1987-05-12

Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has requested that he be granted leave to make a statement at this time, and I recognize the Hon. Member.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a matter of privilege.
On April 13, I directed questions to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on whether the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) had violated the Code of Conduct for Ministers by his handling of the sale of an interest in a small investment property in downtown Ottawa. The next day the Minister, who had been away on April 13, raised a matter of privilege, claiming that I had used distorted information and unsubstantiated innuendo in order to damage his reputation.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, you upheld my right to ask the original question, although you warned that Members should be careful not to abuse the absolute right of privilege that they enjoy in this House. 1 accept your ruling and will heed your caution. After some reflection and consultation, however, I should like to clear up any misunderstanding I may have caused about the Minister's action.
Before raising my question in April, I had reviewed the public documents on file in the Ottawa Registry Office and in the office of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, or ADRG, the official responsible for overseeing the Code of Conduct for Ministers, as well as providing some advance notice of my question to the Minister's office. I tried to reach the Minister by phone, but he was in Toronto and not available.
Had I spoken directly to the ADRG, he might have informed me that the Minister had informed the ADRG
before selling his interest in the Ottawa property and had received written assurance from this official that the Minister's transaction was in compliance with the Code of Conduct. This letter was not in the public file relating to the Minister's compliance with the code when I consulted it. Once the Minister had made the letter public on April 14, there could be no question that he had sought to comply with the code and was in compliance with the code with relation to the Ottawa transaction.
With hindsight, it is clear that any question to be raised in this matter should either be with the Code of Conduct itself or with its interpretation by the responsible official, the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. I remain convinced that the Code of Conduct for Ministers needs to be tightened up and made enforceable, and that one area that should be reviewed is that of transactions which might be viewed as commercial. These, however, are matters that should be raised with the Government, not with an individual Minister.
I therefore wish to acknowledge that in connection with the Ottawa transaction, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport did act honourably and did ensure that he was in compliance with the Code of Conduct for Ministers as it now stands. I hope this statement will help to set the record straight, and I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your help in this matter.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for the statement he just made. I take it that somewhere therein there is an apology, and I accept that apology. Therefore, I consider the matter in this regard closed, and I hope that in the process all of us have learned a bit of a lesson.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is appropriate for the Chair to say that of course the whole matter has given the Chair a great deal of difficulty. I think it is also appropriate to say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and to the Minister, on behalf of all Hon. Members, that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is to be commended for having returned to the House and having made a statement, and that the Hon. Minister is to be commended for having accepted it graciously in the best traditions of this place. I thank both Hon. Members.

May 12, 1987
5984_______________________________________
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

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 Nos. 332-1662, 332-1861 to 332-1870 inclusive, 3321899, 332-1900, 332-1920, 332-1935, 332-1948 to 332-1951 inclusive, 332-1965, 332-1984 to 332-1989 inclusive and 3322053.

[DOT] (MIO)



HEALTH CARE SERVICES


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, for over 300 years, dedicated and competent nurses have been serving Canadians. Nursing has been developing and growing as a profession since the time of Jeanne Mance, who is considered to be the first lay nurse in Canada, in the early years of the 17th century. Nurses have played an active and valuable role in the development of our national health care system.
This year, the Grey Nuns will celebrate 250 years of service in Canada. They, as well as others, continue to distinguish themselves and their profession through their excellence in the provision of high quality health care.
The importance of nursing in our health care system is illustrated by the fact that more than 200,000 nurses who practice in Canada constitute over 50 per cent of Canada's health professionals. The nursing profession touches everyone. Nurses serve the community by caring for all groups of people, from the newborn to the aged, during health and during illness. Their presence is felt in a variety of venues as they provide care in homes, in occupational settings, in clinics, in hospitals, in nursing homes and in all other types of health care institutions.
The contributions of nurses have been recognized internationally for many years with the declaration of May 12, Florence Nightingale's birthday, as International Nurses Day. Canadian nurses, with their colleagues in other countries, have adopted the theme "Occupational Health and Safety" to mark this week.
In recognition of the many contributions of our nurses to our health and well-being, I hereby endorse the Canadian Nurses
Association proclamation that each year the second week of May shall be National Nurses Week.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of my Party and add my comments to those made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). It is a pleasure to recall the work accomplished not only by lay nurses but also by the Grey Nuns whom my family has known for years, since they were active for many years in Northern Ontario.

Of course, it gives me great pleasure to associate myself and my Party with the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with respect to National Nurses Week. I think, however, at the same time, I would like to sound a warning bell. One only has to look at newspaper headlines across the country to realize that nursing is in a crisis situation. There is a critical shortage of nurses, for example, in the lower mainland of British Columbia. The hospital bed closures this summer are as a result of a nurse shortage. We see in northern Ontario that elective surgery is being delayed because of the lack of available nurses. We have to look at why we lack nursing personnel.
It is quite true, as was stated by Glenna Cole-Slattery, who is the new Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Nursing Association that:
The bottom line is that women do not have to come into nursing anymore-the
poor working conditions, pay scales that don't recognize gruelling shift work
and special skills, and apathy in government and among administrators are
driving people to quit.
If we use Ontario as an example, Mr. Speaker, chances are that two out of three nurses in Ontario who are registered to practice their profession are not practising. We have to address this situation nationally. Alberta is losing nurses in droves and Quebec is facing a nurse shortage. Until we begin to address the root causes for the nurse shortage, that is lack of fulfillment, the burn-out suffered by nurses who are thrown into 10 and 12 hour shifts and who are forced to carry on the very difficult job of having one or two nurses on a ward looking after 20, 30 or 40 patients, then we will continue to see a further erosion and shortage. We will continue seeing nurses being recruited south as we have seen recently.
Recognizing that this is National Nurses Week and applauding the Minister for making the commitment to have the second week of May dedicated to the nursing profession and, of course, in lauding Florence Nightingale, we must also ask why we have a nurse shortage. That is something we have to address seriously in the coming months if we intend to keep the stellar quality of nursing that we have known in Canada.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for the declaration that he has made in the House today declaring this as National Nurses Week. It is very
May 12, 1987

important that we recognize the professional knowledge of nurses and that we treat them in a much more professional manner, respecting their knowledge of what is happening in hospitals and communities. Nurses should be treated on a more equal footing in all of these matters.
In the House of Commons we must be more accepting of the knowledge nurses have with regard to the actions of Government and how the actions will hurt people in the health care field. I point out that nurses are among a number of groups who came forward and spoke against the Government's plans on Established Programs Financing and on equalization. Obviously, because of their own knowledge of what is happening in communities and the hospitals, nurses understand the implications of government services.
On a more personal matter, I would like to point out that the national headquarters for the nurses union happens to be in Thompson, Manitoba. Cathy Connors from my area is the president. It is one of the few national offices that happens to be located in Thompson, Manitoba. I congratulate the nurses for the foresight in picking a great location for national headquarters because it really is the centre of Canada.
On another matter which is perhaps more serious, and certainly a concern of mine and I know of the Minister's, there is a real problem in getting a full complement of nurses in remote communities, which is a direct responsibility of the Minister. The medical services branch has been unable to have a full commitment of nurses, in the almost eight years that I have been a Member of Parliament, in the native communities in my riding. I do hope the Government in recognizing the value of nurses would especially recognize that in native communities, nurses are not just the first line of service, they are the only line of service of any professional help for the health and life of people in those communities.
I hope the Government will make a commitment this week in recognition of the declaration which the Minister just made to ensure that there is a full complement of nurses in remote communities for our native people.



BELL CANADA ACT


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, I have the honour to present the Bill to the House with an amendment. May I add the comment that the amendment is a technical one, not related to the substantive provisions of the Bill.
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present two petitions signed by several dozen Canadians from places such as Ottawa, Kitchener, Nepean, Perth, Lachine, Dorval, St. Leonard, St. Eustache, Montreal, Yellowknife, Lac la Martre, which is also in the Northwest Territories, in which your petitioners humbly show that the operating records of Turn Air were seized by the Canadian Transport Commission as evidence in a prosecution against an unlicensed airline. Mr. Turner was a key witness for the CTC in that prosecution.
The CTC cancelled the operating authority of Mr. Turner's airline for a minor licence violation, and this led to the repossession of his aircraft and the financial insolvency of his business. The Queen's Privy Council has returned his operating authority and offered $15,000 compensation but did not consult or negotiate with Mr. Turner to assess the true value of his loss.

Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that this House of Commons will have the Government seek to have an independent arbitrator assigned to this matter to investigate the details of the case and to review and negotiate the offer from the federal Government with Fred Turner in order to reach an equitable settlement which better reflects the true nature of his loss.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am honoured to present two certified petitions. The first one comes from some 350 constituents of Willowdale as well as residents of North York and Thornhill who support Bill M-37. The petition calls upon Parliament to amend Section 7 of the Charter of Rights to read: "everyone including a human foetus or unborn human being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice".
The second petition is from some 400 residents of the City of Ottawa and the Towns of Nepean, Kemptville, North Gower, Carleton Place, Pembroke and Arnprior, also supporting Bill M-37 which calls for Parliament to recognize fully the rights of the unborn.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition signed by more than 100 Canadians, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. Residents of Aurora, Stratford, St. Thomas, Pickering and Kitchener in

May 12, 1987
Order Paper Questions
southern Ontario as well as residents of the metropolitan area of Toronto and Saskatoon are concerned about legislation the Government has recently introduced that they believe will harm the interests of genuine refugees and of people seeking to come to Canada to claim refugee status. They point out that their petition has the support of members of all Parties, the Council of Churches, the Bar Association, the Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim, and therefore your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present in the House a number of petitions from the people in my riding, and more specifically, residents of Haute-Aboujagane, Notre-Dame, Cap-Pele, Shediac and Moncton.
Your petititioners humbly call on Parliament to make Canada Post drop its plans and deliver the mail to all Canadians, without distinction.


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. 115.


Mr. Manly: For each of the years 1983 to 1986, did CIDA budget funds for an educational project in Zimbabwe and, if so (a) in what amount (b) how many co-operants from Canada were employed in Zimbabwe on the project and what was the average salary?


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: CIDA is funding a Secondary Education Assistance Project in Zimbabwe; during the years 1983 to 1986 CIDA spent approximately S5.7 million on the project (implemented by the World University Service of Canada- WUSC).
Between 1983 and 1986 the number of Canadians on the Secondary Education Assistance Project varied between 100 and 150. Their salaries were paid by the government of Zimbabwe according to salary scales established for all
secondary school teachers in the country, and the CIDA funds mentioned above paid for allowances and project administration. The average salary was approximately $12,000 (Zimbabwean dollars).
In addition to the above assistance, CIDA began in 1986 to implement a separate Technical/Vocational Education Project through the Ontario International Corporation of Toronto. By the end of last year nine co-operants had begun working under this project; CIDA disbursements for 1986 were $422,000 covering salary top-up, allowances and project administration. The Canadian lecturers and curriculum developers on this project receive the Zimbabwe salary for the positions they occupy; CIDA tops-up that salary to the appropriate Canadian level so as to attract the desired calibre of professional staff. The average total salary paid is $36,000 (Canadian dollars).


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the House aware that under Standing Order 64(3) and (4) it is a requirement that the Government answer certain questions on the Order Paper within the prescribed period of 45 days. However, according to my records, a question that I placed on the Order Paper dated February 20, 1987, bearing the number 82, and another question bearing the number 90 of March 4, 1987, have not yet been answered.
1 know, of course, that it is not the Parliamentary Secretary who answers these himself, because obviously he would have done so already. However, I wonder if he could undertake to light a fire under the chair of those responsible to ensure that they observe the Standing Orders of the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing that to my attention. We will make inquiries and endeavour to have the questions answered as soon as possible.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 63 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 63 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Miss Nicholson: May 12, 1987

1.	Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs travel to India and Pakistan in December 1985 and, if so, was he accompanied by a delegation of officials, parliamentarians, business people and others?
2.	(a) What were the names and roles of the members of the delegation (b) were members of the delegation accompanied by spouses or companions and, if so, which members were so accompanied?
3.	(a) What was the itinerary for this trip (6) what was the schedule of official meetings, ceremonies, entertainments and excursions (c) which members of the delegation attended which events?
4.	Was there a program of briefings in connection with this trip and, if so (a) what was the schedule of briefings (b) who gave the briefings and what topics were covered (c) who attended which briefings and in what capacity did they attend?
5.	Were (a) government (b) commercial aircraft used to transport members of the delegation and, if so, in each case (i) which members for which part or parts of the trip (ii) at what cost?
6.	What was the cost of each official function on the delegation's agenda?
7.	Were security services provided to the delegation and, if so (a) to what extent (b) at what cost?
8.	What were the costs of the (a) ground transporation (6) accommodation (c) meals (d) per diem allowances, in total and for each member of the delegation?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, because of the Ministerial Statement, Government Orders will be extended by eight minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-REFUGEES-GOVERNMENT POLICY Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West) moved:
That this House condemns the Government's refugee policy for its failing badly to uphold Canada's proud and humane record for refugee assistance and for abandoning our nation's respected international leadership on this tragic, world-wide human dilemma, which will serve to jeopardize a meaningful international solution to what is clearly an international phenomenon;
That this House further deplores the Government's refusal to assure refugee claimants full accessibility to, and a non-adversarial hearing before, an independent refugee board; and
That, therefore, this House urge the Government to establish a fair, accessible and efficient refugee administration system, which would:
(1)	guarantee full accessibility to the system for refugee claimants by rejecting any pre-screening stage within the process;
(2)	ensure maximum protection and safety for all refugees and a comprehensive and adequate hearing of their claims by abolishing the highly restrictive "safe third country" concept as an integral part of the refugee determination process; and
Supply
(3)	provide every refugee with the opportunity of an appeal before a competent and independent refugee body that would consider all facts and circumstances of the appellant's claims.
He said: Mr. Speaker, over 100 years ago, the test for Canadian people was whether the ideals and principles on which this nation was founded could be extended to all. Now, some 100 years later, the issues are relatively the same. The scope, however, is world-wide.
As we debate this motion in the House of Commons this morning, discrimination and apartheid prevails in South Africa, serfdom reigns in the mountains of Peru, people are starving in the streets of India and Africa and thousands are displaced, tortured and persecuted in every corner of the world. All of these people are refugees of some kind or another and they all reflect the imperfection of human justice and the inadequacy of human compassion.
In response, Liberal Governments of the past displayed a genuine determination to wipe away, so far as it was in their power to do so, the unnecessary suffering of our fellow human beings around the world. Their record was well respected and recognized in the international community. It was less than six months ago that Canada was awarded the Nansen Medal for its past refugee record. It was less than nine months ago that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) defended his Government's assistance to refugees by stating: "If we err we will always err on the side of compassion and on the side of justice".
Given that backdrop, the refugee legislation presented last week makes a mockery of those two significant statements. The direction and spirit of the new policy is misguided and fundamentally betrays the reasons behind Canada receiving that medal, and betrays the Prime Minister's earlier commitment, particularly when we consider that the UN declared 1987 as the International Year of the Homeless.
The policy, Your Honour, is an inadequate and insensitive culmination of a two and a half year consultation process. Most of the organizations and churches, who have invested their time, energy and talent towards creating a better and humane refugee system, are now vehemently opposed to the major tenets of the Bill. Yes, the ideal refugee system, like the ideal world, does not exist. However, it is irresponsible to design and implement a new refugee determination system in light of very glaring and significant shortcomings.
For the past several months the Government has been waging an unholy war with a strategy which tried to fabricate a crisis that would have Canada invaded by thousands upon thousands of refugees. It tried to manipulate public opinion so as to justify its legislation which will very clearly and obviously be marketed on the principle of curbing abuse. It was hoped, of course, that this would help redress the Tory Government's dismal popularity across the country.
It has been painful for my Party and for me personally to have to witness this strategy firsthand, day after day after day;
[Stage Direction]
May 12, 1987
Supply
painful because the world-wide issue of human suffering is too important and sensitive to be dictated because of purely partisan political needs; painful because the problem of refugees is not merely a domestic Canadian challenge only. It is, rather, a challenge for countries of the world to deal constructively, equally and collectively in sharing the burden of assisting those less fortunate than ourselves. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite the Government once again to put an end to this strategy.
No political Party or Member of Parliament in this House has a monopoly on virtue. Certainly I do not. It is recognized and accepted by all Members of Parliament, all three political Parties, and every Canadian, that Canada cannot possibly absorb all of the world's homeless. There are some 15 to 20 million refugees around the globe searching for a home. No Member of Parliament, no political Party, and no Canadian wishes to legitimize or reward fraudulent refugee claimants.
However, this does not absolve the Government of responsibility. It cannot wash its hands of refugees, act as a modern-day Pontius Pilate, and turn away genuine claimants from our borders and push them aimlessly adrift. That would act as a trigger for other nations to do likewise, and only serve to aggravate the human crisis facing refugees. It would limit their options and make them all the more desperate. Yet that is what the Government has effectively done by its announced policy statements in Bill C-55.
The policy is not tolerant, it is not fair, wise or compassionate. Instead, it is a policy rooted in inflexibility, rigidity and restrictiveness. The Government's refugee policy is fatally flawed in a number of key areas which I would like to examine and evaluate.
The first difficulty is that the Government has chosen to establish a pre-screening stage at all border points. Two officers would decide, virtually on the spot, whether the claimant has an arguable case to proceed before the new refugee board. In effect this would act as a huge barrier to the refugee board, a wall which would seriously restrict the number of claimants who would receive a fair hearing. Merely looking at the origin of the claimant and the country from which he or she arrived is an irresponsible solution which ignores individual circumstances.
It is therefore absurd for the Ministers responsible for immigration to guarantee, as they have, that no genuine refugee will be turned away under this policy. How can they possibly say that, when those refused during pre-screening will have been denied any meaningful and serious consideration? The Ministers simply cannot have it both ways. Pre-screening is a most disturbing development that undermines the principle of full accessibility which has been advocated by every nongovernmental organization, every church organization, and the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
As well, as a first reaction to the refugee claimant the implication left by pre-screening is one that views the refugee as a major problem and favours returning the problem to someone and somewhere else. It is, in short, an irresponsible stance. Furthermore, one of the two pre-screening officers will be a member of the refugee board, while the other will be an immigration adjudicator; in other words, an official of the department.
That raises some obvious questions. Why is it necessary for this person, who will be clearly enforcement minded, to be there? Whose interests will he be serving? Why is the Government confusing immigration and refugee matters when one of the crucial exercises was to clearly distinguish between these two very different areas of public policy? If the Ministers were genuinely concerned with the authenticity of refugee claims, why are both officers not members of the refugee board? Regrettably, that immigration adjudicator represents the hand of the immigration department within this all important first step.
The second major shortcoming is that this pre-screening process is based on the concept of a "safe third country", meaning that Cabinet will draft a list of so-called safe countries which will largely dictate who can or cannot access the refugee process. This is also a worrisome and alarming initiative and represents a complete and unfortunate reversal of government philosophy.
Past Liberal Governments had established and respected a B-l list of non-deportable countries. That was a statement that we as a nation were not prepared to deport people to certain parts of the world because of their poor record on human rights. The emphasis in this equation was clearly in favour of the individual's protection and safety.
Under the Conservative Government not only did they abolish the B-l list on February 20 of this year, but now the Government is prepared to reverse direction by drafting a list of countries that the Government is fully prepared to deport individuals to. Consequently, if a refugee arriving in Canada had previously stopped in a country on that list, the prescreening officer would have the person returned to that respective country. Given that criteria under this legislation, there is no discretionary authority provided to the two officers. Thus there is no basis for them to consider the individual's circumstances and the merits of his claim.
In addition, important unanswered questions abound. Where are the safeguards? Where are the legally binding agreements between Canada and those countries on the proposed list? Will Canada give in to fierce political and diplomatic lobbying by other nations wishing to get on Canada's safe country list? Will there be trade-offs? Will there be countries which for complex reasons will be on the list, but should not be, given their human rights violations? Will the power game between countries supersede the life/death situation of individual refugees?
May 12, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Furthermore, how fast will Canada react to new surges of violence and human rights abuses? How much lag time will occur before people from a place of sudden unrest will be accepted as bona fide refugees? Finally, what in God's name is a third safe country? Is the United States, which freely deports Guatemalans and El Salvadorans, a safe country? Is Great Britain, which deports Tamils, among others, a safe country? Is Guatemala, which is a democracy, a safe country? If they are not, which clearly they are not for these individuals, will Canada have the courage to keep these countries off the safe country list? And why has the Government failed to present a list of third safe countries which could be debated freely by Members of Parliament?
The safe third country concept is riddled with serious and fatal flaws. It is completely unfair and unreliable for the Government to measure and determine a person's claim of persecution according to this concept. In following this path Canada would be one of the first countries to legislate this third safe country concept. As such, it would only serve to encourage other countries to consider adopting similar restrictive responses. This would inevitably lead to a worldwide corridor of closed and locked doors.
Toward this end, has the Government asked itself what will be the cumulative effect and result of all countries undertaking a third safe country concept? Where would the 15 million to 20 million refugees go? What options would they have? What actions would they resort to as an alternative to facing torture or certain death in their native lands? How many rich and unscrupulous immigration consultants like John Santos would such a policy create?
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, to anyone with foresight that such an opting out on a grand scale would undermine any real international solution to this international phenomenon. It would destroy the shared responsibility and commitment which countries have for the plight of refugees. It would jeopardize the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees signed in 1951. If this does happen, as it very well could in the foreseeable future, it would not be a proud achievement for our country to be regarded as the chief architect in dissolving the world's resolve toward combating the problem facing refugees.
My Party and I are asking today that the Government abandon its safe third country concept as the centrepiece of its refugee policy, and furthermore that the Government reject its pre-screening exercise. Doing so would allow claimants to enter the refugee board directly and immediately where their claims could be presented and a decision rendered. Under this scheme the decision-making process would be expeditious, fair and humane, which is precisely what the consultation process has demanded.
By rejecting such a model the Government is compounding the red tape, by adding a needless pre-screening layer of bureaucracy at all border points. It would increase the over-all
Supply
cost which would be associated with this extensive network across the country and would burden Cabinet by establishing, monitoring, and revising so-called safe country lists which, in the end, may not be in the best interests of the individual refugees. Talk about inefficiencies and inconsistencies!
While the Government claims that the new refugee board is non-adversarial, the facts and legislation prove much different, and this is where the third deficiency lies within the system. The Government's own documentation suggests and proposes that a departmental immigration lawyer will present "pertinent facts" about the claim to the two refugee board members. This will automatically make the hearing highly adversarial and highly controversial.
After all, whose interests will the lawyer be representing? From where would he obtain his information? Would he receive it from the immigration adjudicator involved in the first pre-screening stage? If so, is that proper and is that made known to the refugee claimant? Again, why mix immigration officials with the refugee process? If the refugee board is intended to be a specialized body dealing exclusively with refugee related matters and its officers are competent and knowledgeable in the plight of refugees, why intervene with immigration personnel?
Our clear and unwavering recommendation is to allow the refuge board and its officers to take the proper and fair course with the refugees coming before it and that the department keep its distance unless otherwise requested.
The fourth serious problem with the refugee determination system is its appeal procedure. The Government has proposed that the appeal mechanism be to the Federal Court of Canada, with leave. It could not have selected a worse apparatus since the Federal Court has only the mandate to hear argument on the legal process and points of law and not on the facts and circumstances facing the individual refugee. The Federal Court cannot receive new evidence, reassess the credibility of the claimant by examination, or permit opinions or advice by either the United Nations High Commission on Refugees or non-governmental organizations. It is unrealistic to expect that such reforms in our court system would occur in the foreseeable future. Therefore, under these terms the appeal is shamefully weak and again runs counter to all the individual evidence presented during the extensive consultation process leading up to this piece of legislation.
The Fiberal Party's position has always been that, to a large degree, the refugee determination system is only as viable and as strong as its appeal mechanism. The Government's plans for appeal are most inadequate and mean that an error in judgment by the refugee board can be fatal for the claimant. In an attempt to avoid this monumental concern we advocate a separate and independent appeal board whereby mistakes and errors could be avoided or corrected.
To add insult to injury, the Government has also declared that the appellant be deported until the Federal Court has considered the appeal. This is a most unbecoming and
[Stage Direction]
May 12, 1987
Supply
inhumane attitude which places the claimant in danger or possible death by forcing their return to their native country while the court decides. By the time it does, it could possibly be too little, too late. Is this the spirit of our justice system? I think not. In addition, there is considerable doubt as to whether this deportation order is constitutional and whether it violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which safeguards the security of the individual.
The fifth and final major flaw of this legislation, which I have touched upon previously, is with regard to Canada's international obligations and its respected leadership under Liberal Governments in dealing with the plight of refugees.
By constructing a new refugee determination system founded on a pre-screening stage and on the concept of a third safe country, the Conservative Government, on behalf of our country, is throwing in the white towel and sending a very wrong and dangerous signal to the rest of the world. All countries will move the clock back and justify that, in part, by pointing to Canada. They will adopt the attitude that "if Canada can do it, we can do it", or "if Canada did it, it must be right".
Clearly, if the Conservative Government is serious about facilitating an effective international solution to the refugee dilemma around the world, as were past Governments; if it is serious about protecting Canada from increased fraudulent claims, as were past Governments, then it is incumbent upon the Tory administration to avoid any regressive action which would incite that very mentality.
The Government must therefore resist putting in place a rigid and limited arrangement that would only trigger a crumbling domino reaction around the globe. I regret to say, however, that with its recent legislation the Government has done precisely that.
We have witnessed in various bilateral dealings a Government that has been wimpish with some of the stronger nations of the world. The lumber deal with the United States and the fish deal with France come to mind.
It is regrettable that, in order to prove its macho image, the Government had to pick a fight with refugees; people who are nationless, who are suffering, who are facing torture and seeking refuge and a home. In my opinion and that of my Party, that is not the sign of a compassionate country. It is not the sign of a progressive country or the sign of a courageous country.
We as a society cannot right every wrong, make perfect all the imperfections of the world. But neither can we sit content and idle, and diet while others starve, buy millions of new cars every year while most people of the world go without shoes, purchase and build larger and more expensive homes while other fellow human beings lack basic shelter.
Our problems, having grown to the size of the world, no longer seem our own. Each day we are required to respond to a
new crisis, created by people whose names we cannot pronounce, in lands of which we have never heard. Yet most Canadians, I believe, share broad and deep hopes for the world. Their hopes are of a world without war, of a world where peoples now suffering in poverty, persecution and oppression can win a better life for themselves and their children. It is hope of a world where the energies of mankind are dedicated, not to destruction but to building a generous and spacious future for one and all.
In reference to the plight of refugees, while we in the international community have not solved the problem, we are and must be firmly committed to finding solutions. More important, Canada has struggled to finally turn away from those whose hearts are frozen, from those who feel that the poor and oppressed are evil, and from those who feel that every man and woman should fend for himself or herself.
As a Government, as a Parliament, and as a country, let us not repudiate our past, let us not repudiate our heritage, let us not repudiate the tradition we have enjoyed and which has been so well recognized and acknowledged by the international community. Let us not be indifferent to the future by paralyzing the progressive development of our refugee and immigration policies. Let us dare to care, so that the next generation will harvest the fruits of our work and the world can be made better by our compassion.
We serve notice today to the Minister and the Government that this Party will fight for that type of Canada and that type of society.
Mrs. Browes:: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that was introduced recently certainly has streamlined the system and has given an opportunity for a fair and quick response to refugees as they come to our borders and airports in Canada.
The Hon. Member particularly referred to the initial hearing with the adjudicator and the member of the advisory board. I was rather surprised that he would be so critical of those adjudicators in the Public Service who conduct the initial hearing. I am sorry that the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has no faith in the excellent personnel who work in the Immigration Department and have been serving this country abroad and in Canada so admirably in the processing of refugees.
How does the Hon. Member's proposed scheme overcome the current difficulties? What would he streamline or eliminate to make the process work better? Does he believe that he can simply achieve efficiency by saying the system will be efficient? I suggest that his comments were very deficient. How does he propose to deter the abuse that is so obvious in the system today?
Will he answer those very important questions in relation to his comments that I thought did not deal with the issue of trying to make a refugee policy efficient and fair, as I believe the proposed legislation will be?
May 12, 1987


