberals and NDP agree with the thrust of this Bill. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), upon arrival of that boat this summer, said:
That boat might well have been apprehended and could have been turned back because this is not a legitimate refugee process. ... if they came from Europe they were not fleeing a situation where they were facing prosecution or imprisonment or death.
That is a sensible position. That is not what he was saying in the House the other day, but it was a sensible position when this boat arrived. However, his own communications director, Raymond Heard, said shortly after:
It was very windy that day. Furthermore, Mr. Turner was walking down the street towards his car.
I guess that explains why he has changed his position. Yet the Liberal Party immigration critic, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), also seems to agree with our approach and the general thrust of Bill C-84. Last summer, when the Tamils arrived, he said:
We have to deal stringently with those "culprits" who are responsible.
That's the frustration-a lot of Canadians had in terms of people like Captain Bindel, who takes advantage of the system and gets away scot-free.
This summer, with the arrival of the 174 refugees off the coast of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Member for York West said:
If they enjoyed refugee status in West Germany and they're taking advantage of our country simply to better their lifestyle, then they should not get such protection for a second time.
I think there is more common ground on the thrust of this Bill than opposition Members may wish to admit.
Surprisingly, even the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) believes the law should be improved. In an interview last January on BCTV with Jack Webster the Hon. Member for Oshawa said:
If there are any refugees off the coast of British Columbia, out in the middle of Lake Ontario, or in the Atlantic Ocean, you're damn right we bring them in and give them shelter.

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
We also, and we are in the process of doing this, tighten up the law, so that
if you find out that these are not bona fide refugees, you kick them out of the
country.
What I cannot understand is why politicians who say things like that to the media are so determined to hold up legislation that will improve our refugee determination system. One of my constituents said the other day, Heaven help our country if we ever have to declare war, if our shores are ever invaded. The Liberals and the NDP would demand a six-month hoist of any response to the invasion. We would hate to see that happen.
One of our major concerns is that Canadians hear a great deal of generalities about refugees and not too many specifics. Sometimes it helps to put a face to the story and 1 would like to try and do that by relating two individual cases. Last week in my riding I met with two refugees and their stories vividly detail the problem we are facing.
The first individual was from a Central American country, his name is Victor. He had been guilty of the heinous crime of being a labour leader. He and his colleagues were rounded up by the Government and taken to the border of a neighbouring Central American country with which there were hostilities. They were asked to strip and put on the uniform of their native country. Then his colleagues were taken off to the border region and shot. Just some more victims of border hostility. Victor saw an opportunity for escape. The camp was visited by a general from another country, there was a great deal of hubbub, and Victor slipped away and climbed aboard a logging truck parked in the compound. He climbed between the logs and hid there for hours fearing for his life. At three o'clock in the morning that truck departed the compound, Victor found his way through Mexico up to Nanaimo, British Columbia, and he is now enjoying the benefits of Canadian citizenship and trying to reunite his family.
Unfortunately there is a darker side to the refugee situation and that is what we are trying to deal with in this legislation. Last week in Port Alberni I met with a woman who filed a deposition with her lawyer, and I have it in my hand. Without naming names, let me try and detail her story. Perhaps this will exemplify for Canadians the problem with our refugee determination system.
She says that from August, 1977, to October, 1980, she lived in the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, with an individual in a common law relationship and had two children. He was ordered deported from Canada in 1980 because he had falsely produced a social insurance card, a driver's licence and a landed immigration certificate from West Germany. During their common law marriage he indicated to her that he was not married. In 1980 she applied for his readmission to Canada. In 1982 he was married to another woman in India after obtaining a divorce from his first wife. She thereupon withdrew her application for his readmission to Canada. On May 9, 1987, he telephoned her from West Germany and threatened to kill her. She is very fearful for her personal safety if the immigration department permits this man's admission to Canada. She has been advised and believes that he is now released on bail in the
City of Toronto. This is true. He arrived in Canada with other East Indians claiming refugee status. She says she believes he is not a refugee, he is a danger to her personal safety and, having been deported from Canada, he should not be allowed to continue to reside in our country. She signed the deposition on August 4, 1987, in Port Alberni, British Columbia. The RCMP in that town are now guarding her and she is living in fear for her life.
Those are two specific examples of what is right with our immigration policy and what is wrong.
I would like now to turn to the Bill itself and review just what our Government is proposing. The deterrence and detention Bill, which is its nickname, is meant to dovetail with Bill C-55, the one the hoisters were dealing with earlier this year, to provide immediate protection from abuse. It includes expanded powers to deal with mass inflows of illegal migrants posing as refugees. These will remain with the implementation of Bill C-55.
The legislation also expands the Government's ability to deal with individuals who might pose a threat to our country. Again this will be retained with Bill C-55. The fundamental principles of Bill C-55 will be strengthened by this legislation, Bill C-84. The tough penalties will still be needed once Bill C-55 is enacted.
Out of the 30,000 claims which are expected to be made in 1987 for refugee status in Canada, at least 10,000 will be from people who have arrived in Canada with forged documents or no documents whatsoever. This deterrent and detention Bill gives the Government expanded powers to come to terms with the situation.
Specifically, it empowers the Government to substantially increase penalties against smugglers and their accomplices, including the imposition of a 10-year jail sentence and fines of $.5 million. It will detain people who arrive with no documents until their identities can be established. It will increase and enforce fines and penalties on transportation companies bringing undocumented people to Canada. Transportation companies will pay $5,000 fines for each undocumented passenger they bring to Canada. As well, the Government will seize the vehicles of companies guilty of nonpayment. 1 remind you, Mr. Speaker, that these companies have responsibilities under the Immigration Act. We want to ensure that we all live up to them.
Finally, Bill C-84 will empower the Government to refuse access to the refugee determination system to those who are known criminals or a security threat. That is something most Canadians will support. Not only will these individuals be detained, they will be removed from Canada.
The world has changed since the 1976 Immigration Act which anchored our commitment to the U.N. Convention on the Status of Refugees. At that time only a relatively small
August 1 3, 1987

number of people needed protection and our refugee determination system reflected that situation. Canada saw dramatic increases in refugee claims in the early 1980s. A five-fold increase in claims caused long processing delays for legitimate refugees. This was an open invitation for those who wanted to circumvent regular immigration channels. As I mentioned earlier, the previous Government talked about doing something but ended up doing nothing.
In 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that all refugee claimants had the right to an oral hearing. This placed an extra legal requirement on the overburdened determination system and led to even further abuse, taking advantage of the backlog. Most of this pressure resulted from the flow of economic migrants toward the developed countries. This south-north pull was further aggravated by economic recession in industrialized countries which led to greater tightening of their borders.
Reports indicate there are up to 80 million people who have left their country of origin in search of employment or a better life. Inevitably many of these economic migrants have tried to use the refugee determination system in Canada and elsewhere to sidestep regular immigration channels. The fact that Canada allows refugee claimants to work while their cases are being heard further invites abuse.
These unprecedented and increasing global pressures make Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 of great importance. Clearly, Canada must have the tools to firmly and fairly handle what will continue to be, without doubt, a volatile international climate in the years ahead.
It has been asked whether we are over-reacting. It does amuse me to see the same politicians and editorial writers who were attacking the Government in July for not doing enough, turning around in August and accusing it of doing too much. One of the newspapers in my own riding wrote two editorials in the span of two weeks, both of which I have with me. The headline on the editorial dated July 15 is, "They make us look stupid". A portion of it reads as follows:
For the time being, the sooner Canada's new immigration legislation is in place, the better we will be prepared to reject people who, quite simply, are jumping the immigration queue and making Canada look stupid on the world
scene.
Two weeks later, on August 1, the same newspaper ran an editorial entitled, "Knee-jerking it". It reads in part:
The illegal arrival of 174 refugee claimants may have caused a furore, but it hardly qualifies as the sort of national or economic emergency with which one normally associates early parliamentary recalls.
So they say, Call back Parliament but don't call back Parliament; Listen to Canadians-no, listen to the special interest groups. We get a lot of confusing signals.
Politicians are normally blamed, but I would like to give another example of how the media is not exactly blameless in this. On August 1, 1987, the day following the terrible tragedy in your own area, Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton, La Presse of Montreal ran the headline, "Un navire de "faux refugies"
Immigration Act, 1976
serait en route pour le Canada". Over in the corner is the headline, "Une tornade frappe Edmonton". The issue of the day for La Presse was another boat arriving in Canada.
I, quite frankly, have been a victim of this kind of focus by our media and by some politicians, as have my colleagues. This has become the major issue of the summer for Canadian citizens. What is wrong with responding to their wishes? What is wrong with recalling Parliament and dealing with this problem before it happens again? Most Canadians understand the reasoning for that. Unfortunately, some of the opposition Members do not.


Mr. Waddell:: You're desperate to get up in the polls, that's why. Tell the truth.


Ted William Schellenberg: To the extent possible in this volatile climate, Canada must be able to control events instead of being controlled by them. The deterrent legislation, Bills C-84 and C-55, are crucial steps along the road to establishing the control needed to address refugee and immigration issues, both long-term and immediate. Our objective in tabling this deterrent legislation and in tabling Bill C-55 is quite clear. It is to establish a firm yet flexible framework that allows the Government to adjust the intake of refugees and immigrants in accordance with global events and with the social and economic conditions in Canada. The social and economic conditions in Canada have changed over the past decade or two. In accordance with that as well, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-84 will deal with national and international legal stipulations.
It is therefore the responsibility of the Government to be ready to fine-tune existing policy or institute fundamental change if that is appropriate. The Government is ready to accept that responsibility. It is ready to make the difficult policy decisions that come with this territory. They are difficult decisions because refugee and immigration policy is, finally, about peoples' lives. As such, emotions run high and criticism is inevitable. However, we must walk that fine line between tightening up our controls and ensuring that legitimate refugees are still able to enter our borders. That is the kind of legislation that Canadians will support.
People are the ultimate victims of a process which invites abuse and encourages unscrupulous manipulation. Therefore, the Government is doing the responsible thing. It is changing that process. With Bill C-84 and its companion Bill, C-55, we are re-establishing the integrity of our determination system. At the same time we are telling Canadians and genuine refugees alike that fairness, efficiency and due process will once again be the hallmarks of Canadian refugee determination.
We want refugees to know that we have an open-door policy, but that the back door is closed. We do not welcome boatloads of people who arrive by stealth or individuals who bring their murderous hatreds with them. I urge my colleagues in this House to send Bill C-84 to committee so that the will of

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Canadians will be done. To quote another great Conservative, Mr. Speaker, "give us the tools and we'll do the job".


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg). He described the situation before us now. I believe he called the situation an urgent one, as did his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
If the issue is urgent now, was it not also urgent last year when a boatload of Tamils came in similar circumstances? If it is urgent this year, why did the Prime Minister wait two or three weeks after the boat arrived before saying that he would recall Parliament and another two weeks before in fact asking the Speaker to recall Parliament? It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the customary way in which to deal with so-called urgent issues.
I, for one, have no sympathy at all for dishonest people who are using devious means to enter Canada. However, 1 believe that the abuse of our present system is caused by delays in the determination system and for practically no other reason. Does the Member agree with me on that? In other words, someone who is coming here knows that the determination process will take one, two or more years before we decide whether to keep or return that individual. The fact is that they are already here by the time the case is adjudicated. Is not the real solution to deal with those cases immediately and therefore discourage people from coming in if they know they will be sent back if they do not qualify? It will not be worthwhile for them to come here if they know they will be sent back. Is that not the real way to handle the case?
I want him to comment briefly on two other issues. One concerns the fines for those bringing in refugees. I have no problem with the proposition of levying heavy fines for those who do so for pay and dishonest reasons. However, is it appropriate to attempt to fine individuals and associations? For instance, I was part of Project 4000 that brought in refugees from Southeast Asia. Does that mean that such action today would make me a criminal? 1 would hope not. I do not believe anyone who acts in such a manner for good reason should be punished in any way. I repeat that I have no sympathy for crooks, but I want his reaction to that situation.
Finally, I want him to deal with the issue of refugees with no papers. I am pleased that the Minister is in the House because 1 want him to think about this as well. If we create a situation in which people with no papers are sent back, are we not in fact inviting those in authority in some of these repressive regimes to take away credentials from someone because they know they will not be accepted elsewhere without such credentials? I believe that could be a very difficult situation that could cause problems. If other countries followed our example, a regime such as that in El Salvador or Chile could simply ensure that anyone leaving the country does so without
papers. They would be up the creek, they would have no choice but to come back because they would not be accepted.
I am not suggesting that the public is not angry at people who abuse the system. I know people are angry, but is the Member sure that we are doing the right thing under the circumstances, particularly in view of my questions?


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), makes three very good points. First, let me deal with the issue of bringing in this legislation a year after the Tamils arrived. Bill C-55 is very complex. It is as thick as the Nanaimo- Alberni telephone book and it took some time to prepare. It was introduced in May and I must ask my colleague why one of his colleagues demanded a hoist of that legislation when it was finally introduced? While I would have preferred its earlier introduction, May is when it was available.
It is quite clear why we are dealing with Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 in August of 1987. The Prime Minister has listened to the good advice of his colleagues, which is the way our party functions. 1 am not sure about the Hon. Member's party.
The Hon. Member talks about the delay in this legislation and what it will cause with the backlog that now exists. It was their legislation in 1976 that created the backlog we are now facing, with tens of thousands of refugees. That is what many of my constituents do not understand. The Minister was stating a fact when he said that his hands were tied. 1 could not counsel him to break the law of Canada as it now exists. We counselled him to recall Parliament and change that law.
While I understand the Member's question, he must accept some of the responsibility for the backlog that exists. We did speed up the process quite well with some of the measures we introduced earlier this year, but obviously not quickly enough.
We hear pious questions about why we did not deal with this sooner. How can we do so if the Opposition continues to hoist and delay the legislation that we bring in?


Mrs. Killens:: It is your agenda.


Ted William Schellenberg: I am talking about Bill C-55 and a hoist that was demanded by that party.


Mr. Orlikow:: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that no one in the Opposition and none of the ethnic organizations, the churches or Amnesty International, who have expressed their criticism to these two Bills, have said that nothing needs to be done. They said that these Bills do not achieve what is required and many of their provisions go too far.
In answer to a question by my friend in the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member said that we did not deal with Bill C-55 because they moved a hoist. The truth is that the Bill was introduced in May of this year and was not called for debate until June. Therefore, the fact that there was a hoist motion does not mean anything, because there were just three hours of
August 13, 1987

debate. The Government is in charge of the business of the House. It did not call that Bill except for that one day. It is responsible for the fact that we have not dealt with Bill C-55.
A little more than a year ago, a group of Tamils came to this country by boat. In response to that, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, "We are not in the business of turning refugees away. We will never, under this Government''. He said that the Tamils would be treated fairly and humanely.
One year later we have a very similar situation with the arrival of a boatload of Sikhs. No one approves of people, even legitimate refugees, jumping to the head of the line. There are many thousands of legitimate refugees who have applied in the proper way under the provisions of our laws and regulations and have waited for years. However, the Sikhs did exactly what the Tamils did. What changed in the year? Why did the Prime Minister greet the Tamils with sympathy a year ago and now we have to be tough with the Sikhs? Surely there is no consistency.
The Government reads the polls like everyone else and knows that it is in trouble and knows that people are upset about what has happened, with considerable justification. The Government is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to get support on that basis, not for any reason of principle or humanity.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, while we are talking about consistency, and I believe I referred to this earlier in my remarks, what happened between January of this year when the Hon. Member's leader was on the Jack Webster program and said, "We have to tighten up the law so that if you could find out that these are not bona fide refugees, you kick them out of the country", and now, in August, 1987? That is an example of inconsistency.
The Hon. Member touched on what was said earlier by my friend, the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I also have a concern about the church groups who are legitimately trying to bring refugees into the country and are concerned about Bill C-84 and how they may be affected by some of its measures. I hope to have an opportunity to sit on the legislative committee and that this would be one of the first amendments we can make if the Bill gets to committee, depending on our opposition colleagues. We should ensure that those who traffic in illegal refugees for profit are separated from those who deal with refugees out of conscience. I believe that is one of the first amendments we should bring through.


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the last remark of the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg). Perhaps he has not had an opportunity to learn that our caucus has sought to have an agreement that there would be substantial committee hearings in order to deal with problems such as the one he mentioned, namely, how this law may unintentionally affect people who are not really opposing
Immigration Act, 1976
the intent of our Immigration Act or our refugee policy. 1 also hope that the debate will continue in a reasonable course to allow a number of people who are very interested in speaking, but will end reasonably soon so that we can get on with committee work. I have already begun to telephone people who I think may be interested in coming before the committee as witnesses. I trust time will be given to hear those witnesses.
The fact is, part of the reason we have been recalled is to consider Bill C-84. Without going into questions of individuals, parties or governments who did or did not do this or that, I think it is clearly necessary to amend our Immigration Act. I have said so, and my leader has said so, not just since January until now, but for a longer period of time. It is clearly necessary because the system has broken down, and it has broken down partly because of modern transportation conditions. We have many more airplanes flying to and from Canada-they fly both ways-than ever before. We also have disturbances in many parts of the world, particularly in the former colonial countries. As part of the British Commonwealth we cannot claim to be uninterested or uninvolved in what goes on in those former colonial countries.
I have no problem at all with the first and second clause of Bill C-84. The title states that Bill C-84 is an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal code in consequence thereof. I have no problem with that. The second clause states the purposes of the Bill. It states in part that we want to maintain a proper refugee determination process for people who are entitled and we want to control wide-spread organized abuse of that process. We want to deter the smuggling of persons, which not only offends our law but risks the lives of those persons, and we want to respond to security concerns. I have no problem with those objectives, in fact, I would support them. I would hope those objectives would be the basis of our considerations in committee.
My problem is that there are a number of provisions in the Bill that not only fail to meet those objectives but, perhaps unintentionally-I hope unintentionally-would cause some harm, which is not in keeping with the objectives of the Bill. Therefore, I hope the opposition and the Government will be able to work together to make the necessary amendments to this Bill.
The first objective of Bill C-84 as stated in clause 2 is:
(a) to preserve for persons in genuine need of protection access to the procedures for determining refugee claims;
One of the procedures, established not only by our law but by the United Nations, with which we have signed a treaty, for determining refugee claims is that a person may come from a country wherein he is persecuted to seek asylum in another country. Canadian law has for years reflected that reality and made that one of the avenues by which people may become accepted in Canada as refugees. The other main avenue, of course, although not the only one, is selection from refugee

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
camps. We have also had a policy of selection from prisons of political prisoners. But what is under consideration in Bill C-84 is the selection of people who arrive in Canada.
This is something Canadians support. Thousands and thousands of Canadians this year have worked to help those refugees who have come to Canada to claim refugee status. Even immediately after the Government's restrictive regulations in February there was a rally at Fort Erie where surely they know about the refugees coming across the bridge from Buffalo. It was a rally to welcome and to celebrate, as they put it, the refugees. Three hundred people at that rally had opened their homes to 500 refugees during the two years before that.
The churches, Amnesty International and many Canadians have a very proud record, and that was recognized by the Nansen Medal given to Canada last year. Flowever, Bill C-84 fails to meet this objective. If we read proposed sections 95.1 and 95.2 we find that any person who helps to bring a refugee claimant to Canada would be penalized.


An Hon. Member:: Illegally.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It does not say illegally, Mr Speaker, 95.1 states:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to
organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in
possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where
one is required by this Act-is guilty of an offence-


An Hon. Member:: That's right.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The present law, of course, as the Hon. Minister pointed out yesterday, and as Mr. Girard pointed out on Tuesday, contains a punishment for any one who contravenes any provision of the Act. However, the present Act does not make it illegal for a person to enter Canada without papers provided he does not do that in a way intended to evade the immigration authorities. For instance, he comes across the bridge from Buffalo into Fort Erie to the immigration office in Fort Erie without papers or passport and says, "1 am a refugee". That is in no way a violation of Canadian law at the present time. The church person, lawyer or Amnesty representative who may transport him in his car from Buffalo to Fort Erie to the immigration office saying, "1 have this person here; I am willing to translate for him; He claims refugee status", has not contravened the provisions of the Act.
When the Minister and Mr. Girard were asked about this point at the press conference on Tuesday, they seemed to miss the question. What Mr. Girard said at one point was, "What we have in Bill C-84 is the same as in the existing Act". He did not explain why, if it is the same as in the existing Act, he wants to amend the existing Act.
The fact is that, as worded here, the Bill creates an offence which does not exist in the present law. It does not say, any person who illegally brings a person in or any person who tries to evade the immigration authorities by doing so commits an offence. Assuming, as does the Hon. Member for Nanaimo- Alberni, that that is not the intent of the Government, I hope it
can be clarified in the amendments. There is no violation in the present law and I hope there will be no violation in the future law on the part of any person who simply brings someone to the nearest border immigration point saying that he is a refugee without papers, and from there on the immigration law takes its normal course.
The Hon. Minister yesterday reiterated the error which was made on Tuesday at the press conference. I hope he will clarify that matter. Someone on Tuesday said church people will be punished if they try to bring in a refugee in the trunk of their car. I do not remember whether that was the Minister or Mr. Girard. But that is not what the church people are talking about. It is not what the lawyers or Amnesty International are talking about. They are talking about openly bringing a person to the nearest immigration authority in order to proceed according to law. I hope they will not be penalized by the Minister's law for doing that, but that is the only way this law as written could be construed in court.
I also hope the law will be changed in such a way as to indicate that what we are getting at is people who do this clandestinely. That is what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said in his press statement a couple of weeks ago. I publicly agreed with him and it was so recorded in the press. Hansard was not there to record it, but the Globe and Mail accurately recorded me as agreeing that we have to penalize people who bring immigrants in clandestinely. The word "clandestine" is not in this law. There is no reference to "secrecy" or "evasion". I think that is needed.
We need to identify people who organize the bringing in of people by plane or ship and try to evade immigration authorities, or who try to make what are called "manifestly unfounded claims", claims which clearly do not come anywhere near being legitimate refugee claims. I believe we should have a law which would penalize such organizers. There is presently a law which states that the people who present these unfounded claims should be removed, therefore it is not necessary to do anything further.
A further problem with the wording of this law is that legitimate refugees could very well be denied the hearing required by our Supreme Court decision if, for example, they were identified as "baddies" by the secret police of the country from which they came. This is not hypothetical. There was the case of Chileans who had been accepted in Canada and were residents, but then were examined by the security authorities because of complaints against them. It was found that all the evidence against them was presented by the Pinochet Government. In other words, the Government in the country from which they had become refugees. Therefore, the case against these people in Canada was dropped once it was pointed out that the evidence was far more suspect than they were.
A further problem is that refugee claimants may systematically be detained by an order of a senior immigration officer at
August 13, 1987

a time when they have no counsel to represent them. They may be detained for another 28 days on a Minister's certificate, without any chance to examine the accusations upon which the detention is based. That is a violation of Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1 hope a precedent will not be set for violating it merely in respect of refugees, because if we do that to refugees then Canadians are in danger of losing the benefit of that article of the Charter.
By that wholesale detention, we would also be violating our commitments under the United Nations which state that we should not punish refugee claimants simply for coming without adequate documents. As has been pointed out, most genuine refugees cannot get documents. The ones that do get documents are more likely to be phonies.
The second objective of the law is to control widespread abuse of the procedures for determining refugee claims, particularly in the light of organized incidents involving large-scale introduction of persons into Canada to take advantage of these procedures. In the last two years there have been between 5,000 and 6,000 people brought into Canada who were not bona fide refugee claimants. There is much anger against them, and much anger at the thought that they may be taking the place of bona fide refugees or bona fide immigrants. Certainly, their entry was an abuse of the law. Under that category, the main abusers were approximately 3,500 people from Portugal, approximately 1,000 from Turkey, and approximately 1,000 from Brazil. Perhaps some of those from Turkey and Brazil were refugees. But the people from Portugal who said that they were Jehovah's Witnesses and afraid of being persecuted in Portugal if they were sent home were clearly abusing the law, because not even the Jehovah's Witness Church thinks there is persecution of that church in Portugal.
The amendments in proposed Sections 95.1, 95.2, 95.3, even if they had been in place two years ago, would not have prevented that abuse. For one thing, those sections only deal with people who come without documents. Those people all came with their documents and this Bill would not have stopped them.
Furthermore, this Bill only deals with boat smugglers. That has not been a great source of smuggling into Canada. As was pointed out yesterday, in this century we have had four boats; two boats were turned away, one in 1914 and one in 1939, with the result that some people aboard were killed. Two boats were accepted, one in 1986 and one in 1987, for which I am very happy. Perhaps under the law some of these people are refugees, and perhaps some people are not. We have the means of determining that. But we also read in the paper that some of them from Sri Lanka are hoping to return home. Those people were real refugees coming here for their safety, and they would rather live in their homeland in Sri Lanka if it is a peaceful country.
Immigration Act, 1976
Unfortunately, in the Section on disembarkation the Bill does something which 1 am sure is not intentional. The proposed Section states:
95.3 Every person who, being the master or a member of a crew of a vehicle used for transportation by sea, disembarks or allows the disembarkation of a person or group of persons at sea for the purpose of inducing, aiding or abetting that person-
In other words, when a captain disembarks the people in lifeboats or rafts at sea, this is to be made an offence. I fully agree with the goal, but 1 do not see how the captain will be caught. I do not think this section has been properly defined.
There is a further problem in stopping ships coming to Canada. The captain then has few choices. If he returns to the port from which he disembarked, he may be refused permission to land his passengers. If he returns to the country from which the passengers fled, he may be turning them back to death or imprisonment. If the captain is a real profiteer and not a humanitarian, there is a danger that he will disembark those people at sea. I do not think that has happened in the past between here and Europe, but it has happened around Southeast Asia and the Philippines. In fact, in the Executive of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees Canada urged that countries not turn away ships that may contain refugees. I would hope that with this law Canada would not deny the principle that we defended nobly and successfully at the United Nations.
The fourth objective is to maintain the security of our country. Detention without shown cause infringes on our Charter. We presently have good laws that have been able to take care of the security risks who may come by way of the refugee route. There have been security crimes in our country, but they were not committed by refugees. They were committed either by regular immigrants, perhaps by Canadian citizens, or by visitors. These people do not advertise themselves when they come to commit a crime by walking in and saying, "I am a refugee, examine my past." That is the last thing that they do. Therefore, I believe we should leave the security provisions of the present Act unamended. I believe they are adequate to take care of the problem.
I cannot support Bill C-84 unless it is amended in the ways 1 have described. We have to bring it into line with its stated objectives. We have to remove the penalty as it presently stands against the churches. We have to insert a penalty against people who organize to bring people in clandestinely, or as a group try to make manifestly unfounded claims. We have to remove the interdiction of the boat at sea. We have to improve or clarify the clause against disembarkation to make it more enforceable. In the matter of the interdiction, I believe what has to be done is emphasize the necessity of requiring that such boats be escorted into harbour. In that manner, if necessary, the captain and crew can be charged with this offence, and the passengers treated as refugee claimants.
I hope the Government will not pioneer the destruction of the principle of individual human rights. This is something we agreed to when we signed the United Nations Declaration of

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Human Rights in 1948, including Clause 13 which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy another country's asylum from persecution. The Convention for the Protection of Refugees which we signed in 1967 elaborates that further.
1 hope that Bill C-84 will be amended to bring us into line, not only with its stated objectives, but with our international obligations.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree with me that we must not only see what is the effect of this legislation on Canada, but we must be mindful of the ramifications of our actions on other countries.
While it is very easy for the Minister to say that we want to stop people who are trafficking in flesh, and while it is very easy to support that kind of principle and therefore support the idea of apprehending boats and having tough penalties for the masters and crews of ships who organize to bring refugees to Canada, 1 have asked myself the following question, what if other countries imposed the same fines on so-called smugglers? What if Hong Kong imposed the same fines and restrictions on boats arriving from Vietnam or Cambodia? What if Malaysia and the Philippines did the same? If Canada takes this action, would not those countries be justified in following suit?
I remind the House-and probably the Hon. Member does not need reminding-that at the time of the great outflow of Indo-Chinese refugees, the Philippines, or Malaysia I believe, indeed turned back a boat to the sea. Their action was denounced in practically every country of the world.
Similarly, it is fine for us to say that we want to prosecute people who may even charge for their services to bring refugees into Canada-attention must be paid to illegal counsellors or counsellors who have encouraged people to make people fraudulent claims-however, I am mindful of the fact that in some circumstances in other parts of the world the only way a refugee may be able to get to safety is by buying his or her way to safety. Whether one considers such a practice reprehensible might depend upon one's point of view. Certainly those who escape with their lives may be only too happy to pay for their safe passage. Today many Iranians must pay their way, to get from Iran to Turkey, across the border. What does the Hon. Member feel might be the ramifications of this legislation and the Government's actions in other countries? What if other countries imposed the same penalties? In the final analysis, where will refugees turn?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions. One is what would be the effect of our example on other countries. I welcome that question. I referred to it very briefly within the time I had.
We would be called hypocrites for having spoken strongly in the executive committee of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees against countries like the Philippines for turning away boatloads of people who might be refugees. We
condemned them. We urged them not to do that. In fact, we went further, I am happy to say. I am referring to a communique of March 6, 1985 from the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), in which she said:
Although the number of people fleeing Vietnam by sea has decreased in the
past several years, the proportion rescued at sea, when compared to the total
arrivals in refugee camps, has been declining even more rapidly.
In other words, they are being lost at sea more than before. She went on to indicate:
Many merchant ships hesitate to pick up refugees for fear of having to
resettle all of them in their home countries.
Then she referred to the announcement that Canada had always taken up the load of refugees and said that Canada was promising to resettle 2,500 more people in order to encourage merchant captains not to dump their people at sea. She did not put it as crudely as that, but we know that is what was happening.
Canada then acted to encourage countries not to turn boats away by saying that we would take some of the load off those overloaded countries. In fact, the United Nations High Commission, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) yesterday, has warned Canada that if we bring in stiff penalties-I did not have time to bring this into my suggestion for amendment-against ships or planes that bring somebody without adequate documents, then we are again contravening the obligation under the treaty that we signed with the United Nations to give these people a reasonable chance to come and state their claim.
Granted, a genuine refugee who has to escape from his country will do whatever he or she can to get out and to get to a safe place. If they have to buy passage on a ship, they will buy it; if they have the means or the friends, they will buy the
passage.
I hope that our laws will always recognize that fact, and not take the attitude that anybody who comes here without full documentation is to be rejected.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration made one statement, which perhaps was not intentional, in his press statement two weeks ago. He said that Canada would maintain its obligation to refugees by selection overseas. The strong implication of the statement as it is put is that we will no longer allow anybody to come to Canada to claim refugee status. I hope that is not what the Minister of Employment and Immigration meant. It would be a stark reversion to the "none is too many" slogan of Mr. Blair in 1939. I certainly do not believe that that is what Parliament will decide, because I know that is not what the people of Canada want.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the news in the last couple of days about three Bulgarian wrestlers who have apparently asked for asylum in Canada. They disappeared from the training site in British Columbia where they were attending an international competition.
August 13, 1987

1 should like to ask the Hon. Member how he thinks these three Bulgarian wrestlers will be received by the Government. I should also like him to perhaps speculate on what might happen if a couple of hockey players decided to stay in Canada and claimed refugee status. They would, therefore, be illegally in the country because they would not have gone through the procedures and probably would not have the appropriate documentation. They would not have a valid and subsisting visa. They would have a visa to come here on a temporary basis.
I suppose people can slice the cake any way they like, but the way I slice it is I feel the measures we are seeing today will be applied arbitrarily. I believe there is a good dose of discrimination and a good dose of racism behind these measures. Does the Hon. Member agree basically with my feeling on this question?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, at this point I would rather not engage in speculation about what may be the intentions of the Government. I hope that as of tomorrow, or very soon, we will begin to negotiate amendments. The amendments certainly must be such as would take care of the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).
We certainly do not want to exclude the possibility of people who arrive here for sports or anything else from claiming refugee status if they feel it is necessary and they have the grounds. I would certainly hope that the Bill would be amended to reflect that.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising to speak in this debate. It is not an entirely delightful subject in that it deals with remedial action which has torn us between what we would like to do and what we must do.
I wish to point out quickly that I am not unmindful of my own heritage. Just 112 years ago my great-grandparents came with their family to this country. While they did not come as refugees, their families who remained behind came to Canada as refugees a few years later. Had my great-great-grandparents remained where they were they too would have been refugees. Thus I am not unmindful of the fact that my heritage is rich because of the hospitality of Canada and because of the goodness of Queen Victoria who gave personal guarantees to my people that they would find sanctuary here in their beliefs.
Since my election 1 have worked many times on behalf of refugees. In 1974, 1975 and 1976 I worked on behalf of Ethiopian refugees, and later on for Iranian refugees. In 1979 we all worked on behalf of the boat people. It is against that backdrop that I speak in this debate.
First, I wish to spend some time addressing the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday. I listened carefully to what he had to say. I noted that he spoke in very measured and careful language and that he relied on his text,
Immigration Act, 1976
which is why I assume that he spoke with deliberate care and accuracy with respect to his point of view.
The first point he made had an allusion to racism. In that context he made reference to the boat that was turned away from Vancouver some 60 or 65 years ago, a boat loaded with people from India. He then made reference to a boat which was turned away from Canada in 1939, a boat loaded with Jewish people who had left Europe in times of extreme distress. No one in Canada is proud of that part of our history. I feel insulted that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would raise those issues in relation to the legislation which is presently before us as though we are being racist by trying to defend Canada from the violation of our laws. It is beneath the man to raise that spectre, since he began in the preface of his speech by saying we have to deal with illegal claims. Yet just after that he said that we are acting like we acted 40 years ago when we turned back a boatload of refugees from Europe. That is unacceptable, to use the hon. gentleman's favourite word.
I now wish to refer to the Hon. Member's speech as reported at page 7998 of Hansard. He dealt with the fact that the Bill would threaten the activity of church groups and groups such as Amnesty International that work with refugees. I want to say that the Bill will do nothing of the sort. Those who have a vital concern in helping the dispossessed and the endangered around the world will be able to carry on their work, just as before. Canada's tradition of compassion and humanity will not change because of this Bill. Frankly, it will be enhanced because of it. It will give the Department and the courts some kind of mechanism to distinguish between those who are genuine refugees and those who are abusing the system. It will help us to help those who are most in need. That speaks of humanity and not abuse. Those who are working genuinely on behalf of refugees around the world have no need to fear this legislation.
The concepts brought forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party on behalf of church leaders frighten me. At page 7998 of Hansard the Hon. Member stated the following about the Bill:
It contains a provision which could lead to the imprisonment or imposition of serious fines on church people, representatives of Amnesty International, or other totally sincere and empathetic human beings who are devoting a good part of their lives to try to facilitate the entry into Canada of legitimate refugees.
Several paragraphs later in the text he is reported as having said:
According to my reading of this provision, the church people are subject to the penalties under the law.
I want to ask Hon. Members this. Is there anything wrong with that? Should church people, regardless of where they are, not be just as subject to the law as all other people in Canada? Surely because some people wear a clerical collar, have a church title or work on behalf of a church organization they are not exempt from obeying the law. Are we about to introduce the concept in our country that people must obey the

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
law, but if one holds a certain position in society then one does not have to obey it? Is that the concept that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is introducing into this debate? On the basis of his values, does he want to pick and choose those people who have to obey the law?
I wish to emphasize a part of the Hon. Member's speech, a part to which I have referred already. He refers to those who are "totally sincere and empathetic human beings who are devoting a good part of their lives to try to facilitate the entry into Canada of legitimate refugees.'' I underscore the fact that the Hon. Member was talking about legitimate refugees. He wishes to make the criteria for exemption from the law good intentions and empathy. Since when have we accepted that type of relativistic criteria in relation to whether or not we must obey the law? There are all types of people in our society who have good intentions and who have plenty of empathy. They are just as subject to the law as everyone else. Who says that there are special groups in Canada that which receive special treatment?
The fact is that in Canada there may be a great deal of disagreement with respect to the value concept under which we live and which guides our sense of empathy or our good intentions. There are a great many different value concepts which generate or degenerate our sense of empathy. It depends from which type of a concept we operate on how our empathy works, or how our good intentions work.
I point out to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that, ironically enough, these legitimate refugees about which he talks are actually fleeing societies which have imposed a concept that he is now introducing. They are fleeing, for example, statism. Who says that in those countries where there are dictatorships and where statism runs rampant, where leaders do not necessarily have good intentions, that that means their sense of good intentions is entirely different from ours? Because their intentions are paramount, rather than the law and the courts, they can act with total caprice toward the citizens of their countries. Surely the Leader of the New Democratic Party would not impose on Canada the concept that the caprice of a few people who climb to the top of an organization will dominate the will of Canadians. Good intentions are not good enough. Surely all of us are subject to the law. Surely all of us are subject to the courts that give us protection under the law. Good intentions and a sense of empathy are not reliable enough guides. I would remind my colleagues that empathy and conscience are probably the most malleable faculties we have. Our consciences or empathy-driven responses depend on what we program into ourselves.
I wish to make my third point about security under the courts because I see that my time is running short. The Leader of the NDP went on to say:
There are two serious things wrong with that. One, it is the Security
Intelligence Review Committee which has some expertise in passing judgment
about security risks . . . However, the Government does not want to use the
people with expertise but wants to give the responsibility to the Federal Court-
That is nothing short of misleading. Perhaps the process has changed, but I would remind Hon. Members that Clause 4 of the Bill amends Section 41(1) of the Act to read as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where the Minister and the Solicitor General are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, that a person, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person described in paragraph 19(l)(d), (e), (f) or (g) or 27(2)(c), they may sign and file a certificate to that effect with an immigration officer, a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator.
The fact is that the evidence will be presented in court because of criminal intelligence reports that will have been submitted to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). On the evidence they have provided, those certificates can be issued. It is entirely misleading for the Leader of the New Democratic Party to say that the Government does not want to use the people with expertise but wants to give the responsibility to the Federal Court.
The fact is that because of the Supreme Court and the Charter, we have the best protection under the court system. I would hope that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would have confidence in the Federal Court system, confidence that it will protect people who are being investigated and are under the threat of deportation on the advice of the Ministers. The court system will decide whether the Ministers are right or wrong.
We have heard a lot about refugees, bogus refugees and terrorists wanting to come to Canada under the refugee system. However, it is important that we maintain and protect in Canada the rich tradition of compassion and caring for those who are most destitute and endangered.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the Singh case of two years ago was basically that there are five billion people in the world who could come to Canada and say they are refugees and they would be entitled to protection under the Charter. That is really what it said. We must and will maintain our rich tradition of protection for those who are destitute.
I remind Hon. Members that it was this Government that came to the aid of the boat people who were set adrift on the South China Sea in 1979. It was this Government that proposed that if private organizations and church groups would sponsor refugees, the Government would match that sponsorship. That was one of the best programs in the history of our dealings with refugees. Everyone participated in it.
While we continue to speak for refugees and on behalf of refugees, we must also speak for Canada. We must speak for the kind of country we want, the kind of country we want to protect for those refugees who come here. If we allow our laws to be flouted and our system of immigration to be circumvented, if we allow those who do not share our ethics to erode the sense of justice in Canada, we will not have the kind of Canada
August 13, 1987

that will be an enticement to refugees. So we must speak for Canada as well as the refugees.
It is the intention of this Government to preserve the kind of fairness, compassion and sense of humanity and legal balance under our justice system that will keep Canada an attractive haven for people around the world who are destitute. They should be able to feel at home here and to maintain a sense of humanity.
As long as we allow groups of people to finesse their way around the legal system, we will erode our system and destroy the kind of Canada that makes our country such a great place to live and so attractive to these groups. I say it is time to send this Bill to committee, to hear witnesses and to pass it so that Canada can be the kind of place to which people want to come.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to engage the Hon. Member in discussion on at least one area that he raised with respect to the comments of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). This has to do with what in my judgment can only be a misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise, on the part of the Hon. Member of what the Hon. Member for Oshawa said. I would like to clarify the matter.
It is not that the Leader of the New Democratic Party, or any other New Democrats for that matter, asking for special status under the law for church people. We were arguing that the wording of this particular Bill would put these people, some active in the church and some not, though it is a fact that church people tend to be associated with caring for and advocating the cause of refugees, on the wrong side of the law needlessly. It is not a matter of asking for special status for clergy or for church people or for anyone else. It is a matter of the way the Bill is worded now. The Bill's wording would put church people who help people who do not have documents come into Canada, believing that they are legitimate refugees, in a position of breaking the law. Is the Hon. Member saying he agrees with that? That is the only point the Hon. Member for Oshawa was making when he spoke about the effect this Bill would have on people involved with the churches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow a very short rebuttal before I call it one o'clock.


Benno Friesen: I just make this one point. There is concern about people who do not have documents. The question we have is, why do they not have documents? A decision has to be made. There may be some who have no documents through no fault of their own but, as news reports have indicated very clearly and as the Hon. Member will I think understand, there has been a multitude of people who have destroyed their documents and therefore are not legitimate cases. We have to make that distinction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There will be eight minutes left for questions and comments when we resume debate.
It being one o'clock, I do not leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the general election of 1980 returned 10 Liberal Members from northern Ontario-10. Yet, with all that representation under the previous Liberal administration, not once did one of those Liberal Members bring forward an economic program for their region.
1 am proud to say today that under the present Government the northern Ontario caucus of the P.C. Party delivered to the residents of northern Ontario.
We delivered an economic development program to the region.
We delivered $55 million in new federal money.
We delivered $15 million in loans and grants of up to a value of $60 million.
We delivered a secretariat, housed in our own back yard, to administer the program.
We delivered an advisory board made up of northern Ontarians. Mr. Speaker, the Government has delivered to northern Ontario.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in spring, 1984, the inquiry on federal water policy was launched to consult Canadians on a federal water strategy to meet our future needs. On September 30, 1985, the inquiry reported its recommendations to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). At that time the Minister stressed the urgency of

August 13, 1987
formulating a national water policy "to prevent the emerging crisis from happening".
The Minister has had the report for two years now and Canadians are wondering what he has done. The sense of urgency the Minister conveyed in September, 1985, seems to have evaporated like so much water on a hot summer's day. We urge the Minister to get going and start planning now to meet the water management challenges Canadians are facing now and will face in the years ahead. Canadians want to see the benefits of the 18 months of important consultations on water policy for Canada.