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member, who I believe sits on the Immigration Committee, has failed to recognize in the last two and one-half years the very fundamental requests that have been coming from the Standing Committee, the Plaut Report, from non-governmental organizations and churches across the country, and Members of the House. They have requested that we make a distinction between immigration and refugee related requests.
While the desire of someone to seek landed immigrant status in this country is legitimate and completely acceptable, it is very different from the forces that drive genuine refugees to flee their countries. Given their choice or opportunity, those refugees would stay in their country of birth. However, those forces of persecution have forced those people to pack their suitcases and seek a new and better world. That has been the central theme of all submissions before our committee.
I cannot understand why an honourable Member, particularly a government Member who may have more access to the levers of power, cannot understand that it is not a criticism of public servants who do a good and honourable job. It is simply a request that within our system and under a new refugee process bureaucrats should deal with immigration and a different group of individuals and experts should deal with refugees.
According to this legislation the Government has, once again, mixed refugees with immigrants and has missed a golden opportunity to distinguish between the two and thereby educate many Canadians about the difference between those two groups arriving on our shores.
If the Government is genuinely concerned about dealing with the refugee claims, I suggest it could have retained its two officers at all border points and could have had as members of refugee boards two people who are competent in refugee and geopolitical events around the world, rather than appointing one immigration officer who is only concerned about immigration control.
The Hon. Member then went on to say what was our policy, in place of that screening process. We have proposed, supported once again by the committee and all the NGOs, to allow those individuals an opportunity to come before the refugee board. That is where the decision would be rendered, not at some discretionary point at the border. This is suggested not because the country is on the so-called "safe country" list. A person would come before the board and state his or her claim, and at least the decision, whether negative or positive, would be seen as fair and humane. That is the important step the Government is precluding.
What the Government is doing is trying to suggest it has improved the new refugee board, that somehow that is the jewel of the legislation. However, very craftily it has then drawn a barrier around the jewel and challenged refugees to try to get to it.
Supply
The Hon. Member then went on to ask how do we curb abuse. The Hon. Member should pay close attention to the fact that with every single restrictive measure announced by the Conservative Government, the number of fraudulent schemes and scams has risen. With each step in making the system more rigid and inflexible, refugees are becoming more desperate. When one is facing life and death, and one's back is against the wall, one will resort to anything, and there are careers built up by fraudulent and unscrupulous consultants who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals who simply wish to escape the tortures they and their families are facing.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to ask a question or make a comment because the presentation of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) was excellent. However, when a Government Member rose to ask a question which somehow inferred we were taking a position against civil servants, I decided to ask the Hon. Member for York West if he would elaborate as to what happened to a civil servant who in fact did come forward with information with respect to abuses which were taking place. This particular individual lost his job. The Government complains that the Liberal Party does not believe in civil servants at the same time as the Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration saw a civil servant fired because he did his job, because he believed so much in his job that he was prepared to come before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for York West to elaborate on that matter.


Sergio Marchi: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is absolutely right. Through the Hon. Member's suggestion, the Government was again trying to have it both ways. It was criticizing me unfairly and inaccurately for trying to taint its Public Service and, at the same time, Ministers responsible for immigration are guilty of, in effect, firing a civil servant who brought valuable information to the attention of the Government that criminal elements were being invited to participate in the refugee determination system.
That officer, together with myself and other Canadians, knew, of course, that that was completely absurd, that the refugee determination system should not be encumbered by such elements. What is the price, under this Conservative Government, for trying to flag an issue? What is the price paid by an officer who is trying to do his or her job? What is the price paid by an officer who tries to educate the Government by bringing to the attention of the standing committee and Hon. Members something which is very wrong, that an invitation to criminal elements was being sent across the country? The price is that that person does not have a job today. But the Government did change its regulations and format. It did recall those letters and sent out a new letter. That action by the Government is an admission that John Quigley was right, yet it still had the temerity to fire him and he is still looking for a job.

May 12, 1987
Supply
When a Government Member says we are tainting the Public Service and then fires an individual civil servant for a job well done, it simply shows he has a "suck and blow and hold your breath at the same time" attitude. Even if that were possible, I am not sure it would be worth the price of turning Tory blue.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this is a useful motion which has been proposed by the Hon. Member for York West. I would like to point to two main parts of the motion on which I wish to dwell. One of the demands in the motion is that the Government should establish a system which would guarantee full accessibility to the system for refugee claimants by rejecting any pre-screening stage within the process. I think this is a most important matter for us to examine at this time.
The Bill before us is a long and complicated Bill which makes many changes, some of which perhaps go beyond what the Minister or the Cabinet were aware they might be doing.
It will not be easy in 20 minutes, in a day or in a week to deal comprehensively with all aspects of the legislation. However, the matter of accessibility, whether people will have a fair chance to get a fair hearing under our system, is I believe the very most important point we have to consider at the outset.
The second demand of this motion really is part of the first, so I will go to the third demand, which is that the Government should initiate a system which will provide every refugee with the opportunity of an appeal before a competent and independent refugee body which would consider all facts and circumstances of the appellant's claim. I am very glad we have the opportunity for this debate as a way of opening up, both to Members of Parliament and to any listening members of the public, some of the main issues before us presented by the Government's Bill C-55. This is a matter on which I have worked hard for five and a half years. It is a matter about which I feel very strongly. I will try to concentrate on reasoning with the arguments and I hope I will not fall into too passionate a rhetoric, which is very easy to do.
This is a very deep issue. It affects immediately tens of thousands of refugees, or potential refugees-real ones-and affects indirectly and very really a very great many other people in Canada besides, both morally and, one might say, in their own personal interest. It affects these people morally because Canada has undertaken solemn international obligations to protect a person who is out of his or her country and unable to return because of fear of persecution on account of political, religious or other such reasons. What this legislation will do, if it is adopted, is to make that mostly a mockery. Therefore, it is very important that the public understand what is being done in the name of the people of Canada who were given the Nansen Medal. That medal was not given to the Government. It was given to the people of Canada. The Government should not dishonour the record of the people of Canada.
This Bill will also injure Canadians in another way, in their more personal interests, by damaging an ancient right which has been enjoyed by British subjects for four centuries in Britain and by Canadians for as long as there have been Canadians under present Canadian and British law. I will come back to that later.
As has been pointed out by a number of people, we have perhaps 15 million refugees in the world. Some of them are refugees because they are fleeing from repressive governments. Some of those countries our Government opposes or condemns. Some of those countries our Government supports, such as the Government of El Salvador to which our Government has made a bilateral loan. I had the opportunity to visit El Salvador last week in order to learn first hand some of the human rights conditions which have forced probably one million of the five million people in that country to seek refuge. One half a million or more people have gone to the United States and a half or million or more have become refugees, displaced persons, within their own tiny country. Yet Canada approves of the Government of El Salvador. It said so after examining its election procedures, and supports it through a grant or loan of $8 million. We therefore have some obligation for refugees who comes to us, especially from a Government which we support.
Others come as a result of hunger and poverty in some countries such as the Philippines, Guatemala or the countries of sub-Sahara Africa where agriculture of the type which supported the people for thousands of years has been destroyed, in large part as a result of the enterprises of countries such as the United States and Canada. These countries ensure that the fertile land is not used to enable those people to eat, but is used to sell us luxuries. Therefore there is hunger. That is the principal reason for hunger in so many countries, countries often with very fertile land such as Guatemala and the Philippines.
Again, there are refugees from those countries because the hunger in those countries also generates violence, violence by the Government that forces the people to live in impossible conditions and violence by the people who resist the repression of the Government. This is not new. It is related to another pattern.
For about 30 years now countries such as Great Britain and those countries of western Europe as well as the United States and Canada have either invited, or at least tolerated, people coming from what we might call the countries of the south to work in our countries, usually as cheap labour. The tide is now being reversed.
When I spoke last week with the Vice-Minister of Planning in El Salvador he was not urging that Salvador send more cheap labour to Canada. He was urging that Canada should invest in factories in El Salvador with our wood, or perhaps cut the parts for jeans here and have them sewn together down there by what he called-and he speaks very good English and
May 12, 1987

has visited this country-cheap labour. We know how Salvadoran labour is cheap labour. They assassinate labour union leaders. So, again, Canada is not an innocent bystander in the situations in the world that produce these refugees. Canada has its own responsibility for the fact that there are such refugees, or our own share of responsibility, with a number of other countries, whether they are East or West. The tide is now being reversed.
That is the context in which we now see a concerted move by the countries of western Europe, including Great Britain, by the United States and now by Canada to restrict the entry of people from what we call the Third World, from former colonial countries, from countries of the South, into our countries of the North. We no longer want them as cheap labour. We are saying to Salvadorans, "Stay in Salvador and struggle to get a $4-a-day job. Do not come to Canada looking for a $4-an-hour job." We have a total perversion of the refugee determination process presented to us.
We have the pre-screening system. There are three screens being put forward by the Government. Two of them are contained in Bill C-55 and one of them is done by regulation. In Bill C-55 one screen is called the safe country. If a Salvadoran comes up to Fort Erie and was living in the United States illegally-no doubt-then we will send him back to the United States because Canada considers that a safe country. We do not know what the United States will do because we do not care to know. When we enquire of the United States, from those who have studied refugee matters in the United States, we find that only 2.7 per cent of Salvadorans who have claimed refugee status in the United States have been recognized as refugees.
Naturally, when the United States supplies the guns and the military advisors with which the Salvadoran people are being killed, the United States is not about to admit that those Salvadorans who escape to the United States are genuine refugees. Until now Canada has had the courage to disagree with the United States. Now, in an indirect way, Canada is going to join the United States in forcing those people to go back to the situation that they quite reasonably fled.
There is another screen. A person will be told, if he comes from a certain country, "Oh, that country does not produce refugees. That country has a good record of human rights. We do not have any refugees from that country. So you could not possibly be a refugee and we won't even listen to your story".
Clause 48.4 of the Bill quite clearly lays down that the only evidence to be considered by this team of an adjudicator and a refugee board member is the track record, that is, Canada's recording of a track record of a country from which the refugee comes, as to human rights and as to whether we have any experience of receiving refugees from there. So if there is a coup in some country the day after this Bill is passed and the supporters of the former government run for their lives and a few of them get to Canada, Canada will say, "We have never received any refugees from your country. Therefore your country is not a refugee-producing country. Therefore you are
Supply
not a refugee. Good-bye, don't talk to us. We don't want to hear your story". That is what this Bill means. That is the second screen.
The third screen is already in place. This country, this Government, and to some extent the previous Liberal Government-and I am sorry the previous speaker is not here to respond to this-has continued the policy and extended very widely the policy of refusing to admit a person who comes from a well-known refugee-producing country, if it is suspected that by setting foot in Canada he would gain the opportunity to claim refugee status. Chile was the first notable example. Years ago the then Liberal Government put a visa requirement on Chile. This Government has also put a transit visa requirement on Chile, and on all countries for which this Government requires visitors' visas. Therefore, if a person comes from a refugee-producing country this Government hopes to keep that person out of our borders entirely by the visa.
If a person comes from a non-refugee-producing country, this Government hopes to keep him out on the grounds he could not possibly be telling the truth. If he has spent any time in another country which this Government would like to consider safe, without ever defining what is safe, the Government will say, "Go on back there and make a refugee claim. We don't care whether your refugee claim is fairly considered or not".
The problem is that these screens completely destroy the value of having a refugee board or division, and the Government sometimes calls it one and sometimes the other in different documents. There will be very few people who will get the benefit of this fine, just, well-tuned service. Nearly all of them will be stopped at the border. The Government estimate we hear is 50 per cent. Many people in the private sector have an estimate of about 80 per cent that will be stopped at the border.
That is the first and worst part of this legislation. But there is a very serious matter also in relation to the appeal. The appeal system is one that has been condemned by Rabbi Plaut and by all the NGOs who have appeared before us.
Although there was uncertainty in the report of the standing committee a year and a half ago, it is now recognized in fact- and this can be tested-that the members of the standing committee know that there has to be a much more thorough, genuine form of review dealing with the facts of the case than is possible through an appeal to the Federal Court, let alone what this Act provides, that is,appeal to the Federal Court only with leave. The Federal Court has a record in granting leave in about 2 per cent to 5 per cent of the requests.
The appeal system, as provided here, not only denies the standards set up by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, not only denies the tradition of Canadian law, British law, and I guess French law, but it will be peculiarly

May 12, 1987
Supply
inappropriate in the case of refugees, because the appeal system will only allow an appeal by leave on questions of law.
Yet, the whole question with a refugee is not a question of law; it is a question of his story, what happened, is he telling the truth, is it really a case of persecution? It is the facts upon which the dispute will have to be based, not the law. It is very ironic to give him the only kind of appeal he cannot use. It does not make any difference to his case, even if he could get to that court.
However, I want to mention how the Minister has perhaps gone further than he intended to go. He has taken away the right of judicial review of all Canadians in this matter. Under this Act, and this includes the whole of immigration, not just refugees, according to Section 83.1 Canadians lose the automatic right to seek judicial review by the Federal Court against what they think is an unjust decision by a government official. I understand that that right dates back to the 16th Century. When Canadians became Canadians we inherited that right from a long way back, that automatic right to review by the court. Now that is to be turned into a right by leave only and, as I say, the Federal Court gives leave to only about 2 per cent to 5 per cent of the requests it gets.
This means that if a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant, not a refugee, who is trying to sponsor a relative from the old country, is turned down, and is turned down again at the Immigration Appeal Board by a procedure which he thinks is unjust, he has practically lost any recourse to the courts. He can only appeal by leave to the Federal Court. He will have very little chance of getting that leave or of getting an examination of his complaint against the officials. It is a very serious attack on the rights of 25 million Canadians.
Of course it is not intended in that way, I would suppose. It is intended only to attack the refugees, to restrict their right to appeal against a possibly unjust decision at some stage of the refugee determination. It restricts their right to an appeal against a government appointed official, which is a right that we believe belongs to everybody in Canada, including a refugee claimant. However, the Government is so eager to take away that right from refugees that it is taking it away from all Canadians so far as they have any concern with immigration matters.
There are two other matters upon which I wish to touch very briefly. One is that the Act now legislates exclusion, as did the Government by its regulations on February 20, of all that have been classed as humanitarian and compassionate considerations. For decades Canada has practised and legislated the principle that there are some people who cannot be narrowly defined as refugees, who cannot show that they are being or will be persecuted individually, who should not be sent back.
When there is civil war in Lebanon with women being shot in Beirut because they went out to buy bread, when people in Iran are being drafted into a war which has already killed a million people, we have refused to force people to return to those countries, at least at the present time. That has been our
humanitarian and compassionate program, available under the present Immigration Act. However, it will not be available to a person who comes in, claims refugee status, and cannot prove that he or she is individually liable to persecution but simply says, "I don't want to go back to my home in the middle of a civil war". That person will be deported to civil war because the officials have no opportunity to do anything but consider the person's refugee claim. If the person says, "I am not a refugee, but my house is right in the middle of where they are shooting and I had to get out", according to the Act the officers at the border will have to say,: "Go, get out". He will not get to the refugee board, let alone to the special committee which under the present law reviews cases of humanitarian concern. What we have is a very unfortunate mess in this Act.
I remind the Hon. Minister, Hon. Members, and others interested that a proposal was put forward in January by the Canadian Council of Churches, which is widely supported by many other groups, including the Bar Association, the Jewish Congress, the Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Unions in Quebec, and so on. It is simple. First, two officers of the refugee board who are competent to decide upon all questions relating to refugees are to meet the person as soon as possible. All questions touched in this Act can be decided by those officers. Once they have made a favourable decision, he will be landed. When there is an unfavourable decision, there will be a review by another section of the same competent board just to catch any possible errors. It is recognized in discussion with the Department that that could be completed normally in three months. If the person used the right of appeal to the Federal Court, that could take longer. However, as I say, that not only relates to refugees, it is something which all Canadians claim as a right, the right of appeal to the Federal Court.
There is and has been before the Government for months a fair, quick, and efficient system for recognizing real refugees when they come to Canada. In accordance with our Charter, we have said that they must have an oral hearing before the person who will decide their fate. That hearing must not be on the question of from what country he comes, not on the question of what country he might have stopped in on the way, but on the question of the merits of his claim, that is, what happened to make him run away from his home or why does he think he is being persecuted or would be persecuted. That is what must be orally heard by the refugee board, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, not just the question of from what country he comes.
I ask the Government to withdraw the legislation, to sit down with members of the standing committee and other Members of Parliament, and to work out a revised form of it which would avoid the fatal flaws mentioned in the Liberal motion. I have tried to outline only a few of them in my few minutes.


Mr. Robinson:: I should like to commend the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), not only on his excellent speech but
May 12, 1987

for the terrific work he has been doing, since he was elected to the House, on the question of refugee policy in Canada.
My colleague referred to Canada's international obligations in respect of refugees. I know he has seen firsthand the tragic plight of refugees, in particular from Central America, who are seeking to flee tyranny and repression in those jurisdictions. Could he elaborate upon the extent to which Canada's international obligations will in fact be undermined as a result of the adoption of this legislation? To what extent will Canada be failing to meet the commitments it has made in the United Nations and in other international forums in this important area?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, because it is one which is apparently left obscure in the legislation and in the promotional documents that have been issued by the Government in support of its legislation.
Canada's obligation in the law of the United Nations and in law as adopted by Canada is non-refoulement, non-forcible return of a refugee to the country from which he is fleeing. According to law, that refoulement may not be done directly or indirectly.
In other words, when a Salvadoran comes to our border and says he had to get out because of what the police, the army or the death squad were doing around his home, not only is our obligation under international law and under Canadian law, as it stands at present, not to send him back to Salvador, it is also not to send the Salvadoran back to a country that will not guarantee us or guarantee the United Nations not to send him back to Salvador. The United States gives no such guarantee and yet Canada is prepared to send people back to the United States. There are many other countries that give no such guarantee. The Government has not mentioned that aspect of the law in its treatment of this act.
Non-refoulement is the primary obligation. In other words, when a person comes to Canada claiming protection, we do not send him away first and then say we would like some other country to find out whether he is a refugee, washing our hands of him. What we do is, first, find out whether he is a refugee. After we have heard his case, and he has had his appeal, if we decide he is not a refugee, then we are entitled to return him to his country of origin or country of embarkation, whichever will accept him.
What we must not do is to ship him back to a country which might, either without a hearing or with a mickey-mouse hearing, in which the United States has indulged for Salvadorans and Guatemalans, send him back to the very country he had to flee for the sake of his life. Even if we do not know whether he is a refugee, we are not entitled to take that risk with his life. We have to first determine whether or not he is a refugee before we make a decision about whether to deport him. If he is a refugee in our estimation, we do not have to keep him in Canada but we must-if we do not keep him in
Supply
Canada-find a country which will guarantee not to return him to the country he fled.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. The current situation is such that Canadian immigration officers at border points have been told to admit Salvadorans and Guatemalans immediately if they are under any kind of removal order from the United States Government. Is the Hon. Member implying there is something in the new legislation that would change that situation? Is there something that he sees that is not readily apparent to me? It seems to me that we might have a reasonable expectation that the current situation in that regard would, indeed, be very likely to continue.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is another very vital question, Mr. Speaker. The way the law is written, and I have read in Hansard the Minister claiming that this is not true and I have been told he said on The Journal that this is not true, but what I read in the law and what several quite experienced immigration lawyers read in the law is that if a Salvadoran comes to Canada from the United States, Canada by this law, if it has designated the United States as a safe country-and one will get you ten that the United States will be regarded as a safe country-the officers must return that Salvadoran to the United States. They do not have discretion. If a person came to Canada, perhaps not through a so-called safe country but from a country considered not a refugee producing country, those officers would have to return him. That can happen.
In 1982, a Guyanese person approached me. He had been refused refugee status by a refugee status advisory committee on the ground that he belonged to the government Party, that he belonged to the dominant race in Guyana. He tried to explain to them that even though he was on the police force he had been expelled from the force because he went to a political meeting of an opposition Party. In that country they do not disagree only in words, they disagree with actions and sometimes with fatal actions. He and his wife had been threatened. All of that was disregarded because at that time Canada refused to admit that Guyana, a former member of the Commonwealth, was a refugee producing country. Since then Canada has admitted that Guyana is a refugee producing country. I believe he was the second person to win such an appeal from Guyana. Under this act, officers would not even let him make the appeal. He would not have a refugee hearing. He would be told, "You are from a non-refugee producing country. Go home".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Weiner).