AIR TRANSPORT


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in the House the other day a question was asked of the Government about its position on the proposed flights of plutonium over the Canadian North. 1 found the government answer at that time to be very inadequate. All we received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) was the assurance that these flights could only occur with the full permission of the Canadian Government.
That is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is whether the Canadian Government is going to give permission for such flights, whether it will tolerate that type of danger to the northern environment.
I must wonder aloud just what is going on when the Government takes such a casual attitude toward that proposal. Is it because we have compromised ourselves with respect to radioactive substances in the North by the Government's proposal for nuclear submarines for Canada's North? Is it because the Government has entered into an agreement, through AECL, with the United States and Japan vis-a-vis the research going on at Lac du Bonnet into the disposal of high level radioactive waste? Is that why we have this silence, this incredibly relaxed attitude toward a very serious proposal? Or is it because of the general deference to all things nuclear to which the Conservatives have now become captive in the same way as the Liberals were before them?
All these things give one cause to wonder just what is going on. I think it is high time the Government paid some attention to this particular proposal.



FINANCE


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, credit cards and interest rates do not seem to go together. For over two years my learned Conservative colleague, the Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), has been crusading to convince banks and department stores to act less greedily with their credit card interest rates.
The president of a Canadian shoe company told me that almost one-third of their net profits came from interest on overdue credit accounts. How silly. Whatever happened to good old cold cash and the rule of business ethics that, if you cannot afford to pay, you cannot afford to play?
We got ourselves into this trap by living plastic lives. We even buy our groceries now with a piece of plastic. However, banks and department stores are, in my opinion, charging excessively high interest rates on credit accounts. Persuasion has not prevailed. It is time to legislate. The Member for Scarborough West has my full support.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, last June 29 I rose in the House and urged the Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan) to intervene with a view to settling a problem concerning log drives on the Saint-Maurice, the longest river used for such operations. This river flows through broad land expanses in the Mauricie region-from La Tuque to Trois-Rivieres-where logging operations are now one of the major sources of water pollution. This constitutes a very complex problem because, if ever consideration were given to banning log drives, the economic impact on our region would be catastrophic owing to the high cost of trucking logs over land.
Still, Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that letting the situation deteriorate will solve the problem. With this in mind, again I urge the Minister of Environment to convene all parties involved as soon as possible, namely Environment Canada, the paper companies concerned, other federal, provincial and municipal authorities, and spokesmen for the various users of the Saint-Maurice River.
August 13, 1987



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the socialist party flanked by 30-odd comrades, all excentrics with their own peculiarities, rose in this House to comment on the immigration measure in his capacity as party leader. The first part of his speech had to do with history and literature.
In the second part he simply echoes the message of pressure groups that are against the Government approach.
In the third part it becomes obvious that he is not living in 1987 because his leading references date back to 1914 and 1939.
He criticizes the Government position-which he has yet to read-and even wrongly states in his discourse that he did not get from the Minister a response to his personal quest for information.
In conclusion the socialist leader states that he wants to put an end to abuses and ban terrorism but he does not accept any of our means and, worse still for a party leader, he fails to suggest any alternative.
As he is wont, yesterday the socialist leader toyed with negativism, inaccuracies, demagogy and opportunism.



RIVER SAFETY


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, over the past year in my province of British Columbia we have seen 12 people die as a result of white water rafting accidents. Six of those tragic deaths have occurred in the last month alone.
1 have a letter from K. W. Stevenson, President of General Paint of Vancouver. He lost his daughter, Marie, aged 32, on the Elaho River north of Squamish. Mr. Stevenson says:
It is my sincere belief that government must introduce controls for ALL
rivers so that other families do not have to experience the grief that we have
felt.
I am sure all Members of the House will share in his grief over this tragedy.
I want to remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that under the Canada Shipping Act the authority for regulating and maintaining safety standards on rivers remains with the federal Government and his Department.
I want to offer the co-operation of the New Democratic Party if the Government needs legislation to strengthen the
safety standards of rafting equipment and the qualifications of rafting guides. 1 have had the pleasure of rafting on the Fraser and Thompson Rivers, as perhaps you may have had, Mr. Speaker. It is great fun and it is a great tourist industry. However, we must make sure that these kinds of tragedies do not occur again.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the majority of Canadians believe that legitimate refugees should be given safe haven in Canada. People want an immigration system that is fair and compassionate.
However, when the system is repeatedly abused, it is not unreasonable for the Government to tighten the refugee determination process, ensure visa compliance, and punish offenders.
I am very concerned that members of the New Democratic Party have not come clean on the issue of refugees. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) says the system should be tightened up, while many of his followers have delayed passage of immigration Bills, criticizing them as too severe.
If the NDP had not prevented earlier attempts to amend immigration laws, the recall of Parliament may not have been necessary.
The New Democratic Party should stop delaying new immigration laws. The Leader of the NDP should instruct a few of his loyal followers to act responsibly because Canadians deserve much better.



FINANCE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the late 1970s and early 1980s interest rates were high. The prime rate was over 20 per cent. Credit card companies, major retail stores and gas companies were charging around 25 per cent on unpaid accounts. When interest rates dropped substantially, the interest rates charged by these companies were not reduced.
It was only after questions in this House and after the finance committee brought down a report early this year criticizing these high interest rates, did the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) warn the charge card companies

August 13, 1987
that, if they did not cut their interest rates, Parliament would bring in legislation.
Finally, kicking and screaming, these companies brought down their interest rates somewhat a few months ago. Now, just four months after announcing a reduction in interest rates, they have begun to increase interest rates again. Their excuse is that interest rates have gone up somewhat.
1 call upon the Government to act now, not to wait for a Private Member's Bill which might, with luck, be dealt with a year from now. I call upon the Government to bring in the kind of legislation which will protect tens of thousands of Canadians from the greed of these giant companies.



HORTICULTURE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in many small communities in the North the price of produce is extremely high, yet the soil and climatic conditions are suitable for the growing of vegetables. A lacking ingredient, however, is knowledge and experience on the part of the inhabitants of how to cultivate gardens.
Recognizing this, the Mennonite Central Committee has, for the past several years, been sending experienced gardeners to the North to teach by example its people the art of horticulture. This is proving to be a successful program. The object of this statement is to thank both the Mennonite Central Committee and the individual participants for their continuing efforts on behalf of would-be northern gardeners.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today to compliment the Government on the introduction of Bill C-84 which, in concert with Bill C-55, will stop the queue jumpers who are interfering with immigration to this country. These Bills will stop the unscrupulous tactics of a few people making money from the misfortunes of others with their boatloads of human contraband. That is not fair, nor is the open-door policy advocated by Members opposite.
With the passage of these Bills the Government will be able to proceed with plans to expand the family reunification program because, without immigration, Canada's growth rate will be negative. The Government wants to help bona fide refugees and immigrants enter this country. The hundreds of constituents who called my office to register their concern and
indignation demanded fairness. This is a trait which exemplifies Canadians and Canada to the rest of the world, and this Government is delivering.




Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when you recalled the House to deal with Bill C-84 it was our intention at that time, of course, to co-operate with you and come back to Parliament. We have been debating this Bill now for two days.
It has been our intention, because it is very complicated and we have very many concerns which, of course, we have registered, to see amendments made to the Bill. Of course, the appropriate place to make those amendments is in a legislative committee. That is also the place where expert witnesses could be heard to help us improve the Bill. For that reason we have been anxious to have this matter referred to a legislative committee as soon as possible, ideally at the end of today, and that is still our wish.
We want to say we oppose the Bill. However, we want to do what we can to improve the Bill presently before the House and we can do that only by hearing expert witnesses in committee and by proposing amendments in committee.



WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the recent western diversification initiative recognizes the need to develop and diversify the western economy to make it less vulnerable to international economic developments and fluctuating commodity prices.
A new agency, the Western Diversification Office, will be created under the leadership of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight). The WDO, with offices in each of the four western provinces, will co-ordinate, support and encourage the creation of enterprises in the West and will administer a $1.2 billion Western Diversification Fund.
This new money will be used to promote western economic diversification by helping to support worth-while specific projects, by promoting the competitiveness of existing enterprise, and by facilitating the creation of new business.
August 13, 1987

The WDO will co-ordinate and communicate all federal programs and activities that contribute to the economic development and diversification of the West. The WDO and the $1.2 billion fund represent tangible proof of the Government's commitment to help improve the fortunes of western Canada.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) commenting on Bill C-84. He pointed out that although his party was opposed to the Bill, it wanted to see the Bill referred immediately to committee, so that witnesses could be heard.
I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap that his intellectual honesty leaves much to be desired. As a Member of this House, I have the right to express my views on Bill C-84, and I hope we will be given an opportunity to do so in this House. If his party is not prepared to come right out and say where it stands on this issue, preferring to hide in committee instead of speaking out in the House, it can go right ahead, but 1 want to express my opinion right here in the House. And I strenuously object to the position taken by the Hon. Member for the NDP on this matter.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The Minister knows perfectly well that her colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, keeps repeating that his Bill, which will increase the price of drugs in Canada, is not the result of pressure exercised by the United States during the free trade talks. In fact, he maintains that the United States did not even mention the subject. I would like to know whether the Minister agrees with her colleague and whether the United States has asked Canada to change our patent drugs legislation.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure the House that of course the Minister of
Oral Questions
Consumer and Corporate Affairs was correct in the answer that he gave the House. I have explained to the House, both in the debate on March 16 and in repeated questioning in the House, that the whole issue of intellectual property, which covers patents, is being discussed, but I am not aware of any specific reference to the Bill in question.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not bad enough that the Government is going to raise drug prices at the expense of older and sick Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -it's worse that the Government does not have the common decency to admit in the House that it is doing so as a result of direct pressure from the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have here a document published under the seal of the President of the United States which I wish to quote. It refers to the current drug legislation:
The United States continues to raise its concerns at senior government
levels. It urges speedy submission of modifying legislation to address serious
U.S. concerns about the inadequacy of Canadian patent protection in this
area.
Does the Minister for International Trade deny the truth of these statements contained in the official document under the seal of the President of the United States relating to these trade negotiations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member has not established in the House the date of the document, whether the document deals with free trade, whether it is one of the general concerns that is raised all the time between Canada and the U.S. trade negotiators where we deal consistently over a long period of time with trade issues between us. The Hon. Member has not in any way tied this specifically to any U.S. negotiating proposal that is under serious consideration by our negotiators.


John Napier Turner: I would be glad to let the Minister have a copy of this document which has been given to us by the United States Embassy on Wellington Street. It is the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, and it relates specifically at page 55 to what 1 have just recited.


PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO AMEND PATENT ACT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this morning in The Globe and Mail there was a further report-


Mr. Malone:: Read the whole Globe and Mail.

August 1 3, 1987
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: "Read the whole Globe and Mail"] That would be taxing even the Hon. Member's patience.
1 want to quote senior American officials, senior administration officials. Yesterday this fellow said that "intellectual property rights (such as drug patents) is one of our key global issues", and then he said that he thinks "we have the assurance of the Canadian Government that they will see this through".
1 ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to give him a chance to get up finally, why would the Government reject the recommendations of the Eastman report, which was an independent Canadian judicial commission of inquiry? Why would he reject those recommendations and cave in to American pressure instead, to bring this legislation forth?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Which one of you is going to answer?


Lloyd Axworthy: Do it together.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: 1 wouldn't take that, Pat.


Mr. Andre:: -1 would remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was the Liberal Government in 1983 which introduced a White Paper. It was the Hon. Member for Papineau who said that Canada's patent laws needed to be changed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: 1 would remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that when he was in the private sector and Chairman of the Board of Sandoz Pharmaceutical Company many people heard him say that Canada's patent laws needed to be changed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: We support Eastman.


An Hon. Member:: Read the Eastman report.


Harvie Andre: I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition met with the pharmacy students who were here in Ottawa, I believe the day before yesterday, talking about their future-


Ms. Copps:: What about senior citizens?


Harvie Andre: -but it is those thousands of jobs and those hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in research and development which are guiding this Government.
I wish the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would have the courage to visit with those students and tell them that he
thinks their future takes second place to his political opportunism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: While the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is arranging meetings, we would be interested to know when he is prepared to meet with the senior citizens of Canada who will be facing an increase of hundreds of millions of dollars in drug prices; that is what we would like to know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S SPEECH-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Minister for International Trade was so anxious to join in a duet with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I will pose a question specifically to her.
Yesterday, in answers to questions from our Leader, she said specifically that the trade knowledge which Canadians need about the Canada-U.S. negotiations is all contained in a speech which she made on March 16. If that is the case, 1 would like to ask the Minister why it is that when that speech was delivered she talked about jobs but she did not mention the fact that federal officials in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion said that there would be job losses in the brewery industry, in the steel industry, in the shipbuilding industry, in the auto parts industry-in fact in industries in every part of Canada. If that was to be the definitive statement of the impact of the free trade negotiations, why is it that those facts were kept secret, that those facts were hidden and were not divulged at that time?
I ask the Minister, in all honesty, is she now prepared to table those reports showing exactly what the real impact of free trade is going to be in this country and on the jobs of Canadians?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, let me make some obvious points. First, the free trade negotiations are taking place. They have six more weeks to go. It is not possible at this time to table the type of information for which the Hon. Member is asking because the negotiations are taking place. The Prime Minister has said that there will be public debate on the issue.
Second, I would like to point out that the information the Hon. Member is presenting to the House in the form of the DRIE report, a junior report that was never circulated among Ministers, has already been rejected by one group, the petrochemical industry, which says that the report's assessment of its industry is simply not true.
August 1 3, 1987

If the Hon. Member continues to bring forward suspect information in the absence of any discussion on this matter, even with his own Leader in a private briefing by Simon Reisman, then I think the Hon. Member is simply being mischievous and undermining the negotiations that are taking place at this crucial time.


REQUEST THAT TRADE AMBASSADOR APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will concede one point. Any information from the Government must be suspect just by its very nature. However,
I would caution the Minister that to reject the kind of research analysis done by officials in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion who know an awful lot-or did know an awful lot-about how regional development took place in the country, is an act of irresponsibility on the part of the Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These are important matters being discussed. It would be helpful in preambles if Hon. Members would restrain themselves from getting into argument, and set out the facts that are necessary to place a question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will put my question to the Minister in this way. Considering that there are only five or six weeks to go before the Government will initial an agreement with the United States on free trade, is it not absolutely essential that Canadians be given the full benefit of the facts which the Government itself possesses about what the impact of that proposed agreement will be? Is it not a responsibility of the Government to be accountable to the Canadian people and divulge those facts?
In doing so will the Minister agree to have Mr. Reisman appear publicly before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to explain why it is that the impacts are not being divulged, and to explain what it is the free trade arrangement will do for Canadians?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Ambassador Reisman would give the same response that I have given, that is to say that, since negotiations are taking place and since the type of information that the Hon. Member seeks cannot for all practical purposes be defined or determined until the negotiations are concluded, there is no particular point in Mr. Reisman coming forward at this time.
I have said over and over again that the agenda for these talks has been discussed and debated in Parliament. The agenda and the Canadian position have been widely discussed among First Ministers. We have had a consultative process that involved five First Ministers' meetings, two Trade Ministers' meetings, 16 meetings of the Deputies of the provinces and the federals, 116 SAGITs meetings, three ITAC SAG IT chairpersons' meetings and seven ITAC meetings,
Oral Questions
which is the group that advises me. All of this work is going on. All of this consultation is taking place.
1 offered a similar briefing to the opposition Parties and they have refused it.
I might point out that I find it strange that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has rejected this briefing when it was a member of his own caucus who asked for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETINGS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Minister for International Trade has once again denied that the United States brought direct pressure on the Government of Canada to make changes to our patent drug legislation.

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister prepared to admit that during two international conferences with the President of the United States, one in 1985 and one in 1986, the President directly suggested to the Prime Minister that some changes should be made in our legislation on pharmaceutical products?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: The Leader of the New Democratic Party is referring to something I am not aware of. Of course, as the Minister said, there have been exchanges on a host of issues during bilateral meetings, which is entirely normal. We are talking about the legislation that was tabled. It is a Canadian initiative which, I may add, will result in several hundred million dollars being invested in Canada and the creation of as many as 3,000 new jobs, most of them in Quebec. 1 have also noticed that many Quebecers, including the Mayor of Montreal, ministers in Mr. Bourassa's government and various social intervenors, have shown considerable concern about the position taken by the Liberal senators who are opposing a Bill that would bring considerable economic benefits to Canada and Quebec.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that this was a Canadian initiative. It was a Conservative Government initiative that came after two direct requests of the President of the United States, another request made by the Vice-President of the United States to the Prime Minister as well as in a meeting with myself and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition, and it was introduced into the House after the visit of Mr. Yeutter to Canada.
Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that this legislation that is going through the Senate was introduced by the Government because the United States is insisting upon it as a

August 13, 1987
Oral Questions
condition for a free trade agreement with the Government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is no doubt quite capable of discussing meetings that he may have had with American officials. I would no doubt gather that he would want to leave me the same privilege.
I have responded to the Hon. Member. Have these matters been discussed in bilateral meetings? Of course they have. All matters of importance are raised by officials from time to time. This particular project is one that was brought about, and the Leader of the Opposition himself, when he was in the private sector, had recommendations along similar lines.
The object of the exercise as presented to the House of Commons is to guarantee some 3,000 new research and development jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment. We are somewhat at a loss to understand why the Liberal Senate persists in blocking something that is of such value to Canada, to the Province of Quebec, and to the research and scientific community in general.
We want to initiate matters so that Canada can provide a leadership role in scientific research and development. We are amazed that the Liberals and the NDP are blocking such initiatives when they can be brought about and keep drug prices down at exactly the same time.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows or ought to know that the one concrete effect of this legislation will be to drive up the price of drugs in Canada by $300 million to $600 million a year. That is what will happen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Since just a few minutes ago the Minister for International Trade denied that the President of the United States in particular, or any other official of the United States attempted to get the present kind of legislation proposed by the Government of Canada introduced, and since the Prime Minister has just indicated that possibly the President of the United States did discuss it with him, will he now admit that the President of the United States did discuss very specifically patent drug legislation and requested the Government of Canada to make the kinds of changes it is now trying to force through the House of Commons and the Senate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has made the flat statement that the only concrete effect of this measure will be to drive up the price of drugs. That, of course, is quite false.
1 would ask Hon. Members, and even those from the Leader of the NDP's own Party who might be inclined to believe such a statement, to refer to other flat statements made by my hon. friend. He stood in the House of Commons and predicted in
1984 and 1985 that the Budgets would cost between 50,000 and 150,000 jobs, and they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. He was wrong then and he is wrong today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration. While curbing abuse is a legitimate concern, it is very clear that Bill C-84 goes far beyond that intent, and in the process of overkill, jeopardizes the Charter of Rights and the civil liberties that we enjoy as Canadians.
Given that outside the House yesterday the Minister conceded that Clause 95(1) of the new Bill, which places members of the clergy assisting refugees in the same category as sleazy profit-making racketeers, is in error, would he now not admit to the House and to Canadians that this clause and others in the new Bill are in need of very significant amendments so that we can clean up racketeers and exploiters without trampling over our Charter and our civil liberties?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain to my friend-it will not be easy-exactly what I meant yesterday and today. Section 95 has always existed in the legislation. The Hon. Member will agree with me that it has been in the legislation for the last 10 years.
The new clause says that it is not an offence to counsel a person to present himself to an officer and tell the truth. It says that it is not an offence to transport an illegal alien in Canada for the purpose of presenting that person to an officer. What is an offence is to aid persons to evade legitimate immigration controls, either at the port of entry or in Canada.
Perhaps my friend will understand that no one has a right to decide whether or not people are refugees before they come here. Every one in Canada who will want to bring people here will have to wait before deciding if those people are refugees. Because of that, we have to let people here in Canada take that decision. In other words, nobody will be allowed to decide, before the immigration officers, that people are refugees. They could come from any organization, but under the Immigration Act only Canadian people will have the right to decide who are or are not refugees.


CONFISCATION OF DOCUMENTS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister says and means is one thing. What is in the legislation and is becoming the law of this country is completely
August 1 3, 1987

different. We are interested in the legislation because Ministers and Governments come and go but the law remains.
Given that another overkill provision is the provision that all travellers coming to Canada will have their visas and passports confiscated, potentially including Canadians returning from abroad, I would like to ask the Minister this question. While curbing fraudulent documentation is a noble exercise, does he not think that this blanket provision is too far-reaching? By implementing this provision, is he proud to be joining the Soviet Union which is now the only country in the world that requires its passengers' documents to be confiscated? What kind of Canada are we to become?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will let Canadians be the judge. When you get to the point where you start comparing the situation in the USSR with our own, in terms of individual freedoms, that is a sure sign you have run out of ammunition. I simply want to inform the Hon. Member that throughout the international community, procedures are in place that are far stricter than any Canada intends to introduce with the present legislation. I think that the only way-and we intend to maintain this position-to ensure that people entering Canada meet Canada's immigration objectives is to have controls, and we definitely intend to do so.


APPLICATION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. He was quoted today in the Citizen as saying he is not interested in prosecuting legitimate groups who assist refugees. He just now gave a very different interpretation of this proposed law. The Bill states:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence-
My question is this. If a Canadian brings someone who he or she thinks may be a refugee claimant to Canada without travel documents, and at once takes that person to the nearest immigration authority for examination, does the Minister admit that the clause 1 just read would make that action an offence?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the purpose of Question Period is to try and interpret the law instead of leaving this to the experts. Once we have passed the legislation, it will be up to the courts to provide their interpretation, and we will then see what the implications are.
Oral Questions


APPLICATION TO CANADIAN CITIZENS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Hon. Minister made statements undertaking to interpret this law. A few minutes ago he did the same thing. Will he do what a Minister is supposed to do and answer questions of fact and law in Question Period? Does this clause make it an offence to do what is not now an offence, namely, to bring a person into Canada and take that person to an immigration office, perhaps without documents, for examination?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have a very clear statement for my friend. In this country everyone, every group, has to respect the law.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED 1MPREC1SIONS CONTAINED IN LEGISLATION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. However, before putting my question, I must say that I am very surprised at his attitude. If the Members of this House are not here for the purpose of drafting and examining the Bill, then what are we doing here? That is the whole purpose of Question Period and our various committees and debates. 1 find the Minister's attitude incredibly arrogant.
1 would like to get back to my question, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the Minister that if we consider Clause 95.1 which is at issue here, 1 think it goes much too far. Is the Minister prepared to tar with the same brush, the traffickers in human flesh who are going to charge people thousands of dollars for taking them to Canada, and the work done by Cardinal Leger whose purpose is to help refugees find a safe haven and help people who are living in unfortunate and needy circumstances find a country of refuge? Because that is what Claude 95.1 does.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, that is taking the easy way out. It is the easiest thing in the world to play on public sentiment.


Raymond Garneau: It is the truth.


Benoît Bouchard: Now listen, sir. We listened to you. I suggest you talk to the Liberal senators about Bill C-22. That is important.
I think we should remember one thing. When people are not yet in Canada, whatever the country they come from, we have to wait before a decision can be made. You have already made up your minds that people who are not in this country, people you bring in from outside the country, are refugees. No one in this country has the right to decide who is a refugee except Immigration Officers. That is pretty obvious, and again, I

August 13, 1987
Oral Questions
suggest you read the Bill. This provision has been in force for ten years. In fact, it was passed by the Liberals.


MEANING OF CLAUSE 95
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary.
I was thinking about my next question, and in fact, it is very apt now that section 95.1 has been added to the existing Section 95.
I would like to ask the Minister whether, considering what he just said, Marcel Aubut, the President of the Nordiques, and Gilles Leger, his assistant, would have been liable to five years imprisonment because they helped the Stastny brothers come over and play hockey for the Nordiques. That is what Section 95.1 means.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Liberal Party was above the sort of argument that was just raised.


Raymond Garneau: Who drafted the clause?


Benoît Bouchard: Now listen, sir, we listened to you, so you could at least reciprocate.
i simply want to say that anyone in this country, as 1 said so earlier in English and I am sure you understood, anyone in this country who brings people from outside the country before Immigration Officers for evaluation, has the right to do so provided these people are taken to the place where they are supposed to go, namely, a Canadian Immigration Office. In that case, they may do so. However, we cannot let the Canadian system be manipulated, and this has happened several times, to let refugees into the country who are not entitled to that status. As long as I am Minister of Immigration, I will not knowingly let people abuse the system. This has been going on for years, and you never had the courage to do something about it.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Employment. In February of 1986 the Government promised to bring in a labour adjustment program for older workers. I represent a community with over 200 people who are going to be laid off in September because of the closure of Otis Elevator Company Limited. Another 1,400 families will be affected in January when the Firestone plant closes. Over half of these people would be considered older workers. When
is the Government going to honour its promise to these workers and their families and others like them across the country?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the program was announced a little while ago and negotiations have been ongoing with my provincial counterparts. As a matter of fact, I propose to talk to my Ontario counterpart very soon and I will inform him of the Hon. Member's concern.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is when is the Government going to do something about it? The Government has a responsibility. It made a promise to the workers of this country over 18 months ago. Families in Hamilton and across the nation are affected. I would like a commitment from the Minister today. Is he going to make a commitment to implement that program today?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, the announcement was with respect to a tripartite program. The negotiations with the provinces particularly are ongoing and I will inform my Ontario counterpart of the need for that program in Ontario particularly, and hopefully it will be signed, sealed, and delivered soon.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. He will know that the directors of Principal Group Ltd., First Investors, Associated Investors, and Principal Savings and Trust Ltd. are the same. He ought to know that their business address is the same address on Jasper Avenue in Edmonton. He should also know that the Secretary Treasurer of Principal Savings and Trust Ltd. is also the President of First Investors and the President of Associated Investors.
What test did the Minister utilize to satisfy himself that there was no wrongdoing, or the appearance of wrongdoing, within the operations of Principal Savings and Trust?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation was the insurer of Principal Savings and Trust. There were 29 other entities in the Principal Group. They do not have CDIC insurance. The Hon. Member should know that, even though CDIC insures a provincially regulated institution, it is still a provincially regulated institution. All of the Principal Group companies are provincially regulated.
August 13, 1987


CROSS-TRADING QUERY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I say very sincerely that there are 67,000 Canadians who have lost their personal investments. The Minister has refused to produce a document with regard to the investigation of Principal Savings and Trust. He has refused under the guise of confidentiality. 1 think the paramount consideration in this case ought to be the system of investment, depositors, as well as Canadians generally, as opposed to protecting one single company.
When did the CDIC and the Minister first become aware that cross-trading was going from Principal Savings and Trust to First Investors and Associated Investors?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the two contract investment companies, First Investors and Associated Investors, are not insured by CDIC, as the Hon. Member knows. Principal Savings and Trust is insured by CDIC.
In the course of examining the operation of the firm that it was insuring the CDIC came into knowledge of certain problems with inadequate capitalization. It became clear that more capital would be needed if that particular company was to continue. It seems clear that the same is true for the whole group.
In May and June the CDIC made its representations very clearly to the owners of Principal Savings and Trust. If the Hon. Member has been following these matters closely he will know that Parliament passed Bill C-42 which reaffirmed the confidentiality of documentation and communications between CDIC and its member institutions.


PRINCIPAL SAVINGS AND TRUST-REIMBURSEMENT OF INVESTORS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Many Edmontonians and Albertans in general are adversely affected by the collapse and bankruptcy of the Principal Group.
How will reregulations of the financial services industry help to prevent further bankruptcies like that of Principal Savings and Trust? Can the Minister tell us when depositors in Principal Savings and Trust will be reimbursed by the CDIC?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond that the CDIC hopes to be able to reimburse those who were insured within three weeks.
Second, for the information of constituents of the Hon. Member or anyone concerned about when the CDIC will be sending out the reimbursements, the phone number is area code 613 995-7984.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We know that officials of his Department were fully aware as early as July 14 of allegations of false representation made by Principal Group to lure customers. The Minister also received letters as early as July 20 from angry investors claiming Principal Group misled them about insurance coverage.
We know that last week the B.C. Government launched legal action against Principal Group alleging misleading and deceptive practices. Why is the Government taking so long to act? Why is it not taking similar action now?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we are. The Marketing Practices Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as the Hon. Member indicated, began investigating in early July the possibility that there were fraudulent misrepresentations made to investors in the two companies. It is doing the same with regard to Principal Savings and Trust.


REQUEST FOR POLICE INTERVENTION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: I have had phone calls from people, one from a woman in tears, because they lost their total life savings in this. They feel they have been lied to and robbed and no one has called the police. When is the Minister going to call in the police?


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that there is an appropriate time for debate, and sometimes at that appropriate time debate can be very heated. This is the Question Period. 1 invite the Hon. Member to put his question.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. These people have been lied to and robbed. When is the Minister going to call in the police?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member suggesting that we throw the individuals in jail and then have an investigation to see whether or not they should be there?


John Edward Broadbent: No, that's immigration.


Harvie Andre: The Marketing Practices Branch has this under investigation. Anyone guilty of fraudulent misrepresentations-


Simon Leendert de Jong: How long ?

August 13, 1987
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member is suggesting that charges be laid before the evidence is gathered. I do not think that is proper procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the House that the exchanges are just becoming argumentative. I think we should move on. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I address my question, through you, to the Minister of Labour. The Minister will know that at midnight on Monday, August 17, railway employees will be in a legal strike position. This will bring about the cessation of Go Transit services and will affect commuters from Hamilton, Oshawa, Barrie and, of course, Mississauga. There are 61,000 daily passengers.
If an agreement cannot be reached by unions and the railways, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will take immediate action to prevent this hardship and disruption of business?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, 1 am informed that the parties are meeting at this moment to discuss the report which was released earlier this week. I encourage the parties to come to a settlement as quickly as possible.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last June 26 the Prime Minister said in this House that if there is the slightest doubt about the equality of women's rights in the Meech Lake Accord he will secure such rights at the next meeting with provincial premiers, with due speed.
Mr. Speaker, doubts have been raised and voiced by a number of constitutional experts. Now that these doubts have been expressed, can the Prime Minister unequivocally guarantee that he will do his utmost to obtain from his colleagues, the provincial premiers, an amendment giving women and minorities in Canada the absolute right to equality? My question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question. 1 think it is important to understand that in response to a similar representation the other day I tried to set out that we felt, on the best legal advice we were able to get, that indeed the rights of minorities and the equality rights with respect to women in fact remain protected under the Charter in a substantive way.
If she does not want to believe me, possibly she will believe Dean William R. Leterman of Queen's University who speaks on behalf of 12 leading experts on federalism from five Canadian universities and today stated:
In our judgment, the distinct society clause does not reduce federal
legislative authority; nor does it significantly impair citizen rights under the
Charter or the ability of Canada to recognize the rights of its aboriginal
peoples and its varied ethnic communities.
These are top-notch national experts who have indicated their support of this Accord as an absolutely essential political act on the part of this Parliament in the legislation of our country.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister told us that if there were any ambiguity he would guarantee that he would secure the rights of women and dispel any such ambiguity. All I want to ask in my supplementary question is whether the Prime Minister has changed his mind since last June 26 and whether he is playing the same game as the Minister of Justice when refusing to acknowledge the ambiguity in the Meech Lake Accord? Who will make a decision? The Government or the courts?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, again, I do not understand the purpose of the Hon. Member's question. Is she stating the position of the Liberal Party, that this Accord should be rejected?


Lucie Pépin: I am telling you what the Premiers told us.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is she not in favour of bringing Quebec into the Constitution, into the mainstream of Canadian life? I do not understand the question.


Lucie Pépin: You are not answering the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are trying to give the proper legal interpretation. Obviously, we feel that the rights of all those groups on behalf of which she purports to speak are in fact protected. We have good legal advice to that effect. I hope she will support this matter rather than try to equivocate on behalf of her Party.
August 1 3, 1987


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Between June 20 and July 20 of this year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport made announcements totalling in excess of S33 million for ten projects in St. John's East. In view of the shameful unemployment rate in Newfoundland, which is shamefully double the national rate, and that since July 20 I received numerous calls from constituents who are desperate for employment and could benefit from these projects, will the Prime Minister tell us when work will be available from these projects for some of the unemployed in Newfoundland, particularly on projects in Long Pond, Fox-trap, Bauline, and Flatrock?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to welcome the Hon. Member from St. John's East to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 hope that my relationship with him will be as close and cordial as it was with his predecessor.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That is why he is here.


John Carnell Crosbie: i am happy to remind the House that the unemployment rate fell in Newfoundland. It is still a remarkably high 17.2 per cent, but there was considerable decline last month. The projects the hon. gentlemen mentions are and will be going forward, as well as all of the projects that have been announced since, including the $900,000 project at Arnold's Cove in St. John's West, and others.
There is a mighty program under way across this country to revive and repair our small craft harbours. I am glad the Hon. Member is now supporting them instead of complaining about them as he did during the election campaign.


REQUEST FOR SPEEDY START TO PROJECTS
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Government was able to put up huge signs in these communities within a matter of three or four days of making the announcements. In view of the debilitating unemployment rate which is still double the national average, will the Minister assure the House that the same haste and enthusiasm will be used in getting these projects started?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the projects that were announced are going forward with all possible speed. Any project ever announced for Newfoundland goes forward with all possible speed, as the hon. gentleman will realize. Our next major project is to see his replacement in the next election.
Business of the House


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The recent regulatory change in dangerous goods regulations resulted in a policy of Canada Post that blood samples will no longer be accepted in Canada's mail. This has caused an incredible hardship for rural Saskatchewan hospitals and small health clinics. In short, the policy is not good enough and should be changed.
Will there be a change to allow small hospitals and health clinics to mail blood samples through Canada Post?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely right. It is an unacceptable inconvenience, particularly to remote communities, not to be able to use Canada Post to send materials like blood samples. The policy is being changed and the change will be implemented. The Hon. Member has my assurance that this will be rectified just as soon as possible.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, since the House is back in session and today is Thursday, I would ask the Government House Leader to give us the customary statement of business that the Government intends to call over the next several days.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly do that. Today we will continue with Bill C-84. We hope that that might be concluded today. If not, we will continue tomorrow. That will be followed by Bill C-55.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on House business. As the Deputy Prime Minister will know, there is a matter of great urgency which is presently before the House. I speak now of the legislation with respect to war criminals.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that we in this party were prepared just before the House rose to have this legislation move ahead and to complete consideration of the Bill at that time. In view of the importance of dealing with this legislation quickly, in view of the fact that over 40 years have

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
passed, and in view of Canada's shameful history of inaction with respect to those who are alleged to have committed these terrible crimes against humanity, will the Deputy Prime Minister give serious consideration to bringing this legislation before the House in the next few days in order that Parliament might consider it as the emergency which it clearly is?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member is referring to Bill C-71. Of course, that is a priority item with the Government. The immediate priority, of course, is Bill C-84 and Bill C-55. 1 will take the Hon. Member's representation into consideration.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). Prior to the break 1 had asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to introduce remedial legislation to reinstate benefits to women on maternity leave. 1 have been assured that that legislation will come. When will we get that legislation, as it affects many people at the present time?


Pierre H. Cadieux: 1 appreciate the question of the Hon. Member, but 1 do not know exactly what assurance he is referring to. 1 have a copy of my letter to him dated July 30 which says we are taking that possibility under consideration and will be acting shortly. 1 will inform the Hon. Member what route we are going to take with respect to that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader will recall that I asked him on Monday if the Government would bring forward the war criminals legislation during this special resumed session of the House. 1 would again repeat my request because our party has always said we want to see that legislation expedited.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I answered that question in response to the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party. Bill C-71 is indeed a priority of the Government, but we have been summoned back to the House to deal with two very important pieces of legislation, namely, Bill C-84 and Bill C-55. Those are the items of business we want to dispose of. However, if we can work out satisfactory arrangements to deal with Bill C-71, as I indicated, I will take that under advisement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration
Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock there were eight minutes remaining in the question and comment period of the speech of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I will entertain a further eight minutes of questions and comments.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Hon. Member referred to five million refugees in the world. I would say that is probably a bit low. From the figures 1 have heard, I would think it is something like 15 million. What I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member is that they are not all coming here. Does he have any evidence to suggest that they are?


Robert Nesbitt Horner: They will.


David Berger: The Hon. Member says they will. He forgets that Canada is a remote country. It is one of the most remote countries in the world when one is speaking of the refugee question. Last year we had 18,000 claims. But even the Hon. Member acknowledges that many of these claims were abusive claims caused by the shortcomings in our current system.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he agrees with the screening process the Government is trying to set up in Bill C-55? And why does he agree with the efforts to stop undocumented persons from comimg to Canada when he knows that most refugees do not have the time to get documents. They barely have time to pack a bag and leave their countries. How-can the Hon. Member tell if a person is a refugee or not if the procedure the Government has set up does not provide all claimants a fair and full hearing?


Benno Friesen: There are several questions there, Mr. Speaker. The first comment the Hon. Member made was totally erroneous. I never said there were five million refugees in the world. 1 would hope the Hon. Member has read the legislation a little more carefully than he listened to my speech.
There are 12 million to 15 million known refugees in the world according to the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner. What I said was that under the Singh decision 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. Whether an individual tells the truth or lies, if he says he is a refugee he is entitled to protection under the Charter. Therefore, potentially every person in the world can come here and claim refugee status. That confirms the numbers I quoted.
The Hon. Member wants to know, I believe, how we are going to decide, and that is at the heart of this legislation and at the heart of this debate, and what the Opposition is talking about, the definition of a legitimate refugee. The implication in everything opposition Members are saying is that the church groups and other groups to whom they have been talking have a right to decide and conclude who is or who is not a legitimate
August 13, 1987

refugee. What we are saying is that is not right. Everyone has to be subjected to the laws and regulations of Canada in determining whether or not they are legitimate. Otherwise we have a very subjective system. We can never have a dependable definition of what is a refugee if we are not going to do it according to law.
If the groups working with refugees have the right to bring their claimants to the border and say, we have already decided these are refugees and do not have to be subjected to analysis under the law, then we have a lot of favouritism in the system which we cannot tolerate. I think the Hon. Member knows that.
Therefore, I say again that 1 would hope that when the Hon. Member speaks in this debate, as 1 suspect he will, he will do so with a clear understanding of the provisions of the Bill. With respect to proposed Section 95.1 in which he is interested, let me propose to him that it is virtually impossible to come to Canada without some kind of documentation unless it has been destroyed. If a person comes under a scheduled airline, some kind of passenger system, he must have documentation before he gets on the airplane. If he comes by a scheduled ship, he must have documentation. The only way he can come without documentation is either by destroying it or by coming to a port of entry along the Canada-U.S. Border illegally. We are not going to allow organizations, with their own subjective criteria, to decide on behalf of the Department of Immigration and the court system of Canada whether or not those people who land on our shores or arrive at a port of entry are legitimate refugees.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. As the Hon. Member and the House know, Bill C-55, which is legislation to tighten the refugee determination practice, is also presently before the House. We are currently debating an amendment by the Liberal Party supported by the New Democratic Party to delay debate on that Bill for a further six months until 1988. How would the Hon. Member's constituents feel if the Liberals and the New Democratic Party also put forward an amendment to delay debate on Bill C-84 for a further six months?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order. That question is totally out of order. It is absolutely hypothetical. The motion is not being put forward on this Bill. What the Hon. Member is talking about is an amendment to Bill C-55 which has nothing to do with the debate at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member may answer that question.


Benno Friesen: I hope the Whip for the Liberal Party will make sure that everyone of his Members who ask a hypothetical question during Question Period is ruled out of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order. I do not need any teaching from this gentleman-
Immigration Act, 1976


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You need a lot of teaching.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -as to hypothetical questions, and I will say to Members of the Government that when it comes to hypothesis, they are the big question mark.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Hon. Member. I would like to ask him whether he agrees with the views of the Conservative Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration? With respect to Bill C-55 he said that it proposes a series of changes which would make it almost impossible for many genuine refugees to make a claim, and that it is in probable violation of both the UN Convention on Refugees, as well as our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was said by the Conservative Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I wish to ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees and recognizes the force of the criticism that was made by that very knowledgeable Member of the House and of his own Party.


Benno Friesen: I would be happy to answer that question as soon as the Hon. Member receives unanimous support from his caucus for all of his views on justice.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I recognize that the Member is afraid to answer the question, but 1 will give him an opportunity once again. The question is very straightforward. Does the Hon. Member agree with the position that has been taken by his Conservative colleague who chairs the parliamentary committee on immigration that the procedures on refugee determination in his Government's legislation are fundamentally flawed? Does the Hon. Member agree or not? Is the Hon. Member afraid to answer the question?