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to enter into a discussion that has so pre-occupied me, certainly for the last 10 or 11 months. I have had an opportunity to travel our countryside, more particularly in the last 30 days. I have been to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, London, and Toronto on

May 12, 1987
Supply
numerous occasions, Montreal and Ottawa. It was always with an effort to try to get a better feeling of how we are being perceived and what we are doing. One thing became eminently clear. There is a lot of understanding and sympathy for a government that, once and for all, is declaring clearly that it will protect those in need of protection.
We will be guaranteeing a safe haven for everyone who needs one. For those who already have a safe haven, there is less priority and they should be applying as immigrants and meeting the same fair and just criteria that all other intended immigrants have to meet. We have come up with a process that will protect those in need. We have a system that will treat claims fairly in three steps instead of eight.
An opposition Member, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), proudly looks to his Party's record in setting forth an inhumane policy of keeping tens of thousands of people here in the system without knowing what their future might bring them, without knowing whether their refugee determination would be positive or not. Indeed, once they knew what that determination was, in two out of three cases, after the eight steps, they are deemed not bona fide refugees, yet they would still be allowed to stay. That is not a refugee determination policy, that is an open door policy.
We are saying clearly that we are leaving the door open to legitimate refugees, and I want to emphasize that there is a door. We are not going to let anyone take that door off the hinges. We will act in a decisive way to welcome real refugees. We will curb abuse but we will plan and manage our resources effectively.
This heavy flow of phoney refugees has been accelerating in recent years. We know, for instance, that in the early 1980s there were some 1,800 claims a year; last year there were 18,000. In the early part of this year the number was running up to 1,500 a week. That was perceived to be unfair and unjust. That kind of chaotic system cannot be allowed to continue because chaos is unfair. People want fair and just criteria. This is a real world, not a theoretical world. It needs common sense solutions, not naivety. We are putting into place objective criteria, not subjective opinion.
I want to state clearly that we have a process that will give streamlined processing, quality oral hearings in front of independent board members and, as Members have indicated, appeal by leave to the Federal Court. We meet international obligations signed at Geneva. We respect our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We maintain our proud tradition, the proud tradition in evidence when Canada won, justly so, the Nansen Medal, and we will protect the integrity and the credibility of not only of our refugee policy but of our entire immigration system.
There have been some inaccuracies in what has been set forth this morning and it is incumbent upon me to try to clarify some of those.
We have a three-step process. Both members of the Opposition have constantly referred to step one as a prescreening. Step one of the new process is not a pre-screening. Pre-screening implies that decisions are made before claimants are in the system, before they have access to a member of the refugee board, and there is no consideration of their individual circumstances. We speak of step one as our initial screening, but it is a screening within the system.
The difference is not merely one of semantics. Unlike other countries in which there is pre-screening, every claimant in Canada appears in person before a member of the refugee board. Everyone who comes to a Canadian port of entry will be able to assert a claim to Canada's protection in an oral proceeding before a member of the independent refugee board and an adjudicator. If there is a case against a refugee, he or she will be entitled to be so informed and, with the aid of counsel, to respond.
There has been some discussion of the first step, but I can say clearly that there are two tests inherent in it. The first is the objective criteria: does the person have refugee status elsewhere, can the person be returned to a safe third country, are there manifestly unfounded claims, has the person previously been rejected by Canada recently and is the person subject to deportation order from Canada already. The second test is a very low-threshold test of credibility. The adjudicator and the independent board member listen to the story to see if there is a shred of a chance that this refugee is in fear of life, limb, liberty or security.
Hon. Members have asked if there is or is not discretion in this second test. I have said clearly that the second test is a very real test. Section 48(1-2) of the revised Act permits the referral to step two of some individuals who already hold refugee status in another country provided there is reason to believe that they have a well-founded fear of persecution in the country that has recognized them as refugees.
Similarly, where a claimant is alleged to have arrived from a safe third country, return is not automatic. Both the member of the refugee board and the adjudicator must be satisfied on the evidence produced that the person did come to Canada from a country prescribed by the Governor in Council as safe and that the claimant would, if removed from Canada, be allowed to return to or has a right to have a claim determined there.
That clearly shows that the two individuals involved in the very first step will listen to the representations of the claimant and his counsel in a very honourable way. At the same time, they will listen to other representations that may be made about whether or not the individual has come from a safe country. They will also look at any refugee status that has been established.
My hon. friend is taking issue with the safe country list that will be determined some time in the future. I have stated very clearly that it will be based on very stringent criteria. We are well aware that life and death is at stake here. Indeed, those
May 12, 1987

criteria include the human rights record of the country and its record in protecting all refugees as well as any nationals who can be excluded from the safe third country denomination we may place on the country.
In addition, there will be the widest consultation. We will seek the advice of all credible sources including NGOs, church groups, international humanitarian organizations and our own External Affairs people who serve us with distinction around the world. Indeed, there will be a new documentation centre that will serve this independent refugee board.
All of this is intended to provide us with the kind of up-to-date information Hon. Members want to have to ensure that before one individual can be returned to a country, there would already be an ad hoc arrangement between the countries, an arrangement which in some cases may have to be formalized. We would have to guarantee that the country to which we are sending a person has a record that is as good as ours in the protection of refugees and that that country will indeed not risk our reputation and our international obligations by returning the individual to his country of origin from which he has escaped.
I would have some difficulty with an individual who had fled his own country and was living in a second country in which he may have legal status for a period of time. It would appear to me that if such a person has been in a second country for a reasonable period of time, he would not continue to be a refugee if he were to begin looking around for a new home. He would definitely fall into an economic immigration category. A refugee is a person who finds the first safe haven and tries to make a go of it there with the protection it affords him.
Last week, proposals for a new refugee determination system were tabled. This is a system which reinforces Canada's commitment to refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution.

The new process includes a number of provisions that guarantee some refugees major rights. These rights are compatible with our obligations under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Above all, the process guarantees that no genuine refugee will be returned to a country where he fears persecution.

I have repeated throughout that a real refugee will never be sent back to face death or torture. Our system will always be open and will always guarantee that protection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Canada is and will continue to be a place of safe haven for genuine refugees who need our protection. This system upholds our commitment to these people, a longstanding commitment which is a vital element of a policy
Supply
which, since World War II, has enabled some 500,000 refugees to settle in Canada.
A good many people have commented on the Bill tabled by the Government. Most of those comments have been made by people with genuine concerns for whatever positions they have supported. Some comments have been favourable while others have raised the spectre of bigotry and prejudice, if not of racism, within our society. Other voices, including those of people who ought to know better, have suggested that these impulses are what motivated the Government to act as it has. Now the Opposition is putting forward a motion suggesting that we have failed to uphold Canada's humanitarian record.
By being firm, we are creating a hospitable environment. We are creating an environment that would allow our generosity to refugees to go unabated. We have heard about the 15 million refugees in the world and there is no limit to the contribution we can make by bringing real refugees to Canada if those resources are found either by Government or the private sector, public or non-governmental organizations or churches. Our generosity is clear through our contributions to international humanitarian agencies and our contributions to those who come to our country and receive fair and quick hearings at which they may tell us their stories. That generosity must go unabated.
On the other side, my officials, my staff and I have had extensive consultations across Canada in order to determine how we can raise immigration limits in the years to come. Recent studies have made clear the benefits immigrants bring to Canada, the jobs they create, the increased demands for goods and the greater tax share that new immigrants and refugees pay, even out of proportion to that paid by longer-standing Canadians. We have heard that in the very first year, new immigrants and refugees earn more than the national average income. These studies are available and have been conducted by universities and our own Department. That kind of data must be spread across Canada.
Some time in the month of June when I rise to tell of immigration levels, I am looking forward, with the consent of the Government and the Cabinet, to seeing those levels rise. If they do rise in a controlled and moderate fashion, we will be able to allow the limits for all categories of immigrants to rise, including independent immigrants, business investors and entrepreneurs and family-class immigrants. There has been considerable discussion over that class of immigrants. Indeed, we may also want to look at refugee limits. By doing that, we will show Canadians that we are being fair and just.
When criteria can be met, people will be welcomed. Let us not continue to send out the signal that if an immigrant does not meet the criteria, he can come through the back door and will be allowed to stay. That kind of unfairness has a very negative connotation and does not help in the management of immigration.

May 12, 1987
Supply
As Minister of State for Immigration I take those kind of charges personally. I can tell you that a second generation Canadian from Montreal, whose origin is Jewish and east European, whose family and himself would probably not be alive today were it not for coming to Canada, does not act out of motives of prejudice or racism, and does not serve in a Government in any way whatsoever influenced by such feelings.
Let there be no doubt that this Government's commitment to Canada's long and honourable tradition of refugee humanitarian assistance is 100 per cent solid. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have played leading roles in the western community, at the UN, in the Commonwealth, and other bodies, in championing human rights. They have been adamant and insistent that no compromise can be made when it comes to the dignity of man. They have argued compellingly that ideology means little to an empty stomach or body wasted through illness and disease.
Our international relief and development aid is among the most generous of all nations, some $2.2 billion in the last fiscal year. Such aid is being directed with ever better management and sensitivity to local needs. It is making a real contribution to the elimination of those root causes which ultimately create the refugee.
As I said before, since 1945 Canada has welcomed over
500.000	refugees. In 1986 the people of Canada were awarded the Nansen Medal by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for this commitment. That was the first time a country was so honoured. However, our work has not ended. We know that. We are but one country and this is a global problem.
The UN's approach to solving the world-wide refugee problem, an approach that Canada fully endorses, is threefold. First, the best option for some is to voluntarily return to their homeland when peace is re-established. A second option is local resettlement; and third, for a very limited number of refugees, resettlement in third countries.
Canada, as a signatory to the Geneva Convention, supports this approach. First, we make generous cash contributions through the Department of External Affairs and C1DA to international humanitarian agencies, including the Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, exceeding $50 million in 1986-87. We provide food aid to countries for assistance to refugees, the total value exceeding $16 million.
For those who can only be helped through resettlement, Canada is second only to the U.S. In 1987 we will resettle
12.000	refugees with financial assistance from the federal Government. Voluntary agencies and individuals sponsored
4.000	refugees in 1986. We anticipate 5,000 in 1987.
The Government helps match sponsors and refugees and provides travel loans. Sponsored refugees can access federal
language or occupational training. These resettlement efforts are complemented by a federal government fund of $90 million for transportation loans and federal assistance of $110 million to individuals for adjustment assistance and language training in 1986-87. In addition, we provide $4.4 million in grants to immigrant and refugee aid groups for settlement and adaptation in 1986-87. We must also support international efforts in solving the refugee problem while meeting our convention obligations through our refugee determination process. It is designed to help those who arrive looking for protection and who have nowhere else to go.
The Bill that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), tabled last week proposes a new streamlined refugee determination system to replace the process that has become bogged down. The system we have now cannot respond effectively to genuine refugees who need our protection. This new system guarantees that every refugee claimant will be seen by a member of the refugee board. The proposed system ensures that no genuine refugee will be returned to a country where he or she may face persecution. It also ensures that refugee claims will be processed fairly and quickly. It will now take only months to process a claim, not years.

The Bill provides for the creation of an independent agency: the Immigration and Refugee Board. This agency will consist of two divisions: an Appeal Division, dealing with immigration matters and a Refugee Division which will deal exclusively with claims for refugee status. Members will be selected for their competence in refugee matters.
The new process provides a number of safeguards for the individual, such as the right to counsel. Legal counsel will be provided if necessary. A list of safe third countries will be drawn up by Cabinet and the new Refugee Division will consist of members with special training in refugee matters.
The new Division will also have the resources to expedite the processing of claims, toward the obvious benefit of refugees who need our protection. Of course, all claimants will have the right to appeal to the Federal Court on questions of law.

It offers fair and thorough consideration of all claims. There will be an informed and independent decision up front to determine the need for a full hearing of the claim. This will be accomplished through the creation of an independent refugee board. Its expert members will see every claimant.
It will also be able to respond effectively to abuse by quickly removing those who do not need Canada's protection. People with refugee status elsewhere and people arriving from safe third countries who had a reasonable opportunity to claim protection will be returned to those countries. People with no arguable basis for their claims will be returned to their country of origin. A unanimous decision is required to remove these people. This means Canada will be able to concentrate on helping those who have no other options in seeking protection.
May 12, 1987

Those people with an arguable claim or who do not have prior protection will be referred to the refugee board for an oral hearing. At the board their claims will be heard in a nonadversarial oral hearing before a two-member panel. Only one member of the panel must find in favour of the claimant. In other words, split decisions will be in favour of the claimant. Decisions will now be rendered in months, not years, and accepted claimants will have the right to apply for permanent residence.

The provision concerning return to a safe third country will be applied only with the greatest discretion, and only to persons who received refugee status in another country or who are likely to receive it. The provision will be applied on a case-by-case basis, after careful screening of a country's record with respect to certain nationals.

In designating safe third countries Cabinet will rely on information received from credible sources, as I indicated.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I may point out that this Bill reflects the Government's unswerving commitment to refugees. It represents a balanced approach Canadians can understand and accept, without detracting from the traditional humanitarian approach to refugees taken in our Immigration Program.
The process is fair. It is fair to genuine refugees, to claimants and to Canadians. In the case of genuine refugees, it puts an end to the delay and uncertainty to which they were exposed, and it maintains the intrinsic character of our Immigration Program.
The new process compares favourably, at the international level, with the situation in other countries that receive refugees. It enables us to meet our obligations under the United Nations Convention, to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Human Rights, and to maintain our traditional humanitarian approach.

In short, this legislation ensures that Canada's outstanding humanitarian record will continue. It affirms this Government's commitment to protect genuine refugees who need our help. Finally, it demonstrates our resolve to curb abuse.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister finished by saying that this refugee legislation, Bill C-55, will continue the proud humanitarian record of our country. He suggests that it enjoys popularity and agreement across the land. If that is the case, can the Minister tell us why Tom Clark from the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees would say:
Supply
Instead of access there is a screen, instead of bringing Canada a notch ahead of European countries, the immigration minister has brought it down to their level. It's despicable.
Michael Schelew, Amnesty International:
It's an about-face on Canada's humanitarian record, that may place people fleeing persecution in jeopardy.
Elie Wiesel, Nobel laureate:
I believe that a society can be measured and judged by its attitude towards strangers ... I would hope that Canada would like to be measured according to these lofty rules. I say Canada should lead by example.
Lome Waldman, Canadian Jewish Congress:
The long-term aim of the immigration department is to eliminate all refugee claims within Canada. The Government has spent millions of dollars and innumerable hours consulting on this problem, and everyone's recommendations have been ignored altogether.
Gunther Plaut said:
It does not do justice to our international obligation to protect refugees. Nazi Germany would qualify as a safe country under Canada's proposed new refugee rules. 1 don't think I would have been let in, I came in the 1930s from Nazi Germany. The Government is building a Berlin Wall around the country.
Those are quotes from leaders and representatives across the country. The last, Gunther Plaut, was the author of a Government-commissioned study on refugees. I would like the Minister to address those comments.
Why have the abuses, the schemes and scams intensified during his term in Government? The abuses which are happening in Lebanon, Portugal, Turkey and Brazil are happening under his administration as they happened under no previous administration. Why the increase in abuse? If the Minister is very intent on curbing abuse, why is he so lax in prosecuting the individual perpetrators and unscrupulous consultants who are reaping a fortune from the backs of individuals who do not know any better?
Can the Minister explain what a safe third country is? He has avoided that in Question Period and in committee hearings. I urge him now on the floor of the House of Commons to tell Parliament, and through Parliament, Canadians, what the definition of a safe third country is. Does he have the courage to tell us whether the United States is a safe country vis-a-vis Guatemalans and El Salvadorans and whether Great Britain is a safe country vis-a-vis Tamils? Would he place those countries on our so-called safe country list?
Finally, with regard to the pre-screening application, if he is genuinely sincere that this is not a pre-screening, why did he appoint one officer from the refugee board and one immigration adjudicator rather than having both officers at the border point from the refugee board?
In addition, when he talks about increasing immigration is he talking about increasing targets or increasing the actual number of people entering the country? While his targets have been high, the number of people who have come into this country is considerably lower than those targets. I urge him to stop playing politics with targets and to come clean with

May 12, 1987
Supply
Canadians by telling us what are the real numbers. It is useless to have lofty targets of 115,000, 120,000, or 125,000 people when only 80,000, 85,000 or 90,000 people will actually be coming into Canada.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I have met and will continue to meet many of the individuals whom my hon. friend has named. I look forward to seeing some of them at the meeting which will take place in Montreal at the end of the month, which the Council of Refugees will host. I continue to work with all groups to explore avenues of being more helpful to the real refugees of the world. Let us not try to exploit the situation. Let us try to manage our resources in order to help them.
The Member talks about the unscrupulous counsellors. That highlights the fact that the citizens of at least three countries in the top six source-producing countries of claimants do not appear to be refugee producing. While we have not blamed the innocent citizens who have come here from Portugal or Turkey, and now from Brazil from where there are three flights a week, it is obviously the system, the eight steps, the guarantee that they will be allowed to stay here, which is encouraging them to come.
Forty thousand claimants came during that five-year period and followed the eight-step process. The determination took years. After that time only 650 were asked to leave. That is a 98.5 per cent chance of staying. If you cannot meet the criteria will you wait your turn like other honour-bound law-abiding citizens, or are you going to try to jump the queue? Are you going to try to buy a ticket? Will there be an unscrupulous counsellor who will try to subvert the credibility of our immigration laws?
We have been acting in a very immediate and spontaneous fashion on the information that these innocent people have been bringing forward. We have provided all the assistance we can. We have gathered that information and turned it over to the RCMP who continue to investigate. As each investigation is complete it is turned over to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). As far as I am concerned, any infringements are now in another jurisdiction. We look forward to action when the investigation is complete.
The Hon. Member for York West wants more information about safe third countries. He wants to discuss hypothetically the list of countries which Cabinet will be providing in the near future, based on very stringent criteria and the advice which will be given. I do not think anyone can be any more sensitive to the unacceptable human rights standards which are prevalent in the world today than is our Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has spoken out with great distinction everywhere he has travelled on how deplorable those human rights conditions are and how that affects our bilateral relations. He tells those countries to clean up their act once and for all.
We continue to maintain that the answer to the refugee problem is not to bring all the refugees to Canada. That is not the priority of the U.N. or of Canada. Our priority is to create
a peaceful and humane situation in the countries of origin. We want to enable them to return to their homeland and help them build up their socio-economic conditions. We will do all of those things.
The Member continues to maintain that my first step is some kind of pre-screening. I ask him to reread what I said because it is clear that it is step one. It is filled with discretion. There are two criteria, the first being objective and the second a very low threshold, low standard test. If an individual who makes a claim fears for his life, limb, liberty or security, he will be sent to step two for the beginning of a hearing within 10 days.
With regard to the levels for immigrants, the 125,000 which we indicated for 1987 will be met. I have received a report on the early part of the year and we are running right on schedule. The previous Government closed the door to independent immigrants. We reopened the door on January 1, 1986. It takes time for the independents to start applying again. It takes time to fill up the pipe. All of that is taking place. That is perhaps why last year we only reached 97,000 or 98,000, but we will continue to build the numbers.
We look forward with vision and vigour to the future when more immigrants will be brought to this country to continue to build our society with fairness and opportunity for all. That is what the greatness of this country is all about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I have the consent of the House to proceed with two more short questions or comments before we recess?
Some Hon. Members Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question relating to a section which the Hon. Minister quoted. Although I listened carefully I was not able to find the section. I would, however, like to comment on his remarks if he could cite that section for me. The Hon. Minister quoted it with regard to the claim that the two representatives at the border will be able to make discretionary decisions on the merits of the claim.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I quoted Section 48(1-2) in commenting on Section 48.1(a). It is clear that that is a notwithstanding clause. In addition, without trying to fine tune this piece of legislation, there is before the House a Bill which Members of Parliament will have an opportunity to examine further at committee. That is what Parliament is all about. That is the democratic system.
I certainly look forward to constructive input. There will be other forums, the House at third reading stage and the Senate. We look forward to the co-operation and help of all Members to get through the Bill in a speedy fashion.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, may I make the comment which I asked for leave to make? Subsection 4 provides what the refugee division shall consider evidence adduced at the inquiry, and it refers to two matters which have nothing to do with the individual case. It is clear from the way it is worded there,
May 12, 1987

where it states "regarding", not "including", that if the two qualifications mentioned in Clause 4(a) and Clause 4(b) are not met, then the two representatives may consider it their duty to hear no other matter. That is the point to which I wish the Minister would respond.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will allow the question by the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) and the Minister can reply to both.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, my constituents strongly support an orderly refugee determination process. That is particularly the case if they are in the category of constituents who have family in other countries whom they would like to bring here. They want to make sure that no one is jumping the line and that they have the right to bring in their relatives on an equal basis, with no one getting ahead of them. At the same time they want to make sure there are no genuine refugees who are sent back to a country where their lives will be in peril.
I recall a time in 1979, during the Clark Government, when we were faced with a great number of Vietnamese boat people wanting to come to this country. At that time the Government encouraged the private sector, churches and non-governmental organizations to sponsor these refugees in great numbers.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will the Government be undertaking a program of advertising and encouragement in order to try to get the church groups and non-governmental organizations, many of whom are raising concerns now about genuine refugees, to sponsor refugees so that we can solve this problem in a way they want to do it, but in an orderly and legitimate fashion?
Second, in addressing the problem of immigration targets as the Minister indicated he will be doing in June, is he prepared to broaden the definition of family class at that time for other immigrants to this country?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, currently there are some 72 agreements with parent organizations and umbrella organizations, all of which are intended to help fund some of the refugees who will be brought to this country. I indicated that some 5,000 will come in under that program.
Indeed, some 20,000 designated refugees and others under the humanitarian programs will come to Canada in 1987. We are constantly looking for ways of maximizing the benefit of the resources we put into this area.
In a world with 15 million refugees, it is very clear that we are trying to help those in most desperate need, and 20,000 out of 15 million is like winning the lottery.
We are working aggressively to indicate to the community that there is no ceiling to the number of refugees who can be brought here, provided they are prepared to pay for and sponsor them after we have helped pick them.
Indeed, we are also looking at other options of managing refugee programs. As part of our consultation on over-all
levels, when we allow the numbers to rise-if we can do that with the consent of the House and the Government-obviously we will look at all categories. One area to which we must respond, and will, is the concern for the family. The standing committee asked me to respond and we actually deferred to spring the decision on that. However, we are examining this area within the levels we will bring to the country.
I have said clearly that if we increase the numbers we should do so by allowing all categories to be opened fairly to dependants, business investors, entrepreneurs and, indeed, refugees, if possible, since there are some resource implications. There may be more innovative ways of proceeding. Hopefully it will allow the family class to be expanded somewhat.
I undertand the Hon. Member's comments. I heard those same remarks from families right across the country who indicate the importance of reuniting families much more expeditiously and completely.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is again trying to fine tune whether, in the first step, the adjudicator and the independent refugee board member have any discretion. I clearly stated in a previous response to a question by the Member for York West that there is that discretion. Indeed, the Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) raised a question of privilege, which is now in your good hands, and we continue to maintain that there is that discretion and the ability to test the credibility of the witness. If one of the Members feels that an individual is in danger, there is the ability to refer the individual to the full oral hearing in a non-adversarial way before the independent convention refugee determination board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.16 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.16 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, with deep regret we learned last week that La vie en rose magazine would be suspending operations for at least six weeks and that it might even stop publishing for an indefinite period.
Despite the financial support of its readers, both men and women, and of the federal Government last fall, unfortunately La vie en rose has been unable to erase its deficit. We deplore as well the lay-off of a good many of its employees.