Benno Friesen: I thought I already answered that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
On debate, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded by the remarks of the Hon. Member. For him to actually suggest that 5 billion people might come to Canada-

. . . that is beyond understanding, beyond reason . . .
[ English]
It is no small wonder that we are debating legislation which carries with it such abuses of our international obligations and the Charter of Rights. Indeed, the Hon. Member even admitted that Bills C-84 and C-55 are designed to do an end run around the Supreme Court of Canada, and around its decision in the Singh case.
Canadians are a fair-minded people. We often have difficulty in establishing that which sets us apart from other

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
peoples. Most Canadians would agree that we possess a sense of fairness. The key issue in this debate is the fairness of the process. If Canadians today are upset with our refugee determination process, it is because the abuses they see offend their sense of fairness.
The critical questions we must ask ourselves are the following. How do we make it fair to both refugees and to immigrants, recognizing that we are dealing with two very different needs? How can we be fair to Canadians who have relatives who want to immigrate to Canada? What can we do to discourage widespread abuse so that Canadians will not feel that our immigration procedures are being by-passed? Surely, it is possible to devise a system that meets these needs.
Indeed, the proposals for reform of the refugee determination system made by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, and largely adopted by an all-Party parliamentary committee which included members of the government Party, show us the way to do it. These proposals are based on the simple premise that we can do justice to refugees, and discourage abuse, by providing claimants with a full and fair hearing, and a decision in a relatively short period of time.
The current system invites abuse. It takes from two to five years from the date a claimant arrives in Canada to the date of the final decision. People or illegal immigrants who may be inclined to abuse or take advantage of the current system do so because they know they can stay. If a quick determination was made within four or five months of that person's arrival in Canada, it would remove abusers and allow refugees to begin to rebuild their lives quickly. In this manner, we would respond to the needs of refugees, and most abusers would not come. The cost would be prohibitive for an illegal immigrant to come here and be sent home shortly afterwards. By cutting down the time for a decision, abuse is eliminated. TThe confidence of Canadians in our system and laws would be restored.
The other half of the equation is the refugee. How can we be fair to refugees? Rabbi Plaut went to great lengths in outlining the manner in which to be fair to refugees. He insisted on the need for independence of the refugee board, and the right to counsel. He argued that while it is necessary to shorten the process to a minimum, a certain minimum period of time is required for refugee claimants to adequately prepare their cases; the need for procedural fairness should be obvious. Refugees have left their homes because of war and persecution. Their lives and liberty are at stake. Even refugee claimants who one might expect to be fairly articulate, such as lawyers, teachers, and union leaders, have been known to break down during refugee hearings; they have been unable to face the past, unable to talk about the experiences to which that they have been subjected. We must understand that refugee claimants are in a new country, probably they do not speak either English or French. Unquestionably, they are unfamiliar with our laws and procedures.
In his report, Rabbi Plaut considered and rejected various means of arbitrarily excluding certain groups of persons from
presenting their claims. The refugee determination system should be open to all claimants; that is, any person arriving in Canada and claiming to be a refugee ought to be given a hearing, and an opportunity to present his or her individual case and be judged on the merits of the claim. This corresponds to the sense of fairness of all Canadians.
Rather than allowing all refugee claimants access, the Government proposes to screen out claimants before they have had a full hearing on the merits, if they come from so-called third safe countries, or if they are unable to establish what the Government refers to as a credible basis for their claims within 72 hours of arrival in Canada.
Rabbi Plaut looked at these concepts and he rejected them. He rejected the idea of screening out those with what are known as "manifestly unfounded claims". He reviewed the practice in those countries that have tried to introduce such a practice only to find it to be unworkable, in other countries, some cases which were at first judged to be manifestly unfounded claims eventually were determined to be refugees by a higher authority.
However, the Government in its wisdom rejected his advice. Under the Government's legislation claimants from countries on a predetermined list established by Cabinet, which may have nothing to do with their personal circumstances, will not get a hearing. There will be no opportunity for them to refute the assumption established by Cabinet that the country to which the Government wants to return them is indeed safe. The inquiry will be limited to determining from where the person came. Members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration have been warned about the dangers of such a practice. Representatives of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in Canada told the committee the following in March of this year:
Pakistan may be safe for Afghans in general but not for Iranians-as for Afghans, you have to listen to the claim. There are different political and religious parties among the Afghans. Some of them have good relationships with the government and others do not . . . so even for Afghans who in general are very well treated in Pakistan, we would have to investigate the claim of the individual before saying this man is an Afghan and can be sent back to Pakistan.
Similarly, in the last week or two an Iranian was murdered by one of the Ayatollah's hit men in Europe. This is not the first time it has happened. Many former supporters of the late Shah have been murdered on the streets of Paris and London. Europe is clearly not safe for some Iranians. Some may be safe-people who are not notable members of the community or perhaps young people. However, clearly Europe is not safe for certain individual Iranians. They should not be arbitrarily excluded from our refugee determination process because Cabinet decides, in its imagination, that European countries are safe for Iranians. We must look at each individual case. We must allow people to present their claims and to be judged.
August 13, 1987

It is false for the Minister, it is false for the Parliamentary Secretary, and it is false for every member of the Conservative Party to say that no genuine refugee will be returned to a country where he or she may face persecution or death; this is just not so. The procedure the Government proposes provides no opportunity for the refugee to make his or her case.
Also it is false for the Minister to say that in all cases the refugee will be given the benefit of the doubt and that even when there is a shred of evidence supporting the claim, as the Minister has said on countless occasions, the claimant will be entitled to a fair hearing. This is just not so. It is not supported by the law before us today.

Instead of advocating giving refugees an honest and fair hearing, the Government proposals totally disregard the consensus flowing from consultations held by Rabbi Plaut and by the House standing committee, consultations to which the Canadian Bar, church authorities and non-government organizations were party. Instead of providing universal access to the system, Mr. Speaker, the Government is suggesting that applications be pre-screened on the basis of arbitrary criteria. Instead of allowing refugees to prepare adequately for a hearing where their life and freedom are at stake, the Government wants to force them through a hearing within 72 hours of their arrival in Canada. Instead of guaranteeing a refugee the right to a lawyer or counsel of his choice, this hasty process denies this basic right as guaranteed by our Charter of Rights. We must bear in mind the situation of refugees: not only is Canada a foreign country to them, but in most instances they do not know a soul here. More often than not they are advised by non-government organizations, refugee assistance agencies and church representatives. These organizations rely on volunteers and are forever strapped for financial resources. So how do you expect these organizations to intervene within 72 hours? Is there one individual who is prepared to say that refugees will be treated fairly and equitably under this system?

If fairness is the issue, there are further considerations. When Canadians travel abroad or participate in international meetings, we are often pleasantly surprised by the strong and considerable reputation of Canada. This reputation is founded on our contributions to the international community, going back to the days of Pearson, to our peacekeeping efforts, and to our record of aid to Third World countries.
The generosity of Canadians has also extended to refugees. In 1986 the Nansen Medal was awarded to the people of Canada by the United Nations. Who was Nansen? He was a Norwegian, an Arctic explorer, and oceanographer, best remembered for his work for the relief of suffering peoples. He was responsible for the repatriation from Russia of 500,000 prisoners of war from the German and Austro-Hungarian armies. In 1921 he succeeded in raising funds to bring relief to famine-stricken Russia. In 1922, at his initiative, an international agreement was signed in Geneva, introducing the
Immigration Act, 1976
identification card for displaced persons, known as the Nansen passport.
Think of the cruel irony. In 1986 Canadian people received a medal named after Nansen who gave displaced persons, persons without documentation, identification cards. In 1987 the Government wants to throw refugees without documents in jail.
The reputation of our country is also due to its nature. I have been impressed on visits abroad about the advantages of living in and coming from a bilingual country. There is hardly a world forum in which we do not participate. We are involved in the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. When I visited a refugee camp on the border of Thailand and Cambodia I was filled with pride on meeting Canadian volunteers, doctors, and nurses who acted as interpreters between Americans who spoke no French and Belgians or French who spoke no English. To me that is how Canadians can play a special role in the international community.
We are seen as a principled nation, a caring nation, and we ought to be concerned about the effect of this legislation on the international community and on how other countries treat refugees. We have to be concerned about the effect of this legislation on the UN Convention. The basic thrust of this legislation is that the Government does not want refugees to make claims in Canada. It wants to select refugees abroad, something which we do more out of our need for immigration than out of concern for the plight of refugees.
The Minister does not say so directly-

. . . The question was put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) the other night when he was being interviewed on Le Point'. How do you expect refugees to come to Canada? He replied: Let them come any way they can.
But they want to deny them any way to come to Canada without first filing an application with our embassies abroad.

Line up abroad, that is what this Government is saying. That is why the Minister wants increased fines for transportation companies. 1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, what will happen if all countries tell refugees to line up abroad? What will happen to refugees fleeing for their lives if all they have is the right to wait in line and apply to immigrate from an embassy in a country where they face persecution? Should Canada not be leading the fight to preserve the United Nations Convention so that refugees can continue to have the ability to effect some salvation on their own, to move spontaneously to a safe haven without visas, without lining up at an embassy door or without proper documentation? That is the whole purpose of the United Nations Convention.

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Is it fair for Canada to lead the world in denying refugees this right?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member spoke at some length on the subject of screening. In that respect 1 have one question that I would like to put to him.
In 1980, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was the Minister of Immigration. At that time there was a very famous case involving a gentleman by the name of Mr. Giuseppe Calamusa who had been convicted in Italy of three criminal offences. He came to Canada illegally in 1968. He was deported on five occasions and charged in Toronto with counterfeiting. He skipped bail in 1976, and in 1977 he was convicted and imprisoned. Sometime after 1980 he got into his car and drove to Winnipeg, turned up at the then Minister's office and asked for a ministerial permit. The Minister had a member of his staff drive this gentleman in a government car down to Emerson, Manitoba, where they did a loop around the immigration building and then presented him with a ministerial permit.
In view of the Hon. Member's interest in screening can he tell me whether the former Minister of Immigration, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, had prospective immigrants properly screened or was that his idea of screening people who should be admitted into Canada?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I am only vaguely familiar with the facts of the case to which the Hon. Member refers. I recall the name, perhaps as a result of questions having been raised in the House. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what that has to do with the debate we are having here today? Was this person admitted into Canada as a refugee? Was he admitted as a landed immigrant under immigration procedures or under refugee procedures? Quite frankly, I do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about. I wonder if he does.


Mr. Wenman:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) has demonstrated his concern for Convention refugees by visiting with me refugee camps in Thailand and Malaysia. He has participated in the process of bringing refugees to Canada through the legitimate route laid down by the United Nations Convention. Does the Hon. Member feel that it is fair that illegal aliens should be able to jump the refugee process by coming directly to Canada? Does he not agree that the 12 million refugees in refugee camps around the world, Convention refugees as designated by the United Nations, who have been waiting for months and years and who perhaps will never be received, should have priority and that the system should be respected? Those 12 million people are equally concerned with this situation and do not like the line-jumping either. Does the Hon. Member not agree that they have a prior right and that we should try to preserve the system?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his kind remarks. We ought to go on another trip again soon. It was very enjoyable, not because it was a joy-ride-it was not. On the contrary, it was hard work, but we were working for a good cause.
Does the Hon. Member not recognize that some of the people who have been accepted as refugees by making claims in Canada have been recognized as refugees? Are those people not legitimate? Is that not what we are trying to preserve? Is that not why we are so upset because of an arbitrary screening process that would possibly and inevitably rule out some of those people?
Does the Hon. Member not recognize that the concerns we have and the concerns experts have, including Rabbi Plaut, are legitimate? Does he think that the only wisdom is on the government side?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that it would appear, although it has not been proven yet, that perhaps some of these refugees tried to come through a third country. They, for example, bypassed Germany, thus bypassing all the refugees in the camps there. They could have gone there and got into the process in that way. Surely the Hon. Member understands that there must be a system, a system which does not allow bypassing of third countries. Surely he understands that we cannot allow racketeers or privateers to abuse that system any more than the pirates off Thailand can be allowed to continue their piracy. Until we can establish a better system, we must maintain control, not only in the interest of Canada but in the interest of the 12 million refugees who want to come here or to other countries. Linejumping cannot be allowed to continue if we are to be just and fair.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask the Hon. Member to think through his argument. He said that some of these people have come to Canada through a third country. Sure, they come through a third country. We do not have any refugee-producing states on our borders. If people had to come directly from a refugee-producing state in order to claim refugee status no one would be able to make a claim in Canada. The whole purpose of the Convention is to allow people to make claims, to move spontaneously on their own.
As long as human beings have a breath of life in them, as long as they have a desire to survive, they will find ways around the bureaucratic systems established by Governments. They will find ways to save their lives. They will find ways of not lingering in refugee camps.
I would like the Hon. Member to reflect on the fact that in the 1920s and the 1930s, there was a Canadian immigration regulation which said that one could not immigrate to Canada if one could not come here by continuous journey.


Mr. McCurdy:: Same rule for the same purpose.
August 13, 1987


David Berger: It is the same rule that we are talking about today, a rule which was discredited in those times.
I would ask the Hon. Member to read a speech I made some months ago in which I quoted a predecessor of mine, Sam Jacobs, who used to say that if Jesus of Nazareth had to come to Canada under that kind of system, he would have been refused entry because he could not have come here by continuous journey. There were a few other factors which would have been in his way as well.


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


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A number of us on this side have the distinct impression that there was not adequate time allowed for the questioning of the previous speaker and that no-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I keep really good track of all the times, and 1 have given the Hon. Member at least a minute and a half over his time.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me some time today to address Bill C-84. I would like to put a few of my views on the record, views which will hopefully help this debate. I know that this debate has been fairly intensive on both sides of the House, but I think there are some issues on which we agree and I think we should take a look at how we can go from there.
From 1973 to 1979, I had responsibilities as immigration critic while we were in opposition. At that time, the then Government presented a Green Paper on immigration and we travelled the country to get the views of Canadians, many of which were similar to the views that are being expressed in this debate. Legislation was then introduced and this legislation still primarily governs immigration in Canada today.
At that time, though there were differences of opinions on specific points, there was also a lot of agreement on the immigration legislation. The principles on which it was based at that time still exist today and those principles must be repeated. First, Canada needs more immigrants. 1 believe that that is not a point that is at issue in the House of Commons.
Let me put on my hat as Minister of National Health and Welfare. Demographic studies and projections for Canada are being conducted in my Department on behalf of the Government and are made public. From those studies, it becomes evident very quickly to any objective observer that Canada has benefited greatly from immigration. I do not think we could describe Canada without describing the immigration flow as that is the nature of Canada.
From a demographic point of view, we do need more immigration. Comparing the aging population in Canada to the fertility rates of Canadian women of child-bearing age, it becomes clear very quickly that we do need more immigration, and I believe that on that point we do agree.
Immigration Act, 1976
Second, I think we all agree that Canada has accepted refugees, is presently accepting refugees, and should and will accept refugees in the future. I believe it is important to keep that in mind. Today's debate, despite its intensity, is not about whether or not Canada should accept refugees. The question is, however, how people should be accepted as refugees.
Third, each country in the world, no matter how generous it is in receiving immigrants, has taken upon itself as part of its sovereignty both the right and the responsibility to put both legal and regulatory conditions on how people enter the country. That is part and parcel of the sovereignty of a country. I believe that some Canadians feel today that Canada's ability to control the manner in which people enter the country has been seriously jeopardized, and that is a fundamental principle underlying the actions of the Government.
I would hope that there is no disagreement among all sides of the House on those three points. If that is the case, then let us look at the record.
Quite frankly, I was more saddened than shocked by some of the words used by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) to describe my friend and colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). To say that someone is barbaric is something that surely should not flow from the lips of a Member of Parliament when describing another Member, whether inside the House or out.
I do not think I am giving away any cabinet confidences when 1 say that I know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has always said that we need more immigrants. To use words to describe him like those used by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is totally unacceptable.
On page 8005 of yesterday's Hansard, the Hon. Member alludes to the fact that the Minister could possibly be racist because he wants to accept immigrants on the following basis:
They want to decide whether it is the colour of their skin or their hair or
their religion which determines whether they are bona fide refugees.
I believe that most objective observers would say that when using those kinds of words, one is ascribing to a person racial overtones. I do not think that has a place either in this House or in this debate. I feel more sorrow than anything else when 1 hear that kind of a description of my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
If those principles to which I have referred apply, it is very interesting to note what has happened to immigration in the last 10 years. Combining refugee and designated classes, in 1978, Canada landed 913 people. The law changed at that time, so that has to be taken into consideration.
I am not trying to be partisan because the pattern continued after our defeat in 1980, but in 1979, the Government said that it would take more boat people from Indochina and we asked church groups, NGOs and others to co-operate. They

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
co-operated beyond any of our expectations in the best Canadian tradition. That year, we landed 27,528 refugees.
In 1980, as that program came into full bloom, that figure was 40,348. Then in 1981, the figure went down to 14,979. Who was the Minister then? It was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The next year it was 16,925. It then dropped to 13,967 in 1983. In 1984, it started going up, to 15,342. In 1985, it went up to 16,760. In 1986, 17,145. Up to the end of June of this year we are at 12,168. Assuming roughly the same amount in the second six months, the number could be well over 20,000 for the year.
The point I am making is that the Opposition says this Government is against refugees, and that is absolutely wrong. The numbers point the other way. I ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and his colleagues why fulminate against this Government today when their Government had a rate lower than either the Government of 1979-80 or this Government?


Mr. Caccia:: We are talking about the legislation you are introducing today, you jerk.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: At least I finally have his attention. He does not want to face the truth.


Charles L. Caccia: Talk about this Bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will talk about this legislation. The Minister said that we will continue not only the present level of immigration, he said on second reading that he was willing to signal to the House when he is obligated under the legislation, an amendment I moved at that time, to come in with higher targets. Surely we have to go with the evidence rather than the rhetoric or emotions such as demonstrated by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
The second point I would like to make is that there has been a change. That change flowed from the Singh case. This has to be understood. To every country in the world that receives immigrants, including Switzerland, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K., when a person sets foot on its territory that person is deemed not to be in the country for the purpose of exercising all legislative rights until that person's status had been regularized. That was a convenient legal way of being able to determine what that person's status was. It gave the country the power of maintaining its regulations and its sovereignty. In Canada the Singh case reversed that. To my understanding, this is the only country in the world faced with that situation. That interim period is no longer considered valid under our Charter of Rights. Therefore, if a person comes into this country, legally or illegally, from the moment he or she touches Canadian soil they are covered by the Charter and the need for an oral hearing.
The point is that one can see very quickly why our immigration laws have to be changed. Not to reduce the number of
refugees who are coming here legally but so that people cannot thwart either the will of Parliament or the fair judgment of Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about the UN Convention?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member refers to the UN Convention. I have it here before me because that is the next point I wanted to make.
The Opposition says that what we are doing is a violation of the UN Convention. That is not what the UN Commissioner for Refugees says at all. However, if that is the case, is Switzerland outside the convention? Are Sweden and Norway outside the convention? To ask the question is to answer it. It is simply not true. It might be a point of debate but it is not true. If one looks at the comments of the UN Commissioner relative to Bill C-55, a Bill which is not before us but which is tandem to Bill C-84, you will find that he would like to recommend some changes to Bill C-55 to "have as good a model of refugee acceptance as possible". Obviously he is trying to work towards the ideal model. He indicates very clearly, "The UNHCR does not suggest that any aspects of the proposed system are contrary to the convention".
This Government will maintain its international obligations. We are not in contravention of those obligations. This Government will maintain the historic traditions of Canada with respect to immigrants and refugees. However, we cannot violate a system so that anyone in the world can take it upon himself or herself to come to Canada and have rights which they do not have anywhere else in determining the manner in which they stay or how long they stay. That is fair and that is just.
Let us come now to the matter of destroyed documentation. It is interesting to note that a number of people who have come here to Canada to claim refugee status, before they were able to get on a conveyance to Canada, in most cases airlines, they had to have proper documentation. If they did not, I suggest in many cases the airline would not have accepted them as passengers. Therefore, one has to ask: Why destroy the documents? Is the Opposition saying that because someone destroys their travel documents they should have some right of access to the system before those who are in refugee camps? Is that the argument they want to put forward?
I suggest that the reason these people are destroying documents is that a number of them have status-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are fraudulent documents.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will get to that, too. We have had indications just recently of people who have come here and had status in Denmark. They chose to get on an aircraft to Canada and before landing they destroyed their documents in order that it would not be known they had status in Denmark. That is the kind of thing we are dealing with. Yes, there are fraudulent documents, but surely it is incumbent upon the Government of any country to check first on whether they are
August 13, 1987

fraudulent. Surely Canadians expect nothing less from their Government.
There are those who will argue that we should have universal access. They do not like to put it quite that way but that is the result of their argument.


David Berger: We put it exactly that way.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: So you are in favour of universal access?


David Berger: Yes, I am!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All right, let us look at that. The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) says exactly what he is in favour of. 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.


David Berger: Refugees.


Mr. Weiner:: Five billion people.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If that is his argument, that is totally ludicrous. No Government of any country accepts that kind of principle. We hear, for example, about Sweden. Sweden is used as the ideal model. Sweden takes approximately 1,000 refugees a year. I have given you the numbers, Mr. Speaker, of refugees that Canada has taken and that the Minister says we will continue to take. It is interesting to note that when a person claims refugee status in Sweden the first government official he or she comes in contact with is a member of the state police.
1 think it is time that Canadians knew the facts and were not simply drawn to an emotional argument that Canada is the only country in the world which is being restrictive. In fact, how often do we hear that the United States is not a safe third country? The fact is that the United States has taken more refugees than any other country and Canada has taken the next highest number.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No it didn't.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am talking about refugees that have refugee status. We have U.N. obligations and humanitarian obligations, Mr. Speaker. We are saying very clearly that this legislation is needed to maintain those principles which have been part of Canada's traditions.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was just referring to universal access as though people who are in favour of it had some kind of disease. I am in favour of universal access and I am proud of it. Rabbi Plaut is in favour of universal access as well. On page 91 of his report he says:
A guiding principle of refugee determination is that of access to the process.
It must be available to all refugees to ensure that we act according to the
principle of non-refoulement-
Immigration Act, 1976
-which is the most important and really the only obligation under the U.N. Convention.
Rabbi Plaut deals with the question of manifestly unfounded claims and the pre-screening process which the Government proposes to introduce. I would like to read to the Minister what he says about that. He quotes Professor Madsen and says:
-the noted scholar in the field, has observed that unstated administrative decisions of collective inadmissibility have endangered the refugee process in many countries.
The Minister was talking about practices in other countries. Does he not think that Canada has a responsibility to ensure that we preserve the system that was established in 1951? Does he not think that Canada has a special obligation? He talked about 18,000 people last year. He knows very well that that 18,000 included Portuguese and Turks and that the Government waited months before imposing visas on those countries. Why does he believe it is so necessary to impose artificial and unjustified screens on our refugee determination process?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member and I disagree on a number of points. We have already stated our varying points on universal access. I do not believe that universal access works. No other refugee system has universal access. I have pointed out very clearly that the signal which the judgment on the Singh case sent to the world was that Canada's immigration laws worked.
The Member referred to 1951, and I think we must also refer to 1978. However, there were changing circumstances, both with the Charter and with the Singh case in 1985. I do not believe that universal access is the manner through which Canada should take the number of refugees which we have said we will. It is not in the Canadian interest to be the only country with universal access. We cannot send the signal to the rest of the world that that is the manner in which our system will work.
The Member said that we have a backlog. He knows that there was a backlog before the Government came into office, albeit not as large as it is today. The Minister has said that we need more resources, and I think that is absolutely correct, although I think those resources could have been in place earlier. However, since the signals from the Singh case became known worldwide the flow of refugee claimants has increased to the numbers that we have today.
Canada is not out of step. We are leading in terms of refugee determination and in terms of the hearings. The Member cannot give me examples of any country which accepts more refugees and has a more open policy than Canada would have with this legislation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, one must judge a speech on the basis of whether it is credible and whether the speaker uses the facts and information in his hands in a proper and honest way. The statements just made by the Minister of National Health

August 13, 1987
Adjournment Debate
and Welfare (Mr. Epp) have totally and completely undermined his case. He has obviously attempted to use inaccurate and false figures which do not describe the conditions.
For example, he indicated that in 1984, the last year in which there was a Liberal Government dealing with refugees, there were only 15,342 refugees. I refer the Minister to the annual report tabled by the Department of Employment and Immigration which indicates that over 20,000 were in fact accepted. With regard to 1982, the Minister said there were something like 14,000 or 15,000. In fact, there were 22,000. He said that in 1983 there were 13,967. In fact, there were 17,000.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, using the reports tabled by the Department itself, is using false and misleading figures. 1 think it is important that the record be corrected and that the Minister read the reports which were tabled by his own Department before he makes such allegations in the House. At least we could expect proper reading of the information and data as it exists, not as it is fabricated and manufactured.
I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave the game away when he said that he does not believe in universal access. He is in fact denying virtually every agreement we have signed internationally under the United Nations Covenant. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy, in other countries, asylum from persecution". Everyone has the right to seek that in other countries.
The United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, in Article 3(1), says that everyone has the right to the principle of non-rejection. Resolution (67)14 on Asylum to Persons in Danger of Persecution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, says the same. The OAU has the same provision.
What is perhaps most interesting is that the executive committee of the United Nations Commission on Refugees, on which a senior official of Canada sits, passed an executive order which specifically directs itself to the inequities of applying to transportation companies the responsibility of screening refugee applicants. In so doing, it says that it runs counter to the United Nations Convention and that we are the first country in that Convention to adopt that kind of practice. We are a member of the executive committee so they cannot plead ignorance. The executive committee went on to say:
The obligation to examine the claims of asylum-seekers cannot be delegated by States to private companies such as transport carriers. The Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme has recommended in this regard that the determination of refugee status requires appropriate procedural guarantees including a complete personal interview by a fully-qualified official and. whenever possible, by an official of the authority competent to determine refugee status.
Does he mean to say that we are turning over to an airline attendant that responsibility which we, as a member of the executive committee, were adopting in this kind of resolution?
Once again, as we said in earlier remarks, the Government knows better. It has received contrary advice and now it is attempting to defend something that is totally indefensible. In the meantime, it is using false facts and figures to do it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that we have been using wrong figures. 1 have been using immigration figures right from the Department which he headed-


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the report.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Here are the figures.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the report that was tabled in Parliament.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Member can say what he wants. I could even go on to total landings for the period in which he was Minister. Maybe we should remind him because when he came into office, he was down to 89,000 landings. We are now at 125,000.


Charles L. Caccia: We are talking about refugees. You are mixing it up. We are talking about refugees, you nitwit.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker-


David Berger: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) on a point of order.


David Berger: Thank you for recognizing me on this important point of order. The Minister should not mix up immigration with refugee policy. Please don't do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now over.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)- Environmental Affairs-Lyell Island logging operations, (b) Obstacles to settlement; the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)- The Constitution-Promotion of
August 1 3, 1987

French and English linguistic duality-Position of Government and provinces, (b) Inclusion of special provisions in Constitution-Prime Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Sovereignty- Canadian airspace- Proposed transportation of plutonium.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has the floor.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there are times in the history of a nation when the true character of that nation is tested. Those times are particularly times of fear and uncertainty.
When we look back to the history of our country, we can examine the response of Canada as a nation on those occasions. I think of the time in the 1940s, during World War II, when Canadians of Japanese origin were alleged to be threats to the security of Canada and, under the provisions of the War Measures Act, those Canadians were wrenched from their land, their homes and interned. That injustice has still not been remedied today.
I think as well back to 1970 when again it was alleged that there was a threat to the security of Canada sufficient to invoke the provisions of the War Measures Act once again, this time in peacetime. Over 200 Canadians were arrested in the middle of the night, never charged, and we recognize now that that was a serious abuse of the law.
They were threats to the security of our nation, yet now we see clearly that these events were in fact shameful blots on our history. They were based upon perceived threats which did not in fact exist in reality.
The opinion polls showed very clearly that 80 per cent or 90 per cent of Canadians supported the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin, supported the proclamation of the War Measures Act. Yet today, surely we as Canadians recognize that that was wrong.
I am proud that my Party and its predecessor, the CCF, was prepared to stand up in the face of that public opinion and recognize that this was wrong.
Once again, today, we see a Government which is prepared to take advantage of an atmosphere of fear, yes, and of uncertainty, to bring forward legislation that history will
Immigration Act, 1976
similarly condemn and that we in the NDP say is profoundly dangerous and constitutes an assault on the basic rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of Rights, in international conventions, and under international law. It is legislation that, in effect, constitutes a War Measures Act in the refugees area.
Once again, we have this abuse of the most basic and fundamental rights and liberties of the people on Canadian territory.
As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, I recognize very clearly the concern that is felt by people in the face of what they perceive as injustice and as unfairness. As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, and as the representative of the people of Burnaby, I want to make it very clear that my constituents-and I know that those of my colleagues feel the same-are concerned and angry about what they rightly perceive to be abuses of Canada's refugee determination system.
I have received hundreds of letters and telephone calls from my constituents. I have spoken personally with many of them. There are two or three basic themes which have emerged in the course of those conversations and in many letters and telephone calls. First, there is a deep sense of anger at what is perceived to be queue-jumping. People who have waited for members of their families to join them, in some cases for months or years, feel a sense of anger and injustice when others try to short circuit that process by filing phoney refugee claims. I think of the Turks, the Brazilians and the Portuguese who abused our system by claiming to be Jehovah Witnesses and being persecuted. Quite understandably, those who have been attempting to play by the rules are deeply offended when they see others who would abuse that system.
Second, my constituents, and 1 am sure most Canadians, are angered when they see others who would profit from and exploit those who are seeking to enter Canada, in some cases seeking to enter Canada illegally. Clearly, strong and effective legislation is needed to ensure that we respond to that kind of profiteering and exploitation of human misery.
Finally, the concern that I have heard, particularly from members of visible minorities, is one about a backlash. Yesterday, I even spoke with a young Canadian of Sikh origin from South Burnaby. He said that he has to work doubly hard now to have people accept him and his family. He was speaking of himself and his family and a backlash that has occurred against visible minorities in this country. There is a very large Sikh community in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. I see the Hon. Member from Mississauga here. I know there is a large Sikh community in his area as well. The Sikh community in Canada is an overwhelmingly law-abiding, decent and upstanding community. Yet because of the actions of a very small minority there has been a backlash, and there has certainly been a backlash as a result of other recent events.

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Another young recent immigrant to Canada talked to me. He is from Vancouver. A few days previously he had read in the newspaper and seen on television a story about three people seeking refugee status. They were members of a wrestling team from Bulgaria. He asked me why it is that there seems to be a double standard, a sense of hypocrisy. The same Canadians who voiced their concerns-and I am not speaking here of all of them but certainly of some of them-about abuses in one area are silent when it comes to refugees whose skin happens to be of a different colour. These are the concerns which have been expressed about queue jumping, profiteering and about the effects of a backlash. These concerns have been expressed by the people of Burnaby, and I think they are felt generally by many Canadians.
The question we must surely ask ourselves is, has the Tory Government genuinely responded to these concerns in a sensitive way, or has it instead used these concerns as an excuse to bring in legislation which is dangerous, in breach of our international obligations, in breach of the provisions of the Immigration Act itself, which violates the fundamental guarantees set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that which ultimately condemn people fleeing persecution to certain torture or death? I suggest that it is the latter.
Let us examine whether the Government has really succeeded in dealing with genuine concerns, that is that there not be an abuse of the system and there not be profiteering. One part of this legislation would make it a criminal act for church groups, Amnesty International or for individual Canadians to assist refugees attempting to flee from repressive regimes to enter Canada, refugees who do not have travel documents. How can it possibly be suggested that a church group, be it the Mennonite Church or any other group, which seeks to assist a family fleeing from the murderous regime in El Salvador who arrives on Canada's border without a travel document, will be subject to prosecution, to fines and to jail? Clearly this is totally unacceptable.
Twenty-five percent of the refugees who seek to enter Canada in fact are not in possession of documents, and that is not surprising in many cases. This Bill would permit the detention of these individuals for up to 28 days in jail. Surely that is a step backward. It would permit the wire tap and the seizing of cars, for example, of those church groups and other volunteer organization which assist individuals who are fleeing from oppression in other parts of the world.
We certainly would agree with legislation that would attack those who would profit from the entry into Canada of illegal immigrants or refugees, those who would attempt to take advantage of clandestine entry in order to make money. That we would support. However, we reject an approach which would be subject to criminal sanction those who would assist genuine refugees.
Clause 8 of the legislation would allow the Government to turn away a ship which lands on Canada's shore without
affording to those on board that ship a basic hearing to ensure that indeed they are not genuine refugees. That provision of this legislation is clearly in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Singh decision made it clear that the Charter of Rights requires an oral hearing for all who claim refugee status in Canada. This Bill would deny that. Who would make the decision to turn the ship away, a Coast Guard official? That would be totally unacceptable to this Party.
We say again that we must examine Canada's history and recognize clearly that in 1914 with the Komagata Maru and in 1939 with the St. Louis, we condemned refugees to death. We must never again adopt legislation which would allow for that possibility.
Another area of concern is the provision with respect to security. As this legislation stands, the Bill would allow genuine refugees to be denied access to the refugee process if a certificate is filed suggesting they may be a threat to the security of Canada. Who provides that information? The information is provided by CSIS. The Security Intelligence Review Committee has said in it most recent report that CSIS does not understand that the foreign policy objectives of our allies and of other countries are not necessarily Canada's foreign policy objectives, which could condemn many refugees to torture or death.
Those are some concerns with respect to the legislation. The Bill flies in the face of our existing commitments under international law and it flies in the face of Section 3 of the Immigration Act itself which requires Canada to fulfil our international legal obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and the persecuted.
In closing, 1 want to point out that there is another route. The present law obviously is not satisfactory. It has led to abuses and to lengthy delays in the refugee determination process. People have taken advantage of those delays. However, in 1985, the Parliamentary Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration came up with a unanimous report urging the Government to adopt a system which would ensure that there are in fact hearings and that our obligations under international law and the Charter would be respected. Not only that committee, but the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), from whom we will be hearing in just a moment, stated that the refugee legislation tabled by the Government, Bill C-55, would make it almost impossible for genuine refugees to make a claim. The Hon. Member said the procedure set out to adjudicate claims to refugee status in the Bill is fundamentally flawed. We will have an opportunity to hear directly from that Hon. Member.
In conclusion, I wish to say that this Bill is wrong. The Government is pandering to the deepest fears and insecurities
August 13, 1987

of Canadians. It is offering a false and dangerous solution. It is a shameful trampling on the basic rights and freedoms of genuine refugees who seek to claim refugee status. It is an implementation of that policy which was eloquently described by Irving Abella in his book with respect to the closing of the doors on immigrants and Jewish refugees: "None was too many". If this Bill is adopted, quite clearly we will threaten the lives of people who are fleeing from tyranny and oppression.
We in the House, and we in the New Democratic Party, will not accept that fundamental denial of Canada's obligations and traditions under international law.


Mr. Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais).


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day for me and for all Canadian men and women. A great many Members in this House and a number of people outside are impatiently waiting for my reaction to Bill C-84. Today and tomorrow, I as Member for La Prairie, like Lot, will open my door to strangers, these men and women, these children and these old people who have been seeking refuge here. Let us protect them.
Over the past few hours I read and re-read Bill C-84. I discussed the issue with the highest-ranking civil and religious authorities of this country. Yes, last evening I had a very long meeting with the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and leader of my Party. I had lengthy discussions with spokesmen for immigrant and refugee service organizations. I also spoke with Canadian Bar representatives. I also had telephone conversations with representatives of international organizations, including the United Nations. And I took refuge in the Book of Ecclesiastes, a work of wisdom written more than 3,000 years ago. Then I got to work, I began observing all acts of oppression committed under the sun, everywhere oppressed people crying and nobody to comfort them. Harshly treated by their tyrants, there is no one to help them. I noticed that the labour of man and his every effort to succeed are motivated by the jealousy he feels towards his fellow man. Again this is "vanity and vexation of spirit", chapter 4, verses 6, 8.
In recent months, Mr. Speaker, the media have often highlighted how cumbersome and time-consuming the refugee status determination process is in Canada as it applies to people seeking protection against persecution. Were we to complete every prescribed stage, such determination might take from two to five years. And delays breed abuses, Mr. Speaker, because status applicants have precious little to lose by working five years in Canada as they wait, perhaps to be deported some day. Very obviously a reform is urgent. All refugee organizations have been asking for one for a number of years. Mr. Speaker, the Government has released a whole series of studies and reports on this issue. Many private agencies have also submitted briefs and recommendations.
Immigration Act, 1976
Joint consultations have been held, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which I am proud to chair has also made recommendations in this field.
Today, years after problems have been identified and solutions advocated, Parliament is about to come up with concrete measures. Unfortunately, this desire for action stems from a series of irregular incidents rather than from humanitarian motives, or quite simply because of the need to update an old statute.
In 1987 the Government introduced Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act.
The changes in the refugee determination process which are proposed in this bill are such that it would be practically impossible for a great number of legitimate refugees to apply for refugee status. Not to mention that the provisions of the bill probably go against the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees, which Canada has signed and ratified, as well as against our own Charter of rights and freedoms. In July, 1987, after 174 Sikhs claiming refugee status had landed on the coast of Nova Scotia, the Government announced that it would tighten its legislation.
There are, I am sure, other rational and appropriate solutions to this problem, solutions that would not have us break an international agreement on refugees and that could not be challenged in court on the basis of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.
Years of reports, debate and recommendations have brought to light such principles and methods as would allow Canada to determine refugee status in a swift and equitable way in response to applications of would be refugees.

Short-term problems stem from long-term inadequacies of policy. Canadian immigration policy is tighter now, on a proportionate basis, than it has been at any time in our history, except during the Depression years. If our over-all immigration levels are low, our refugee numbers are laughable. For example, last year 1,000 places were allotted to the continent of Africa. The result of this overly restrictive stance has been to create a good many illegal immigrants and, second, to establish a market for smugglers and con artists. That is why we are here today. It piles yet more people into the hopper of an already heavily backlogged system. It forces periodic amnesty to be declared to clear the backlog, thereby encouraging still more desperate attempts to jump the queue, which starts the cycle all over again.
The best way to put the smugglers out of business is to dry up the demand for their services. The best way to stop the queue jumping is to shorten the queue. In short, if we want more orderly borders, we need more liberal borders.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Jourdenais: I did not use the word "liberal" as a Party, I used it as a liberal policy to do it.

August 13, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Establishing a quicker, clearer process at the same time would also help to cut the backlog and hence reduce the incentive to overload the system in hopes of an amnesty. Instead, the Government intends to tighten the admission of refugees via Bill C-55, which will guarantee that the process remain arbitrary, confusing, and endless.
There may be a case for this type of rough, frontier justice if immigration were harmful to the country. We need look no further for evidence to the contrary than ourselves, our parents, and their parents. We may also look at the success of the Tamils in the year since their arrival. Yet, the same myths that immigration raises unemployment, depresses wages, and others such myths that are less respectable still persist today. Those were the myths that were used to try to keep out our grandfathers.
There is no natural population level for Canada. If there were, it is remarkable that it should so often be assumed to be the present level. Moreover, there are economic benefits to having more people, especially more immigrants. Larger populations mean economies of scale. Regular infusion of skills, resourcefulness, and entrepreneurial drive that immigrants typically bring to Canadians can only be healthy. Unless immigration is markedly increased, a declining fertility rate will mean an aging, dwindling population in years to come. Our immigration problem is too few people, not too many.
No one knows what the correct level of immigration is, or what it should be. It is a safe bet that it is very much higher than it is at present. To bring us up to our historical average as a proportion of population would mean an intake of 275,000 people per year. However, if we are to welcome greater numbers of immigrants in years to come, then the Government must begin now to prepare the way. It must educate the public on the real value of immigrants who arrive on our shores and stop racism. They do us a favour by coming to Canada; it is not the other way around. It must appeal to our highest selves, not appease the instinctive fear of a stranger at our door.
The recent increase in the movement of asylum seekers from the Third World into the countries of western Europe and North America has become a serious preoccupation of Governments in those regions. These movements, when seen in the context of a parallel migratory flow from the poorer nations toward these same countries, have given rise to concern for Governments and populations alike.
Many affected countries have reacted with a variety of legal and administrative measures aimed at stemming the flow. These measures include the introduction of visa requirements for nationals of particular countries and the imposition of sanctions on transport carriers for transporting illegal immigrants from these or any other country.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is concerned that measures taken to maintain such movements
affect asylum seekers who are in need of protection. Such concern may not arise if the measures were to be limited to countries which do not normally produce refugees. However, when they are applied to persons leaving countries which produce refugees, they may have very serious consequences for the protection of refugees.
In this context it should be noted that persons wishing to leave their country of origin in search of asylum elsewhere may often not be able to depart in a regular manner and in possession of full documentation. Similar considerations often apply to persons who, for reasons of personal security, are compelled to leave another country where they originally had been considered to have found protection.
With regard to sanctions against transport companies carrying aliens without proper documentation, they give rise to serious concern that no distinction is made between aliens in general and asylum seekers in search of international protection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Jourdenais: This note underlines the dramatic consequences of such measures for refugees and asylum seekers in need of protection.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), the distinguished and dedicated Member for Roberval, intended to tar with the same brush our friends in the Church and the con men and criminals we should banish from our shores. That is the main reason why Clause 9, especially, should be amended.
Mr. Speaker, 1 support the principle of having a system that is fair and just for everyone, and which gives all prospective Canadians, both refugees and immigrants, the same opportunities. However, we must not act with undue haste. Some major changes must be made, and we will have to take another look at this Bill and do some fine tuning to prevent abuse. Believe me, we are all human and we all make mistakes. We will not all be sitting in this House ten years hence, and we must be sure this principles are upheld. Our successors may make mistakes as well, so we must provide for that eventuality.
If these amendments, which are necessary, are accepted, I will feel even better about the rest of the Bill. We can no longer let our system be abused by criminals who sell their services, when according to our concept of justice, everyone has the right to immigrate freely to our country, subject to certain conditions. In fact, we should put the perpetrators of this unjustified abuse, who use our laws to their own advantage, in prison for life.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) and I want to ask him whether he has any amendments to propose or suggest today. 1 would refer more particularly to Section 95.1 which affects those who aid or abet the coming into Canada of persons who are not in

August 1 3, 1987

possession of a valid and subsisting visa or passport and who belong to Canadian organizations such as churches and other types of organizations. How would he go about amending this Bill to reflect the principles he just described?