May 12, 1987
We have to be concerned about the possible demise of this feminist and francophone publication, Quebec's equivalent of Ms Magazine in the United States. Almost the only one of its kind in Quebec and Canada, La vie en rose featured different, original and invariably topical viewpoints. Of some concern as well is the fact that its English equivalent, Winnipeg's Horizons, closed its doors last March. The disappearance of these two avant-garde magazines is a considerable loss. These closures do not augur well for other similar publications in Canada. Now and then the message conveyed by La vie en rose may have upset our intellectual comfort, but it did stimulate reflection, the only guarantee of the evolution of our mentalities.
Therefore La vie en rose, like many others, deserves the support of all of us, and again especially that of the federal Government. As the authoritative voice of women's opinion La vie en rose must continue to publish, for its existence can only benefit our cultural mentalities.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 11, 1987, Danylo Shumuk, a former Ukrainian prisoner, was granted permission by Soviet authorities to emigrate to Canada and join his family in Vernon, British Columbia. Having served more years in detention than any other prisoner of conscience, Danylo Shumuk has endured 40 of his 72 years in the prison system of the Soviet Union. During the past five years he served as an "internal exile" in the Soviet Asian Republic of Kazakhstan and the 35 years prior to that in various concentration camps in the Soviet Union.
It has taken the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Canadian Government 10 years to achieve freedom for this innocent man. I would like to add my voice in support of those who continue to pursue the rights of individuals who are victims of oppression, and to condemn those who violate human rights wherever they might occur in the world.


DISASTERS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, with great regret I bring to the attention of the
House the sinking yesterday of a herring boat off the coast of New Brunswick. I know Members of the House will want to express their condolences to the families and friends of crew members who were lost.
Fishing is one of Canada's most dangerous occupations. Those who work upon the sea have a constant awareness that disaster and death are an ever present possibility. With the introduction of new fishing technology, the number of fishermen lost at sea has increased. Fishermen must be given the knowledge and training to look after their own safety.
The Grey Report on occupational health and safety in the Atlantic fishery found the position of all Atlantic provinces to be similar. They would welcome a federal initiative on safety in the fishing industry. They wish to be involved in its development. They see a need to review existing regulations, and recognize education as the key.
I repeat my call to the Government to put in place the best possible fishing vessels' safety program before any more lives are lost.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Last Thursday, May 7, Mr. Speaker, Val-d'Or was the site of a unique event in Quebec, the meeting of the five Northwest Quebec regional Chambers of Commerce where the Abitibi-Temiscamingue businesswomen of the year awards were presented.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to salute and pay tribute to Mrs. Gertrude Bradley of Rouyn-Noranda, Mrs. Micheline Tremblay of Amos, Mrs. Murielle Baril of La Sarre, Mrs. Suzanne Langevin of Temiscamingue, and Mrs. Diane Cote-St-Julien of Val-d'Or, the wife of the Hon. Member for Abitibi in this House, who were presented with the businesswomen of the year award in their respective region.
Mr. Speaker, through these award winners we want to commend all Abitibi-Temiscamingue women for their economic, social and cultural contribution, because they all play a significant role in our collective betterment.
It is primarily to their enthusiasm, their competence and their leadership that Abitibi-Temiscamingue happens to be the most dynamic region of Quebec.
To all these women, bravo and thank you!
May 12, 1987


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, because of the time factor, I did not have a chance to speak to the subject yesterday, but today, I would like to point out that I am proud, both as a Canadian and a Quebecer, to join my leader and my colleagues in the Liberal Party in congratulating the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers on concluding an agreement that will enable Quebec to come back to the Canadian family.
I particularly appreciated the speech made by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). His parliamentary experience, acquired in Quebec and Ottawa, shone through in a speech that was clear and unambiguous, a message where reason and passion were in complete harmony.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) on the excellence of his speech. It is my view that in a debate like the one we had yesterday, there is no room for political partisanship, and that we must acknowledge the efforts of each Member, regardless of his political affiliation.
An opportunity like this one, to enable Quebec to sign the Constitution Act, 1982, is not an everyday occurrence. I hope to have a chance to express my personal views on the subject in this House before the official signing of the Accord by the First Ministers.



Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, reports of the differences of opinion in the Liberal caucus yesterday indicate a return to name-calling and a portrait of Quebec in two camps. Such is not the case. I believe most Quebecers support the position taken by the editorial board of The Gazette when it said:
It is a matter of ensuring that the members of one-quarter of the Canadian
polity believe their interests are served by their country's fundamental law, and
that the rest of the country has cared enough to take these interests into
explicit, binding account.
Special attention is given in the Meech Lake Accord to the national characteristic of French and English-speaking minorities in Canada. This is of particular importance to the English-speaking community in Quebec.
The commitment of the federal and Quebec Governments to respect the linguistic characteristics of our community will, I
believe, assure fairness and good will in the use of both official languages of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a situation which I think is typical of how the Conservative Government of Canada is approaching services to the people of the country. It is dragging the level of service down to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to improve the situation.
I refer to the direct mail unit for the Canada Employment and Immigration Centre in Thunder Bay which services all of northwestern Ontario. Up until one week ago unemployment insurance cards were key-punched in Thunder Bay and sent electronically to the regional printing centre in Belleville. These cards were then back in the mail the next morning and were in the hands of legitimate UI recipients on Thursday at the earliest.
Thanks to this bureaucratic change those cards are now processed directly to Belleville, meaning great delays for the people of northwestern Ontario. People who normally would receive their cheques on a Thursday or a Friday are now having to wait over the weekend, if not longer, and the situation is getting worse.
I call this decision into question. I also call into question the Government's commitment to the local advisory councils which have strongly recommended against this change. But the Government has refused to listen to them.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Leszek Moczulski, a Polish Solidarity leader, is visiting Ottawa today. His credentials as a human rights activist are impressive and include the formation of the Movement for the Defence of Human and Civil Rights, as well as major contributions to freedom of expression through the underground press in Poland.
In 1980 Moczulski was arrested for his human rights activities and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in a general amnesty in 1984. He was then rearrested a year later, along with other Solidarity leaders.
While in prison Moczulski suffered three heart attacks, and following his release in 1986 he was allowed to travel to England for medical treatment. He has paid a high price in

May 12, 1987
freedom's cause. Moczulski's visit provides us with the opportunity to hear firsthand of the repressive conditions in Poland and of the important work carried out by Solidarity in its fight for basic human rights.
Moczulski's courage and dedication in the face of stern opposition are inspirational, and his words give us pause to reflect on the good fortune we enjoy in this free and democratic nation.
I hope my colleagues will join with me in welcoming Mr. Moczulski to Canada and in expressing our gratitude for his tremendous contribution to the cause of freedom and human rights.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to bring to the attention of the House a problem confronting our independent fish buyers. According to the garnishment provision in Section 224 of the Income Tax Act, fish buyers can be directed by Revenue Canada to collect income tax from certain fishermen.
The fish buyers point out that this process creates costly and time-consuming bookkeeping which hinders a normally quick business transaction. It is a financial burden as well because the buyers must make a percentage payment to the Government even before they are able to deduct payments for any accounts owed to them by fishermen.
There is an additional risk because the buyers alone are responsible if mistakes are made in the collection process. Finally, the process has created unfair competition between buyers. When a fisherman is faced with tax collection from one buyer, he often chooses another buyer instead, to avoid the tax deductions.
It is for these reasons that these fish buyers urge the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) to develop an alternative system of tax collection for fishermen. If this cannot be done, at least the Government should provide adequate financial compensation to these fish buyers for their services.
I urge the Minister to resolve the matter in consultation with independent fish buyers. I look forward to his decision.


POLICE WEEK
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to recognize Police Week. I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize the efforts of the Canadian police community and, in particular, to focus attention on the development of community-based policing in Canada.
Community-based policing is not a new idea. In one form or another it has been a key element of the police philosophy for a long time. I am pleased to note that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) is also a strong supporter of community-based policing initiatives.
We must not rest on our laurels, however. There is much more to be done. In coming years we must renew our efforts to ensure that all Canadian communities benefit from what we have learned.
We must look closely at the needs of young people who are at risk of conflict with the law. We must give more attention to crimes of violence, abuse, and exploitation. We must give particular attention to the protection of women, the elderly, ethnic minorities, and our children.
We must work together with our colleagues in municipal and provincial Governments, in police forces, in other federal Departments, and in the non-governmental sector, to develop police and community prevention programs and to assist the business community and private citizens to implement crime prevention strategies.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) met with Premier Vander Zalm two months ago to seek his support in setting aside South Moresby as a national park reserve. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) have chosen this area as the highest priority in Canada for designation as a national park reserve. Premier Vander Zalm recognized this and, in the March 9, 1987 Speech from the Throne, promised to expedite negotiations and to seek a bilateral agreement to develop the enormous tourism potential of the area.
Since that time Conservative Members of Parliament from British Columbia have worked hard to discredit the proposal and to undermine the work of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment. This activity has fostered bad faith negotiations to the point where B.C. now proposes 10 more years of logging throughout South Moresby and a price tag of over $100 million for what would be left.
Canadians and the Haida nation have a right to know just how duplicitous some B.C. Tory MPs and Social Credit
May 12, 1987

members are when it comes to South Moresby. They publicly preach about the values of preservation and parks while they smugly support clear-cut logging throughout South Moresby.
This week is perhaps the last chance for the Prime Minister to bring order to this political chaos. If Bill Vander Zalm gave the Prime Minister his word and this is the highest priority of the federal Government, it is time for a call from the Prime Minister to Victoria and to those B.C. Tory MPs.


NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, "Canada grows with tourism" is the theme of Canada's First National Tourism Week which has been proclaimed from May 11 to May 17.
In making this announcement, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) has emphasized the important role played by the travel industry in the national economy. It is a $20 billion business and creates some 600,000 jobs throughout Canada. Last year Canada welcomed over 16 million visitors, and the potential exists for rapid expansion right across the land.
Therefore, let us all become tourism ambassadors and help those in the hospitality industry to achieve even greater success in the years to come.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, like the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin), I was unable to express my views on the constitutional question. Today, I therefore rise in my seat to congratulate the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) on his position and his open attitude to Quebecers, and for having responded favourably to the legitimate claims presented by the Government of Robert Bourassa. Mr. Speaker, after he took this position and made this speech, I think Quebecers will be able to say: John Turner is one of ours, a true Quebecer and a great Canadian.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, former Liberal Finance Minister, Donald Macdonald, once known as the thorniest Grit in the Rosedale garden, launched a scathing attack recently on the Liberal Party for failing to stake out a comprehensible position on free trade.
He specifically lashed out at the Liberal trade critic for whipping up anti-American sentiment with an uninformed, politically motivated campaign against free trade talks with the United States.
In discussing the present Liberal caucus, he stated:
Some of them don't know anything, and you can't tell them anything.
In Mr. Macdonald's words:
Manitoba MP Axworthy represents the worst of both worlds. I've debated on
platform with Axworthy across the country and I just don't think he's got a
sound grasp of the issue and I also think he's engaged in purely political
posturing.
Since the brains of the Liberal Party seem to be solidly in favour of a free trade agreement, my advice to the Liberal Caucus is get on the ball or get on the bus.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, last year the House of Commons passed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. One of those amendments was to increase quite substantially disability benefits for a number of Canadians who, it was recognized, have been living in abject poverty because of the low benefit structure under the CPP.
Those amendments were the product of negotiations between the federal Government and provincial Governments. The negotiations, I would assume, took place under good faith bargaining. What has happened since those amendments came into effect on January 1 of this year is that provincial Governments have been adjusting their welfare programs in order to grab those benefits that were passed by this House for disabled Canadians. As a result, I have a letter from one woman in British Columbia who, because of what provincial Governments have done, has received a net increase in disability benefits of $4.09 a month rather than the $152 which she would otherwise have received.

May 12, 1987
Oral Questions
It is time that the Government called on provincial Governments and demanded that they pass on the benefits to which disabled Canadians are entitled.


DISASTERS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in three weeks, the sea has claimed victims. Late Sunday night and early Monday morning, four fishermen from our region saw their ship sink and subsequently drowned. They were fishing herring off the coast of Escuminac, near the mouth of the Miramichi River.
The bodies of Joachim Chevarie, Olivier Frigault and Fernand Ouellette were picked up out of the water, but the body of Joseph Vautour, the captain, has not been found.
I knew Joseph Vautour well. A brave man like all fishermen in my region who must wrest a living from the sea. This tragedy reminds us of the conditions under which fishermen must work to earn a living. Danger is a constant companion.
It is with profound sadness that I offer the bereaved families my condolences and the condolences of those around me. These families will be going through some difficult moments, and I wish them all the courage they will need to overcome this ordeal.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, to my amazement, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in Vancouver that any AIDS campaign in high schools is "in their provincial jurisdiction". In reply to that I said in Vancouver that AIDS did not respect provincial boundaries.
Will the Prime Minister not agree that a nation-wide school program is needed because it is a national concern, and not just a concern of 10 provincial education ministries?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely it is a problem that is national in concern and that it deserves a national commitment by all levels of Government and by all people in Canada who are interested in dealing with a very serious not only medical but social problem which deserves our greatest commitment.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MOBILIZE NATIONAL EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of that response and I want to follow it up. The Prime Minister knows that AIDS is not only a national but an international plague. I am deeply disturbed by the prudish attitude of many Canadians. There is a fear that the political backlash is preventing an all-out national attack on AIDS.
I am not interested in academic arguments about what is appropriate on television or in the print media. I am sure we can find the right ethical message. Will the Prime Minister not intervene with the Minister and with all provincial Governments to mobilize a national strategy and campaign for educating Canadians, and particularly younger Canadians, to prevent the spread of AIDS in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand what the Leader of the Opposition means when he refers to the prudish attitude of Canadians.


John Napier Turner: Some Canadians, I said.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Some Canadians. I suppose it is always the case in a pluralistic society that some of us are more prudish than others.
In regard to the question he has raised, I agree with my right hon. friend that this is a matter of grave national consequence. I raised it with President Reagan at the summit here because of the international research implications. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I will be attempting to lock in other nations to both research and methods of arresting the spread of this debilitating and killer disease. It is a human problem that deserves the resolve of the nation to try to bring it to a halt.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister raised the issue with the President. If he would raise it now with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, we may get somewhere. It is an urgent issue.


ELABORATION OF NATIONAL STRATEGY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about preventing the spread of AIDS. Some community groups have said quite clearly that the Government of Canada is not setting up a campaign or a national strategy to prevent AIDS and to prevent its spread. Once again, I want to ask the Prime Minister when this national strategy organized by the Department of National Health and Welfare will see the light of day and when this campaign will be launched with the necessary dispatch and in a manner that is visible and concrete?
May 12, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is not in the House today, has demonstrated great leadership in the social sphere, including the very important question of AIDS, research, and how to fight AIDS. He is working very closely with the provinces who have specific jurisdiction over and a special responsiblity in this area, but I can assure you that the will and the resources required to undertake this great national and provincial offensive against such a serious disease will not be lacking.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is dircted to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns tax reform. Some senior citizens I met on the week-end expressed their concerns about tax reform, because they remember how Old Age Security pensions were deindexed. Could the Prime Minister promise senior citizens that his Government will not take advantage of tax reform to put a surtax on Old Age Security pensions and tamper with the principle of universality?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the object of tax reform is in fact to lower taxes for the vast majority of Canadians and especially for lower-income Canadians. That commitment is clear, and details on how it will be done will be outlined on June 18.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. For the first time I feel like saying in English: Don't touch the senior citizens. Mrs. Denis watches you, Mr. Prime Minister.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES IN FAVOUR OF ELDERLY
Jean-Claude Malépart: My
supplementary for the Minister of State or the Prime Minister is as follows. The Prime Minister is aware that senior citizens are now allowed two tax exemptions, one because of their age, and one in terms of their pension income, which means they save $650 million annually in income tax. Could the Prime Minister promise senior citizens that whatever changes may be made as a result of tax reform, these $650 million will be used to upgrade programs for the elderly and not to reduce the deficit?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the Hon. Member this Government
Oral Questions
has brought in major changes to the pension system. That is the first important point. As to his particular concern, tax reform will make clear the position of that age and income group, and it would not be appropriate to reveal that before that time.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. There is a story on The Financial Times news service today about the proposed takeover of Dome Petroleum by Amoco. According to that report part of the secret information in the preliminary deal between the two companies could mean that the takeover could be finalized as early as the next 24 hours. Is the Government aware of the contention that one of the basic points of that agreement, if it is reached in the next 24 hours, is that any counter-bid from any other source could be effectively squelched?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I can only advise the Hon. Member that, according to the knowledge I have, there has been no formal deal presented either to Investment Canada or to Energy, Mines and Resources. Until such time it would be inappropriate to comment further.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, whoever is answering on this very important matter. The Government has always contended there was a possibility of counter-bids being considered. If this report is accurate and the signing takes place within the next 24 hours, that rules out any other possibility. Is the Government then going to stand back and let bankers in Toronto, financiers in Zurich, and company shareholders alone determine what the public interest should be in this crucial takeover?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the NDP said, "If this report is accurate". That is a very important qualifier. Until such time as all the facts are ascertained it is really inappropriate to comment on sheer speculation.
This decision has to be made by the shareholders of the company. They are in a position to make that decision. When it is made and the proposal is presented to the Government of Canada it will be examined in the normal course as it relates to Investment Canada, the Department of Consumer and

May 12, 1987
Oral Questions
Corporate Affairs, and all the other mechanisms in place for that purpose.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is not the portfolio of the Deputy Prime Minister but if the report is accurate then the possibility that counter-proposals could be considered by Dome down the road is effectively precluded.
Because the next 24 or 48 hours are crucial will the Government look into this report and, if it is accurate, finally take action and get involved to make sure the public interest is served? The public has already put hundreds of millions of dollars into Dome Petroleum.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Hon. Leader of the NDP gets so worked up about a question the basis of which is, "If the report is accurate". He should ascertain for himself whether the reports are accurate. I am sure the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and others, are monitoring the situation. This matter has to be resolved by the company and I am sure that in their wisdom they will take all these things into consideration. In the meantime it is very inappropriate to comment on sheer speculation and hypothesis.
[DOT] (M30)


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On May 5 I said that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was misleading the House when he said that an agreement between Amoco Canada and Dome Petroleum allowed for other bids to be made for Dome. The memorandum of agreement in fact prohibits other companies from making bids under the threat of a suit.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the Government's hands-off policy with respect to Dome has meant that high-priced lawyers of an American multinational are in fact setting Canada's foreign investment policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that it is the position of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to get into these things with both hands and both feet. That is not the position of the Government. The fact is that the Government has put in place institutions to protect the public interest and it will be protected through due process. I wish Hon. Members would wait until that due process takes its course.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government has feet of clay and is not prepared to stick up for the rights of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT INVESTMENT CANADA BE INSTRUCTED NOT TO APPROVE PURCHASE PENDING OTHER OFFERS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct Investment Canada not to approve Amoco Canada's bid for Dome Petroleum until all other reasonable bids have had a chance to come forward, or is he afraid that the American Government will lean on the Canadian Government for interfering, thus reducing substantially what success is left for Canada's free trade agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member should read the comments of his former colleague, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, who had some interesting points to make about the position of the Liberal Party with respect to free trade, before he makes silly statements like that.
When a proposal is presented to Investment Canada it will be examined in due course on the basis of net benefit to Canada. That is clearly established and totally consistent with the investment propositions which have been handled in the past, and this case will be handled in the normal fashion.


DOME-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who seems to think that the sale of $6 billion worth of Canadian resources is of no concern to his Government even though they will now be owned by a foreign firm. As a former Financial Times writer I can assure him that the report rests on solid ground. It is clear that the Dome-Amoco agreement in principle has been so drafted as to eliminate any opportunity for another Canadian company to make an offer for Dome. Does the Canadian Government approve such action on the part of Dome, the ultimate result being that it will be impossible to maintain Canadian control since no offer from a Canadian source will be accepted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again to the Hon. Member that there is a process which is followed. Investment Canada will examine the proposal when it is received, as will the Department of Finance and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I do not know why the Hon. Member does not have faith in these institutions because they are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the public interest is fulfilled.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT STUDY OTHER OFFERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime
May 12, 1987

Minister who takes the position that, once the agreement has been signed and delivered into American hands, everything will be under the control of a federal Government agency. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the fact that both Imperial Oil of Canada and TransCanada Pipelines have expressed interest in buying Dome, and is the Government prepared to guarantee that the bids of these two companies will be considered before the agreement is signed and delivered to Amoco?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have read reports, as has the Hon. Member, that there has been interest expressed by Imperial Oil and TransCanada Pipeline. I am sure that that would certainly be of interest to the management and shareholders of Dome. When such decisions are made and a clear transaction is put in place and submitted to the Government of Canada for approval it will be done consistent with the policies of the Government, Investment Canada, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Finance.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to whichever Minister is acting on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A court case began May 11 before Chief Justice McEachern in Smithers, B.C., with regard to the Gitksan-Wet'Suwet'en's aboriginal title issue. The native people need to put forward a strong case on their own behalf and urgently need government approval of funding for the case. Would the Minister indicate when such funding will be available?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been monitoring the situation very closely and has put the case of the need for funding before Cabinet in order that the case could go forward in Smithers yesterday. I can indicate on his behalf to the House that the funding which was approved by Cabinet was finalized today and will be going forward.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Last week the
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance said he was planning a multi-stage national sales tax combining federal and provincial Governments and that it could apply to food.
At this time farm input costs such as fertilizer, equipment, and farm chemicals are exempt from both federal and provincial sales tax. Can the Minister give a commitment today that he will not impose this national sales tax on farm input costs?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, questions of this sort which will continue until June 18 really are not appropriate. All these questions will be answered on June 18. However, in the interim I can say that the federal sales tax reform, which is an integral part of tax reform, has a core proposal of three mechanisms with different bases in them. If the Hon. Member has a preference for a mechanism or a base, I would be happy to hear about it.


FARM COMMUNITY'S CONCERN
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I only ask this question because I think it is causing a great deal of concern both in the farm community and among consumers. A national sales tax on farm input costs would not only be a hardship for farmers but would be a hardship on consumers because it would increase the price of food.
Why is the Government leaving the uncertainty as to whether it will increase the price of food by taxing farm input costs as well as by slapping a sales tax on food at the store?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the only uncertainty which is being created is that being created by the Hon. Member by raising this question. In the fullness of time the answers will be revealed. On June 18 we will have all the details which, I am sure, will be appropriate from the Hon. Member's point of view.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday Les Nouvelles TV A had a report concerning an American memorandum on free trade, a copy of which I have here.
Is it true, as the memorandum suggests, that Canada has indicated that henceforth it would not give subsidies to industries or certain companies?

May 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to watch the TVA telecast last night. I have not seen the memorandum mentioned by the Hon. Member, but the Government did not give the indications referred to by the Hon. Member.


FILM DISTRIBUTION-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the memo also says that Canada has agreed to define cultural industries as narrowly as possible. In view of this, will the Prime Minister respond today publicly to the ACTRA telegram to him which says that rumours that the Government will not introduce the film distribution restrictions that were promised are causing serious alarm? Is the Government committed to putting this legislation forward?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member and the House that the report to which he refers in the telegram is not accurate and the Government's intentions with regard to film policy remain unchanged.


APARTHEID
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will recall that in his statement to the United Nations on October 23, 1985, he said that if there was no progress in the dismantling of apartheid our relations with South Africa might have to be severed absolutely. He repeated that commitment last February during his trip to Africa.
Since that time we have learned that the South African Government has continued its civil violence, its raids on border states, and its curtailment of civil freedoms. Yet this morning we learned that the Government has accepted the accreditation of the South African Ambassador to Canada. Would it not be the appropriate time, with the changeover of ambassadors, for the Government to live up to the commitment the Prime Minister made on two separate occasions and to show we are prepared to take the strongest possible actions against the reprehensible actions of the South African Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the timing of the sending and accreditation of an ambassador is determined by the South African Government. The Hon. Member is suggesting that Canada's policy with respect to South Africa should be decided by the
timing of the South African Government. No wonder he is held in such high regard by Donald Macdonald.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I would only say to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs that the regard of the Catholic Bishops of Canada might be more important to him than the opinions of Mr. Macdonald on this matter.


Mr. McDermid:: What did they say?


Lloyd Axworthy: You know what they said.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us what they said.


SOUTH AFRICAN AMBASSADOR-PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this important matter, if he can focus his mind on it. Is it not the responsibility of the Government of Canada to determine whether it will accept those accreditations of the South African Government and to determine whether the acceptance of those accreditations themselves is a statement? In that respect, I refer him to the declaration he made last week concerning the continued raids on Zambia when he said that the Canadian Government must take the strongest possible action to condemn those unprovoked actions. Would it not have been the appropriate action to withhold accepting accreditation, showing our intent and our rejection of those types of initiatives?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the serious question, may I express the hope that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would be able to move fairly quickly to appoint a formal spokesman for External Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me deal with the very serious question of Canadian policy toward South Africa. We have indicated for some time that we intend to continue to try to apply pressure for change upon the Pretoria regime and at the same time maintain lines open that might allow us to take advantage of any inclination for change that might occur there. In our judgment, for the foreseeable future that involves maintaining embassies and diplomatic contact with South Africa.
We are discussing what other actions might be taken to try to bring about an end to the odious regime of apartheid. I discussed it as recently as Sunday during my meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Prime Minister, and I will be discussing it at the international summit in Venice. But we do not think it is time for Canada simply to give up and withdraw, which would be one of the
May 12, 1987

consequences of immediately cutting off our diplomatic and other relations with South Africa.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Why is the Minister trying to deny direct access to the Federal Court by any Canadian who thinks he has been harmed by a wrong decision of one of the Minister's officers? That is the effect of Bill C-55, Clause 83.1(1), which requires a person in that case to ask the Federal Court first for leave to appeal. Why does the Minister, in his haste to reduce the rights of refugees, also reduce the rights of all Canadians?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are putting forward a process that will protect those in need. I have indicated clearly that those who require a safe haven will be granted one. There is somewhat less priority for those who already have one and they should be making applications as independent immigrants.
We will be going from an eight-step process to a three-step process. We have done it with fairness and we are putting forward a system that will do it quickly. There are steps whereby individuals will be heard.


JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this concerns the rights of all Canadians and not only refugees who come to Canada. Considering that the privilege of anyone who believes he has been wronged by an official to go to the Federal Court to have it corrected exists now in the Federal Court and the Federal Court Act, without the limitation of asking for leave, will the Minister not leave the Federal Court jurisdiction untouched even if it should mean giving a refugee the same rights in law as a Canadian?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we had a system that was not working. The heavy flow of phoney claimants was unfair. The chaotic system had to be managed and put in order. We have established that order. We want to curb the abuse and manage our resources effectively. That is what will be done.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The media report that the Bank of Canada, the National Research Council, the Department of Transport, and Supply and Services Canada have been accused of breaking the law by dumping toxic refuse or toxic products in the Ottawa River. The federal Government's plea before the court is that provincial legislation does not apply to the federal Government. Does the Minister endorse this position, and what will he do to settle the matter so that federal Departments and agencies respect the law?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is because we are concerned about matters of this kind that the federal Government has brought in, on a draft basis initially, and I hope for first reading in the House before long, a broadly based environmental protection Bill which will include many of the facets called for in the very question he has raised.
Concerning the matter he has brought to the attention of the House, we are working hand-in-glove, as a Department and a Government, with all the relevant provincial and municipal authorities.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I submit that new laws do not stop the application of the present laws. The Government has to clean up its act.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take any action today to clean up the Ottawa River which is being polluted by federal government Departments and agencies, in direct conflict with laws of the Province of Ontario?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, part of the over-all effort we are making, which includes tougher laws, is stiffened enforcement and compliance. To the extent that individual sources of pollution are within the federal government's jurisdiction, the heavy hand of the law will be brought down on them just as on any other sources of pollution.

May 12, 1987
Oral Questions HEALTH


USE OF DEPO-PROVERA FOR CONTRACEPTIVE PURPOSES
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I understand from his officials that the report of the Special Advisory Committee on Depo-Provera has been in the Minister's Department for several months and that it approves use of this drug for contraceptive purposes. Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the report and will he delay making any decision until he meets with the coalition of 62 women's groups who have not been heard and are very concerned about the side effects of this drug?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that this issue has been in my Department for several months. Of course that is correct. That is where the assessment of all drugs for notice of compliance takes place. I have had no recommendation from them yet.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO CONCERNED WOMEN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I very much hope that the Minister will read this report, or bring it forward very quickly. When the Minister receives this information will he make it available to the coalition on Depo-Provera so that women who are very, very concerned about their own health with regard to this drug will have this essential information? Will the Minister also meet with them since they were deprived of any chance to meet with the task force when it went across Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member's points are not correct. What she wants this Minister to do is to interfere in the regulatory process. I have met with various groups regarding Depo-Provera and D.E.S. There were also committees then established even beyond the regular process for a notice of compliance so that information could be brought forward as well.
However, the Hon. Member will have to decide once and for all whether she wants to have interference at the political level every time a request is made for a notice of compliance, or whether she wants this Minister to allow officials and the legislation to work, as he will continue to do, and when they have done their work I will get a recommendation and then a decision will be made.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Minister is aware, the 23-year-old nuclear reactor in Hanford, Washington, near the Canada-U.S. border, is scheduled for restart this summer following a six-month shutdown for safety enhancement purposes. In light of the concerns being expressed by Canadians about the safety of this aging reactor, and a recent U.S. Senate committee recommendation that the reactor be restarted only during a national security crisis, will the Minister tell the House what actions are being taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that Canadians living near Hanford are not threatened in any way by the future operation of this reactor?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I know of his deep interest, and that of other Hon. Members in the House, in the Hanford reactor. We have made representations to the United States. We have received guarantees that the reactor will not be restarted until safety modifications have been concluded. I also expect there will be an undertaking with regard to environmental impact assessments before any restart.


FILM INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In February the Minister of Communications announced her new policy to promote the Canadian film distribution industry. Last week she reaffirmed that American pressure would not intimidate her to abandon that policy. On Friday the Minister for International Trade confirmed that the legislation would be introduced.
Is the Prime Minister now backing away from the commitments his Ministers have made to the Canadian film distribution industry? Is he bearing down or bearing under or collapsing under American pressure? Is he being intimidated by the Hollywood producers? If not, why is a Canadian film policy not in this House as legislation now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the question was that the Prime Minister reportedly has killed legislation that would et cetera-that story is false.
May 12, 1987


REQUEST THAT POLICY BE TABLED
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Communications. Can he confirm that the Government has not abandoned its film distribution policy? And will he make a commitment to table this policy before the end of June?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it was false in English, it is false in French.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board who, I am sure, is aware of what is happening in the United States with regard to the growing fuel ethanol industry. He is probably aware of the part ethanol and ethanol-methanol blends could play in helping to alleviate Canada's current agricultural crisis, and also helping to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
Since the Minister is responsible for finding markets for Canadian grain, and since there is an ethanol distillation plant in his own riding, what is he doing to promote this environmentally clean, reasonably priced fuel? And why have we not seen any action from the Government on something which could be a major alternative market for Canadian grain?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an interesting question. It is true that in the last number of years there have been some improvements in the enzymes which convert not only grain but other organic matter into alcohol. We are looking at that and have some work presently under way. However, the Hon. Member will know that the question more accurately, as far as the energy side is concerned, falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I will certainly take the energy part of his question as notice and see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is aware of it when he returns to the House.


POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE MARKET FOR GRAIN
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, aware of the continuing research, but I would point out to the Minister who is, after all, from Manitoba, that ethanol and ethanol-methanol blends are currently used in Canadian gasoline production streams. Is the Minister prepared to stand up for the Canadian farmers in their search for an alternative market? Or is the market for octane
Oral Questions
enhancers in Canada going to be sold out to the multinational oil companies?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the latter part of the Hon. Member's question has any relevance whatsoever. As I have said, it is a question which is now being looked at in light of improvements, mainly in enzymes. The Hon. Member will also know that previously some of the calculations on the production of alcohol as far as cost is concerned were based on a very cheap price for grain. We do not think that is something which will work in the long run. With the improvements made in the enzymes, we think there are some exciting alternatives at which the Government is presently looking.
With regard to what has happened in Manitoba, the Hon. Member should know that it was the previous Conservative provincial Government under Mr. Lyon which created the tax incentive that got the plant going at Minnedosa. If the Hon. Member wants to talk about some action, he should raise that issue with his New Democrat colleagues in Manitoba and see if we can get some co-operation from them.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: The rail car freight service across the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Newfoundland will be terminated by the Government starting July 1, Canada Day. Another spike will be driven into the coffin of the Newfoundland Railway by this Tory Government on July 1.
Will the Minister of Transport tell the House why he ordered Mr. R. E. Lawless, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian National Railways, on March 12, to "terminate this service on July 1" and to "advise your clients of this termination date in order that they can either convert to containers or-''listen to this, Mr. Speaker, "-find alternate means of moving their product". What alternate means does the Minister have in mind to move their product across the Gulf of St. Lawrence-the Goodyear Blimp, or is it the starship Enterprise?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if you were Scotty, I would say to you: "Beam him up".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He is certainly spaced out. It is true that on July 1 the rail car ferry is going to cease crossing the Gulf, but this was as a result of the railway revitalization program commenced by the Liberal Government in 1982.

May 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: You should not be afraid to take the credit for the few of the good things you did.


TRANSPORTATION OF FEED GRAIN
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the Canada Day, July 1, official booklet, under Canadiana Quiz No. 20 it is asked: "If it is 12 noon in Whitehorse, Yukon, what time is it in St. John's, Newfoundland?" According to the Government the answer to question No. 20 is 5.30 p.m. If that is true, it would put St. John's, Newfoundland, somewhere between Iceland and Greenland. Perhaps that is why the service is being discontinued. The Government thinks we are afloat in mid-Atlantic.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Does the Minister not realize that on July 1, Canada Day, Newfoundland will be the only province in Canada without this type of freight service? Container rates have sky-rocketed. Is it not silly to have feed grain from a hopper car unloaded somewhere around Montreal and the whole works put into containers just to get it to Newfoundland? Newfoundland farmers do not want their feed grain containerized; they would like to containerize the Minister of Transport, permanently.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, members of the Liberal Party have always had a very healthy interest in the Livestock Feed Board. In 1984 they were all lining up at the trough.
We are concerned about the costs of importing livestock feed into Newfoundland. As a quirk of fate, we do not grow grain there. I am very concerned with this issue. We have just entered into a $4.8 million livestock feed assistance program. The farmers of Newfoundland are looking on me very warmly since that was instituted.
We are meeting again on May 15 with the livestock producers in Newfoundland. We will certainly be assisting by way of subsidy in any increased costs there might be for livestock feed.
While they may containerize me, Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. gentlemen will agree that the hon. gentleman should be certified.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton, followed by a question and a supplementary question by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, that is an impossible flight to follow.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. An article by Ross Howard in yesterday's The Globe and Mail indicated that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is concerned with alleged efforts by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to "penetrate and curtail activities of student groups, political fringe groups, environmental coalitions and so-called peace movements that the CSIS believes represent a threat to national security." Will the Solicitor General indicate if these serious allegations against CSIS are true or false?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in an article in The Globe and Mail. I too read the article and immediately contacted the Security Intelligence Review Committee by letter asking it if there was anything in its recent review which it conducted during the past year which would substantiate these allegations. I have been advised in writing that it has conducted its review and that it has found nothing-nothing-that would substantiate the allegations contained in the article in The Globe and Mail.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns six fisherwomen in the Magdalen Islands. They have worked on the boats alongside their fishermen spouses. In the off-season they have collected unemployment insurance benefits. They have now received disentitlement notices, not only disentitling them from unemployment insurance but asking them to pay back up to $8,600 each.
Considering the fact that it was the fish plant which issued their pay cheques and their T-4 slips, and in light of the hardship trying to collect $8,600 will cause, is the Minister prepared to assure the House and, more important, these women, that he will write off these over-payments?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the assurance I can give my colleague is that I will indeed look into this case and, if
May 12, 1987

injustice has been done or the law misinterpreted in any way, we will take appropriate action.


FISHERWOMEN-ELIGIBILITY UNDER UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PLAN
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. Can the Minister assure the House that these women will be allowed to work as fisherwomen and be eligible for off-season unemployment benefits?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, much as I answered earlier, each unemployment insurance claim is assessed on its own merits. We will examine the situation and decide whether or not they are eligible under the plan. It will depend on whether or not they are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago in answer to a question asked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) referred to an exchange of letters with the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The matter raised in The Globe and Mail was so serious that I wonder if I could ask the Minister to table the letter he sent and the reply he received from the Security Intelligence Review Committee.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I did not quote from the letters. However, I am quite prepared to send to Hon. Members copies of the letters in question. I have nothing to hide in this regard.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchi:
That this House condemns the Government's refugee policy for its failing badly to uphold Canada's proud and humane record for refugee assistance and for abandoning our nation's respected international leadership on this tragic, world-wide human dilemma, which will serve to jeopardize a meaningful international solution to what is clearly an international phenomenon;
That this House further deplores the Government's refusal to assure refugee claimants full accessibility to, and a non-adversarial hearing before, an independent refugee board; and
Supply
That, therefore, this House urge the Government to establish a fair, accessible and efficient refugee administration system, which would:
(1)	guarantee full accessibility to the system for refugee claimants by rejecting any pre-screening stage within the process;
(2)	ensure maximum protection and safety for all refugees and a comprehensive and adequate hearing of their claims by abolishing the highly restrictive "safe third country" concept as an integral part of the refugee determination process; and
(3)	provide every refugee with the opportunity of an appeal before a competent and independent refugee body that would consider all facts and circumstances of the appellant's claims.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today-
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask all Hon. Members who are not participating in the debate to please clear the Chamber.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your attempt to have Hon. Members carry on their conversations outside the House so that we continue this discussion on refugee policy.
The motion before the House today asks the House to condemn the Government's refugee policy for its failing badly to uphold Canada's proud and humane record for refugee assistance. It goes on to deplore the Government's refusal to assure refugee claimants, in its new legislation, full accessibility to, and a non-adversarial hearing before, an independent refugee board. In addition, the motion urges the Government to establish a fair, accessible and efficient refugee determination system, and the details are put before the House for the consideration of the Government.
In order to discuss Canadian policy on refugees we must first put Canada into a world context with respect to refugees. As most Hon. Members know, there is a growing tragedy of refugees and misplaced persons throughout the world. This has been due in part to the incidence of regional wars, civil conflicts and revolutions throughout the world.
As of February, 1986, there was on record, since 1945, 120 regional and local wars resulting in 19 million deaths. Many people talk about the last war and they refer to the war in 1945.
As 1 just pointed out, since 1945 there have been 120 regional and local wars resulting in 19 million deaths. Two-thirds of those deaths were among civilians, and 16 million of them were in the Third World.
In addition to the large number of deaths resulting from regional and local wars, the United Nations estimates that there are between 15 million and 20 million refugees in the world. About three million of them are Afghans and about two million of them are Palestinians. They include refugees from Indo-China, Iran, Central America, and Latin America.
As citizens of the world, not only citizens of Canada, we must ask who will take care of these refugees? Is Canada

May 12, 1987
Supply
doing its job, or are we shifting the burden to someone else? Are we doing our share?
As Elon. Members know, Canada signed the 1951 International Convention on Refugees in 1969, according to which convention we agreed to receive refugees as defined by the treaty and our law. In order to do that, we set up the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. While the process might have been very acceptable in 1969 when we passed the legislation, while it might have been adequate in the first place, it was certainly found to be inadequate with the large growing number of refugees throughout the world who were coming to our shores in the early 1980s.
As a result of the growing number of applications, the Government appointed the Plaut Commission to advise on how to deal with the enormous backlog of applications which was developing and how to put in place a new refugee determination process.
I think at one point during 1985 we had over 20,000 applicants waiting from two to three years to have their refugee status determined by the process. Not only was it a major problem for those who were waiting to have their determination as refugees decided, it also unfortunately encouraged a growing number of false refugees.
What was happening was that people were coming into the country and claiming refugee status. Since they had to wait two to three years to have their status determined, often they were marrying Canadians and having children in Canada. In other words, they were becoming well established here. Even if it were found after the two-year period that they were not really refugees, it became very difficult to send them out of the country with all the ties they had developed within that time. However, that process also encouraged more false refugees because they knew once they arrived here and made their application, by the time they were turned down they would also be considered as cases which should be allowed to stay, on compassionate grounds.
As I stated, the former Liberal Government was concerned about the problem. It appointed the Plaut Commission in 1983 to advise on a new refugee determination process and a system to deal with the backlog. Rabbi Plaut reported in April, 1985, to the new Conservative Government. The report was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. The standing committee studied the report, listened to the evidence of witnesses, and heard from many non-governmental organizations which deal with refugees in Canada. The committee reported in November and December, 1985. It put out two reports. One proposed a new refugee determination process which was based upon the Plaut report, but not quite similar to it. Its second report concerned what to do with the large backlog of refugees. The committee recommended a fast and fair process which I thought was supportable and could have been acceptable to the House of Commons and to many refugee support groups in Canada.
In part the Government responded to these reports in May, 1986, and promised legislation later in 1986. As we know, we did not get that legislation in 1986. We only got it in the last couple of weeks.
During that period of time all the problems to which I have referred galloped along-the growing number of refugee applications and the large number of fraudulent or false claims.
In order to support the measures it put into place on February 20 of this year, prior to the Bill to which many of us have referred, although it is not under debate today, I believe the Government gave a false impression of the refugee situation in Canada. It gave the impression that the numbers of refugees at our doors were much higher than they have been historically and that, consequently, we had to bring in harsh measures, which I believe were unfair, to deal with the situation.
If we look at the facts, I do not think we can justify either the measures of February 20 or the legislation. I should like to refer to some of the situations in past years. While the Government has argued that the type of legislation before us is necessary because of the large backlog in the number of refugee applications, I should put on record the fact that we had much larger refugee movements into Canada in previous years.
In 1982, just a few years ago, we had three special movements into Canada in addition to the regular flow of refugees. The regular flow in that year was 16,908. In addition, we had a special movement of Polish refugees amounting to 9,344; a special movement of Iranian refugees amounting to 2,501; and a special movement of Salvadoran refugees amounting to 3,024. Those special movements add up to 14,869 refugees in addition to the regular quota.
If we look at the period of time from 1976 to 1979, Canada admitted 11,321 Lebanese refugees as a result of the war in their country. In the period following the Vietnamese war in 1978, we admitted 9,060 Vietnamese refugees. Following the overthrow of the Allende Government in Chile, Canada admitted over 7,000 refugees from Chile and Argentina. In 1973 we admitted over 7,000 Ugandan Asians. In 1969 we admitted 11,943 Czechoslovakian refugees. After the Hungarian revolution in 1957 we admitted 37,149 Hungarians.
I put these figures on the record to indicate that the number of refugees we now have applying for status in Canada is not unusual. We have admitted great numbers of refugees into Canada in past years since the Second World War. These people are now in Canada.
Who in this House would maintain that these refugees have caused us any difficulty? Who would complain today of the Hungarians who came in 1957, the Czechs who came in 1969, the Ugandan Asians in 1973, the Chileans in 1979; and we could go on and on-the Vietnamese, the Lebanese and the
May 12, 1987

Poles in 1982? These people have come to Canada and have made a valuable contribution. I do not think anybody regrets the fact that they were admitted as special movements of refugees, or suggests that we would have been better off if we had had special measures which would have prevented them from coming to our shores.
This could be said of all immigrants, but it could also be said of refugees. Refugees and immigrants are, for the most part, great contributors to the country. They are consumers. They buy food and clothing. They need housing, education and health care. Some people maintain that immigrants and refugees take jobs away from us. I argue that they provide jobs for Canadians, not only to the extent that they are consumers but also because many of them are innovative entrepreneurs who put together enterprises and hire many other Canadians.
We have finally had put before us Bill C-55, which is the Government's response to the Plaut report and the reports of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not consider Bill C-55 an adequate response. I support the wording in the resolution before this House today, that that policy must be condemned.
In the first place it must be condemned because, according to the provisions of that Bill, access to the refugee determination process will not be universal. Both the Plaut report and the report of the Standing Committee suggested that any process we put in place should be universal. In other words, it should be accessible to all of those who claim refugee status. If a person comes to Canada claiming to be a refugee, he or she should have a chance to prove his case.
What do we have with Bill C-55? We have provisions whereby once a person claims to be a refugee and is asked from what country he came, if he states that he has come from what is considered a safe country, then he is immediately sent back to that country. He is not given an opportunity to put his case before the refugee determination board, or whatever the new name for it might be. He is not given an opportunity to put all the facts before an independent tribunal to show that he really is a refugee. Because he comes from what is considered to be a safe country, he is immediately sent back without access to a tribunal to hear his case.
Who will define what a safe country is and who will set out a list of these said countries? We do not at present have in the Bill a definition of a safe country. It is simply referred to, and we are told that the Government will provide a list of countries it considers safe, countries to which people can be returned without giving the individual a chance to have his or her case heard. We can speculate on which countries will be included in the list.
I heard a program on the CBC the other night. People from the CBC telephoned individuals working in a refugee movement in the United States. They described the new Canadian legislation to the Americans and asked them whether they considered the United States as a safe country for Guatemalan
Supply
and Salvadoran refugees. In other words, they said that if Canada listed the United States as a safe country, then as a Salvadoran refugee who had come from the United States would be sent back there. The Americans were asked whether, in that case the United States was safe for Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees? Their answer was no. They said most Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees who come to the United States are not acceptable as refugees in the United States.
We can speculate about which countries the Cabinet will consider safe countries under this legislation. But how will the Government define a safe country?
As we all know, the conditions that give rise to the refugee phenomenon often come about suddenly. There is suddenly a coups d'etat in a country; suddenly new repressive measures are put in place and people flee overnight. That happened in the Hungarian revolution of 1957, to which I referred, in the Czech situation in 1969, during the Vietnamese war, in Lebanon and so on. You cannot predict in advance the conditions in countries which will oblige people to flee as refugees. Nor can you predict that these situations will change from day to day, from week to week, or from month to month. As well, what might be a safe country for one group of refugees may not be a safe country for another group. Maybe the United States is a safe country for people fleeing from Poland, but it is not a safe country for people fleeing from Salvador.
We condemn this new process being suggested to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada as one that is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because it does not provide universal access to an independent tribunal so that a person claiming refugee status can have a full and an impartial hearing of his or her claim, after which somebody can say yes, you really are a refugee in accordance with our law and the international treaty, or no, you are not really a refugee. What we are doing is sending certain people away without a hearing because they come from what is called a safe country.
We have other objections to the legislation. We object to the fact that the preliminary panel to hear these refugee applications is not made up of two people from the refugee side of the Department. It is made up of one person from the immigration side and another person from the refugee side. In our resolution we suggest a system somewhat similar to what was suggested in the standing committee's report.
We need in Canada a fair system to deal with refugee applications, a fast system in order to deter and prevent fraudulent refugees, a system that is open to all of those who claim refugee status, a system that would allow a person to apply for refugee status from anywhere, from within Canada or from without, and a system which has a fair appeal process. As I said at the beginning, the refugee problem is a human problem of vast dimensions. We in Canada who are relatively well off should not shirk our responsibility or pass the buck concerning this issue. We did not shirk it before. Certainly we can do something again.

May 12, 1987
Supply


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised on his own behalf, and on behalf of many who want it, the concept of open access to an independent convention refugee determination board member. The claimant has that; every person will have the opportunity to demonstrate whether his life, limb or liberty is at risk. The Hon. Member wants to send out some kind of scare in the community that the adjudicator and the member of the independent convention refugee determination board have no discretion.
We have clearly said that the claimant will be put through two tests. The first test involves objective criteria. Does the person have refugee status elsewhere? Can he be returned to a safe third country? Some manifestly unfounded claims will be shown. If a person has recently been rejected from Canada or is presently under a deportation order, those facts must be examined using the same criteria.
The second test is a low-threshold, low-standard credibility test. The individual can demonstrate his fear of going back to where we want to send him. If he has lived a sufficient length of time in a country or has legal status, that will be taken into consideration. If one of those two people with discretion feels that there is a shred of a chance that this man fears for his very life, limb, liberty or security, he will be referred to a hearing within 10 days. To me that is discretion.
The Hon. Member has placed particular emphasis on what a safe third country will mean when the Cabinet sets forward such a list. I have tried to tell Hon. Members that because this is a life and death matter, the criteria will be very stringent. We will examine the human rights record of the countries in question. Before a country will be put on the safe country list, it will have to show a record of refugee protection and of protection of all nationals of any country. There will be the widest consultation and we will seek the best advice possible in addition to the advice of our own officials, those of the Department of External Affairs and the documentation centre that will be set up. We understand how important that is for these individuals.
We have put into place a system that is quick and expeditious but provides for quality hearings before independent board members. I believe that that is fair, no matter what the Hon. Member wants to say about further levels of appeal. Given a poor decision, a reviewing body that does not have a chance to feel and to sense the fear of an individual must be weighed against an open, independent hearing before an independent member of the refugee board.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I thought this period was for questions or short comments, not for alternative speeches. Nevertheless, the Minister said that all those who claim refugee status will be given a fair hearing in this new process. It seems to me that the Minister has not read the Bill. Clause 48.1 which appears on page 13 of the Bill indicates that a person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have the claim determined by the refugee division if the
claimant came to Canada from a country that has been described as a safe third country. There is in the legislation a barrier against a whole group of people who claim to be refugees if they came from what is considered to be a safe third country. They do not even get a chance to put the facts of their cases before the refugee process.
The preliminary panel will ask such an individual if he claims to be a refugee, and he will say yes. The panel will ask him from which country he has just come, and if he says he has just come from the United States, that is it, too bad. The United States is on the list of safe countries, so back he goes to the United States. The fact that he is from Salvador and not from Poland or from Vietnam and not from Czechoslovakia does not matter. The United States is on the list of safe countries so the refugee does not have one more word to say.
If that is the case, how can the Minister say that he is putting in place a process under which a refugee applicant will have every opportunity to put before the refugee determination board all the facts with respect to his particular case? It is true that if he does not come from a safe country and if some of the other conditions are met, then he has a chance to demonstrate his case. We as members of the Liberal Party are saying that that process does not afford universal access. If we are to be fair to refugees, we should have a fast, efficient and fair system but one that is universal so everyone who claims to be a refugee would have a chance to put all the facts before the board, and that is not the case right now.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke very passionately about the situation that exists in the world and listed a number of very disconcerting facts and figures concerning upheavals throughout the world. As I see it, another problem with the concept of a safe third country is the time the Government will take to react to new uprisings, to new human rights abuses, to new geopolitical circumstances that could arise literally overnight.
I wonder what the Hon. Member thinks about the lag time it would take for a government bureaucracy to change its list so that people would not be sent back to a hot spot that would otherwise be on the safe country list. Has the Hon. Member any thoughts on that particular controversy and the practical problems that will be created for bona fide refugees escaping areas of persecution without being recognized because the safe country list has not been modified?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of Cabinet for seven years and I know how slowly these things move. The Hon. Minister must be aware of that as well. This legislation was promised in May, 1986, and it took until May, 1987 to get it before the House. It went through the various cabinet committees and back and forth to interdepartmental committees, I suppose.
No matter how good the intentions of the Minister are, and I know the Minister is of good faith, things do change in the world. I cited the examples of the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian revolutions and the Polish Solidarity situation, all
May 12, 1987

things which led to sudden and vast movements of refugees. We cannot always predict where these things will happen and which country will be safe and which will not. As well, some countries are safe for some but not for others and the legislation does not provide for that.
In committee, we asked the Minister if he would give a definition of a safe third country before we voted on the Bill so that we would be able to better judge the proposed legislation. I think he said he would try to do that. I cannot recall his exact words now, but they were not altogether negative and may have even been positive. In any case, we still insist on having a definition, as do most Canadian refugee support groups.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise this afternoon. I would like to begin by clearing up some of the confusion that exists in the community. Last Thursday, I took the unusual step of asking to be replaced on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration because I believed that at a meeting held on April 14, my role as the administrator of that committee had been compromised and that that role needed to be re-established because of the important work of the committee. People have asked whether or not I resigned for other reasons relating to the refugee Bill or to unemployment insurance matters. I simply want to assure the House and the community that the action I took was exactly as described and for the reasons described.
If there has been a bonus for me personally as it affects my role in relation to this Bill, it is that it has given me a bit more time to work on it. I do not have to do other things that were indeed time-consuming and perhaps less important in my own mind than refugee legislation for the future.
I must confess that I have a certain feeling of unease with regard to this debate. That unease begins with the fact that this is an Opposition Day motion. A motion on an Opposition Day tends to cause us to draw Party lines. When we are dealing with a matter of life and death, and that is truly what we do when we debate the subject of refugees, we are attempting to help this nation define its own sense of morality concerning those unfortunate people who have become refugees in our modern world. I would hope that we do not continue to discuss this situation and the legislation itself from the perspective of partisan politics. It is not necessary for all Members of this House to agree on what might be the best process, just as it is not necessary for all Members to agree on the capital punishment debate. However, when we are dealing with morality, we hear the knowledge and opinion of those who serve this House and those who elect them. The refugee issue is a moral issue.
I was particularly disturbed, I guess, by the pro forma words of introduction to this resolution. It starts: "That this House condemns the Government's refugee policy-". I wonder if all Members really know what is being condemned. There is a sense in some quarters in this country that Progressive
Supply
Conservatives feel less strongly about the issue of refugees, that perhaps they are less humanitarian in orientation. Some quarters are perhaps too moral and others perhaps not moral enough. Yet I think it is sometimes wise to stand back from our stereotypes and look at performance.
In my adult lifetime there have been three Progressive Conservative Prime Ministers of this country. The first one I knew was the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. He was Prime Minister in 1959 when the UN declared the Year of the Refugee. Under his leadership and that of his Government this country opened its doors to some especially disadvantaged refugees. That Government put in place a government-sponsored program that would help the socially or medically handicapped refugee. There were under private sector sponsorship special programs for refugees suffering from tuberculosis. That was a leadership role in the world community motivated by the finest of instincts, that of providing help to those in the world community who needed it the most.
In more recent times the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was Prime Minister of this country for a very brief period of time. Of all the public policies initiated by his Government perhaps the best remembered and longest lasting in its impact on this nation was the leadership provided when the world was faced with the boat people crisis in southeast Asia. This country led the world with its quickness, sureness and openness in making its contribution to solving that crisis in a far off corner of the world.
What about the present Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government, in office for two years and eight months? In the last year of the previous Government we brought 14,000 people to this country under refugee landings and designated classes. By 1986, the second full year of this Government, that had increased 40 per cent to 19,000 people.
I think those actions, more clearly and eloquently than anything else I can say, speak to the policy of this Government and its commitment to refugees. It is a better record, I suggest, than that of the previous Government. On each and every occasion where we have had a change in Government in this country, Progressive Conservative Prime Ministers and their Cabinets have made a more open, more generous and more secure commitment to refugees. That may be because so many of the members of our caucus and our Cabinet can trace their own roots back to a refugee movement at some time in the not too distant past.
What is a refugee? Sometimes we tend to throw terms around without pausing to consider who we have in mind. As I approach legislative and policy-making tasks in this Chamber I find it helpful to focus on perhaps one single human being who to some extent typifies the subject matter of a given policy. I learned a long time ago that when Government acts, it advantages some people in society and disadvantages others. Who is it we wish to advantage through our refugee policy? At the head of my list are those who are being persecuted, who face torture or death if they remain in their country of origin. They had no choice, they had to flee. In most cases they had to

May 12, 1987
Supply
leave behind their family, their worldly possessions, their educational credentials and their work experience. They had to leave all that behind and flee. If in doing so they end up on or within the borders of Canada, then morally we have no choice. We must accept their petition. They must have a chance to be heard, to tell their story. They must have a chance to persuade us that they are genuine refugees.
These are not people who, for the most part, if given freedom of choice, would choose to come to Canada and make their life here. When we talk about a refugee, we are generally talking about someone who loves his or her country of origin. They would like nothing more in life than to be able to stay in that country, make their lives, raise their families, build their careers and make their contribution there. Circumstances have forced them out. Disagreements with their Government, or accidents of birth reflected in their skin colour or their religion. Those things are viewed by some in some countries as inappropriate qualities, as excuses to persecute, torture and execute. If any of us in this Chamber faced those circumstances we also would attempt to flee.
Having fled, what happens then? Do we spend a lifetime in a refugee camp, or do we attempt to find a country where we can start again, raise a family and make a contribution? Those are the kind of people all of us should have in mind when we talk about refugees and look at Bill C-55.
When someone arrives in Canada today he is given an examination under oath by an immigration officer who is not trained in refugee matters but in immigration law, policing if you like. There is an independent body which reviews the transcripts of those hearings. If you take the time and trouble to review those transcripts you will see that those interviews were not always conducted with great skill. The transcripts are not always helpful in deciding whether or not a case is that of a true refugee. Nevertheless, the law requires that the transcripts be read and a recommendation be made to the Minister of Immigration.
It is only at the third major stage of the immigration appeal board that the claimants have the right to appear in person and tell their own story to a decision-maker. That body hears appeals on all kinds of immigration matters; deportation hearings, family class immigration, and so on. Refugee cases are only a part of the workload. These are not expert people who devote their full time to the consideration of refugee matters.
The next level of appeal is before the Federal Court of Canada, and those people are not experts either. We have no body in this country today which is expert in refugee matters and sits down face to face with a refugee claimant and reaches a decision about whether or not the claim to the protection of Canada is justifiable.
We must have such a body as quickly as possible and put in place as securely as possible. To do otherwise is to continue the
present system which is backward and punishes the true refugee. People who arrive at our border after having gone through a period of imprisonment, torture or persecution take their place in line with thousands of bogus claimants.
When the Government took office, it was taking three or four years to decide whether someone was a refugee. After having come out of a dungeon and being tortured, people arrive on the shores of freedom and it takes three to four years to make a decision on whether they deserve the protection of this country. That is inhumane and insane. That is the system today. We must all work together with the resources of Canada to do something more sane, sensible and better for refugees.
Those of us who have studied this matter in committee know that there are a variety of opinions on it. We understand that this is an extremely difficult area of law. It was naive of anyone in this country to assume that legislation brought into the House would be letter-perfect in all the fine print. I suggest that it was beyond the capability of the drafters to produce such a document. People skilled in legal drafting are not necessarily skilled in the subject matter in which they are drafting.
That is why the process of debate exists in the Parliament of Canada. That is why in committee we call witnesses and ask the best brains and most knowledgeable groups in the country to help us understand where the fine print is in accord with the principles and where it is not so that we can change the fine print where it is necessary to do so.
We have come a long way since the parliamentary committee reported in November, 1985. The Bill before us entitles every single claimant to a personal appearance before a member of the board within a week of arrival. Surely that is beneficial to legitimate refugee claimants. If that is a hardship for the bogus claimant, so be it. That is probably good because we do not want the resources of this nation going to the bogus claimant. Our resources should go to the legitimate refugee claimant. Any true refugee will have no fear of an appearance before a member of that expert body who is steeped in refugee matters, has a feel for them and knowledge of them.
We must ensure that the Minister's expression of intent appears in the fine print. If it is not now there, let us put it there, but let us have that initial decision-making. It is analogous to all parts of Canadian law. The preliminary hearing to decide whether the matter should proceed to trial is a well-known and honourable tradition in the British judicial system. That is all we have at stage one. We want to determine whether there is any reason at all to suspect that an individual needs the protection of Canada. If there is the slightest suspicion that they might, they go to stage two for a full oral hearing before a two-person panel.
Surely that is as it should be. If we want to give effect to our humanitarian traditions and act morally in relation to these people, let us put some resources into that stage, let us have a high-quality oral hearing and an appeal. Contained within this
May 12, 1987

legislation is the principle of a lot of Canadians who will work part-time as jurists to help us make this decision. Within that mechanism is a need for quality control. We cannot have a decision made in Elalifax on the same basis as one made in Vancouver or downtown Toronto. Inherent in that knowledge of administrative systems is the notion that decisions made by panels will have to be examined by someone, in whole or in part.
I say to the NGO community, as I said before, that in any decent piece of legislation we need the certitude that a mistake made by a panel can be corrected when need be. That is not synonymous with a formalized review, a 100 per cent appeal of every decision made. If we care about the persecuted who come to our shores, we need a high quality system and the certitude that on the rare occasions when we make a mistake we will have the power to correct it.
I say to Members of this House from all three Parties and to the community at large that this is a time for co-operation. The resources are inherent in the legislation. If it needs fixing and we have the wisdom to fix it, let us do so. Let us not get stuck as we did with the previous law. Let us not have a system which blocks but, rather, one which does the job. That system is inherent in the nature of this Bill. Let us work together to produce as good a Bill as our collective wisdom can provide.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say that I and, I believe, all Members appreciated the tenor of the Hon. Member's very deeply felt concerns on the question of refugee legislation. I might add that while I regret that he has resigned as chairman, and perhaps I differed with him on the issue over which he resigned, it should be on the record that as Chairman of the Standing Committee reviewing the refugee determination legislation he was at the forefront of some very progressive thinking. I hope that some of the things he and the committee represent will come to bear on the Government and the Cabinet.
The Member said that we will never have an ideal refugee system, just as we will never have an ideal society. I concur with those remarks and in fact suggested the very same thing in my speech. However, we must also realize that it goes beyond suggesting that the bureaucracy cannot draft everything in an ideal context. We must also focus our attention on the political will that will dictate what the bureaucracy drafts.
We have gone through a two and a half year consultation period, listening to some of the major tenets that were put forward by a number of non-governmental organizations, church organizations and our own committee. There were a number of common denominators in many of those recommendations, one of which was full accessibility to a proper oral hearing on the merits of those claims by a proper refugee decision-making body.
The Minister stated that the provision in this Bill does not represent a pre-screening stage at the various border points. I
Supply
disagree with him very strongly, as do a number of NGOs, I believe. If there is a pre-screening process that is rooted in a safe third country concept, both of which were hotly denied and rejected by the consultation process, one must wonder why the Government put those in place. While we will never have a system that is completely flawless, I think it is also irresponsible that the Government would put those in place after a consultation period of two and a half years.
The Hon. Member was involved in the process and the committee was very much opposed to any pre-screening apparatus. Therefore, what does the Member think of that prescreening stage and its being rooted in a third safe country concept, problems which he heard articulated earlier?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to respond to the Hon. Member. I see the pre-screening process as being in accordance with the committee's assertion that there should be universal access to a decision-making body that is the country's sole expert body on refugee matters. The Minister asserted time and time again in the House that it is Cabinet's will that every claimant be given face-to-face access to that body, in a hearing atmosphere where questions can be asked and information exchanged. There will not be the necessity at that point to document the case fully but simply to ensure that the presentation is sufficient to persuade the officer that there may indeed be a refugee situation involved. Once that conclusion is reached, the person proceeds to a two-person oral hearing where the decision is made on whether the person is a refugee. That is in accordance with the committee's report.
The Hon. Member raised the issue of the safe third country concept. The presence of a list is a notion that I have heard through a lot of testimony and conversations I have had both formally and informally. Let me use the analogy of the Post Office. When it decides that it wants a postal rate increase, it asserts to Cabinet that it wants the rate to be a certain amount. Cabinet can agree or disagree with the rate, but cannot change it.
I have a certain sense of comfort in having a single expert body in this country that becomes the definitive recommending group. I suggest that the committee would want to look very carefully at that part of the Bill. The one body in this country that will acquire the expertise, have the research resources and have the concern will be the Convention Refugee Determination Board. I would have confidence if it decided that a certain country was safe for nationals of another country.
The voters need a monitoring system and it is probably wise to provide for Cabinet approval. We need to study this area more closely to make sure that in the use of that list, discretion still remains with the officer, because situations change overnight in this field and discretion must exist. However, the list itself must be one in which the board has confidence. If not, we are running some risk of having the wrong kind of morality. That is my view of how to deal with the third country concept.

May 12, 1987
Adjournment Motion


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on my regard for the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). He and others know of my respect for him.
However, I will ask him to take a further look at pages 13 and 14 of the Bill, particularly Clause 48.1(1), which states:
A person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division if . . .
It goes to list (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Clause 48.1 (l)(b) states:
... the claimant came to Canada from a country that has been prescribed as a safe third country-
This morning, the Minister seemed to think that (b), like (a), is somehow qualified or modified by 48.1(2), but that is not so. That applies only to 48.1 (1 )(a). It makes an exception for somebody who is found to be a refugee in another country and now thinks he has to flee that country as well. Although that person comes from a country that we call safe, he would have his claim determined as a refugee from that country. Section 48.1(1 )(b) is not given any kind of qualification or exemption as is in 48.1(2).
On page 14 of the Bill, Clause 48.1(4) states:
In determining whether a claimant has a credible basis for the claim to be a Convention refugee, the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Division shall consider any evidence adduced at the inquiry or hearing regarding-
In other words, that is all they can consider. According to 48.1 (4)(a), they can look at the record that Canada makes with respect to human rights of the country that the claimant left, or outside of which the claimant remains, by reason of fear or persecution, in other words, whether the country has a good or bad human rights record.
Clause 48.1 (4)(b) states:
The disposition-
That is by Canada:
-under this Act or the regulations of claims to be Convention refugees made by other persons who alleged fear of persecution ...
In other words, whether Canada found any refugees from that country before. That is the only criterion they can consider under that subclause. They are not allowed to consider the explanation of an individual. They can only consider the record of the country, its human rights record, and the experience of whether there have been previous refugees from that country.
As the Hon. Member said, the situation can change overnight, but the person is out of luck in that case. There have been no refugees from France, so if the Fascists took over France and Mitterand had to run to Canada, he would not be a refugee because we never had any refugees from France before.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for raising some of the clauses on pages 13 and 14 because those are clauses which concern a great many people across the country. In my eight years in Parliament, I have heard Ministers stand in the House and indicate Cabinet's intention by saying: "There is a sense of solidarity in Cabinet. This is our intention". I have been to legislative committees and other kinds of committees from time to time where when one looked at the fine print and found, there was a discrepancy between Cabinet's intention and the exact wording which came out of a process of drafting, and so on.
I was with the Hon. Member when we looked at the most recent amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board. We were able to achieve some very substantial and important amendments which I think have been helpful to the functioning of that board. I have heard with clarity in more than one Question Period and in the speeches today that it is the intention of Cabinet that the Members present at that first stage hearing will having discretionary powers. If the fine print in some way obviates that discretionary power, makes it impossible to exercise, we not only have to find that this is a problem but we have an obligation to suggest a solution which gets the job done.
Standing here in this Chamber today, not being a lawyer, I cannot find the solution. However, I hope that there are a lot of people around the country looking for the problems and then going to the next stage and asking: "Is there a solution to that problem?" I think in many cases, and in this case in particular, it is possible to find the problem and it is relatively easy to correct it.
By hindsight we will know if we were successful but I think that is the commitment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Disasters- Anniversary of Chernobyl nuclear accident-impact on Canada-(b) Request for information; the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell)-Status of Women- Harassment of woman firefighter-(b) Request for payment of compensation: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Red way)-National Defence-possible effect of closure of ports to nuclear powered ships.
May 12, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchi:
That this House condemns the Government's refugee policy for its failing badly to uphold Canada's proud and humane record for refugee assistance and for abandoning our nation's respected international leadership on this tragic, world-wide human dilemma, which will serve to jeopardize a meaningful international solution to what is clearly an international phenomenon;
That this House further deplores the Government's refusal to assure refugee claimants full accessibility to, and a non-adversarial hearing before, an independent refugee board, and
That, therefore, this House urge the Government to establish a fair, accessible and efficient refugee administration system which would:
(1)	guarantee full accessibility to the system for refugee claimants by rejecting any pre-screening stage within the process;
(2)	ensure maximum protection and safety for all refugees and a comprehensive and adequate hearing of their claims by abolishing the highly restrictive "safe third country" concept as an integral part of the refugee determination process; and
(3)	provide every refugee with the opportunity of an appeal before a competent and independent refugee body that would consider all facts and circumstances of the appellant's claims.
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in addressing this motion today, I would like to start by expressing the feeling of indebtedness felt by myself and my Party to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) in bringing forth this very important question of significant, compelling and, indeed, urgent interest to all Canadians. Bill C-55 has been tabled for first reading on May 5 and we will all come to debate it in due course. However, I think it is good that we have the opportunity today to, in a sense, pre-debate the Bill by raising some of the questions to which those who have looked at it find no answers, and also to enable Members of the House to put on the record and before Canadians some of the concerns which groups who are active, involved and committed to the plight of refugees have expressed .
After all, we are debating something that relates to what 1 think we could describe as a Canadian tradition of great worth. 1 do not say it is a great tradition because, after all, it has not been a consistent theme. Without going into some of the faults and errors of the past, because I would not like them to be misinterpreted in some way as a partisan comment, 1 think we would have to say that the more recent history of Canada's attitude and actions towards refugees within the world community has merited some accolades, most significant of which has been the Nansen Medal.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), who has a record of commitment to this particular question throughout his years of service in this House, went to some length in talking about the proud record of Canadian policy and hospitality, the welcoming of those who have had to leave their countries through no fault of their
Supply
own but because they had the normal aspirations of freedom loving people everywhere. They were not able to exercise those aspirations within the confines of the countries in which they were brought up.
It is a proud and diverse record. Today Canada is home to the first generation of refugees from Chile, the fascist dictatorship of General Pinochet, from South Africa's apartheid regime, from the frightful oppression of the B'hai in Iran and the equally frightful oppression of those who supported opposition Parties. Canada is host to refugees from the lawlessness and murder in Guatemala and El Salvador, and from the genocide in what was previously known as Cambodia. It is also host to people who fled oppression in Vietnam, from Laos, and to people of Ukrainian, Hungarian and, more recently, Polish origin, who originally came to this country as refugees.
When I hear talk of Canada's refugee determination system having been abused, I become very uncomfortable because while it is perfectly true that there may be those who have abused the system in the past, I think we would have to say that this country as a whole has never been abused by refugees, as I am aware of Canadian history. Even if there have been some who have, so to speak, beaten the system in order to gain entry to the country, I do not think it could be said that after having done so, they abused Canada.
It should be a mark of pride for all Canadians to be awarded the Nansen Medal which, I would stress, did not go to the Government of Canada but to the people of Canada. It should be a mark of pride which we as Canadians should maintain in the face of some of the confusion which exists and which, I regret to say, is at times promulgated regarding the situation of refugees and particularly in terms of refugees as juxtaposed with immigrants.
There have been some nostrums peddled in this country which are false and which have gained some credibility. They are deserving and, and indeed, demanding of refutation in this House. I will go into the details later. We have seen in recent years a wilful confusion at times and at other times an innocent confusion between the situation of refugees and immigrants. We have seen allegations, almost universally disproven or unsubstantiated, about the possible effects of refugees on employment in Canada. That was very well refuted in the speech of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. We have seen refugees used as a proxy target, as strawmen, by those who frankly are concerned to promote and promulgate racist theories, attitudes and practices. We have also seen a very legitimate concern, one which I think history and our experience very adequately answers, regarding the country's ability to absorb newcomers.
As one of those absorbed newcomers myself, I can hark back-although not from personal experience, obviously-to the year 1910 when approximately 400,000 immigrants, many of whom under today's system would be categorized as refugees, came to a country of some seven million or eight million people. We only have to go to our prairie and western

May 12, 1987
Supply
provinces today to see the success of these people and their descendants who have grown into a very lively, vital and integral part of Canadian society and, indeed, our Canadian identity.
Government policy has been outlined recently in the Government's response to petitions which some Members have presented in the House concerning Canada's refugee policy. It is worth quoting the Government's response to the petitions and recalling to Hon. Members on the government side and to Ministers what was said. I quote directly from the answer which states:
There are three components to Canada's refugee policy. First, there is the assistance which is provided through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees that includes aid to refugees, technical assistance to the UNHCR, and diplomatic initiatives to deal with the root causes of refugee situations.
Parenthetically, that is obviously not the subject of today's motion.
Second, there is the program of government and private sponsorship of refugees abroad who can best be helped by resettlement in this country. Third, there is the protection, which we guaranteed when we signed the Geneva Convention and Protocol, against the return of any refugee on Canadian soil to a territory where he would fear persecution on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
I quote further an element of trumpeting which the Government provided in its response:
While Canada has established excellent standards of refugee status determination, it is recognized that there is a need to streamline our procedures which have broken down in the face of increasing volumes. There is a need to overhaul the way we deal with people who arrive spontaneously at our borders. To this end, the Government will be bringing legislation before the House shortly.
That, of course, refers to the legislation which the Government has brought forward in Bill C-55.
Because Canada has undertaken solemn international obligations to protect a person who is out of his or her country and unable to return because of fear of persecution on account of political, religious, or the other reasons mentioned, I think that it would behove the Government to consult the UNHCR which is, in a sense, the custodian of the Geneva Convention and Protocol. Let us be sure that within the forum of those who have also signed this Protocol any measures that Canada brings in to change its policy and procedures are determined to be in compliance with the Protocol. I do not think there could be any greater disgrace within the international community than having a country whose citizens won the Nansen Medal see its Government undertake a change in policy which might essentially nullify the validity and the commitment of the signature on that Protocol and Convention.
1 do not think there is argument within the House that the system proposed in the present legislation is more simple than the one it replaces. What we have to discuss is, of course, is it more fair? Indeed, is it as fair as we as Canadian legislators can make it under the circumstances?
The proposed system contrasts the eight steps of the existing system with a three-step process. It would be hard to argue that that is a more complex process than what is in place at the moment. But we have to determine if there are improvements that can be made in the interests of fairness. Having a simple system is simply not good enough for a country that can take some legitimate pride in its past record.
I would now like to deal with some of the problems that we perceive with Bill C-55 as presently drafted. Obviously, we do so not in an attack on the Government but in an attempt to have the Government address these concerns and modify the legislation accordingly.
We feel that there is an aura of inaccessibility about the procedures that are proposed. Instead of ensuring that everyone who arrives in Canada claiming to be a refugee gets his or her claim heard, there is some sense that the return to another country might be what they should expect if they want a realistic assessment of their prospects. The use of technicalities in some artificial categories, such as the safe third country category, also brings into question the intent of the Bill.
The initial screening, which can only be appealed from out of the country, proposes a bureaucratic barrier which, in the past, has jeopardized the safety of some refugee claimants. It has led to frustration and an enormous expense and effort on the part of refugee claimants for a consideration that we do not feel really warrants that sort of stress being put on refugee claimants.
Apparently, the second stage oral hearing can be appealed, but only to the Federal Court and only on matters of law as opposed to matters of fact. That is a grave deficiency because, surely, in a refugee determination process it is the facts of the case of the individual refugee claimant which should govern.
Where are the provisions for humanitarian or compassionate consideration such as those found in the current legislation? About 12 per cent of the current cases that do not meet the technical situation, the technical definitions, are situations in which compassionate people such as cabinet Ministers are willing to allow refugee claimants to stay in the country. I think that is something that the Government has to consider.
I would like to talk, and I hope at not too great a length, about the concept of safe third country, because I feel that in some ways it is a dangerous one and, in many ways, a very sensitive one. First, we know that the definition of safe third country is something that, on the enactment of the Bill, will be expropriated by senior bureaucrats in the Department of Immigration. We know that the individual adjudicator or member of the board will not have control over the definition of what is a safe third country. He or she will not have control over the designation of a safe third country. Therefore, it is a concept that will be bureaucratized and centrally controlled. One would assume, because such is the habit of bureaucracies, that it will be applied rigidly.
Obviously, this concept would require some form of return agreement with other countries, otherwise there would be no
May 12, 1987

right to send refugee claimants back. I think that one of the situations that concerns us the most is that of the Salvadorans and Guatemalans who have taken refuge in the United States and who now, because of increasing crack-downs in that country on migrant workers and those who do not have legal status, are seeking to come to Canada.
The United States declares and proclaims that the Governments of El Salvador and Guatemala are democratic, humanitarian and able to defend human rights within their countries. It is not my purpose to inveigh against the Governments of either of those countries where we know there are honest, dedicated and committed people trying their best to preserve an orderly democratic system of government. However, they do so in the face of militarism and in the face of an entrenched elite that is not willing to give up its power and that is willing to use extra-legal, military and terrorist means to maintain that power, even in the face of the best intentions of the Governments of those countries.
So that if we are considering the case of a Salvadoran refugee under the new legislation and this person is told: "Well, the United States is a safe third country", and Canada sends that person back to the United States, we would be somewhat in the situation, as a country, of a Pontius Pilate. We would not deport a person ourselves but we would send him back to another country that we could be perfectly sure would deport him.
This phenomenon, this risk of what we might call onward deportation, of deporting refugee claimants for onward deportation back to their own countries, is a serious issue that I certainly hope a government Member will address. I certainly hope a government speaker will address the issue. I also hope that it will be adequately addressed in the legislation as it is finally passed in the House after we have had an opportunity to process appropriate amendments through committee.
Obviously there is an element of politicization in terms of the safe third country concept. Obviously Canada, in the application of that concept, will be subjected to potential political or diplomatic pressures regarding the application, the definition, and the designation. After all, what will be the situation if one of our major trading partners involved in a trade deal or, shall we say, a major purchase of Canadian wheat or Canadian aircraft was told ever so subtly by government representatives that the commercial interchange was dependent upon Canada not designating their country as being an unsafe third country or not saying that their country was a country which could produce refugees? I think it would not strain the imagination or recollection of most Hon. Members of the House to determine and identify some of the potential examples.
We have some major criticisms of the screening process. The no credible basis for claim is something that is not defined. It is new legal language and lacks a specific definition. The
Supply
obvious example would be somebody coming as a refugee from a country which has not in the past been known to produce refugees. Therefore, it is a definition which would put in jeopardy some of those potential immigrants.
In conclusion, we cannot allow the confusion to continue between immigrants and refugees, understanding the distinction as an important part of understanding the concerns which our Party and members of all Parties want to put forward today. After all, spectres are being raised, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) did so unwittingly when he talked about thousands of bogus claimants in the queue.
I believe that Canada has only deported 600 or 700 people as bogus refugee claimants. We cannot confuse the immigrant strain who, after all, are generally queued up at Canadian consulates and delegations overseas with the refugee strain who, if they are queued, are queued at points of entry into the country.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your tolerance and consideration in hearing the problems today. They are problems which we want to see the Government address, so that the country will have a refugee determination system, of which we can all be proud.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his comments and to ask him about a particular point.
He referred to the total absence in the Bill of any possibility of providing the kind of humanitarian consideration currently provided in the legislation which the Bill is supposed to amend. In the decisions that will be made at the first stage, if they found that a person had no credible basis of claim or that a person came from a so-called safe country, the person would then be returned according to the Act. Of course that could include many people such as Iranians and others whom we do not now force to return to their home country.
Would the Hon. Member enlarge a little on that point? Since I know he has a world-wide concern and he has made reference to it, would he enlarge upon the difficulty of seeing where there is any fair treatment for such people within the present proposals, given the screenings?
First, they cannot even arrive here if they come from a country from which we require a visa or a transit visa. If they are refugees, they will probably be denied it. I know that the Canadian Government has specifically named Chile as a country to be impacted upon for having sent refugees here under transit visas.
Second, if they come from a country which does not produce refugees, they will be excluded in Section 48(a). The third example would be those who passed through and stayed in a safe country.
Could the Hon. Member comment upon how he thinks people would get the kind of humanitarian considerations we have been giving them now?

May 12, 1987
Supply


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), not only for his question but for his outstanding commitment to this issue over a number of years.
In reply I should like to return to the Government's response to petitions and instance some examples which would fall through what we might say is the safety net of the Geneva Convention. I believe these examples provide compelling reasons for there to be included in the Act provision for ministerial discretion on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I should like to quote again from the Government's response to petitions as follows:
-there is the protection, which we guaranteed when we signed the Geneva
Convention and Protocol, against the return of any refugee on Canadian soil to
a territory where he would fear persecution on the basis of his race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Let us look at three examples. I choose the examples of a Lebanese woman, of an Iranian young man, and of a Chinese woman. Let us consider that an 18-year old Iranian arrives in Canada and claims to be a refugee because in his own country he would be conscripted into the army, or one of the irregular fighting units prevalent in the Iran-Iraq war, and sent to the front where there are mortality rates in individual units of 50 per cent to 70 per cent and where the rates run higher in the case of young boys in their early teens who are used as human minesweepers and sent into Iraqi minefields to be blown up in order to clear a path for the troops. I do not see that the present legislation would allow in an Iranian who was attempting to avoid conscription for a war in which he would essentially be used as a completely disposable fighting individual in the cause which they are pursuing against Iraq.
Let us take the example of a Chinese woman who flees to Canada because she is in her second pregnancy and the Government of that country not only frowns on but takes some concrete and somewhat repressive measures against people who choose to expand their families. Where is there provision in the legislation which would allow that woman to be granted refugee status in Canada?
Finally, let us consider the situation of a woman in Beirut who, after all, wants to get away from the fighting. We saw a report in our newspapers a couple of months ago of a Beiruti who was willing to sell his eight children to anyone who would take them to a safe country. It is an indication of the level of desperation in some people trying to escape what is essentially a war zone. Could the person claim that he was being individually persecuted on any of the grounds of the Geneva Convention? He could not, but the fact is that the bullet from a Kalashnikov makes no such distinction. When a person is in peril of his life because he is in a war zone then obviously he has to be treated as a refugee and obviously he should be treated as a refugee in making application to Canada.
These would be examples that I feel, Mr. Speaker, the legislation must address. We must have measures in Bill C-55
to allow people to qualify and be treated as legitimate refugees, admissible to Canada on those grounds.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon. I have enjoyed very much the comments of my colleagues who have preceded me. This is a very important subject and it is one that has seen many issues raised on which we have had a good dialogue. I would like to commend all my colleagues who have participated and who will participate in the debate.
Proposals for a new refugee determination system have been tabled in Parliament. They establish a system which reinforces Canada's commitment to genuine refugees in fear of persecution. The new system has a number of features which provides significant rights to refugees. These rights are consistent with our obligations under the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and with the Canadian Charter of Rights. The system, above all, ensures that no genuine refugee will be returned to a country where he or she is in danger of persecution.
Canada is, and will continue to be, a place of safe haven for genuine refugees who need our protection. This system upholds our commitment, a long-standing commitment, which is a vital element of a policy which, since World War II, has enabled some 500,000 refugees to settle in Canada. The Government has tried to put in place a fair and compassionate structure that will admit genuine refugees and screen out those who make fraudulent claims.
The proposals for this new system represent substantial improvements over the existing one in a number of ways. I would like to touch on just a few, if I may. For example, arguable cases can be referred for determination within a few days, and decisions on refugee status can be made within months rather than years, as is now too often the case. I think this cures a very serious shortcoming in the existing system.
The new system provides a number of safeguards for the individual, including the right to legal counsel. This is very important. Legal aid will be provided where necessary. A safe third country list will be established by Cabinet, and Cabinet has indicated that it will give very careful consideration concerning that list. I think some of our colleagues who have participated in the debate today, notably the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and the response from the Minister highlight and underscore the importance which this provision has and the importance of our giving very careful consideration to the legal interpretations so that we can make a very valuable contribution in committee.
A new refugee board will be made up of members with specialized training in refugee matters. The new refugee board will also have the resources to deal with claims quickly for the benefit of refugees who need our protection. Of course, every claimant will have the right to appeal by leave to the Federal Court on questions of law. This new system will support a fair immigration program of moderate controlled growth that will
May 12, 1987

benefit all Canadians. While we continue to have an open immigration policy and need the talents and skills that new immigrants will bring, we want to be able to manage our system in a way that better serves all refugees and all Canadians.
The new legislation will also allow us to focus our resources on overseas selection of refugees. There are some 10 million to 12 million people still in refugee camps throughout the world. That is a matter we should keep before us when considering important resolutions like this one and important Bills like the one tabled in the House.
This year Canada will welcome some 125,000 new immigrants. This figure is up from the target of 115,000 in 1986 and up from the 85,000 to 90,000 people who were admitted in 1985. The figure is also up from the 84,000 people admitted in the year we took office. It should be noted that our Government has taken giant strides forward in this area and we have had the courage to grapple with some very serious problems.
In every respect this new legislation is intended to protect the rights of genuine refugees so that anyone needing Canada's protection will not be turned away. This new system preserves the integrity of our over-all program, which includes mechanisms to discourage queue jumpers and to deal effectively and swiftly with people who circumvent the normal legal channels. It also serves better genuine refugees and those applying to join our Canadian family. New Canadians have made a great contribution to Canada, and under this legislation we are confident they will continue to do so.
An important aspect of immigration which I believe we all support and on which I would like to touch in passing is that of family reunification. These proposals do not compromise our commitment to family reunification. On the contrary, I feel that a managed and controlled immigration policy allows us to direct resources to family reunification in greater measure.
New Canadians contribute to every phase of Canadian life. We need new Canadians. We want them and we welcome them. I am hoping that this new system we are trying to put in place will speed their entry into Canada and discourage any of those who would impede their entry by making fraudulent claims or by trying to get ahead of the process and short-circuit the system. That is the purpose of the new measures, and that purpose is a worthy one which deserves our support. I believe that all of us want to see our country continuing to grow. We want to share the good things which Canada has to offer with all new Canadians. The more we are able to accommodate, the better and the happier we will all be. Thank you for allowing me to intervene in the debate, Mr. Speaker.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend and colleague. I happen to be in his Province of New Brunswick a couple of months ago where I met with refugee organizations. One major recommendation that I brought back was one very evident one in the recommendations of the major non-governmental organizations, the churches and the
Supply
Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. It was that of trying to protect the accessibility to the system, the philosophy that it would be very counter-productive to try to establish a new and improved system which would ensure accessibility is not available to the great number of refugees who come to our shores.
The legislation has a pre-screening stage at the very start whereby two officers would be making a determination virtually on the spot at our various border points. That has triggered within groups in New Brunswick, as well as in other parts of the country, a backlash against the whole question of protecting accessibility. What does the Member think of the pre-screening stage and then of the problems in which that stage is rooted in a third safe country concept when we are having difficulty, based on the answers we have been given, in defining what is a safe third country? How will that list be put together? Will diplomatic and political pressures precede any individual refugee claimant? How will that list get changed with the new uprisings that will inevitably surface throughout different parts of the world?


J. Robert Howie: I thank the Hon. Member for his questions, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to note that he was in New Brunswick and his performance in Parliament has improved immeasurably since he was there. I hope he returns soon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Robert Howie: With respect to the list of safe countries, that question was answered earlier by the Minister of State for Immigration in response to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. He indicated that it would be a valid and an honest list completed with great care. He said that the intention in producing the list was to improve the administrative process the Hon. Member and I want to see improved, as do the people from New Brunswick who made representations. The purpose of the list is not to impair the entrance of new immigrants; neither is that the purpose of the refugee board. This is intended to speed up the process the people from New Brunswick want speeded up.
Under the Hon. Member's Government which preceded this one, this same procedure took years. Our Government is attempting to put in place a system that will take days and at the most months. I am sure we would all want to support such a system and I would welcome the Hon. Member's support.
The question about the legislation tabled by the Government which was raised by the highly respected Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East is a matter of legal interpretation. I thought the answer of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) was very good. My own interpretation, and I undertake to check it very thoroughly, is that the board has discretion and if a refugee coming from another country is in real danger of persecution, he would not be sent back to that same country. This is a matter of debate and it is a matter that I feel should be resolved in committee

May 12, 1987
Supply
through the best legal interpretation available to us. I thank the Elon. Member for his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I treat today's debate as one of the most important debates in which I have participated in this session of Parliament. I think there is no issue that demands more concern on the part of Members of Parliament than an issue that quite literally deals with life and death matters.
It has been said that one of the highest tests of a nation is how it treats its least well off citizens, the poor, the disabled and the disadvantaged. I propose an equally high test, which is how a nation treats those who are not its own citizens but find themselves in desperate circumstances, needing compassion and help from those able to provide it. That is what we are debating today. Is this nation living up to its fullest and best potential in helping those least able to help themselves? The clear answer is no.
What disturbs me most is that the legislation that has been introduced by the Government is a major alteration in an evolutionary pattern that began in 1951 with the signing of the Geneva Convention. After that, a series of steps were taken by successive Governments to improve, enlarge and enhance the capacity of the Canadian Government to respond to the refugee issue. We heard many horrific tales about great swarms of people trying to beat down the doors of Canada. I listened to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) exploit those numbers by trying to raise the fear that there would be a great flood of people.
In the last 30 years, Canada has accepted over 400,000 refugees. We have accepted more refugees per capita than any other country in the world. During that period of time, we began to lead the world in the way we dealt with refugee problems. Our record was not unblemished but it was always improving. It was always taking that extra step based upon a compassionate appeal, not upon an enforcement appeal.
What is so disturbing to those of us who have been personally and directly involved in refugee matters for many years is that this Government is breaking that tradition. This Government has turned its back on that tradition. It does not show the most compassion possible and is now following the pack. It is not attempting to build a consensus for a greater reception and treatment of refugees. Instead, it is turning the screws and saying that we must exploit our worst biases. That is the problem.
It was not always so. When I inherited the post of Minister of Employment and Immigration, a good series of initiatives had been taken by the Government of the former Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), on Indo-Chinese refugees. A sponsorship program for private citizens had been offered and we doubled that program and accepted well over 100,000 Indo-Chinese refugees between 1978 and 1982, perhaps the most exemplary record of any country in the world.
We tend to forget that Canada's refugee-determination procedure is quite new. It only really began in 1978 with the passage of the new Act. It was up to successive Governments to build around that legislation a policy, a program and an administration that would give life to the spirit of the legislation.
If Members would read the debates that occurred in this House for close to two years during the enactment of that legislation, they would find it very instructive because they would understand that the key to making an effective refugee policy work is bringing Canadians on side, working with the churches, working with non-governmental organizations, and providing leadership that would bring out the best in Canadians. Through that partnership, we are able to show an incredible amount of generosity and openness.
Rather than trying to build a consensus for a more open, tolerant and compassionate refugee policy, this Government, for reasons which are hard to understand, has turned in the other direction. Instead, it is trying to show leadership against refugees.
Time and again, I have heard the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration say that a genuine refugee would never be turned away. If that is the case, why is the safe country clause in the legislation? Because the Minister is in the House, I would like to pose an interesting proposition to him. Will the United States of America be considered a safe country? I presume it will be. It is a close ally and a democratic country. It meets all the so-called criteria on which one would judge a safe country.
Let me deal with some interesting statistics from last year. In the United States, the chance of a refugee claimant from El Salvador or Guatemala being accepted was about 2 per cent. For those from Poland, it was 49 per cent, and for those from Iran, it was 66 per cent. What is clear is that the refugee determination procedure in the United States is infused with the political and ideological objectives of the Reagan administration. For one who comes from Central America, the United States is not a safe country.
I can say from personal experience, having been in refugee camps in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala to witness what is going on there, that when those people are sent back to their countries, which is what happens under the so-called safe country policy, they are condemned to prison, to intimidation and to threat. That is the conundrum the Government has created with this legislation. It is attempting to tell Canadians not to worry about refugees because it has a list of safe countries.
Can anyone tell me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will tell his friend, the President, that the United States is not a safe country for refugees? Of course he will not say that. We know, however, from the facts, that it is not a safe country for refugees from Central America.
May 12, 1987

That is not new information. The Mennonite Central Committee and the coalition of church groups have told the Government time and time again that if it attempts that kind of pre-screening it is going to get itself involved in that kind of a dilemma.
What also bothers me a great deal is the attempt to suggest that somehow the Government was left with a mess and things were not being looked after. The Government knows that that was not the case. In 1981, we brought in new refugee guidelines. We set up the Refugee Status Advisory Committee as an independent organization. We established a task force to look at streamlining the refugee determination process. We established the Plaut Commission which came up with a series of recommendations. In other words, as the problem began to grow we responded. Those recommendations were on the table the day the Government took office. Two and a half years later it has rejected the proposals put forward by those independent groups and come up with its own made-in-the-department solution which emphasizes keeping people out, not providing the best way of bringing them in. All the Government had to do was to implement those proposals. However, because it was something the Liberal Government did, the Conservatives would not touch it. They wasted two and a half years, rejected the findings of a committee with a majority of Conservative Members, and now they have the nerve to say they inherited the problem. Of course there was a big problem, but a response was made.
Let me provide another small piece of history which may be constructive to this debate. At the beginning of 1982, in full recognition of a growing problem, that being the number of people who were trying to gain admission not only to Canada but to West Germany, the U.S., France, and all the other countries concerned at that time, the Government of Canada initiated a series of discussions beginning with the U.S. We then broadened it to include the Europeans, the Japanese and others in a series of international meetings designed to come up with an international approach to dealing with the refugee problem. We recognized that when one country closed its doors, that would create a problem for another country. So we started laying the groundwork for an agreement that would provide for a co-ordinated approach to the UNHCR. Each country could then follow the same pattern and we would make sure of an effective and co-ordinated allocation of responsibility.
What happened to that initiative? Why was it dropped? Recognizing that the UNHCR was not getting the necessary political motivation and that this country was being looked to for leadership, surely that initiative should have been followed through and built upon. Yet the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that his Government inherited the mess. What he inherited was a series of solutions which his Government rejected and discarded. I am surprised that even to this day there has been no attempt to resurrect that kind of
Supply
international policy-making approach to the problem of refugees.
This past week-end I was at a round table discussion on Central America. It brought together people from Latin America, Central America, the U.S. and Europe to talk about how to deal with the incredibly tragic circumstances in Central America. It was both rewarding and instructive to hear the diplomats and political leaders of the various countries concerned repeating that Canada had a major role to play in that region. It was not a passive role, it was a major role. One of the errors they pointed to specifically was that of refugee policy. They pointed to the past initiatives we had taken for rescuing political prisoners from El Salvador and bringing them to Canada. We initiated a sanctuary program whereby someone who was being deported by the American authorities to Central America would be picked up and brought to Canada with the co-operation of church and refugee organizations. We were told that this kind of initiative established our reputation as well as trust and confidence in us in dealing with the most intractable problems in Central America.
Now we are erasing that and turning the clock back. Other countries were looking to us for leadership. They said we could make a valuable contribution in one of the trouble spots of the world. Yet, because of the initiatives taken in closing our borders last May and in this new legislation, we are foreclosing our options and refusing the opportunity to continue the initiative.
We have to ask ourselves why. It is not a partisan issue. No one is going to score any political points. Or are they? Is this something involving that kind of cynicism where you can pander to a bias out there and say, boy, we are getting tough?


Charles Joseph Clark: Even by your standards that is low and unacceptable.


Lloyd Axworthy: I hear a comment from the lowest of the low. We have to consider the source.
What is the reason for this? If the Minister has an alternative reason, let us hear it. No rational reason has been given. No historical reason has been given. Clearly there are alternatives which are far more acceptable even to Conservative Members. One has to ask, why is the Government doing it? That is why we brought this legislation forward today. It is to try to focus the attention of Canadians on the fact that this is the wrong answer, the wrong approach.
There are other ways of handling the problem and streamlining the process. You can do it in a way that you do not strip people of their rights and liberties and turn your back on all those who look to this country for leadership and sanctuary.
That is why my colleague in his opening remarks said it is time Members opposite began to look at their conscience. They should begin considering how this legislation can be changed. It would not take much to turn it around. It would not take much to turn the legislation into something that is positive and useful. The first step would be to listen to the groups deeply

May 12, 1987
Supply
involved in the process. The Mennonite Central Committee and other church organizations, those who are working in the refugee camps, the non-governmental organizations, are all desperately opposed to this legislation. Surely that should tell the Government something. It should understand that if all those who have committed their lives and resources to work for and represent refugees are saying we are doing the wrong thing, it is about time the Government opened its ears and listened.
The proposals are not that difficult to deal with. The prescreening process is certainly the first and foremost thing that has to be changed. By doing that, the Government would begin to show some good faith It would begin to show that you can bring in a determination procedure which recognizes rights and does not close doors. It comes to grips with problems as they need to be addressed. In that way the Government would bring on board that great well-spring of compassion and interest which exists in so many of the organizations and individuals involved across this country. That is the same kind of good will that was tapped when we brought in the Hungarians and Ugandans, the Chileans and Indo-Chinese, and the Poles, when they were all having their problems. When we brought in tens of thousands of refugees Canadians were prepared to accept them. Those people have become very much a part of the Canadian community. They have become resettled. They have found a home here and are making an important contribution to Canada. We did ourselves proud by managing that problem.
O)
When the Government studies the evolution that has taken place since World War II, and particularly in the last 10 years during which Canada provided a standard of leadership and responsibility, it will recognize that what it has now done is wrong. Simply by admitting it is wrong and turning to a different course it can win the applause of everyone involved and begin to provide leadership so that those who are homeless can find a home.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, whenever 1 listen to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) 1 think back to the time when he was a Minister in the former Government. I think back to when he was responsible for employment and immigration. I listen to him with great care and I think of what he did when he was responsible for that portfolio. I have found some facts and figures which show that when the Hon. Member was the Minister of Employment and Immigration in 1981, we brought into this country just short of
15.000	refugees. In 1986, the Government brought almost
19.000	refugees into this country. In 1981-82, when the Hon. Member was the Minister, his Government spent $26,748,000 on international humanitarian assistance. In 1985-86, the last fiscal year for which we have figures, the Government spent $53,300,000 on international humanitarian assistance. In 1982, the Member's Government spent $30,435,000 on
settlement for refugees. In 1986, the Government spent almost $50 million on settlement for refugees.
There seems to be quite a difference between the money spent on settlement when the Member was a Minister in the former Government and the dollars which were spent by the present Government in the most recent years for which figures are available. There has been quite a substantial increase in the amounts spent. There has been quite a substantial increase in the amounts spent on international humanitarian assistance as well. There has also been quite a substantial increase in the number of refugee landings in this country from the time when the Member was a Minister in charge of these matters.
This makes me wonder just how sincere the Member is and whether he is speaking from his heart or whether he is not only, as suggested by his former colleague, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, engaged purely in political posturing. Is that what the Hon. Member is doing today? The figures from the time when the Member was a Minister do not stack up very well against those of today. Is he engaged in purely political posturing?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, every time I hear the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) ask a question I am reminded of the time when he was the Mayor of the Municipality of Metro Toronto and came to me, as Minister of Employment and Immigration, asking for assistance in setting up a youth employment program which the previous Government did. I am glad to say that the program became a highly successful model for the youth job corps.
The Member seemed to have an awful lot more common sense at that time than he seems to exhibit now. I was very pleased to work in partnership and co-operation with him at that time in establishing major programs in his municipality.
The Member asks about sincerity. He saw examples of that sincerity when he asked for assistance with the problem he was facing. One of the problems which he faced in his municipality at that time related to visible minorities. Many of those who had come into his municipality through immigration programs did not have opportunities for retraining and employment. The pilot program which we designed was established to meet that problem. Unfortunately, many of the programs which we initiated have been erased under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I suppose if we were guilty of anything, it was of being too softhearted with various mayors of municipalities at that time.
With regard to the statistics which the Member quoted, we must factor into the equation the difference of seven years. Over that time there has been inflation, which changes figures. Only about 2,000 or 3,000 people applied for refugee determination in that year. It was only natural that the available money was spent to meet that need. We are saying that as the numbers grow, the resources have to be increased.
Over the last two years, the Department has not been living up to those expectations. It has not even been applying the instruments which are available under the present Immigration Act and its regulations. The backlog has been allowed to grow
May 12, 1987

because the proper assessments and judgments have not been made and people who are not legitimate refugees have not been asked to leave. The Government has been stalling. It has been dragging its feet on this issue. We must ask whether it is doing so in order to create the impression that there is a backlog.
Members talk about the problem of people coming from Portugal and Brazil. Why was there not some sort of visa control? We used such provisions from time to time. We did so when we were faced with the question of the Sikhs in 1982 who were making manifestly unfounded claims. The Government has not been taking such measures.
I come back to the basic point that I do not think the Government has been trying to manage the issue or deal with the problem even under the present initiatives. We saw the problems on the horizon three or four years ago and responded by starting the oral hearings and putting the guidelines in place. Only three years after the legislation had been passed we did a major revision of refugee policy, put new measures in place, and started a major examination of the determination procedures.
It is now four years since those measures were put in place, and we are hearing a series of proposals which totally contradict the wisdom of those independent task forces. That is the real issue at stake.
If we are talking about political posturing, rather than trying to make those political posturing points, if the Hon. Member would take his powers of eloquence and persuasion that he used upon me when I got youth programs for him and used them on his Ministers and the Government to make alterations in the refugee program, he, I and everyone else in the country would be much happier.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, who obviously spoke with passion and deep-felt emotion about the issue.
It has become very evident that the Government will try to market its new product, Bill C-55, to the clientele, the Canadian population, on the basis of curbing abuse. There are two curious aspects to that marketing scheme.
First, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry correctly articulated the point that Canada will be one of the first countries to legislate the third safe country concept which will encourage other countries to do likewise and thereby set up, in the Member's words, a pinball or domino effect in which there will be an international corridor of locked and jammed doors, only aggravating the desperate situation of individual refugees.
On the other hand, during this administration there has been an increase in the number of schemes and, perhaps scams, perpetrated by unscrupulous lawyers attempting to get
Supply
refugees into the country through the front or back door. We can look, for example, at Lebanon, Turkey, Portugal and Brazil as well as other countries on the horizon.
This shows that inflexibility and rigidity is not the answer to curbing abuse. There is an interesting correlation, that the more severe and restrictive the policy, the greater desperation and fewer options are present for refugees throughout the world.
One comes to the conclusion that Canada is not doing itself any favours, nor doing any favours for the international community, in trying to come to grips with what is an international phenomenon that ultimately requires an international solution. Will the Hon. Member comment on those elements that I believe are very crucial in this debate and which should be brought to the attention of all Canadians?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer as succinctly as I can in the few minutes remaining. First, I believe the Hon. Member has pointed to a very important axiom. As I learned in the three and a half years during which I was responsible for that Department, the more one tries to restrict, the more there will be new channels found to get around those restrictions. Attempting to close the door simply means that cracks will be found in other places.
I predict that one of the consequences of the present Government's action will be to encourage and stimulate a much broader occurrence in illegal refugee immigration activities as people find other ways of moving around the system. Rather than ensuring that all those who apply are given the proper opportunity for a fair hearing and then dispatched quickly as recommended by various reports, we will see a much higher incident of illegal entry into this country.
Second, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, I am not rising to say to the Minister of State for Immigration that this is an easy problem. It is a profound, deeply complex problem. One of the answers that must be found is on the international level. It is clear that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees needs the assistance of member countries to give a new policy direction and response to this issue. That is something we began in 1982-83 when we convened those meetings of other host countries to discuss whether we could not find ways of sharing the responsibility since we had the great privilege of having great opportunities that many other people did not enjoy.
I can report that progress was being made toward finding some resolution among the various host countries on how to coordinate action and ensure there was a common approach that was based on the idea of an open door, and even letting many of the countries of origin deal with the problems beginning to emerge.
! do not know why that initiative was stifled when the new Government came to power. It would be worthwhile finding out why that very important development of a new international response to the growing refugee crisis was erased and why we retracted our leadership.

May 12, 1987
Supply
I say to the Minister, in closing, that it is not too late to resurrect that kind of initiative and begin putting it into effect. I think the intent of my colleague's motion and our interest in being here to speak to it is to encourage the Government to do that very thing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House today, a motion with which I certainly cannot agree. I would like to give the House an overview of the Bill tabled by the Government, which provides for a new process for determining refugee status in Canada. I am firmly convinced that this Bill strikes the right balance between justice for refugees and an efficient immigration program.
The present Government wants moderate and controlled increases in immigration levels. In 1985, the total number of landed immigrants was 85,000, and this number increased to
100.000	in 1986. In 1987, this figure is expected to be between
115.000	and 125,000. As was stated by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner), Canada's refugee program is based on a threefold approach, in accordance with the United Nations policy relating to refugees.
The first component consists of a refugee assistance program with a budget of over $170 million in 1986-87.

The second component is resettlement from abroad. This is in line with the United Nations' approach that for some, the only solution is resettlement in a country far away from their homeland. Voluntary return or local resettlement are considered the best options for most refugees. Canada's resettlement record is outstanding, with 18,000-plus refugees in 1986 and 500,000 since World War II.
The third element is the determination system in Canada. It is designed to help those who arrive looking for protection and have nowhere else to go. This determination system is under severe pressure. It can no longer respond to genuine refugees in need. Over the last few years, refugee claims have increased dramatically. Population pressures in the Third World have caused massive migrations to developed countries.
The Europeans have moved to control abuse of their systems. The United States recently took steps affecting thousands of illegal immigrants there. The spill-over from these events has now reached Canada.

There are 80 million people in the world who have left their homes, and 15 million are refugees. We must find solutions at the international level, and Canada is playing a leading role in seeking such solutions.
Mr. Speaker, in 1980, there were 1,600 claims in Canada. In 1986, that number rose to 18,000. The forecast for 1987 is 25,000.
Before dealing with the Bill and its provisions for claiming refugee status in Canada, we must first agree on some basic definitions of refugees and refugee claims.
What is the difference between a refugee and a refugee claimant? What is an economic migrant? People coming to Canada and claiming refugee status are refugee claimants. But a refugee claimant is not necessarily a genuine refugee. Many are economic migrants.
Canada respects the United Nations' definition of a Convention refugee. Briefly, this is someone who is outside his or her country and is unable to return because of a real fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. As a signatory to the U.N. Convention, Canada must give protection to those who have no other safe haven.
Economic migrants come to Canada to improve their economic well-being. They want to avoid immigration selection abroad. They are the major source of false refugee claims in Canada.

They should and must file an application through the usual channels at Canadian embassies and consulates.
Mr. Speaker, last year, two of the five main source countries of refugee claimants in Canada were Portugal and Turkey. These are not source countries of refugees. There has been a obvious abuse of our process for determining refugee status. Canada's ability to protect genuine refugees is being undermined and the process appears to favour these fraudulent cases. The consistent support of Canadians for increasing immigration levels and aid to refugees is suffering as well.

I now wish to outline the objectives of the proposed new system for refugee determination in Canada. The new Bill respects Canada's values and humanitarian traditions. Its objectives are to protect genuine refugees in need, to process claims fairly and quickly, to curb abuse, and to manage resources effectively. It ensures that refugees and immigrants are treated fairly.
There are several key features. The new process is streamlined. Refugee determination is completed in months. Now it often takes years. It quickly sorts out arguable cases from clearly unfounded claims. The system provides quality oral hearings before independent, well trained refugee board members, and provides for appeals to the Federal Court. The Bill sets up a new immigration and refugee board. There are two sections; an immigration board dealing only with immigration matters, and a Convention Refugee Determination Board dealing exclusively with refugee claims.
May 12, 1987



I shall now deal with how the new process works. Step one. Upon arrival in Canada, the individual claims refugee status and the claimant appears before an adjudicator and a member of the refugee board. Individuals with a defensible claim and those whose case is in some doubt are directed to the refugee board.

People who will not go on to the refugee board include people with refugee status elsewhere and people who arrive from a safe country where they have a claim, or a reasonable opportunity to make one. They will be returned to these countries. However, people who have simply passed through another country on their way to Canada will not be affected on these grounds. People with unfounded claims, such as the Portuguese claim of persecution as Jehovah's Witnesses, will be returned to apply in their home country. Anyone who was previously rejected as a refugee claimant in Canada, and anyone subject to a removal order, will also not proceed to the board. None of these people need Canada's protection.
Important safeguards are built into this process. The refugee board member must agree with the decisions. People not referred to the board are removed. However, they can appeal by leave to the Federal Court even though they are outside Canada. If the appeal succeeds, the person will be brought back at Government expense. Everyone has the right to counsel. A lawyer will be provided, if needed.

Mr. Speaker, these bona fide refugees will never be sent back to a country where they fear persecution. The list of safe countries will be short and will be drafted by Cabinet. Considerations in establishing the list will be the record of these countries on human rights and on the way they protect refugees. Cabinet will seek the advice of reliable sources including the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, nongovernmental organizations and the new independent Refugee Board. Safe countries that do not have an unblemished record with respect to some of their nationals will not be eligible.
Claimants whose case has been referred to the refugee board must be given a firm date for a hearing within 10 days.
Step 2-At the refugee board, the claimant will be given a hearing before a jury of two. The claimant is entitled to counsel. The hearing will be held according to a non-adversarial formula. The claim will be accepted if approved by one of the members of the refugee board. The claimant will be given the benefit of the doubt.

Work permits can be issued at this point. Step three, claimants accepted by the board can apply for landing. If the claim is rejected, reasons must be given. The claimant has the right of appeal by leave to the Federal Court. Removal takes place only after appeals are decided.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the new refugee determination system ensures that genuine refugees are protected. Every
Supply
claimant is seen by at least one member of the refugee board. Claims will be processed fairly and quickly. Refugee determination will be decided in months, not years. The new system responds quickly to abuse. People coming to Canada for reasons other than protection will be speedily removed. Workable procedures aim, above all, at giving protection to those who need it, not to those who do not.
There are three steps in the new system. The old system had eight. People will be referred to the refugee board in a matter of days. Determinations will be made in months. It now takes years. The new system will get rid of long delays and uncertainty for genuine refugees. Rejected claimants will be speedily removed.
The new system meets Canada's Convention obligations, respects the Charter and the Bill of Rights, maintains Canada's humanitarian tradition, and preserves the integrity of the immigration and refugee programs.
I wish to emphasize that Canada's refugee program measures up internationally. The new system has more safeguards than most refugee-receiving countries. Canada has a generous refugee aid program both at home and abroad.
Our best contribution is still resettlement from camps abroad. Many of the people in these camps have been there for years and have no other options. The Government sponsors thousands every year, and there is no limit on privately-sponsored refugees. The Government helps groups find refugees to sponsor, helps with language training and pays for other resettlement services.
I have personally worked hard to obtain support from the Canadian executive of the International Parliamentary Union to have the question of refugees placed on the fall agenda of the world-wide IPU conference to be held in Bangkok, Thailand. With the assistance of Senator Bonnell of the other place and the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), Canada has gained support from the European 12-plus group of which Canada is a member. As a result, the international responsibility for refugees will be debated by the IPU next fall when Canada hopes to play the role of chef de file.
Canada's respected humanitarian record will continue. The Government is committed to protecting genuine refugees. It is firm in its resolve to curb abuse and committed to increased immigration.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague who sits on the Immigration Committee, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom). The Hon. Member spent a considerable amount of time during his allotted time in the debate dealing with the question of fraudulent applications and the suggestion that Canada should not offer any assistance to those who wish to come in through the back door and break our regulations. I do not think there is one Member of

May 12, 1987
Supply
Parliament or one political Party which suggests that fraudulent claims should be rewarded to the detriment of those who are genuine and legitimate claimants.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member this. Instead of talking about the visa position and about getting tough with legislation, which in the end will hurt and handicap genuine claimants as has been suggested throughout this debate, what does the Hon. Member think of the Government's inaction in terms of bringing a great deal of the source of the cancer of fraudulent claims to some type of order? What does he feel about individuals such as John Santos who has made some $600,000 at the very least, who owns a $50,000 Mercedes and who lives by the sea in Portugal on the proceeds of fraudulent and scandalous schemes which take advantage of many innocent individuals? What does he think when he sees scams in Portugal, Lebanon and Turkey going on unabated and the fact that the Government is missing a chance to send a strong signal by prosecuting these individuals and by making a legitimate example of what we will not tolerate? How does the Hon. Member reconcile that action in the face of increased fraudulent and unscrupulous activities? What does the Hon. Member think ought to happen vis-a-vis unscrupulous consultants?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) for his question. I do not find the proposed legislation very tough on the part of Government in terms of real refugees. I find it to be humanitarian. I think it will provide a faster process. It will provide a solution. These people will not be held in limbo for years, as was the case under the previous Government. I think we are speeding up the process so that people will know exactly where they stand within a very short period of time. I think it is unjustified to call this policy tough. I would rather call it humanitarian.
With respect to the second part of the Hon. Member's question concerning fraudulent applications, I think that the Government has been trying to gather evidence, and I have been trying to gather evidence, to convict fraudulent immigration consultants. If the Hon. Member has any solid evidence to bring forward so that the Government can convict these consultants, we would be only too pleased to have it since we are having some difficulty in obtaining real evidence to convict these consultants. As I have said, I have been trying to obtain some solid evidence on this matter. Some people who have come to Canada, in particular those from Portugal and other countries, have come forward. They want to help the Government to convict these fraudulent operators in order that their families back home will not be harassed.
I hope that the Minister of Immigration, in consultation with the Department of Justice, will allow these people to stay here for perhaps a year. I hope that they will be given a work permit so that they can give evidence to the Government in order to prosecute these fraudulent operators in the near future.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today, although I am saddened by what is contained in Bill C-55. As we have listened to government Members rise one after another a theme is clearly coming out through the speech notes that they have prepared or have had provided to them. They have used words such as "stop abuse" and "curb abuse". As has been pointed out by some Hon. Members, there are no Members in the House who support the abuse of the process as it has been set up to this point. But for the Government to try to claim that the approach it is taking through Bill C-55 is somehow streamlining and making the process more fair and so on is simply not the case.
I listened with care to what members of the Opposition had to say in terms of this type of legislation being a method of pandering to ideological biases and to certain perceived unfairnesses in the system. 1 think that we can see not only in this piece of legislation but in others a theme coming forward from the Government. In terms of the pornography legislation, rather than dealing with kiddie porn and violence against women the Government has gone much further. It is attempting to reach out to those biases that are floating around within Canadian society in terms of the legislation. In relation to the return of capital punishment, again, we find the same type of tone and the same kind of theme. We see the same words reaching out to Canadians which seem to say: "Look, we are going to reduce crime. We will bring back capital punishment. We will reduce the number of sex offences with this pornography legislation. We will reduce the amount of abuse of Canada's immigration system in terms of refugees and economic migrants," as the Hon. Member who just spoke called them.
A lot of the concern that there is throughout Canada, and I am talking about both urban and rural areas, has been created by some Members who sit on the government side. There is a concern on the part of those Canadians who are waiting for family reunification, for relations or for friends to come from the country from which they have come. They have been led to believe, through a lot of what has been said by government Members in speeches that they have given and in articles that they have sent out, that the reason they are having to wait such a long time is that our Canadian officials throughout the world are somehow spending all their time on cases of abuse by refugees, economic migrants and others. The concern is that the legitimate aspirations of other Canadians to have a son, daughter, mother, father, uncle, other relative, or friend join them in Canada are being held in abeyance, because the system is fouled up with those who are abusing it and the Government, for some reason, is spending all its time and energy in dealing with abuses.
The Minister who spoke did not give us any statistics on abuse. None of the government Members gave us specific cases of abuse. We know that there have been some. However, to say that the legislation is required to stop that leads me to
May 12, 1987

feel that the Government is looking at the whole refugee matter in terms of numbers rather than in terms of real families and the real pain behind many of their cases. The Bill is designed to deal with numbers.
It is not just a merry-go-round. Some government Members have tried to make it sound as if some people have had to return to a safe third country and then come back for another process, that the federal Government pays for them to come back, and all this kind of thing. In fact, it is quite different, and I will come to that in a moment.
Who are the refugees? Who are they? Members of the House talk about different clauses of the Bill, different procedures, and so on. However, one Canadian in 50 living in Canada today, on May 12, 1987, came to Canada since 1945 as a refugee under the various and changing pieces of legislation Canada used to deal with refugees. Canada has had a good record in most areas in terms of dealing with refugees.
I should like to spend a moment on what exactly is in today's motion, what has been proposed by the Canadian Council of Churches, and why groups are working in Central America, in South America, and in other parts of the world to assist refugees who are trying to flee persecution in other political systems on the basis of race, religion, economic participation in the economy, and, most often, political involvement. In terms of refugees fleeing to Canada, certainly in terms of Central America and South America, in most cases they are fleeing from extreme right wing dictatorships. I hope as well to have time to come to the ideological bias we find in the concept of safe third countries.
However, let us look at the motion before the House. It is reasonably clear. In part it suggests that the Government establish a system which would:
(1)	guarantee full accessibility to the system for refugee claimants by rejecting any pre-screening stage within the process;
(2)	ensure maximum protection and safety for all refugees and a comprehensive and adequate hearing of their claims by abolishing the highly restrictive "safe third country" concept as an integral part of the refugee determination process;-
As other Hon. Members have pointed out, between 1983 and 1986 the United States only accepted 2 per cent of those claimants who were trying to obtain refugee status, particularly from countries like El Salvador, whereas Canada accepted almost 50 per cent of such claims.
The Government says that Cabinet will decide what is a safe third country. Any of us who have been around here for a while-and I have been here for the last eight years-knows that Cabinet will not have monthly or bimonthly meetings to decide which countries are safe third countries. It will come from within the system. This is where the ideological bias of the Government is being built into it.
I think we all know of the pressures which are brought by Governments in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, India, and other nations around the world to bear on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), on other Ministers,
Supply
and on the Government of Canada. They ask: "Why did you let so and so come to Canada as a refugee?" They ask why we let certain groups into the country and about the numbers. Because they have a certain level of trade with us, they want us to slow down and make them remain in such and such a country. This sets up a whole new bureaucratic mechanism. As other Members have pointed out, should Canada move in the direction of starting to close doors to make the whole system less accessible and of saying that someone must return to country x or go from there to another country, it will force more and more bona fide refugees.
Let us pull the mask off these unknown refugees. Who are these people? Half a million bona fide Canadians came to the country as refugees. Who were they? Who was persecuting them? Why did they choose Canada? I have dealt with many refugee cases in my own constituency. Generally, when they arrive at the borders of Canada, at an airport, on a boat, or whatever, they have used the last of their resources. Very few refugees have an opportunity to sell their home or their car and casually board a Boeing 747 to fly to Canada. Very few of them can say that they will set up a business or do x, y, or z. It is a totally different situation.
Our refugee system and the legislation to deal with refugees face to face must be incredibly sensitive to the reality of what these people and their families have gone through. They fled the countries where they were born. They fled a political system. They fled the reality of the country in which they were living and tried to find a safe haven.
As the legislation is drafted, some of these people will simply come before an almost untrained officer, perhaps at a border crossing or at an airport. They might have to spend three hours or four hours at an airport after having come perhaps half way around the world and having been in all kinds of unsavoury situations from which they have fled. They are given a few moments of time, quite often after having arrived here as part of a busload of people.
As other Hon. Members have pointed out, 18,000 refugees arrived in Canada last year. The Government is sending out signals that there is abuse and indicating the reasons one's grandmother cannot come from Scotland is the refugee problem, the abuse which has been created by the Liberals, the abuse in the system, and so on.
We must understand that the Bill was not drafted by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). Those of us who have been around here for a while know that pressure was brought from within the system. Are we really to say to Salvadoran refugees that the United States is a safe country?
Let us look at the evidence given before a Senate hearing in the United States. It is shocking. In testimony before a Senate subcommittee in April, 1985, the American Civil Liberties Union found evidence that returnees were abducted, murdered, beaten, and arrested. It also indicated that the United States only granted asylum to 2.6 per cent of those who applied between June, 1983 and January, 1986.

May 12, 1987
Adjournment Debate
We know that the Government is trying to curry favour with the United States Government on free trade and all kinds of other issues. The Government would not want to say to the United States: "You are not a safe country". If the Minister of State for Immigration were serious, why would he not indicate that Parliament or a committee of Parliament would determine the safe countries? It has been left to Cabinet.
What grounds are there for the Government to refuse to accept the proposal put forward by the Canadian Council of Churches? What could be more practical and more reasonable than its five points? They read as follows:


STAGE 1 ARRIVAL
[Stage Direction]
Refugee claimant arrives at border. Immigration Official registers person and refers to the Refugee Board. Claimants cannot be returned.

[Stage Direction]
Claimant makes an appointment with Refugee Board for an oral hearing within a fixed time period after referral.

[Stage Direction]
Claimant and legal counsel present case to a two person panel of competent specialized persons of a Refugee Board who will decide whether or not they believe the person is a refugee.
Stage 4 is the appeal/review, and Stage 5 is the Federal Court. Why did the Government not go that route?
The Government wants to create the belief among Canadians that there has been abuse, that the entire system is sort of stalled, that there cannot be family reunification and so on because of the ongoing process.
I know the Minister is a compassionate person. He must return to the drawing board. The "safe third country concept" simply must go. Other substantive changes must be made to the Bill.
To this point in time we have been a beacon of fairness around the world in terms of dealing with bona fide refugees. None of us support the abusers, the economic migrants, and so on. However, the Bill falls short of what all Canadians support, that is, a true sense of fairness in dealing with refugees from around the world.
I am sorry I do not have more time. I look forward to participating in the debate again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), the proceedings on the motion have expired.