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, to answer the Hon. Member's question, 1 mentioned in my speech just now that one clause, I believe it was Clause 9, should be amended specifically to protect church people in Canada. I said earlier in my speech that 1 had examined the Bill last night. I had to because I was very busy yesterday and I had not been able to look at the Bill.
1 believe the concept of Bill C-84, and I imagine that is the Bill to which you are referring, was necessary, and we must be able to enforce these provisions to prevent people from taking advantage of legislation that was passed in 1976 but did not provide for the kind of incidents we have seen in 1987. I think Bill C-84 will match Bill C-55, and as far as I can see, the only clause we could amend is Clause 9. So I leave Clause 2 and if 1 remember correctly, you referred to Section 95.1


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to commend the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), who is also the distinguished Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. In addition to simply commending him, I should like to express a great deal of gratitude from our vantage point. The Hon. Member was not only correct and appropriate in the remarks he placed before the House of Commons this afternoon, but 1 think he also exhibited the courage and conviction to stay the course and to speak up for what is just and what is right despite being a member of the Government.
Those words will not be lost on this Chamber. Those words will not be lost on those Canadians who are looking very particularly at the House of Commons these days. They will understand that while Members on all sides clearly favour an end to abuse, there are also Members of Parliament, including Members on the government side, who are vigilant and wish to pass a proper and just piece of legislation.
Therefore, I think the Hon. Member has done this House and the interest of a progressive immigration policy a great service this afternoon, and I would appreciate his continued support.
In the dying minutes of the debate today, while the Hon. Member articulated some concerns about and amendments to Bill C-84, and in light of the fact that he said this Bill goes together with Bill C-55, perhaps he could share with the House any comments he may have in terms of amending Bill C-55, so that we have a package which is truly reflective of the spirit of Canadians in the last 15 years to 20 years when it comes to dealing with refugees and immigrants?
Organized Crime


Fernand Jourdenais: In response, and to thank the Hon. Member for compliments which were not really necessary, I acted simply, first like a man, a human being. 1 followed the dictates of my conscience. I have been doing that ever since I first came here, and I want to take this opportunity to thank my Party colleagues precisely because I am allowed to express my opinion even though it is not aslways consistent with their will and their views.
With respect to amendments to Bill C-55, I have about a minute left so I will not have time to elaborate, my colleague would know that we have already debated a number of them. To satisfy your curiosity, there is one concerning the prescreening test. We will discuss it when Bill C-55 comes up for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ORGANIZED CRIME ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from May 4, 1987, consideration of the motion of Miss Nicholson:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on:
1.	the extent to which organized crime is present and active in Canada, particularly in such activities as drug trafficking and loan-sharking;
2.	the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of Canadian society;
3.	action taken by the governments of other countries to investigate and curtail organized crime activites;
4.	legislation to enable the Government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime;
5.	effective and appropriate punishment in instances of organized crime murder conspiracy; and
6.	possible guidelines for enforcement agencies in dealing with witnesses against organized crime; and the amendment of Mr. Kaplan (p. 5709).
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I want to deal with organized crime and that part of Motion M-44 which proposes the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate and make recommendations on legislation to enable the Government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for her interest in this matter. I am sure all my colleagues realize how important it is

August 13, 1987
Organized Crime
for society that our legislation provide for the confiscation of the proceeds of organized crime.
A number of criminal activities-illegal drug trafficking, to name one-are often organized and carried out much like major corporation business operations. Those activities generate tremendous profits that are then used to finance other criminal activities and to infiltrate legitimate businesses.
It is estimated that organized crime includes all types of criminal activities that come under the general heading of continuing agreements between people for gainful purposes. It is believed that one of the most effective ways of reducing that kind of crime is to eliminate the profit motive by getting at the gains produced by it.
Although organized crime can derive tremendous profits from illegal activities, Canadian law as it now stands has no provisions for freezing, seizing or confiscating monies gained from crime. In 1976, for the first time in Canada, legislative measures were passed to deal with the possession of illicit gains. Section 312 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to have in one's possession property unlawfully obtained by whatever means.
Investigations and prosecution of offences under Section 312 unfortunately proved ineffective because investigation powers and procedures capable of identifying, freezing and seizing criminal proceeds are not adequately developed, either in law or in practice. For instance, money deposited into a bank account and real property cannot be seized.
In cases where gains from criminal transactions cannot be identified, there is often no way to prevent the divestiture of property before judicial proceedings are completed.
The confiscation of proceeds cannot be ordered under Section 312 where the prosecution of an offence under that section leads to a guilty verdict.
The efficacy of confiscation procedures depends on the possibility of seizing property to ensure that it can be preserved until proceedings are completed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay) has the floor.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing to reinstate a degree of silence in this dignified Chamber.
As I said, the efficacy of confiscation procedures depends on the possibility of seizing property so that it can be preserved until proceedings are completed. That kind of procedure already exists in civil law where there is a danger that the property in dispute disappear before the court makes a determination as to how it should be disposed of.
The system of search warrants under the Criminal Code provides for the seizure and retention of all things that can be classified as evidence of an offence, instruments used to commit an offence; or the subject of the offence itself.
Those provisions do not apply to the proceeds of criminal acts unless they are indeed property or monies derived from the committing of an offence.
When it is impossible to seize the holdings physically, for instance when the proceeds have been put into real estates, shares or maybe bank deposits, the provisions of the Criminal Code are not far-reaching enough to allow for the seizure and freezing of these proceeds and no provision of the current penal code can prevent the accused from disposing of them.
1 should like to remind my hon. colleagues that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn) recently introduced in the House a Bill to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act to deal specifically with the proceeds of crime. Bill C-61 provides our courts with new powers to seize the proceeds of crime and the police with new judicially-controlled investigative powers allowing for the search of people and premises and the seizure of assets. Finally, the Bill would provide third parties having an interest on a seizable assets with protective and redress mechanisms.
The Bill will create new offences in order to fight against the laundering of the proceeds of organized crime, illegal drug trafficking as well as the possession of property obtained through drug offences. If the Bill is adopted, it will provide an efficient tool for the fight against organized crime.
I recognize that the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) is well-founded, but in view of the Bill introduced recently by the Government to fight against organized crime and especially against the accumulated proceeds of crime, I must oppose motion M-44.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon on motion M-44, moved by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), and to speak to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), that the Royal Commission report to the House within six months of its appointment.
Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with one of the important issues of the day. It is worded as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime
in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on:
1.	the extent to which organized crime is present and active in Canada-
2.	the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of
Canadian society;
3.	action taken by the governments of other countries to investigate and
curtail organized crime activity;
4.	legislation to enable the government to identify and appropriate the
proceeds of organized crime;
5.	effective and appropriate punishment-
6.	possible guidelines-
Mr. Speaker, we have had some very striking examples in this country of illegal activities, and we have been able to deal
August 13, 1987

with these in very effective ways. I am thinking of the tainted meat scandal in Quebec and the colourful saga of the Dubois clan. There was an inquiry which at the time made it possible to put a stop to these activities and at the same time inform the public of their existence.
I believe that in 1987, a similar approach, and 1 am thinking of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, might prove beneficial. I know opponents of this procedure argue that the cost is too high, the process takes too long, and so forth. The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) to have the report submitted within six months of the Royal Commission's appointment would seem to deal with these concerns, at least with the concerns raised at the time. As for the financial side of the matter, I would like to deal with this briefly later on in my speech.
Mr. Speaker, in June the House spent a lot of time debating capital punishment, and so far hardly anything has been done to reduce the crime rate. We were promised a number of measures and studies, but we have yet to see anything tangible from the Government or the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. I know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), for instance, who chairs the Committee on Justice, has proposed to review the whole prison system and the whole problem of criminality.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is important, and the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) should be congratulated on her initiative, which could be more effective, progressive and useful in the long term in attacking organized crime than the Government initiative of launching a debate on capital punishment, which, as we all know, was resolved by the decision of the House not to reinstate capital punishment in Canada. However, we are still waiting for this Government to take some practical action to reduce the crime rate and provide a feeling of security for Canadians in their own country.
As for the monetary aspect, Mr. Speaker, the cost of criminal activities has been estimated at $2.2 billion in Ontario, and at $10 billion in Canada as a whole. This is to reply to the economic argument that a Royal Commission is costly. We have to realize that the hidden costs of criminality, since criminals operate out of the public eye, amount to $10 billion a year. I imagine that a Royal Commission could cost us a few million dollars and that such an investment would surely yield a lot in return.
What we have to ask, obviously, is this: Would the economic advantages of attacking this problem and preventing abuses not benefit all Canadians? The answer is obviously yes. Naturally, if we can stop the rise of crime by keeping Canadians better informed about criminal activities, we could save substantial amounts and put a stop to these criminal activities.
I have not heard as yet the exact figure of what a Royal Commission would cost. I do not know whether it is available but at any rate, I think that those costs can easily be determined on the basis of other Royal Commissions. But I suggest,
Organized Crime
Mr. Speaker, that ultimately, there will be spinoffs and we will save money.
The Canadian people and the general public often do in a naive way, if you want, things that they consider quite trivial and that take place every day. For instance, in a tavern, they will bet on a hockey or a football game without being concerned with the consequences, even though that is in fact illegal. Because you are dealing with people who make a buck through bets on football or baseball games, or any other sport event, and those dealings take place in taverns or elsewhere and are organized by groups of people who are benefiting from those investments, I think that Canadians should know that illicit groups grab an enormous amount of money, taking advantage, as 1 said earlier, of that laxity, that lack of interest that some people have occasionally for common practices, bets in this case, and other events as trivial as a horse race or a baseball game. They think as many other people that they do not harm anybody, when they make a $2 bet on a horse or a football game. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, those two dollars are unlawfully laundered by illegal agencies and groups to their profit. This is how some unlawfully earned amounts of money are gradually embezzeled and used for illegal activities. Those funds will then be invested in other illegal activities which will bring about more money for those involved. That is why in Canada, every year, organized crime rakes in some $10 billion from unlawful activities. Being outside traditional economic systems, all the money does not benefit Canadian society very much. Indeed, it contributes to social degradation. Criminal activities generate human misery and, if I may say so, are the greatest misery inflation factors in Canada. The rich do not play those games and bet those two dollars, Mr. Speaker. More often than not, those with low or average income are attracted by such games, fall victims to and enrich profiteers.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and I could cite many more but 1 think my time is almost up, 1 believe the motion brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), is highly justified and timely. That is why 1 will vote for it, and I urge my colleagues in the House, regardless of their political affiliation, to do likewise.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) once again for her initiative, and I hope the Government will act on it in the near future.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the amendment put to the motion of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). In doing so, I would like to commend her for bringing the issue of organized crime to the attention of the House. I fear, however, that the proposed Royal Commission to investigate organized crime might have an effect opposite to the one

August 13, 1987
Organized Crime
presumably desired by the Hon. Member who put the motion forward.
Some Canadians, perhaps influenced by the American media, have vastly inflated views and ideas of the extent of organized crime in Canada and of the extent of organized crime involvement in Canadian social, economic and political institutions. I certainly do not want to minimize the threat posed by organized crime in Canada, particularly in relation to drug trafficking, and indeed I cannot help but feel that in this area and some other areas of criminal activity, the matter of capital punishment ought not to be forgotten.
I note that the previous speaker made reference to what he termed the futility of such a debate. I certainly take issue with that statement and suggest that ultimately, society will revisit that area in relation to this very topic which is under discussion today. In any event, 1 am confident that the combined law-enforcement efforts of all Governments in Canada are becoming increasingly effective in controlling organized crime.
As well, I think it should be noted that there is no evidence of widespread organized criminal involvement in Canadian institutions. In my view, therefore, there is little benefit to be derived from establishing a royal commission to delve into these matters.
Again, contrary to the views of the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I frankly fail to appreciate the spin-off dollar value about which he spoke relating to the establishment of a royal commission. Obviously, royal commissions are extremely expensive, and because the rules of evidence at such commissions are less rigorous than those in courts of law, the evidence adduced before such commissions cannot be used in court proceedings. Therefore, such proceedings would at best be of little value to law enforcement.
Moreover, 1 think it is possible that a royal commission could unnecessarily alarm Canadians by creating the impression that organized crime was not being adequately addressed by Canadian authorities and by the courts. In addition, one cannot help but be concerned that a royal commission could tend to deflect both attention and resources from ongoing intelligence and enforcement efforts and possibly retard the investigation and prosecution of these cases.
Just as important, the proposed royal commission might constrain ongoing federal, national, and international initiatives aimed at organized crime control. As I noted earlier, the federal, provincial and municipal Governments are already deeply involved in and heavily committed to controlling organized crime. National intelligence systems are in place and are being upgraded regularly. Police forces are combining their knowledge, experience and investigative skills in joint forces operations targeting major organized crime figures.
Major institutions, such as the Canadian banking community, are examining ways and means of minimizing the extent to which they can be used to launder money. Both federal and provincial government Departments are increasingly exploring the extent to which statutes other than the Criminal Code can be applied to the prevention or control of organized crime. Police training, both provincially and nationally, is being upgraded to ensure that officers have the knowledge and skills necessary to detect organized crime and to gather evidence required for the successful prosecution of major cases. These efforts are not widely appreciated and reported on in the Canadian media. In Canada we tend to proceed more quietly and with less fanfare than in the U.S.
In my view, the approach of Canadian law enforcement authorities to organized crime has been and is very effective. It focuses efforts and resources and reflects excellent cooperation between all jurisdictions in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of organized crime figures. It is particularly concerned with the rights of persons who become innocent and unwitting participants in organized crime.
Law enforcement policy and activities operate to preserve the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of social, political and economic institutions as the major influences constraining the corruption that organized crime attempts to promote. Key to this is the integrity of Canada's police, courts and other law enforcement institutions as our front line defence against organized crime.
It has been stated that the criminal underworld in a given society is a direct reflection of the integrity and morality of the institutions of government and business. We must sustain policy and programs to ensure that Canada will never become a country in which the underworld can take root. This demands continued vigilance by governments and law enforcement authorities.
1 believe this Government recognized the Hon. Member's legitimate concern respecting organized crime. Canada continues to act in concert with the provinces to enhance enforcement efforts. A royal commission would add little to the mechanisms already in place or under development to deal with organized crime. Rather, this House should support and encourage the federal and provincial Governments in their law enforcement activities, including the expeditious handling of legislation designed to make the law more effective in dealing with organized crime.
While I am confident that the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Trinity reflects serious concern over the extent of organized crime in Canadian society and the availability of measures to facilitate law enforcement efforts, I would like to assure her that members of the Canadian police community, and other dedicated criminal justice professionals, are acting competently in their response to the problem. They have the confidence of this Government and merit the support of all Members of this House, and Canadians generally. It is for those reasons, I believe, it would not be in the best interests
August 13, 1987

of Canadians and our efforts against organized crime to establish at great expense a royal commission which 1 believe would be of little use in attacking the problems and perils posed by organized crime to Canadian society.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the speech given by the Hon. Member speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). We have heard the speech before and it did not address the important points brought forward in this debate. There is a sense of complacency, a feeling that everything that needs to be done is being done. I think that assertion has to be challenged on two grounds.
First, this is a legislative Chamber. We pass laws here. That is the prerogative and responsibility of this House, not of the police or the administrative arm of justice, but of legislators. It is clear that legislative change is required. The President's commission in the U.S. came forward with recommendations requiring major statutory change. Why would we abdicate our responsibilities when there is a clear need in that country to make changes? The Hon. Member seems to be assuming that everything that can be done, except in the area of reform legislation, is being done. I for one do not believe that we should have others take on our responsibilities. That is why I believe the proposal of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), as amended, is a proper response to the problem by a Member of the national legislative Chamber of this country.
My second ground is that one has to accept almost as a matter of faith that the problem is being handled. Yet what evidence is offered to support that claim? I heard nothing that would give one any sense of confidence that the worldwide problem of the laundering of drug money has somehow bypassed Canada. Yet that assertion has been made. One of the real values of a royal commission would be to tell us what is going on. 1 think it is particularly appropriate because of the changes instituted in other countries to deal with this problem. If they tighten their control, that will put pressure on the Canadian financial system if we have not made similar reforms. That kind of dirty money will find an outlet. If other countries apply new laws, then it is almost automatic that organized crime will try to find other countries to access. If we have turned a blind eye to the problem, it follows that we would become a target for that kind of penetration by organized crime in its efforts to find a safe haven for its immense financial resources.
I have another comment to make. 1 do so with some reticence but it has to be said. The Government's defence for not supporting this resolution is that it will cost too much. 1 read somewhere in the last couple of weeks that the legal fees the Government is paying for the defence of one of its former Ministers in front of a royal commission is now close to $1 million. The defence fund for Mr. Stevens was originally $200,000 and has now gone up substantially, to say nothing of the cost of the commission itself which I think has come close
Organized Crime
to $3 million. That was to investigate the alleged wrongdoings of one Minister of the Government. The Government is now claiming that it does not want to spend any money to look at the widespread problem of organized crime which affects a wide variety of activities for reasons of economy. I do not think that is a fair and proper balance of responsibilities. 1 am not necessarily condemning the actions of the Government with respect to the royal commission for Mr. Stevens and his actions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is the Member for York Peel (Mr. Stevens).


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 am sorry, the Member for York Peel (Mr. Stevens). However, I am pointing out that the Government was prepared to do that but seems to be saying that we cannot afford that with regard to organized crime and its financial implications in Canada.
1 also do not agree with the argument that money spent on a royal commission would be taken away from law enforcement. It may well be that a royal commission, finding efficacious ways of dealing with the problem, could save a lot of money in law enforcement by learning where and how to implement effective measures. Rather than sailing blindly into this problem, we would know where to go.
I believe that the amendment which was introduced by the Whip of our Party is a real effort to ensure that there are limitations. The Hon. Member for Trinity is not prescribing a long-term pension plan for a royal commission. This is something which would be quick and to the point, would address the problems, and would pass the results back to the Government.
I wonder why there is this reluctance, this hesitancy to come to grips with the issue. Is it because it would expose things which the Government does not want exposed? I raise this not in an accusatory way but in a questioning way. It may be that there is some anxiety that a royal commission would reveal that we are not taking the proper measures to meet the problem and that a careful examination of the problem would reveal real weaknesses.
This is a Private Member's Motion with no partisanship attached to it. It is a clear reflection of an important interest. 1 remind Members of the debate which ensued in this House last spring on the issue of capital punishment. I listened to and read most of the speeches on that issue. All Members on both sides of the issue stated that they believed that their constituents were concerned about the possibility of increased crime or violence in society. We differed on the solution to the problem as it applied to capital punishment.
This measure is directed against one part of that problem. It is designed to deal with a part of that issue, to come to grips with a grueling and expanding difficulty, and to allow independent judgment to be made and recommendations to

August 13, 1987
Organized Crime
follow. 1 hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General will deal with other aspects which were raised in that debate with regard to the judicial and the penal
systems.
I think we must confess that we do not know much about organized crime. It is something we see in movies and read exposes about by former members of the gang. However, we have never examined that problem effectively in this country. This is an opportunity to open the lid on a very crucial and important problem which has been examined in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries. I believe the Member has taken a very important initiative as a private Member. 1 hope that in the spirit in which it was brought forward and in the interests of this Parliament of protecting its prerogative to look at new legislation and important issues, we will support the Member in her efforts.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-ia-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise with very serious thoughts tonight in the House of Commons. Having been elected only in September, 1984, 1 take very seriously the remarks of my more experienced colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). 1 would like to congratulate my hon. colleague, the Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), on the motion she has presented. It is very important for us. I come from Quebec and perhaps I should speak in French.

Sometimes I feel 1 ought to speak in French. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like all Canadian men and women to understand what such a measure means to us. So 1 will speak in English from time to time, and perhaps I will say a few words in French as well. But French-speaking men and women of Canada must know how important Bill C-61 is to us.

Organized crime is usually defined as the activities of a group of persons who seek to operate outside the control of the Canadian people and their governments. It can involve hundreds of criminals working within structures as complex as those of any large corporation, subject to laws which may be more rigidly enforced than those of legitimate governments. Its actions are not those of legitimate governments, but of conspiracies.
The core of organized crime activity is the supplying of illegal goods and services-gambling, loan-sharking, narcotics and other forms of vice-to countless numbers of citizen customers. Organized crime is also extensively and deeply involved in legitimate business. This is the danger. Here it applies illegitimate methods-monopolization, terrorism, extortion and tax evasion-to drive out or control lawful ownership and leadership and to exact illegal profits from the public. To carry on its many activities secure from governmental interference organized crime corrupts public officials.
Organized crime wants money and power. It is different from law-abiding organizations and individuals with those
same objectives in that the ethical and moral standards the criminals adhere to, the laws and regulations they obey, and the procedures they use are private and secret. They devise them themselves, change them when they see fit, and administer them summarily and invisibly.
Organized crime affects the lives of thousands of Canadians, but because it desperately preserves its invisibility many- perhaps most-Canadians are not aware of how they are affected or even that they are affected at all. The price of a loaf of bread may go up by 1 cent as the result of an organized crime conspiracy, but a consumer has no way of knowing why he is paying more. We cannot allow this to happen, Mr. Speaker.
It is organized crime's accumulation of money, not the individual transactions by which the money is accumulated, that has a great and threatening impact on Canadian society. Organized crime in Canada exists by virtue of the power it purchases with its money. The millions of dollars it can invest in narcotics or use for lay-off money give it power over the lives of thousands of people and over the quality of life in the legitimate economic system that presently exists in Canada.
The millions of dollars it can spend on corrupting public officials may give it power to maim or murder people inside or outside the organization with impunity. It will give it power to extort money from businessmen and to conduct business in many fields without regard to administrative regulations, to avoid payment of income tax.
The purpose of organized crime is not competition with visible, legal government but the nullification of it. When organized crime places an official in public office it nullifies law enforcement.
I am very serious about supporting the motion that has been brought forward by the Hon. Member for Trinity. As everyone in the House is aware, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) tabled a Bill to deal with the problem of proceeds of crime. Bill C-61 proposes a number of amendments to the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act, and the Narcotic Control Act, and addresses the problem of illegally obtained proceeds and assets by providing law enforcement agencies with the necessary powers to investigate, freeze and seize the proceeds of certain crimes and by providing the courts with the powers to confiscate the proceeds of these crimes.
I am sympathetic with the motion that has been brought forward by my hon. colleague, the Member for Trinity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress again that it is not very often that we have the chance, the opportunity, to change and improve our laws.
Mr. Speaker, I believe, as the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, that it is important as Quebecers or as Canadians, that we recognize that it is our security
August 13. 1987

system and our body of laws which provide the means to fight the lawlessness we have in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and that the Government is here to guarantee our security and to protect Canadian men and women.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House tonight and speak about drug trafficking. As the father of two young children, 1 can tell you, as most fathers and mothers across the country, that the drug problem is one of the worst problems that exist in the world today. To solve that problem in Canada and around the world, it is necessary that Canada co-operate with other countries to guarantee a better control at the international level.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today highlights drug trafficking and its connection with organized crime. I would like to talk about the various measures taken by this Government.
The previous Solicitor General led, in 1985, the Canadian delegation to the seventh United Nations conference on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, held in Milan. Hon. Members and Canadians will be glad to know that Canada played a leadership role in the drafting of measures to fight international drug trafficking. Besides supporting United Nations initiatives, in particular the new convention on illicit drug traffic, we are co-operating with members of the Economic Summit in the fight against drug abuse.
On April 25, 1986, Canada ratified, along with France, the United States and Italy an agreement on drug control. That agreement is the result of efforts made since 1970 by the four-power Conference including representatives from the Police nationale frangaise, the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and Canada's RCMP. On March 4, 1986, Canada fully endorsed along with Italy the five-year agreement to prevent and eliminate the traffic in narcotics and dangerous drugs. Mr. Speaker, I think Hon. Members will be glad to hear that Canada will host here in Ottawa the coming four-power Conference next month.
I referred earlier to the development of a draft United Nations Convention on the illicit traffic in drugs. Canada cosponsored, on the occasion of the 39th Session of the United Nations Commission on narcotic drugs held in February, 1985, a resolution on the starting up of the development of a draft convention against the illicit traffic in narcotics and psychotropic substances. That new convention is viewed as a necessary and effective tool for the implementation of the measures against drug trafficking. A Canadian delegation including representatives from the secretariat of the Department of the Solicitor General and the RCMP attended in February 1986 an extraordinary session of the United Nations Narcotics Commission, where significant progress were made as to the identification of matters to be included in the draft convention.
Organized Crime
With the exception of certain matters concerning the control of ships and extradition, Canada generally supports the proposed provisions.
Canada views as a top priority the inclusion in the draft convention of a provision to allow each member State to trace, freeze and confiscate profits derived from drug trafficking. Most importantly, it will enact for its part domestic legislative measures making it easier to seize and confiscate those profits, especially those derived from trafficking in illicit drugs.
Another important proposed provision would be an essential tool against the manufacturing of forbidden drugs. It deals with the international control of the major precursors used in the manufacturing of forbidden drugs, for the purpose for instance of extracting heroine from opium and cocaine from coca.
Another still, dealing with controlled deliveries, that is the transportation of forbidden drugs under specified, known and police-approved conditions, is aimed primarily at extending the offence so as to allow the arrest and conviction of the major actors rather than simply seizing the drugs and arresting middlemen.
Controlled deliveries are an effective technique which, where successful, enables to identify the major conspirators and instigators and to go right up to the top of an international connection.
As far as mutual judiciary assistance is concerned, significant progress has been made in the area of international exchange of information aimed at fighting the illicit drug trade. Efforts from now on will be aimed at transmitting evidence and information that can lead to the seizure of profits derived from drug trafficking. Unlawfully acquired property to all practical purposes remains out of reach, by reason of conflicting national and international legal systems. The United Nations Narcotics Division decided to look at measures that could go against banking security rules that encourage the apparently legitimate accumulation of those illicit proceeds in countries recognized as tax havens. Meanwhile, Canada has ratified a treaty of mutual judiciary assistance it had with the United States and is currently negotiating similar agreements with Switzerland, the Bahamas and other Commonwealth countries.
The proposed convention deals with illegal drug trafficking by means of commercial carriers.
In most cases, air carriers and shipping companies are not held responsible for the illegal drugs hidden in luggage or on passengers, but they are held responsible when clearly their employees or crews are directly involved or facilitate the illegal activities through loopholes in their security procedures.
Another provision deals with cross-border co-operation.
Canada recognizes that co-operation between the various intelligence services within the international community is of vital importance and should be intensified in the future,

August 13, 1987
Message from the Senate
especially in the area of drug trafficking and the investment of its proceeds in apparently legitimate commercial enterprises. For the Government, encouraging co-operation between producing, transiting and consuming countries is therefore a priority issue.
The United Nations International Conference bn the Fight Against Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking will be held next June in Vienna. Hon. Members are certainly aware that Mr. Tamar Oppenheimer, the Conference's Secretary General, is a Canadian who once headed the United Nations Drug Division. Moreover, Canada will be represented at the conference by a Minister, demonstrating the importance the Government attaches to it. Various problems will be dealt with during this multidisciplinary meeting, including the reduction of the demand, the development of alternative crops, the use of drugs for medical purposes, the seizure of drug-related proceeds, the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts, and the increase of law enforcement resources.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I cannot overlook the efforts made by the RCMP and the other provincial and municipal police forces.
Indeed, each year at the Canadian Police College the RCMP offer training to police officers from every corner of the world and they send experts to various countries, those of the Commonwealth included, to teach the skills required to fight against the different types of crimes we are talking about. People responsible for enforcing law in Canada, especially RCMP officers, work in close co-operation with their counterparts in other democratic western nations to fight against every kind of crime, particularly organized crime which knows no boundaries. This fight requires special skills and costs a lot of money, and this creates difficulties in times of financial restraints.
Mr. Speaker, given everything that is being done now I doubt whether a Royal Commission on organized crime would serve a useful purpose.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: The motion before us, Sir, calls upon the Government to appoint a royal commission to look into organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations on six different matters, all important matters, and I would like to salute the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for bringing forward this motion, which I wholly support.
Some people will say that as someone who used to prosecute organized crime and drug offenders I would not be very hard to convince, and 1 admit I have a long-time experience with that sort of thing. 1 believe this is a matter which the Government of Canada should consider.
Someone made the point earlier that the establishment of a royal commission might alarm Canadians. May 1 point out,
with respect, Mr. Speaker, that we have had a royal commission on the question of alleged illegal activities of the RCMP and on just about every subject from A to Z. I think Canadians believe in royal commissions. Some people believe it is one of our national sports. 1 do not think that such a commission on this matter would alarm anyone. I think it would turn the white light of public focus on the activities of organized crime in this country.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Senator Kefauver's committee on crime investigation in the United States Senate in 1950 and 1951, before you were born, Sir, was very useful in focusing attention on the involvement of organized crime in United States politics. That is not one of the items the Hon. Member for Trinity has mentioned, but I think we would all like to know, as democratically elected politicians, whether there is any involvement by organized crime in politics at any level in this country.
One of the subjects the Hon. Member has proposed the Government should look at is the extent to which organized crime is present and active in Canada particularly in such activities as drug trafficking and loan-sharking. As a western Canadian, 1 have some statistics which might indicate possible answers to this question and it may be something the commission would look at. For the past six years, I am told, British Columbia has reported violent crime rates as high or higher than any of the 50 States in the United States. Vancouver's murder rate, which is low by U.S. standards, is now three times Canada's national average. My Province of Alberta as well as Saskatchewan and Manitoba now consistently post violent crime rates which rival those in Florida, New York and Maryland, the three states which top-am I out of time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member extra time the next time this Bill comes up. 1 think he has at least seven minutes left in his speech.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 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-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
1 also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House of the recommended amendments, observations and recommendations on general patent law amendments as contained in the seventh report of the special committee of the Senate on Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
August 13, 1987

For the benefit of Hon. Members, these messages will be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings, and copies are now available at the Table in both official languages.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to pursue a question that I asked some time ago with respect to logging on Lyell Island.
What 1 am doing today is not pursuing the question, because the question that I asked at that time has been overtaken by events. Since I asked the question, there has been an agreement to have a national park in South Moresby. That is something a great many Canadians take a lot of satisfaction from. I thought it would be useful to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who were involved in arriving at that agreement. I wish to cite a number of people who I know were instrumental in making that agreement possible.
Perhaps I should begin with the Haida people themselves who, through their own spiritual and historical attachment to South Moresby, were one of the great sources of strength to those people who worked for so many years to have an agreement to create a national park in South Moresby.
One also needs to cite the great host of people who worked in a voluntary manner to advocate the creation of a park. There are too many of those people to begin to name them. 1 will not attempt to name them, because 1 would be bound to leave someone out.
One also has to cite people in this Chamber who were instrumental in bringing that agreement to fruition. 1 congratulate the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) for his involvement in bringing that agreement to fruition. I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for his involvement at the last minute, which one has to assume was instrumental in some way in making an agreement possible.
1 congratulate the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, for having been converted to the cause of having a national park in South Moresby, and resisting the temptation to settle for a provincial park only in that area.
1 congratulate the House for the part that it played in creating the appropriate political context for the people to act in who were pushing for a national park. I am thinking of the
Adjournment debate
day when we made procedural history in the House. We had a motion before us moved by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who as a Member of Parliament for that area has been involved in the struggle to get a national park at South Moresby for many, many years. I am thinking of the day when we agreed somewhat early on in the day that the rriotion by the Hon. Member for Skeena would be deemed to have been passed and that we could then debate the motion. That unanimous expression of the House of Commons that day created a political context, not only for those outside the House, but also for Mr. Speaker himself to lend his good offices to contributing in whatever way he could to the creation of a national park at South Moresby.
Because the House of Commons had spoken unanimously, he was free to be an advocate of something which by that time had transcended partisan politics. A great many people contributed in many ways, and I think it is useful to put this on record.
Many other things need to happen. We go from this victory for a very special part of creation to other battles which have to be won. One is reminded of the continuing controversy over the Stein Valley, over the Stikine River, and over the Khut-zeymateen, an area which is special in respect of grizzly bears. Many issues yet remain to be solved. There will be lots of disagreement and debate in years to come about these matters.
However, I think it is appropriate to comment upon it when there is unanimous agreement in the House of Commons, when that unanimous agreement is followed by an agreement between the federal Government and a provincial Government-in this case, the Government of British Columbia-and when so many people have managed to put the best interests of the future above everything else and arrive at agreement.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) on behalf of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan).
One of the first things the Minister did when he assumed his present portfolio was to announce his commitment to protecting South Moresby as a national park. At that time the provincial Government was still trying to decide whether to continue logging over all of South Moresby, let alone logging in certain areas of Lyell Island. However, that is all past history. Commercial logging will never again be seen on Lyell Island or elsewhere in the park area of South Moresby.
Since the time of the Hon. Member's question in October of last year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has also taken a key role in obtaining the co-operation of the provincial Government toward the establishment of the national park.

August 13, 1987
Adjournment debate
Indeed, on July 11 in Victoria, the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia made an important announcement on this matter. I quote from the Prime Minister's speech on that day. He said:
It is a great pleasure to join with Premier Vander Zalm in signing this historic memorandum of understanding between the Governments of Canada and British Columbia, for the creation of a national park and a national marine park in the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The Queen Charlottes have been called Canada's Galapagos, and with good reason. In these islands are found flora and fauna unique in the world. The black bear guards its forests, the sea lion stands watch on the coast, and the bald eagle soars in the sky.
This agreement is about preserving our heritage, it is about protecting our environment, and it is about a new climate of co-operation in our federal-provincial process. It is about meeting the concerns and the objectives of all interested parties in this matter. And all Canadians are interested and proud of the natural beauty which personifies British Columbia.
In speaking about the long and difficult negotiations on South Moresby in his speech, Premier Vander Zalm said:
It was a good exercise. Prime Minister-because it showed that our Government and your Government-after all is said and done-always seem somehow to manage to reconcile and satisfy not only the interests of our two Governments-but the interests of British Columbians and Canadians.
Not only is there provision for an internationally significant area to be protected forever, but the federal Government will commit itself over an eight year period to paying the $32 million cost of park operations and development, to ensure that South Moresby becomes a world class tourist destination.
Residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands will also benefit substantially from a $50 million regional development fund set up to help diversify the local economy, and logging companies and others will be fairly compensated with the federal Government contribution of $24 million for that purpose.
The next step in the process is to negotiate a formal federal-provincial agreement to establish the park and enable the transfer of lands from the provincial to the federal Government and to outline the general terms for the regional development fund. Canada is working on this on a priority basis. The people of the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Province of British Columbia and, indeed, all of Canada, are anxious to see positive progress in South Moresby as soon as possible. The Government is committed to action on all fronts.


THE CONSTITUTION-PROMOTION OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH LINGUISTIC DUALITY-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCES-INCLUSION OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN CONSTITUTION-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Last June 4, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Government a question concerning the provisions of the Meech-Langevin Accord, the 1987 Constitutional Accord, as it relates to linguistic duality.
Mr. Speaker, we know that section 2.(1 )(a) of the Accord signed by the ten provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada, acknowledges the obligation of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures, and I am quoting word for word, to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a).
Mr. Speaker, this section recognizes the existence of Frenchspeaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and the existence of English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec.
That is a basic point. For the first time in the history of Canada such recognition is given supreme status by being included in the Constitution. This is a major step for our country.
Better still, the signatories to the Accord went further by making it constitutionally mandatory for the Parliament of Canada and all provincial legislatures to preserve this fundamental characteristic.
This is a first step. But if they recognize the importance of our language duality by enshrining the principle in the Constitution, why was there not a will to allow it to develop by charging the provinces and the Canadian government with the additional obligation to protect and promote that basic feature? Why have we stopped half-way through that process? That was the heart of my question, the reason why I rose.
Since the agreement was signed, we heard many experts comment on the 1987 Constitutional Agreement. Most of them recognized that a strictly political problem prevented the addition of the obligation to promote language duality in addition to protecting it. Senator Murray, responsible for the matter and Minister in this government, recognized before the Committee that we tried but could go no further. This is too bad. It is too bad for the official language minority groups throughout Canada, either francophones outside Quebec or anglophones in Quebec, because the commitment is to maintain the status quo. Looking at statistics, the assimilation rate of the Canadian francophonie outside Quebec is rising constantly. On the other hand, the birth rate is very low, which means that if the French culture is not promoted outside Quebec, it may well disappear within a matter of years.
Mr. Speaker, the protection of minorities has been a commitment of the Canadian government for years. During the 1987 constitutional negotiations, the Canadian government bowed to provinces for political gains. It did not have the political courage to take on the obligation to promote language duality. We can understand and perhaps even explain that it could not convince the provinces to do that promotion. But that it does not take upon itself, as the Canadian government, not only the obligation to protect but especially the obligation to promote it, I find this, Mr. Speaker, a serious flaw in that constitutional agreement. The minorities, and I know what I am talking about, are disappointed. They were expecting more than that from the federal Government. In answers to questions here in the House and elsewhere the Government told us several times that it would promote linguistic duality through the Official Languages Act which, as you know, was tabled in the House last June.
August 13, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I say: Very well, so much the better! But I would remind Hon. Members that a statute is not the same thing as a constitution. It is very different. A constitutional obligation cannot be changed overnight. Near unanimity would be required to do so now. A statute can be changed, amended, repealed, indeed this is what we do here every day. 1 am afraid that it was a mistake not to have entrenched the obligation not only to preserve and protect, but also to promote linguistic duality, and this is why I wanted to know whether the Government intends to amend the Meech-Langevin proposal and to insert, at least at the federal level, the obligation to promote this duality.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to recall in this House the examples we have had in past months and years of certain Federal agencies, such as the RCMP, which has often shown reluctance and even indifference about complying with the Official Languages Act even though it is a statute of Parliament. I believe that this obligation could be made much stronger by entrenching it in the Constitution instead.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to me whether the government might have changed its views and whether our large Canadian family, both French- and Englishspeaking, can expect to learn some time from now that the government will change its plans and propose an amendment to the Constitutional Agreement that does not obligate the provinces to anything, please note this, but that makes it an obligation for the Canadian government itself not only to protect but to promote. As suggested by the FFHQ, the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, we could add a provision allowing provinces to concur in the promotion when they so wish, each province individually. We could have a provision today saying that, the government binds itself to promotion, and provinces would do so in the form of provincial resolutions passed in the province's legislature, under which they could bind themselves to not only protect but promote.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to transmit to his government the comments I just made and perhaps even to give us an assurance that he will himself defend, as I do, the idea of trying to convince the provinces and the Canadian government to accept to promote language duality, which is essential to us as a people so that we can survive here as full-fledged citizens wherever we live in this country.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who has in the past devoted much of his energies and, in fact, still does, to defending the French fact, for which he is to be commended. In fact, all Conservative Members from Quebec follow his example.
Today, he raised a question regarding the wording of subsection 2(2) of the Constitution Amendment, 1987 which
Adjournment debate
refers to the role of all legislatures in this country, including Parliament and the Quebec Legislature, to preserve Canadian Linguistic duality. This duality is described in subsection 2(1 )(a) of the amendment.
The Hon. Member has asked about the federal Government's role in promoting Canada's linguistic duality in light of the proposed subsection 2(2) of the Constitution Amendment, 1987. I can assure the Hon. Member that Parliament's role is as strong as ever and the Official Languages Bill, Bill C-72, recently introduced by the government, in June if I am not mistaken, is a perfect example of how Parliament can promote Canada's linguistic duality. Such measures can only find additional suport in the proposed new constitutional recognition of Canada's linguistic duality.
The Special Joint Committee on the Constitutional Accord is of course examining all the clauses of the proposed Constitution Amendment, 1987 in detail.
One of its great underlying features is the co-operative approach to federalism and this government is confident that such an approach is in the best interests of all Canadians.


SOVEREIGNTY-CANADIAN AIRSPACE-PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, Japan sends its nuclear reactor waste by sea to Europe for reprocessing to recover plutonium which Japan would like to have back for use as a fuel in a new model nuclear reactor. In 1984, one shipment of plutonium was sent by sea from Europe to Japan without mishap. In January of this year, Japan and the U.S. finished five years of negotiations on a draft agreement to transfer up to 226 kilograms of plutonium, which can be used for making nuclear weapons, from Europe to Japan twice a month for the next 30 years. The current plan is to transport the plutonium in jumbo jets from Europe, over northern Canada, to Anchorage, Alaska, for refuelling and then on to Japan.
According to Thomas Homer-Dixon and Carolyn Lee, Canadian Ph.D. candidates at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Canada was advised but not consulted during these negotiations. The agreement is to be ratified by both countries next month and if Canada openly declares now that it will not allow these shipments, the political difficulties in the context of Canada-U.S. relations would be much less than they would be if Canada raised them when the agreement is delivered to the U.S. Congress for ratification. Then the difficulties will be very great. Therefore, the window of opportunity is open now.
The total amount to be carried over Canada is equal to about half the plutonium in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It is to be

August 13, 1987
Adjournment debate
shipped as fine powder particles less than one-tenth of a millimetre in size. It does not dissolve in water, stick to soil, and cannot be absorbed by plants. According to Professor Rathjens at MIT, if such a powder is ejected into the atmosphere, as it could be in a large fire resulting from an airplane crash, "much of it could remain airborne for many days and, depending on particle size and meteorological conditions, could travel hundreds or even thousands of miles".
The radioactivity of any plutonium powder released in a crash would increase for several decades as a portion of it decays into a more dangerous isotope. Plutonium has a half life of hundreds to thousands of years depending on the isotope. Although plutonium is relatively harmless if touched or eaten, studies show that inhaling even a minute speck can cause cancer.
Canada has absolutely nothing to gain by allowing two jumbo jets full of plutonium to fly over the Canadian Arctic every month for the next 30 years. On the contrary, we have everything to lose. Even one crash out of the over 700 flights anticipated could kill people as well as caribou, polar bears, and other Arctic wildlife through the slow death of cancer as a result of inhalation of the toxic plutonium dust. Even residents of Yellowknife or cities further south, perhaps including Edmonton, could conceivably be threatened depending on wind and weather conditions, location of the crash site, and the extent of destruction to the casks carrying the plutonium. These risks are avoidable if we say no now.
In a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail on July 31, 1987, Nobel Prize winner John Polanyi points out that we are dealing with "a total amount of plutonium equal to about half of that in the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, with all the risks of diversion to military use that this implies. If such traffic proves to be expensive and cumbersome, that is all to the good". He recommended that if this material is to be shipped, it must be by sea under satellite surveillance and escorted by a convoy.
Therefore, my questions to the Parliamentary Secretary are these. Is the Government aware that the time to say no is right now, because the window of opportunity is expiring soon, and that after the agreement is ratified in mid-September the opportunity will be lost?
Second, has Canada already given permission for these flights? That was not at all clear from the answers of the Parliamentary Secretary given two days ago. Third, can the Government, the Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary assure Canadians that the Government will notify Japan and the United States that Canada will now allow the overflights of plutonium? If it has already notified these two countries, we will be glad to hear about that right now.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the suggested overflights of Canadian territory by aircraft carrying some form of plutonium, I would like to make perfectly clear the position of the Government. First, I would point out that there has been no ratification of any agreement and there have been no decisions made at this time on routing of the material.
I would also reiterate, as mentioned by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) in March of this year, that the movement of all dangerous goods by air is subject to both international convention and domestic legislation. In the international arena, Canada is a signatory nation of the International Civil Aviation Organization, and as such Canada has a number of options available.
First, we can request that pre-notification be given and that approval be received prior to any overflight being taken. In this case we would insist that the most stringent requirements for safe packaging be met and that all safety and inspection requirements be met as well.
Our second option is to deny any overflight by filing a state variance with the International Civil Aviation Organization based on Canada's concern with any inadequate safety measures of such flights.
In the matter of Canada's input with respect to the U.S.-Japan negotiations, Canada made representations to the United States Government in May and August of 1986 and again at a very high level in April of this year to express our concerns in this matter.
In summary, the Government is monitoring this matter very closely. The permission of the Canadian Government would be required on a case-by-case basis before any such overflight could take place and no such overflights would be carried out without expressed Canadian approval. Canadian safety standards are among the highest in the world and any proposal would be fully scrutinized to ensure that these high standards are fully complied with, particularly in the area of safe packaging.
Finally, let me assure the Hon. Member that any decision taken by the Government would make the safety of Canada and Canadians the most important consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, August 14, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers