1987-08-17

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my duty to present to the House a petition signed by residents of Canada who, when visiting the Byward market this summer, cared enough to write their name and address on this petition which says that since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or increases in existing taxes, including some on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candies, and soft drinks; that in its White Paper on tax reform the federal Government is considering the possibility of imposing on Canadian taxpayers a general tax on goods and services, including foodstuff; that foods represents a vital element in their daily lives and this sales tax would heavily penalize various categories of taxpayers, including senior citizens, families, the unemployed, low and middle income taxpayers, the young, etc.
Wherefore, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to turn down any legislation whose effect would be to impose a sales tax on foodstuff.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; Nos. 145 and 151.


Mr. McKinnon: Has the Department of National Defence instituted a policy of placing Canadian Army (Regular) Officers in some officer vacancies in Canadian Army (Militia) units and (a) if so, how many and at what ranks (h) if not, does the government intend to initiate such a policy?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes, in 1985 the Chief of the Defence Staff approved a policy where if no qualified or suitable officer were available to command a militia unit, the Commander of Mobile Command had the authority to appoint a regular force officer as commanding officer.
(a) One as a major.


Mr. McKinnon: For each fiscal year 1970-71 to 1987-88 inclusive, did the expenditures of the Department of National Defence increase in real terms and, if so (u) what was the increase, including statutory costs and expressed in percentages (b) what deflator was used and what was the amount of each deflator model?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Percentage	GNE
Year	1ncrease	Deflator Rate1970/71	(2.5)	4.21971/72	2.0	3.61972/73	(0.7)	5.41973/74	.1	10.91974/75	(2.4)	15.11975/76	7.7	10.11976/77	3.6	9.21977/78	4.7	7.01978/79	1.9	6.91979/80	(4.1)	1 1.41980/81	4.0	11.21981/82	7.5	10.41982/83	6.0	9.41983/84	9.2	4.41984/85	8.9	2.81985/86	(0.7)	3.41986/87	4.8	2.91987/88 (Forecast)	0.7	3.9


Philip Derek Lewis: 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, August 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Marchi, (p. 7338).
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who had the floor when the Bill was last debated. My question deals with the safe third country clause in the Bill. All Members have received a letter from the English speaking section of Amnesty International which says that the organization is extremely concerned that proposed new refugee legislation could lead to serious errors with genuine refugees.
As we know, the legislation before us could possibly give the authorities power to return persons forcibly to countries where they may expect to be arbitrarily detained for the non-violent expression of their beliefs, or even tortured or executed.
Could the Member give us the benefit of his knowledge and experience in this matter with regard to persons coming to Canada being returned to a safe third country? That concept is a new one in Bill C-55. People in my riding question me about that and 1 wonder whether the Member for Davenport has some comments to make on that concept?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As you probably know, we all received a letter from Amnesty International signed by the chairperson of the Refugee Coordination Group. Through that letter Amnesty International is bringing to the attention of Members of Parliament the fact that it is extremely concerned that Bill C-55 could lead to serious errors in that genuine refugees could be sent back to their country of origin to face possible persecution.
The letter goes on to indicate that Amnesty International believes that no Canadian would knowingly risk the security of genuine refugees. I know that that sentiment is well placed and reflects very clearly the sentiment of the majority of Canadians on this matter.
In this letter, Amnesty International brought to our attention a letter which they wrote on August 7 to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in which they expressed their views quite well in the first paragraph which I will put on record. It begins by saying that Amnesty International is writing to the Prime Minister-
-in response to the recent introduction of Bill C-55 which, if passed into
law, will dramatically change Canada's refugee determination policy. As you
may be aware. Amnesty International opposes the forcible return of persons to
countries where they may reasonably be expected to be arbitrarily detained for the non-violent expression of their beliefs, tortured or executed.
A law which increases the likelihood of such events occurring is therefore of great concern to our organization.
I am sure that Amnesty International is speaking on behalf of many Canadians. That letter, signed by Robert Goodfellow, president of Amnesty International, concludes as follows:
We urge you and your government to amend or withdraw and replace Bill C-55 with legislation which incorporates the fundamental principles of universal access, an appeal on the merits and independent decision-making.
We would be very wise and well served to pay very close attention to that letter from Amnesty International.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am especially interested in the comments of Amnesty International that the Bill should be amended. I want to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that we are presently discussing an amendment moved by his colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), to delay discussion of this Bill until some time in 1988. Amendments can be made at committee stage as suggested by Amnesty International and the Bill can be improved. However, his colleague's amendment would delay discussion of the refugee determination Bill until 1988.
I have two questions for my hon. colleague. First, will he be voting with his colleague from York West to further delay discussion of the refugee determination system until some time next year?
The second question is the most important. In the Hon. Member's riding of Davenport there are a great many new Canadians who came to this country and met the requirements and regulations for medical and security clearance and did not jump the queue. How will his law-abiding constituents, new Canadians, feel about him voting in favour of a further six-month delay of this Bill with no discussion at committee stage?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his questions because they are relevant. First, I am glad to hear that he is amenable to and attracted by the motion of amendments. That is good news because if amendments were to be initiated by him or any other member of the Progressive Conservative Party who can speak with authority on this Bill indicating that the questions of access and universality are resolved, we would be very glad to take a positive look at this Bill because it would coincide exactly with the concerns raised by Amnesty International.
However, we have not yet heard anything about that. So far the signals from the Government have been to the contrary. As the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) indicated in debate last week, we had to move a motion to hoist the Bill out of sheer desperation when it became clear that the Government was not listening.
Most Canadians do not know that this Bill was only introduced for first reading in this House on May 5. After two and one-half years in which to mull it over, with a phenomenal
August 17, 1987

amount of input from Mr. Plaut, Mr. Ratushney and Mr. Robinson, the Bill sat waiting for debate from May 5 to June 18. It then had a three-hour debate and, to our astonishment, was put aside by the Government.
I do not know what game the Government is playing on this matter. If it had serious intentions on this Bill and wanted to have it passed, it would have indicated its willingness to change it at second reading along the lines suggested by many, not only in the Opposition, but in the vast community which is understandably interested in this matter. We would have made progress. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are facing such a stonewall.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, in the riding I represent, in the Montreal area, 30 per cent of my constituents are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. They are watching the proceedings with a great deal of interest, and they were watching last week as well. I had a chance to meet some of them personally, and I received about 150 phone calls from people who were in favour of new immigration legislation that would make some changes in the way immigrants are treated here, the way they can enter the country and especially the way refugees or phony refugees come to settle in Canada.
On the week-end 1 met with people from the Maritimes, especially in the Magdalen Islands. Madam Speaker, not many immigrants go to the Magdalen Islands. In fact, the people who live there try to get away. We go there because we think it is a very scenic and interesting place. Over there, they watch the proceedings in the House and wonder what all the fuss is about. They watch what is going on, Madam Speaker, and they tell us there is a bunch of Opposition Members who want to delay the passage of badly needed legislation.
Madam Speaker, we have all kinds of ways to discuss this Bill, to amend it and improve it if necessary, but the motion before the House today, which we are debating now, says to take the Bill back and table it again in six months. Madam Speaker, I do not know whether you realize when that is going to be, in six months but it will certainly be the spring of 1988, which means practically a year, if we consider the periods when the House is sitting and when it is not. Meanwhile, people who came to Canada previously and who have already become Canadian citizens cannot ask family members- fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters-to come and settle here legally because it takes so long under the present legislation. Madam Speaker, last year in my riding, I saw a gentleman who wanted to bring his sister-in-law to Canada to attend her sister's wedding. He applied for a one-month tourist visa. Do you know when he got his tourist visa. Madam Speaker? Six months after the wedding. And that happens all the time. We have no way of speeding up this procedure which means that in no time flat, we have all kinds of refugees coming into this country more or less legally, and then they want us to postpone the debate.
Immigration Act, 1976
Madam Speaker, I think the motion before the House today should be rejected and the Bill passed and referred to a committee of the House for consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, and the Minister said so as well on the week-end, that the Bill could be amended if necessary. Madam Speaker, in the three years we have been sitting in this House, not a single Bill has been sent to committee without there being an opportunity to amend or improve it at that stage. I believe there have even been proposals or motions from the Opposition on amendments that had already been approved in Committee. Let no one say it is impossible to change or improve this Bill. That is just not true, Madam Speaker.
You know, when they cannot think of anything to say about a piece of legislation, they try and find all kinds of ways to make the person who presented the legislation look bad. Last week, Madam Speaker, I was listening carefully to the speeches made by opposition Members, both on the Liberal and the NDP side, and they were doing their best to have Canadians believe that this would be a very dangerous Bill if it were approved as is, because it would mean that organizations working to help refugees, such as the churches and Amnesty International, might be penalized. Madam Speaker, they even said, in fact, it was the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who said that we should send the Stastny brothers back to their country because of the way they entered this country. Well now, I would suggest that if demagoguery has a home it has to be here in the House of Commons where we can hear such speeches. As if we were going to deport an individual who is already established here after going through the whole determination process. As if we were going to slap a $500,000 fine on church officials doing their best to help refugees. Or as if the Quebec Nordiques management will have to put up $500,000 because they have the Stastny brothers under contract.
Madam Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides that the Stastny brothers are Canadian citizens and, as such, have nothing to fear. The way he was talking it sounded as though he would send them back. He wanted the Quebec Nordiques to be punished for that. I should think there has to be a limit somewhere.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-55 seeks to set things straight and redress an anomaly caused by refugees who abuse the system and carriers anxious to make a fast buck. You know, a refugee is an individual who fears for his health and whose life may be at stake in his own country, and this individual is only seeking refuge in another country where he will feel safer. Why should he be concerned about his life? I think the answer is very simple: people in some countries are simply not allowed to act democratically the way we do here. They are not free to express their views, they are not free to practise their religion, they are not free to speak their mother tongue. When they do speak out they are frustrated, they feel threatened, so they ask to come here. But of course there are others who are profiteers, others still who are real terrorists or labelled as being undesirable in their own countries. They too fear for their lives, so

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
they ask us to accept them here. But what are we supposed to do when 175 people land on our shores, how do we decide whether they are real or bogus refugees, particularly when they have no documents, when they have thrown passports, visas and identification papers away? Impossible! We simply have to find a way to determine as quickly as possible whether such individuals are eligible for refugee status here in Canada.
As it happens, Madam Speaker, current legislation provides that certain applicants are eligible, but they have to go through so many stages before they can be accepted or sent back to their own country that in some cases they may have to wait for four or five years before getting an answer. So what do they do in the meantime? We put them up in hotels and, from a social security standpoint, they enjoy most of the rights we Canadians have. They are fed and housed by Canadians, they are expected to wait there without the right to leave, without anything. Meanwhile, the landed immigrants who are already here and who in time have become Canadian citizens cannot use the normal channels to bring over their parents.
In my own riding, there are some 30 per cent of the 115,000 people of Lebanese, Greek, Portuguese, Jewish and Italian descent-altogether some 40,000 people-who feel frustrated and who constantly ask the Government to stop being unfair to them. There are people who come to see me and say: Would it be possible for my old father and mother, who are still in the old country, to come and live their remaining days with us here? They are both 75 years of age. The two of them are alone over there, all their children now live here in Canada or the United States, and we should like them to come and live with us. Considering the time needed to process their application, they would probably die before arriving here. Now, we are being asked to postpone the debate on this Bill. I find this inhuman and abominable.
Although 1 am not very old. Madam Speaker, I have witnessed many things in my life, including people being treated like cattle, and that is almost what is being done now.
By postponing the possibility for these people to come here legally, without endangering either the country and its inhabitants, we are certainly acting in an inhuman fashion.
Madam Speaker, I think that both opposition Parties should be able to accept that and to vote as quickly as possible on second reading of this Bill, and then to refer it to a committee of the House. I agree that the House should accept any constructive amendment which could speed up the process and make life easier. 1 for one would be the first to vote for that, Madam Speaker. For once, however, they should stop playing politics with human beings.
Madam Speaker, the carriers-and I would like to come back to this-take advantage of the situation. You know, Madam Speaker, when there is a loophole in a legislation, given the communication systems we have in North America, it does not take time for the gap to be detected and known
throughout the world. And there will always be some unscrupulous people who will try to exploit it. Such is the case of those accommodating carriers.
Madam Speaker, those carriers take some 150 or 200 individuals in the hold of their ship, allowing them to leave a so-called refugee producing country to bring them to Canada and charge them $1,000 or $2,000 per capita, thus making a profit of $150,000 to $200,000. I doubt very much that those carriers will issue receipts for income tax purposes. 1 also doubt very much that such a carrier will declare that income in his own tax return because I suppose that it is paid in cash.
This is where the abuse is. Those individuals will stop at nothing to make believe to so-called refugees, whether they are legal or not, that they will be admitted. You want to come? I charge $1,000 and you only have to embark. As for the conditions of the trip, that is another ball game. Madam Speaker. They do not care that those people will almost starve to death, become ill during two, three weeks or a month, they will do it for money. We should also take that into account in our legislation, Madam Speaker. We must take steps to put a stop to such abuses. That was the issue debated last week when we dealt with Bill C-84 which will put some teeth in the legislation and impose some punishment or fines to those carriers.
Madam Speaker, I personally view this Bill, actually Bills C-55 and C-84 as very good pieces of legislation. Of course, one cannot be perfect when tabling a Bill or reading it, there are certainly details to be improved upon or changed. But as a matter of principle, I think we have enough backbone to rise and say: Listen, Canada is not a one way street. We open our doors, no problem. You are welcome here, except that you are going to comply with our laws. You will respect the rights of individuals who are already here, and above all you will comply with the procedure for immigrating, for entering our country.
If, when an immigrant comes here, someone suggests: That guy will take my job, 1 do not believe a word of that. Madam Speaker. Legal immigrants come here for different reasons.
It may be family reasons, or economic reasons. Or again, refugees may be involved. But the economic aspect is very important, because when they come here, often they come to create jobs-to start up a company, or to become distributors between European, South American and North American countries. They create jobs, rather than steal them. Nobody here in Canada, Madam Speaker, can come up and say that an immigrant came to this country and took his job. If it happened, it is because of his incompetence. And if it did not happen, a job has been created, because you seldom see a lot of those people depending on welfare. Of the 30 percent of my constituents who are immigrants, Madam Speaker, I can tell you that you can practically count on the fingers of one hand those who are really unemployed in my constituency of Laval.
August 17, 1987

They are motivated people, they come here because it is a new country, a great, vast and rich country, and they know they can do business with its people.
Madam Speaker, we should be fair to our people, to the immigrants who are here and those who want to come, and we also must be fair to the refugees who would settle here.
1 do not know whether opposition Members will support us when the Bill is put to a vote, later today, 1 imagine. I hope that they will because, as I said earlier, Madam Speaker, I met people from the Maritimes during the week-end and they are really fed up with the behavior of the opposition Parties in this debate as they believe that delaying passage of such a Bill will delay the evolution of Canada.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this time to express my views, and I hope that we shall be able to put together a good piece of legislation under which everyone will be treated equitably and Canada will be a better country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Mr. Cassidy:: Madam Speaker, there are a few comments that I would like to make to the Hon. Member who, on the one hand, is in favour of increased immigration and says on behalf of his constituents that they are frustrated by the problems which arise when they want to have old relatives from overseas come to Canada as immigrants.
I share his concerns in this regard. The present delays are indeed bad, and these delays exist after three years of a Conservative Government. We can wonder why, if the Government is really concerned about this problem, it has done nothing about the delays, not here in Canada, but in immigration offices abroad.
How does the coming to Canada of refugee claimants affect the administrative delays outside Canada? This is my first question.
The second is this: How could Bill C-55 affect the situation of old relatives, for instance, who are now subject to unacceptable delays, since there is no queue, as some have said, since refugees cannot be placed on a waiting list? They either arrive or not.
This does not affect the problem of the delays, which is related to the administration, and to the act and regulations which were developed by the former Liberal Government and accepted for three years by this Conservative Government.
Can the Hon. Member tell us how Bill C-55 can affect the situation and the legitimate concerns of his constituents and why the Conservatives have tried to blame the refugees for their administrative failures when they are due to an administrative problem created by the Government?


Guy Ricard: Madam Speaker, I should like to respond to the first allegation made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to the effect that the legislation has been on the back burner for quite some time. He certainly cannot accuse us of creating this measure. We did not draft it, it was there all along exactly as it is now. It has to be amended and he knows that.
Immigration Act, 1976
Second, Madam Speaker, he is blaming us for a three-year delay in bringing in amendments to the legislation. I wish he would check the motion under consideration right now, and then see for himself who is holding up the debate. We on the Government side? At least we had enough backbone to open up the debate, something which the previous Liberal administration never got around to doing. Since your Party has never been in office, you did not do anything either.
So are you going to support the six-month hoist motion of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)? Or are you going to vote on the Government side? In committee, are you going to move constructive amendments or destructive amendments designed to make the Government lose face, whereas you know full well you are the ones who are delaying the debate?
Madam Speaker, I have no idea what the Hon. Member is driving at, but he knows as well that all the publicity surrounding this debate and the refugees who landed on our shores have created a real bottleneck in the various embassies and in the Department of Immigration, with the result that people seeking to go through the normal process come under closer scrutiny than before. Some 18,000 refugees are now waiting for their investigation, waiting to find out whether they will be granted immigrant status or asked to go back home.
Do you know what that means, Madam Speaker? When will these people be allowed in? When will officials working on these cases have time to examine other files? The Department of Immigration has to look after refugee and immigrant cases. Both types of applicants and everything involved. And you want us to delay the whole process? Shame on you!


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unfair for my colleague from the government benches to simply concentrate his debate on the suggestion that the Opposition is in a mood to oppose for the sake of opposing. This is very curious when one considers that for three years he has been a member of the the Conservative Government which has had four different Ministers of Immigration. Each of them came into office making a strong statement toward reforming the system.
There have been a number of government-commissioned reports advocating action. There was a unanimous report from the Standing Committee, chaired by a government Member and comprised of a majority of government Members, which suggested a solution to this dilemma, with a system that is out of date having regard to the new phenomenon that developed in the early 1980s. Many NGOs and church organizations have suggested action for nearly three years. The Government has had an absolute majority but has done nothing for three years. I suggest that it is somewhat intellectually dishonest for it to suggest that the reason for the delay is because of the Opposition. I do not believe Canadians are that naive or that gullible.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
The Government has a majority and controls the agenda. It could have moved on that reform some time in the last three years rather than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) waking up on a sunny summer morning suddenly saying that something must be done.
The reason the technical amendment was moved when Bill C-55 came before the House was that there was a mood on the Government side that somehow it would rush this through without thinking of the repercussions. The repercussions, as with Bill C-84, are that unless there is a proper piece of legislation it will be subject to charter and court challenges from one coast to the other. Those challenges will not come from the Opposition but from lawyers and various groups.
I ask the Member to consider what will happen to the legislation. There will be a policy that is more chaotic, more unworkable and more uncertain than the one we have now. It will be difficult to try to get the patience and confidence of Canadians. After three years, Canadians expect the Government to come to grips with the situation in a way that will result in a policy that is not designed for an emergency during the summer or for a couple of months, but that will work well in the long term so that Canadians can give it their support and trust. If we are going to move from this system to one that will be marred by legalities and uncertainties, then we will be testing the patience of Canadians. 1 believe their frustration and anger toward the Government for being either unprepared or unwilling to come to grips with the situation will then turn and transfer itself very dangerously in terms of the global policy.
How does the Government intend to get public support for its desire to have more immigrants come to this country, as it has suggested, when its refugee policy is simply in chaos? Rather than try to blame the opposition Parties, why did it take three years to present new legislation?
If we are going to get a new refugee board, as stipulated in Bill C-55, will he explain why he wants to build a barrier around that with a pre-screening mechanism and a safe third country concept that will make prejudicial statements before there is access to the refugee board?
Everyone agrees with the refugee board. However, under Bill C-55, the Government would be able to dictate or restrict access to the system.
Why is he not prepared to allow refugees full access to the board and allow the board to make a determination, either positively or negatively?


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians are testing the Hon. Member who tries to delay the debate. I am very surprised that he has made that suggestion because he was the first to move the motion to delay the Bill we are debating now.
I suggest he will have more than enough time in committee to present some amendments in order to improve the Bill. I believe it is his duty to do so. If he does not, Canadians will judge him.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Madam Speaker, many Canadians have been watching this debate that has been taking place for some time and has reached its peak with Bill C-84 and C-55.
When one considers the atmosphere in which this debate is taking place, there can be no doubt that there is a great deal of concern about abuses to our immigration and refugee determination policies. There has been much criticism and concern expressed about this.
There is concern about legitimate refugees to this country who are really in fear of persecution in their home countries, and that under the processes designed to admit new immigrants into this country there is much delay and difficulty and many refusals for entry of relatives of people who previously immigrated to Canada.
There is much concern that those who are somehow delaying the process are preventing family members of immigrants to get into this country in a reasonable period of time. Some believe that the Department of Employment and Immigration does not act fundamentally to bring more people into this country in order to contribute to the growth of our economy.
It has to be frankly stated that there are those who oppose any kind of immigration, whether it be by refugees or others, on the basis that new immigrants and refugees will take jobs from Canadians. It has been expressed occasionally within and outside the House that those people coming into this country are not the same as Canadians and somehow do not fit into our ways but would be accepted if they acted like the rest of us and adopted the nature of the country to which they are coming.
It is unfortunate, but one often hears in English Canada that those in Quebec do not understand or fit into their ways. We also hear in Quebec similar remarks with respect to English Canadians and those coming from outside. There are a great many attitudes and concerns, some legitimate, some xenophobic, which underlie this whole debate. I think it has to be said, in terms of general consideration of those who come to our country from elsewhere, that there has been a very serious failure on the part of governments, not just this Government but previous Governments, to come to grips with the fact. Yes, we are bringing in people who are different from ourselves, those who are deprived, jobless and fearful of their futures, and there is a notion that immigrants and refugees will take away our jobs. In many cases that may be so, but it is also true that there would exist no Canada whatsoever without immigrants and a very different Canada if there had been no refugees entering our country going back to the 18th century.
August 17, 1987

I have not heard enough about the fact that immigrants and refugees ultimately contribute to our economy. I was impressed by a statistic reported yesterday morning on radio, that there are some 94,000 jobs a year taken away from Canadians by immigrants and refugees. On the other hand, these refugees and immigrants contribute about 115,000 jobs. So there is quite a significant increase of some 20,000 jobs created each year even at the present level of immigration.
Having said that, 1 think it is important to point out that if there existed in Canada a policy for the creation of jobs for Canadians as a specific goal of Government, there would not be the fear that immigrants would take away jobs. People might recognize with greater facility the significant and economic contribution immigrants make by creating jobs.
It seems to me we have not taken a positive approach to this issue, which is an important issue when one considers the most significant motive and perhaps the most reasonable for the free trade negotiations, that is, Canada has too small a marketplace with its 25 million people, and we are not producing enough offspring to maintain our present market size. The reasonable approach to an insufficient population in dealing with a large market is not to become part of the United States but to make Canada larger.
When I considered these facts, I became shocked by the tone of the debate. Politicians are often subject to criticism for their opportunism, for their narrow view of things upon which they act and their tendency to react to critical situations in an opportunistic way. What better situation could have been created than the landing of 174 Sikhs in Nova Scotia following the landing of the Tamils in Newfoundland a year ago? What better circumstance for the great concern, xenophobic and otherwise, which has been evinced by the Canadian people?
There is no doubt the Canadian people see abuses and that they want to see more speed in dealing with these abuses in our system. One might have expected that, instead of waiting until we reached a debate of critical dimensions, the Government might have acted. It seems to me quite evident that if the legislation which was recommended by so many in this country to speed up the refugee determination process had been implemented two or three years ago, we would not have been faced with the introduction of Bill C-84.
Bill C-84 is unnecessary within the context of the clear message that a fast refugee determination policy would itself have been the most significant possible deterrent to abuse. A process which can take up to five years is a process subject to abuse. It creates the opportunity to come here to work, to establish one's self, to be even in a position to cast one's self before the mercy of the Government in order to remain in Canada in spite of the illegitimacy of the claim proffered.
This long process told people, come on over. You may not be a legitimate refugee but you can stay here for five years. Canada is a humane country, it is run by people who are
Immigration Act, 1976
empathic, so if these refugees manage to get here, the chances are pretty good they would be able to stay. That is self-evident.
Instead of dealing with this, we waited until public pressure mounted. Now we have entered into a debate, and many of the utterances I have heard in this debate have been shameful I sat here last week and listened to many Members on the Government side speak without shame. They laughed and hooted. They said things that would have depressed me enormously had I for one moment thought they were reflective of the views of the Canadian people.
1 stood in this House not too long ago and expressed pride in this country. It is a country which had begun the process of evolving into a model, showing the rest of the world how many peoples of different origins can live together to create a new society, a society devoted to social justice. In looking at Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 I reflected upon my own origins. I reflected upon the fact that, like many Canadians, my forbears came here as refugees. Indeed, my great, great-grandfather was one of those who brought 10 or more refugees into this country and not one of them had a document. Among those whom my great, great-grandfather brought to this country-his name being McCurdy-were the great-grandparents of my grandmother. They were slaves. They were refugees from slavery.
This country has changed a great deal. I reviewed my own history and thought of how my people have seen this country change. It was for that reason, at least in part, that I spoke with such pride about this country when I referred to the Nansen Medal. Having said that, 1 think it is the greatest weakness of politicians to behave opportunistically in response to a real crisis. There is no other way of regarding Bill C-55 and its twin. Bill C-84, except as pieces of legislation motivated primarily by opportunism, coloured so fundamentally by the opportunistic approach as to give offence to the new Canada. I sense a conflict between the senior Minister and the junior Minister. I know that the junior Minister is a man sympathetic to some of the things I have said this morning. He has personally been of great value in specific cases relating to immigration with which I have had to approach him. I suppose one would have to say that the present case is a model of how the exigencies of the moment can turn the heads of even the most sincere.
Bill C-55 is bad legislation. It would deny to refugees what Canada has agreed they should all have, that is, accessibility to a determination process that will enable a determination here in Canada of whether or not they qualify. Such a step as a part of a process has been recommended by Rabbi Plaut and his commission, by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, and by virtually every NGO in the country which has had anything to do with immigration. Yet the Government has closed its ears to what has been universally regarded as a fair refugee determination process, that

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
described by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jour-denais) as being the most rational, humane approach to all of this.
As if it were not enough for the Government to use the rhetoric of panic and to proffer a Bill that is so fundamentally flawed, and not enough for it to ignore everyone who has spoken to the issue of a refugee determination process, its motives of opportunism are reinforced by the deliberate construction of a legislative committee based on what appears to be one fundamental criterion beyond assurance of support for the Government, and that is ignorance. 1 refer to fundamental ignorance of the refugee determination process, international refugee agreements and everything else having to do with it.
The Chairman of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration has been shut out from the legislation committee dealing with Bill C-84. While I stand before Hon. Members very much encouraged by the promise, I believe of the Parliamentary Secretary, that there would be an opportunity for amendment of Bill C-55 in committee, if the precedent with respect to Bill C-84 is followed then there will not be a chance in hell that constructive amendments will be entertained.
I ask the Government not to reproduce its action with respect to Bill C-84 in terms of Bill C-55. When Bill C-55 goes to legislative committee I ask that that committee not have as a fundamental qualification for the government Members ignorance of immigration and refugee matters, that it not shut out those of its own Party who are members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and who are qualified experts as a result of hard work in the areas of most fundamental importance in dealing with this legislation.
A huge majority of Canadians have expressed themselves as opposed to increased immigration. These people have expressed themselves in terms of an essential rejection of the new in our population. It is also true that when the facts and the details are known, when the contributions of new people to this country are described and encouraged, that those attitudes are subject to change. It is the responsibility of this Parliament not to engage in provocative rhetoric and xenophobic rhetoric, but to communicate the message that Canada's greatness and our future depend on the same base as in the past, that is, the welcoming of those outside our shores to create a new Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Oostrom:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talked at length about a number of ideas but spoke very little about the Bill at hand. He mixed up all kinds of ideas in his speech. What I would like to know from the Hon. Member is if he himself or his Party actually supports the delaying of Bill C-55 for another six months.
Back in September of 1984 the people of Canada voted for change. They voted for action. They voted for a business-like approach to government matters.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You delayed this for two and a half years. Don't be so hypocritical!


John Martin Oostrom: There have been 875,000 new jobs created. The Hon. Member now wants to delay this measure even further.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What a hypocrite the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) is. For two and a half years not a word has he said about this issue.


John Martin Oostrom: Other Members of the socialist Party are getting impatient and red in the face-


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is ridiculous, Madam Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) certainly likes to be listened to when he speaks. I think he should extend to his colleagues the same courtesy.


Miss MacDonald:: He never gives anyone courtesy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) may conclude his comments.


John Martin Oostrom: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will make my question very short. I would like to know where the NDP "Party" stands on delaying this Bill, Bill C-55. As I said before, the Hon. Member mixed up quite a number of ideas but he did not talk about bogus refugees, illegal immigration or queue-jumpers. He did not talk about those subjects. We are not talking about immigration, something which this Government since September of 1984 has increased year over year. The Hon. Member did not talk about our Government having created, or having assisted in creating, 875,000 new jobs. Nor did he talk about asking new investment to come into Canada via Bill C-22. Where does the Hon. Member stand on this issue?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: if that were the fundamental issue. What is at stake here is an understanding of the two different processes involved in immigration versus refugee determination. But gentlemen who are concerned about maintaining this country pure, comprised of only those who have our ways, constantly and deliberately confuse the two processes in order to provoke still more opposition to the present arrangements which would have allowed my great grandfather and grandmother to enter this country. They would deny that now.
My answer is very simple, and a short while ago I stated that 1 am opposed to delay. In fact, delay has enhanced the position of those who oppose what Canada desperately needs, that is, more immigration. It is the fault of the Government that it has been delayed, and it is the Government's fault that people are upset about the failure to act. The chief deterrence to abuse is a rapid refugee determination policy, and we need it now.
Let me further say that this Member would be opposed to any further delay, even that type of delay suggested by the Liberal motion. If the Government would undertake now to entertain amendments in a committee that is not based on the ignorance of government Members of the issues involved.


Mr. Orlikow:: I wish to ask my colleague if he was surprised and dismayed by the question from the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) who appears to criticize anybody who is delaying passage of this Bill? This Bill was not introduced by the Government until May, and it was not called for debate until June, at which time Members were given all of three hours to debate this Bill. Given those facts, does the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) agree with me that the Hon. Member for Willowdale should be lecturing his own Government about its delay in bringing forth the Bill, rather than criticizing members of the Opposition for demanding honest, sincere, and detailed consideration of this Bill?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I thank my hon. colleague for his question. 1 would like to note in passing that the Hon. Member for Willowdale is one of those who has passed the ideological test for representing the Government on committee.
In answer to the question that has been addressed to me, I think we have to simply say that this is one of the elements of opportunism and politicization of the issue, that two governments have ignored every demand for legislation to speed up the refugee determination process while at the same time maintaining fairness in that system. It was delayed until May, brought in on June 18, and that is it. It is all over, and the rest of us are blamed for it. I am sure you will agree that it is a shocking revelation of the insincerity and the lack of commitment on the part of the Government, if not worse. The identification of responsibility in this matter is so clear as not to require any further discussion.
Immigration Act, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Quebec-Est (Mr. Tremblay).
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, we are gathered here today because the problem of aliens entering Canada illegally by claiming to be refugees has become an extremely serious one. The Canadian people are aware of this and the Government as well.
When the Government announced its intention to recall the House, it was accused of either over-reacting or being irresponsible. Doing nothing now would have been telling the world that Canada allows its laws to be broken. Doing nothing would have aggravated the dissension reflected in public opinion and thus put our programs for refugees and immigrants in jeopardy.
There is no doubt that Canada's humanitarian tradition of dealing with refugees may come to an end if we do not put a stop to the abuse being made of our system.
The Canadian people want measures to be introduced now, and we are going to do that.
The House was recalled for a specific task. We must stem the increasing flow of migrants arriving in Canada. We must put a stop to the organized and systematic abuse of our system for determining refugee status. We must take measures to put a stop to the exploitation of human misery by people who could be qualified as refugee traffickers.
Bill C-55 will introduce both fairness and control to the refugee determination process. It is the ultimate step in our plan of action to deal with a problem that has international implications. For most Canadians the dramatic arrival of 155 Tamils in Newfoundland one year ago was their first inkling that we have a refugee problem. That is not surprising when one considers that just six years ago only 1,600 people came to Canada claiming refugee status.
However, by 1986 the number had swelled to 18,000. This year we expect that it will reach 30,000.
More important than sheer numbers is the fact that many of these claims are not genuine. Our studies show that last year 70 per cent of refugee claimants were not refugees at all, and that many others had already found safe haven elsewhere before seeking refugee status in our country. The arrival of the Tamils reinforced our resolve to take action to stem the flow of phoney refugees. Quick action was necessary because of wide media interest in the Tamil boat people. The predictable happened-more and more illegal aliens poured into Canada.
We acted by improving measures to curb the flow of illegals to our shores. The control measures we introduced in February had a limited impact. Refugee claimant numbers which were averaging 1,200 a week in February have dropped to 500 a week today.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
The control measures and the expanded powers that we are now seeking will deal effectively with short-term solutions to the refugee problem. But a long-term solution will only be found through the passage into law of Bill C-55.
And now for the problems we are having today. Madam Speaker, everyone knows why we have been called to this place, but I would like to repeat this for the benefit of certain opposition Members who seem to have forgotten already. It is because of a system already overloaded by a backlog of applications which is being exploited by queue-jumpers who are not legitimate refugees in need of our protection.
Unscrupulous racketeers are also taking advantage of the situation and misleading men and women into believing that they will be able to get them the papers required to gain admission to Canada. These racketeers bring these people to Canada under conditions which are often intolerable, unacceptable even for animals, and absolutely shocking in the case of human beings. Legitimate refugees suffer from delays in the system and are put at a disadvantage because of the increasing number and cleverness of fraudulent claims. Mr. Speaker, Canadians are getting more and more concerned about the inequity of the present system, which they believe to be incapable of these abuses. The patience of even the most generous and humanitarian Canadians is running out, and this Hon. Member, Madam Speaker, sees himself as a very tolerant person. Too many people enter Canada without the required documents and constitute a threat to our security.
We are certainly faced with a series of potentially explosive conditions which the Canadian people and the Government cannot accept. The situation requires that the Government take the required action. We are determined to put a stop to this traffic in human beings.
I also believe it important to throw some light on another major component of this Bill. The purpose of the proposed changes is not to discourage legitimate refugees who need our protection.
Bill C-55, combined with the other measures we have taken, will enable us to protect legitimate refugees.
With this Bill, we can develop a fairer, faster and more effective refugee determination system which will benefit all legitimate refugees. This system will respect the basic rights of all those who are entitled to claim refugee status.
Bill C-55 contains key provisions which will simplify the processing of claims, ensure faster rejection of unfounded claims and strengthen the powers of the Government. This will allow the Government to send back to third countries those whose claims are unfounded while respecting their fundamental rights.
We hope that, this time, the urgency of taking action and the increasing pressures throughout the world will convince the
Opposition to be more objective about the importance of Bill C-55.
The temporary measures we imposed in February were indeed only temporary. Bill C-55 goes further. It provides the long term solution needed to solve this problem, and this solution is both fair and judicious.
This legislation allows us to regain control over our refugee determination system which past abuses have rendered ineffective.
This is a valid solution, Madam Speaker. The Bill clearly and concisely defines the new process, which 1 repeat will be an equitable one.
As I have already said, Madam Speaker, we are here to conclude work undertaken several months ago, and Bill C-55 and the Bill on detention and deterrence are the result of this work.
The two Bills complement each other. We must ensure that our system really can weed out abuse, while allowing refugee claimants to put their cases. These two Bills give us the assurance needed. They guarantee the rights of everyone, but will deter many of those swindlers.
The aim of these two Bills is to put in place a refugee determination system that is more fair, more expeditious and better for all genuine refugees.
I keep repeating myself, but 1 feel that with the position we are now taking we must repeat the good points, in order that we take time to reflect on what is really at stake in these two Bills.
So as 1 said, what we are looking for is a system that respects the basic rights of all potential refugee claimants.
Yes, we are strongly determined to guarantee the rights of all refugee claimants. But we also want to check abuse. The deterrence and detention provisions will go to the root of the problem and allow us to exercise necessary control.
1 would now like to deal briefly with this Government's firm commitment to help genuine refugees.
It is essential to understand fully that our commitment to help genuine refugees is stronger than ever. In fact, Bill C-55 is a measure that is in line with the traditional justice and the humanitarian tradition for which the Nansen Medal was awarded to the Canadian people by the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees-the first time ever it was awarded to a whole nation.
Let me also remind all Members in this House and the Canadian people that since we have been elected, this Government significantly increased the number of refugees selected in camps around the world. This year, we are taking charge of 12,000 refugees from those camps, and private groups of Canadians and also families are sponsoring some 5,000 more.
August 17, 1987

Canada has a long tradition of proving its humanitarian concern for genuine refugees who need its protection. The new determination process will uphold this tradition of commitment to true refugees.
Our commitment goes back a long way. It is an essential part of a policy which, since the Second World War, has brought some 500,000 refugees to Canada for resettlement, and which has helped thousands of others through special humanitarian measures.
On a per capita basis Canada's record of aid to refugees over the past few years has been second to none.
We provide refugee assistance under three specific formulas. First, direct financial assistance; second, the settlement in Canada of refugees selected outside this country; and protection given in Canada pursuant to a determination process carried out here. This three-prong approach is in line with the United Nations refugee policy.
For 1986-87, the Canadian Government set more than $170 million aside for refugee financial assistance. One third of these funds-over $66 million-was given to international humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or to various countries in the form of food assistance for refugees. The rest of this money has been earmarked for adjustment assistance and language training for refugees selected abroad and for assistance to groups helping refugees to settle in Canada and become integrated in Canadian society.
Furthermore, refugees may obtain interest-free loans from the Government to finance the cost of their transportation to Canada.
The second part of the refugee program is resettlement of refugees selected abroad. In 1986, two-thirds of this group received Government assistance.
Groups consisting of private individuals and volunteer organizations sponsored over 5,000 more refugees. In such cases, the Government helps to match sponsors with refugees and offers the latter group transportation loans, language training and occupational training.
I would like to stress that many of the people admitted to Canada because they were selected abroad under this program do not necessarily meet the strict definition of refugee as defined in the Geneva Convention.
Canada has also developed some unique ways of helping victims of oppression, even if they do not meet the UN definition because they are still residing in their own country, for instance, political prisoners and other displaced persons in Poland, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chili and Uruguay.
We also help displaced persons who are in a situation similar to that of refugees, even if they do not meet the Convention definition. For instance, we have helped many people from Indo-China and Eastern Europe. In this case, we are dealing
Immigration Act, 1976
with people who, having left their countries of origin, did not manage to resettle permanently in another country.
Our purpose in introducing Bill C-55 was to make our refugee determination process efficient again, because this third part of our refugee program was simply not working.
At the present time, this process no longer makes it possible for us to extend our protection to the true refugees who need it because they can no longer sustain the pressure resulting from the enormous increase in the number of claims.
Through the proposed process, Canada will be able to continue fulfilling its obligations under the Geneva Convention while respecting the principles of justice which are the very foundation of our laws. Thus, we will be able to maintain our humanitarian tradition. We do not intend at all to turn our backs on refugees by adopting Bill C-55. Quite the contrary. We want to be able to extend a true protection to those who really need our help.
However, if we really seek to protect bona fide refugees, we must put an end to the abuse and reorganize the whole process.
When I deal with the policy of Canada towards refugees, I do so with considerable pride. Our refugee programs compare favourably with those of any country in the world. Our commitment to refugees is recognized internationally and the resettlement of refugees from camps abroad represents our most important contribution. A great many people have been stuck in camps for years without any alternative choice.
I suggest we must do the utmost to ensure that our tradition is maintained. But in order to do that, the refugee determination process must be changed. Canadians no longer can tolerate the current situation. They want a new refugee process that is both fair and tough to abusers.
As evidence of this, let me bring to your attention the results of a radio survey made in the Quebec area on August 3, 1987. The question was: Do you feel the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Hon. Benoit Bouchard, is right in proposing a tougher act to deny entry to refugees into Canada? Here is the response of citizens in that beautiful and great Quebec area-98 percent of the people supported those legislative measures. Two percent only opposed it. I was told the number of calls to that radio survey was larger than average, and according to the station's management, it was the most decisive in the history of their surveys.
I submit, that the people have spoken their minds, and as a responsible Government we have a duty to listen and act according to the people's will. We have the solution to that problem-now is the time to refer Bill C-55 to committee for review. Enough speeches, and I conclude on this, the time has come to act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions,
comments. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague two very quick questions because 1 know other Hon. Members wish to comment on the speech he has just made.
First, the Hon. Member said that his Government was awarded the Nansen Medal. Would he not wish to clarify that for the record by saying that in fact the Government certainly did not win that award for its achievements over the last two years, but that the Nansen Medal was awarded for the very first time to a country for a record that had been demonstrated over years gone by when his Party was still on this side of the House? 1 think the Hon. Member should have the honesty to clarify that.
Second, the Hon. Member went on at some length suggesting that Bills C-55 and C-84 somehow meet with the approval of the Geneva Convention to which we were a signatory in 1969. Having said that, would he care to comment on what he thinks about the letter that was released last Friday by the United Nations High Commissioner who, despite couching his remarks in very diplomatic language, expressed clear concern for the direction the Government was taking? In his letter of six or seven paragraphs he pleaded with Canada not to take that direction, but to have some degree of sensitivity to the United Nations Convention and to the message we would send out to the other countries of the world.
If in fact the Government does not wish to uphold the United Nations Charter, why is it not prepared to tell Canadians that it is no longer prepared to live with that agreement, rather than doing it through a sneaky, back-handed, back-door approach?


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, 1 will answer the two questions very briefly. On the first one, I mentioned in my speech that the Canadian Government indeed had the privilege to receive the Nansen Award, and as a Canadian I am very proud of that.
On the second question, after much reading on the matter and articulating Bills C-84 and C-55, which complement each other, it is my view that everything that has been written and said by this Goverment had but one goal-to protect all Canadians without exception, and to some extent I admire the Opposition. It cannot always be easy to get mentally prepared to criticize proposals which are so obvious, since they are fair and equitable. They deserve some credit for that and I am aware of it.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, most Canadians would agree with the suggestion of the Hon. Member that we want a refugee system that is humane, fair and quick. How can the Hon. Member say that the Bills that are before us will provide for such a system, when on June 1 of this year a telex was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signed by and on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Anglican
Church, the Canadian Baptist Federation, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Council of Christian Reform Churches, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, the Salvation Army, the Quakers, the United Church of Canada and the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees making it very clear to the Prime Minister and the Government that in the view of these organizations, which certainly have no political axe to grind, the legislation was very deficient?
Second, why did the Government not follow the recommendations made by the Standing Committee which dealt with this question in great depth? This committee had a large majority of government members on it. It issued a unanimous report making very specific recommendations, most of which were not included in this legislation.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I am happy to reply to the question raised by my colleague for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I would remind him of a poll to which I have already referred. The question asked to the residents of the beautiful region of Quebec City was this: Do you believe that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is right to propose harsher legislation to refuse refugees entry into Canada? Of all those canvassed, 98 per cent said yes. But what if the question had been phrased this way: Do you believe that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is right to propose harsher legislation to refuse entry to fradulent refugees? I believe that 150 per cent of respondents would have said yes. This is a recent poll and the results are clear. They represent a diversified segment of the population of my region. There are all kinds of happy people in that region. This is what the people think. Many of these respondents are from my own constituency. I have always been very receptive to their comments, and this poll, has shown me what I must do.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay). The main strength of Bill C-55 is certainly that it will help to reduce the delays in processing refugee claims. It contains provisions which will allow the authorities to process claims more quickly than in the past, and I believe that everyone agrees with that. We are not here to discuss whether or not Canada needs refugees. We have always welcomed them in the past.
Bills C-55 and C-84 deal with illegal or irregular claimants and abusers of the system. One of the provisions of Bill C-55 concerns that new concept. That is one of the weaknesses of the Bill.
The new concept advocated is that the Government or Cabinet will establish a list of so-called safe countries about which we will be able to say: "In that country there is no danger of violence against basic freedoms". The Cabinet will have to establish a list of safe countries, the concept of the safe third country.
August 17, 1987

1 have a question for the Hon. Member, because we all know such a list will create problems. The Cabinet has always refrained from establishing this kind of list because it is not easy to politicize the whole process and make such momentous decisions.
The question is this: For example, the United States do not accept refugees from Guatemala, they do not accept immigrants from other countries, 1 could name some, San Salvador for one, they send them back home.
The federal Cabinet will have to decide whether the United States is a third safe country. Is it really a country where we can send a refugee or so-called refugee arriving in Canada, under the pretense that he will be well there and not be threatened?
We all know that the policy of the Americans is to send home people arriving from San Salvador and Guatemala.
How can the Hon. Member reconcile this question of the safe third country, knowing full well that we are on very good terms with the Americans but have serious reasons to believe that an individual might come from Guatemala or San Salvador and tell us: "My personal safety is threatened or I am otherwise threatened with respect to expressing my basic freedom". Would the Hon. Member tell us how he would deal with that problem, how he would respond to this refugee whose personal and individual rights are threatened?


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I should think that Canadian representatives and Canadian embassies throughout the world have enough experience and credibility to be aware of what is going on every day, and to be in a position to have an updated list of what we call "safe countries".
So far the Cabinet has demonstrated that we ought to have confidence in them and 1 would leave any such decision up to them.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-55 is a strange and inadequate response to the very serious need for a review not only of refugee policy but of immigration policy in general. Since this Bill and Bill C-8'4 deal with refugee policy and not other aspects of immigration, I will confine my remarks to that.
1 was chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in 1976 when we passed an immigration Bill. At that time immigration law had not been updated for about 20 years. The Department of Immigration was running along on volumes and volumes of ministerial directives and regulations. The law was then updated and it was quite clear that with the changing issues in immigration there should be a further updating well before another 20 years had passed.
Immigration Act, 1976
The refugee policy passed at that time did not provide for automatic oral hearings. There was a very elaborate paper screening effort and people had oral hearings later on in the determination process. It became clear this was causing problems.
I spoke in this House in March, 1984, on a motion recommending that all refugee applicants have oral hearings. I supported the motion for two reasons. First, an oral hearing early on in the process could result in faster decisions, and would enable the genuine refugee to know where he or she stood so that they could get on with having trade and professional qualifications evaluated and establishing a life in Canada. It would also screen out the bogus refugees who were starting to appear even at that time.
The second reason I was in favour of oral hearings early on was that I was sure members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, as it was called at that time, as they examined sworn statements, must sometimes encounter doubts which could be resolved by a simple question or brief conversation with the claimant. I also said that our refugee policies and practices should be subject to ongoing review.
I think there were some principles held at that time which still hold today and on which we can agree. First, that Canada's effort in formulating and administering refugee policy is an essential reflection of Canada's humanitarian interests. Canadians have shown they have the capacity to reach out to those who are suffering persecution for reasons of race, religion, or politics, and to give comfort to the homeless and stateless. We have demonstrated a concern that our institutions and administrative practices reflect those humanitarian ideals. However, as I said then, and as I repeat today, we also have to exercise those instincts and goals, keeping in mind the protection of the best interests of Canada and of ensuring over-all fairness in our immigration policies.
Unlike other countries, Canada has not in the past faced a situation where large numbers of people claiming refugee status arrived at our borders. We are protected by three oceans. However, air travel has changed that. We are living in a time when strife and civil unrest are common. We are also living in difficult economic times. It is estimated that at any moment in time now some 70 million to 80 million people are on the move. Some are genuine refugees according to the UN standard. Some are unhappy, desperate people moving because of war, revolution and poverty. Some have the same motivation that immigrants have, the desire to create a better life and future for themselves and their children.
Where does Canada stand in all this? What are our obligations both to our citizens and those who wish to come to Canada? Clearly we cannot accommodate 70 million to 80 million people.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
When 1 was a delegate to the UN in 1980 there was a lot of discussion, as there has been since, on the need to find better ways to settle refugees nearer their own homes and the need to find better methods of dispute settlement, protection of human rights, and of ensuring economic prosperity in third world countries. Those all form very basic parts of any approach to refugees and 1 have not heard any discussion of that kind in this debate. The Government's response to the present situation is simply to find ways of slamming the doors on refugees, keeping them off our shores. That does not touch on the international problem.
We have before us two Bills which are primarily designed to deal with abuses. They do not take a constructive approach to the real situation of refugees. When 1 spoke in March, 1984, in favour of oral hearings, I said that Canada was then averaging about 500 applicants for refugee status per month, that this was double the number in the previous year, 1983, and that about 9,500 cases were under review for appeal yet only one-third of those who claimed refugee status had their claims upheld.
Those numbers have since exploded. 1 understand that the number of refugee applicants in the first six months of 1987 approached 16,000 and that only about 10 per cent of those who applied were determined to be refugees. Therefore, the numbers are significantly different and a response on the part of the Government is needed. However, the response is not Bill C-55 or Bill C-84.
Part of the reason for the flood of refugee applicants is, of course, the activities of so-called immigration consultants and of certain lawyers specializing in immigration. In my constituency at one time there were five people operating. Four of them were not lawyers while one was, and he, 1 believe, has since been charged. There is another lawyer who has not been charged and who, to the best of my knowledge, has never advocated any actually illegal proceeding. However, he certainly takes on hopeless immigration cases at 53,000 a go. My constituents ask me what the difference is between him and a consultant who charges $1,500 to advise someone to tell a few lies at an immigration hearing.
There is an appalling traffic in human misery. Some of the people who want to immigrate to Canada, although not refugees by the UN standard, are trying to escape difficult, painful situations which we can only imagine. It is absolutely appalling that they are being preyed upon and trafficked in by people who are escaping scott-free.
For this I have to be very critical of the Government. The Minister and his officials have certainly known of the activities of these so-called consultants and less than scrupulous lawyers for well over two years. We have seen nothing but inaction. There are measures in the present legislation which would have allowed action to be taken. Remarkably little has been done. The extraordinary and Draconian legislation now before
us was not necessary because there are powers in the existing legislation to deal with the problems. There are powers contained within the Criminal Code to deal with fraud which have not been used.
The Minister's officials know, as well as I, that there is a lively traffic in social insurance number cards, that ineligible people are working on building sites all over Toronto. There are remarkably young, healthy men carrying cards which belong to 65 year-olds. This has been well known for a long time and no action has been taken. The Minister's officials know which union halls ask no questions but will send anyone out to a job without the production of identification and proof that he has status in the country. Nothing has been done.
For the Government, which has not taken action, which has not used the existing provisions in the law against fraud, to in effect say that the whole refugee process is so fraudulent that we need Draconian legislation to stop all refugee applicants at the border is surely to attack the problem in the wrong place.
I hope that the news we heard today is not true. There is a report in the newspapers that the Minister is seriously considering building some kind of fortress to house 2,500 refugee applicants. We will wait with interest to see what the Minister has to say about that, whether he will claim that he was misquoted.
Section 95(n) of the present Immigration Act allows prosecution of those who would counsel or assist illegal immigrants. That section has not been used other than to prosecute the captain of the Amelie. In other cases the most extraordinary abuses are taking place and the Government remains inactive.
To repeat, I know that Canadians want us to have a just, humane refugee policy. Canadians want genuine refugees to be admitted. Our past experience has been that they become very good citizens. One example is the 160,000 boat people from Vietnam who were settled in Canada with the aid and active involvement of many Canadian citizens and church groups who participated with the Government in providing sponsorship and offering friendship and assistance to families.
Canadian generosity has not changed. However, Canadians certainly do not want to see scams. Canadians do not want to have the system abused. That is abusive to our own taxpayers and also to genuine refugees. Canadians want abuses stopped. However, the two Bills before us are not designed to stop abuses but to close the door to genuine refugees. That is why I have to oppose them.
Mir. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I listened with care to the Hon. Member's speech. I always find it useful to hear what she has to say. She said that there was urgency to deal with fraud and fraudulent cases. Would she then tell us whether she thinks it is reasonable to delay this legislation for another six months and pass it in 1988, as indicated in the amendment to which we are now speaking?
August 17, 1987


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out, this Bill does not address the question of fraud. There are provisions in the existing Immigration Act to deal with fraud, which provisions have not been used by the Government.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, would the Member not agree that when groups of so-called refugees, which may indeed be refugees, arrive in numbers large enough to knowingly plug up the system, that is a kind of fraud which destroys the system?


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the reason that fraudulent applicants can plug up the system is because the system is in need of revision. The Government added to that problem by announcing last year an amnesty, which it called by another name. At the time it was announced, that in itself triggered a tremendous amount of activity on the part of so-called consultants who were advertising in papers all over the world. There was a very deliberate attempt to plug up the system at that time and the Government should have foreseen it. It created the problem about which it is now complaining.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians across this land have been telling the Conservative Government for the last three years that we need an affordable, accessible and comprehensive quality child care system. They said it through the Abella Report, the Cooke Task Force, the "Equality for AH" report and the recently tabled Martin report.
Child care has been described as the basic building block to access and equality of opportunity in the workforce for mothers. While this is a most serious consideration, even more important is ignoring the scarcity of services that neglects the real beneficiaries of child care, our children.
Whether pre-school or latch key for after school care, children need the protection and benefits of such a system whenever the absence of the parents requires an alternate form of care.
The Conservatives have had the time and opportunity to establish the needed federal position on child care. How can Canadians trust the Government's political will when it gives nothing but excuses, platitudes and a one-and-a-half page farcical letter as answer to this major social issue? It is time for action for the mothers, fathers and children of our land.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, queue jumping by potential new Canadians to get into our country is simply not acceptable. Canada cannot and should not tolerate unscrupulous persons from anywhere who deal in human flesh at our borders at the expense of legitimate individuals who are waiting abroad to follow standard immigration procedures. Nor should we admit illegal refugees to our lands.
The vast majority of Canadians, almost 80 per cent, support the current Government's actions, and over 60 per cent said we should have gone further. Canadians are obviously in a mood for new tough measures to deal with immigration problems.
Canada can and should continue to welcome new persons to its shores. As we all know, our country has the capacity to do so, but not at the expense of those who are honestly trying to come here. Hundreds of my constituents, many of whom are new Canadians, have told me we should be firm, fair, quick and tough on illegal and unfair practices. I believe we are.




Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the media report that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is planning a detention centre for 2,500 refugee claimants. This would be a horrible throwback to 45 years ago when our Government imprisoned 22,000 permanent residents of Canada, mostly Canadian born, and stripped them of nearly all their property solely because of their racial origin.
Unnecessary detention is cruel and such large scale detentions are not needed to protect Canada from refugees. The ancient people of Israel, although they suffered many attacks by enemies and many invasions, nevertheless made it a law to protect strangers who came in peace and unarmed. Jesus promised the kingdom to those who welcomed him in the person of a stranger.
I urge the Minister to drop this idea and cancel any tenders he may have called for the construction of such a cruel detention centre.

August 17, 1987



HORTICULTURE


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's honey industry has been plagued with more than its share of problems this past couple of years. I won't go into all the horrid details, but weather, disease, management as a result of poor advice, and honey prices are some of the complications. If something is not done soon to straighten out these problems the industry will be in serious trouble.
Financial problems are created by the United States Farm Support Bill which in turn does not bring a viable price to the Canadian producer. Honey was not on the list of commodities covered by the special grains payment made to Canadian farmers.
The honey industry has been a self-sufficient industry until recently and I call upon our Government to hurry up with the support for which the Canadian Honey Council has made application.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, next month the United States and Japan are expected to ratify an agreement to ship plutonium from Europe to Japan through Canadian air space. By allowing these overflights of plutonium Canada would jeopardize human life, caribou, polar bears and other forms of life should an accident take place.
The inhalation of toxic plutonium dust leads to slow death by cancer. The people in Yellowknife and perhaps even Edmonton could conceivably be at risk depending on wind direction, location of the crash site and the extent of destruction to the plutonium carrying casks.
The quantity of plutonium to be shipped means two flights per month for 30 years. If one overflight is allowed it will be difficult to stop the second, third, or three hundredth.
I urge the Government to notify the United States and Japan now, before the signing of the agreement in mid-September, and make it known that the Government of Canada is opposed to the transport of plutonium over its territory, and therefore avoid any risks to people, property and the environment. What Canadians want from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is reassurance and preventive action.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the numerous tfelegrams and letters I have received from my constituents urging me to support the passage of Bill C-22 as presented by the Minister.
Around the world the creation of new ideas and inventions is protected by copyrights and patents, that is everywhere but here in Canada. Canada stands alone among the industrialized countries in imposing compulsory licensing when a company obtains a patent for a new drug. This means that anyone else can copy that drug as long as it pays a 4 per cent royalty. That is legal piracy, the stealing of a company's intellectual property. It has to stop.
Bill C-22 will allow people and companies to do research with their time and with their money here in Canada. One really has to wonder if Senators have considered that the drug companies involved have promised Canada approximately $900 million in spending on research and development and the creation of 3,000 jobs for Canadians.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in recent months there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people who visit food banks in every part of Canada and in every city and town. These are food banks which have been established by voluntary agencies. For the first time there are skilled workers who have lost their jobs and executives of middle management from major companies who are finding it impossible to continue without the help of these food banks.
This summer many alarms have been sounded as community food banks have run short of enough supplies to feed the hungry. Huge shortages have been reported in big cities such as Toronto, and in smaller cities such as Kingston. Provinces such as Alberta and now British Columbia have compounded the difficulties by reducing welfare rates.
We have to ask ourselves how much longer it will be before food banks begin to crack because of the intense pressures caused by Governments which no longer care enough to help. Already cities such as Regina are turning to provincial and federal Governments to assist in a proposed universal school meal program to help feed that city's more than 2,000 hungry children each day.
August 17, 1987

When will the federal Government address the basic problems of hunger and malnutrition for so many Canadians? Some of us have been asking this same question for at least two years. It is time the Government got to work on what is a very important and serious problem.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and New Democrats are strong on the rhetoric of research, development and productivity. But, in practice, they bend to the winds of political expediency opposing the Government's amendments to the Patent Act. Let the Opposition explain this to the 66 working men and women in the pharmaceutical industry in Arnprior who, out of concern for their jobs and their futures, sent telegrams to their Member of Parliament.
Let them explain to Canadians how, in their search for a few easy votes, they have opposed legislation which will encourage and reward those companies which dare to invest in research, developing drugs which ease human suffering and save lives.
Let the senatorial scaremongers try to explain to scientists and researchers across the country why they chose to call up the spectre of unreasonable fears rather than taking the tough decisions necessary to reward innovation and productivity.



NEW BRUNSWICK


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, this statement has no connection with the forthcoming election. That is how announcements regarding major projects in New Brunswick are prefaced.
On the week-end it was announced that $20 million would be added to the Canada-New Brunswick Agreement on Tourism. Wonderful! This means that projects previously turned down because of lack of funds will now be able to proceed.
We still do not know whether this announcement has any connection with the upcoming election campaign in New Brunswick. 1 don't think so. Let me explain.
Everybody in New Brunswick knows that the Hatfield Government is breathing its last. Everyboby knows that no agreement and no amount of money would be able to buy the New Brunswick election for the Hatfield team.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that in his wisdom, the federal Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) is aware that in New Brunswick, the die is cast, and whatever he does, he will not be able to influence the vote towards the present Government, which is so exhausted it doesn't even have the courage to call an election. The Minister is also aware that the next election in New Brunswick will lead to a Liberal landslide that will be remembered in history as the McKenna landslide.
Mr. Speaker, it is only a matter of time.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, sensible, thinking Canadians from every walk of life are appalled at the current refugee determination process whereby anyone can come to Canada at any time, by any means, from anywhere, and upon arrival refuse to identify themselves, and in the same breath claim all the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship.
We are told that upwards of 500 refugee claimants are arriving weekly with virtually unlimited potential for more. Furthermore, 90 per cent of these claimants are bogus refugees, line jumpers who make a mockery of our laws and who proclaim to the world that Canada is an easy mark.
My constituents are saying that this is grossly unfair; surely, common sense must prevail. They congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) on bringing forward Bills C-84 and C-55 which will increase penalties against smugglers, and make it easier to detain refugee claimants. They urge speedy passage of these Bills.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in the past I have brought up the issue of paid benefits for people who are on maternity leave. At that time I requested that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) act.
It is important to note that in September, 1985, the Government sent out a circular in the format of questions and answers. One of the questions was:
Is the employer required to continue benefit contributions while the
employee is on leave?

August 17, 1987
Oral Questions
The answer was:
Yes, bu! only if the employee also pays contributions he or she would normally have made.
That being the case, women assumed that they would have the normal benefits paid by the employer continue. Since then the Government has received a legal opinion which was sent out by James Allan from the Minister of Labour's office. In that letter it states:
We now have a final opinion from legal services. They advise that Section 59.52 does not obligate an employer to pay their "usual" cost of benefits during maternity/child care leave. We are also advised that since there is no legal obligation for employers to pay, a prosecution under the Code would probably not succeed.
I ask that the Minister of Labour live up to the obligations of his Department, of the House of Commons, and of the law as it was passed in 1984, and make appropriate changes to the Canada Labour Code to ensure that women on maternity leave receive paid benefits.
* *
*



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, since the end of World War 11, hundreds of thousands of refugees have come to our country, usually after being processed by Canadian officials in one of the many refugee camps around the world. Until recently, only a handful arrived in Canada and then claimed refugee status. That has jumped dramatically, from 1,600 in 1980 to over 18,000 last year. This is partly due to the increase in the world's refugee population, which is presently estimated to be at least 12 million. However, 70 per cent of those who arrive here and then claim refugee status are queue jumpers, posing as refugees to gain quick entrance into Canada.
Canadians do not like queue jumpers. Rightly so, they feel it is unfair to immigrants waiting to come into our country legally. Bills C-84 and C-55 are not aimed at genuine refugees. They are aimed at deterring queue jumpers, and at fairness for immigrant applicants who want to play by the rules. That is what Canadians really want.
* *
*



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to quote from The Packet
& Times editorial on August 1 5, 1987. The editorial is entitled "Drug patent bill-obstructionism by Senate". It states:
In opposing the federal governments' proposed new drug patent bill, the Senate is staging a grandstand play. We hope Canadians will not be fooled by it.
At present, in Canada, genetic drug companies are allowed to make cheap copies of medications developed by major drug companies in return for a mere 4 per cent royalty.
Canada is the only country in the western world which allows this piracy. Most protect the drug investors for 10 years or, in some cases, much longer.
Canada's practice is unfair. If we treated other "inventors'' in such manner we wouldn't have any new inventions.
If we expect the major drug companies to spend the billions of dollars required to develop new medications ... for the benefit of us all... we must offer some protection ...
The Senate, in a deliberate attempt at obstruction, has revised the legislation calling for... a four-year monopoly.
The Liberal-dominated Senate claims that in proposing the law, the Mulroney government is bending to the demands of the U.S. government and drug company lobbyists.
This ignores the fact that European drug companies and other governments are as much upset at our piracy as the Americans.
I call upon the other place to abandon its obstruction.
* *
*




Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to read an editorial on the same issue, on Bill C-22. This one is from The Toronto Star of August 16, 1987. It is entitled "Bill C-22: R.l.P." and reads:
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Harvie Andre says he would rather let its drug patent legislation die than negotiate its provisions at a conference between senators and MPs. That's okay with us.
It goes on, and in the last sentence it says:
Andre wants none of the Senate's compromises. If that means Bill C-22 dies, Canadians won't mourn its passing.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Acting Leader of the Conservative Government, in the absence of both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister.
August 17, 1987



There are only 49 days left before the end of the free trade negotiations with the United States, and the Americans are still maintaining that the Auto Pact is part of the negotiations. The Government offered to give me a private confidential briefing on trade issues last week on the condition that 1 not say a word about them.
My first question would have been about the Auto Pact. Since the Government seemed willing to tell me the truth in private, is it also willing to say publicly what is going on in the negotiations as concerns the Auto Pact, or rather the guarantees protecting this pact? Are they part of the negotiations or not?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is of course a temptation to offer to reply to the Acting Leader of the Liberal Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -but I will not succumb to that. [Translation]
As for the specific question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, it is a well-known fact that the Auto Pact is not on the table. The Leader of the Opposition has asked whether we are willing to begin publishing the details of the Canadian position 45 days before the end of the negotiations. This would destroy our position in the negotiations. We are not willing to publish the Canadian position as asked by the Leader of the Opposition.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows that in the circumstances in Parliament I would not be tempted to needle him, but 1 want to assure him that I am not likely to follow his precedent.


Mr. McDermid:: Not likely?


John Napier Turner: Our difficulty-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Our difficulty is that-


Mr. Masse:: Look at your own Members, John.


An Hon. Member:: There is nobody behind you at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, our difficulty is that despite the fact that the Minister for International Trade has said that she made a clear statement to the House of Commons on March 16, she did not. She did not indicate in clear terms what was negotiable or what was not negotiable.
Oral Questions
We do not want to know the negotiating position of the Government and we do not want to know how the Government will play its cards. However, we do want to know what cards are in the deck, those items that are negotiable and on the table with the United States.
1 could cite to the right hon. gentleman a statement made on regional subsidies. The Minister said on March 16 that regional development and our capacity to sustain regional development are not on the table. Five paragraphs later, she said also on the table are subsidies and related measures which are important to regional development because we want to know what programs we will be able to implement for regional development.
That is a perfect example of the lack of clarity of the Minister and it is for that reason that 1 ask the Right Hon. Member this question: are regional subsidies, those elements of Canadian national policy necessary to achieve economic equality across Canada, part of the negotiations with the United States, yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is being talked about here is a trade negotiation. I have been out of the country for a week and 1 do not know if the Leader of the Opposition has changed his position again, but when I left he wanted to subvert the trade negotiations entirely and have us walk away from them before they were completed.
Now he seems to have a new proposal and that new proposal is that since the Government is determined to follow the advice of, among, others the Liberal Premier of the Province of Quebec, by proceeding with the best efforts attempt to negotiate a trade arrangement, he is trying to ask us to act in a way that would put the Canadian case on the table for the advantage of the Americans in a way that would destroy the Canadian case. That is not the way we will proceed with these negotiations.


AMENDMENT OF PATENT ACT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with that type of answer there will be no overwhelming demand that the Minister stay in the country for any length of time.
The Right Hon. Member's colleague and Leader, the Prime Minister, admitted last week that the drug legislation, Bill C-22 shortly to be before the House, has been discussed with the Americans. It took a little prodding, but we got that admission. Since the Americans have always contended that the drug legislation is a matter for negotiation in free trade with Canada, has the Government consulted recently with the

August 17, 1987
Oral Questions
Americans to ascertain whether the compromise set forth in the Eastman report would be a position acceptable to the Americans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what an amazing attempt to give away Canada's sovereignty. We make those decisions here in Canada, we do not ask the United States to make those kinds of decisions.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked a question based upon discussions with other Governments regarding Bill C-22. 1 can tell him that I have heard from other Governments about the situation of piracy that is the law of Canada now which we are trying to change. I have heard from the French, the Dutch, the Germans, the British, the Americans, and there is no doubt-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How about the Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: -and we have heard from Canadians, both on the question of the substance of the drug Bill and on the question of the absolutely unacceptable, undemocratic attempt by the Senate of Canada, a Senate whose real purpose is to change the leadership of its own Party, to subvert the actions and decisions of the elected representatives in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Last Friday in response to a question put by my Leader, he suggested that under Bill C-84 we will not violate our international obligations. However, we have since learned that in a letter dated August 12 sent to the Government of Canada, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees expressed grave concern with the policy of the Government and in the process delivered an international slap in the face to Canada which was heard the world over.
Knowing our precise commitments to the United Nations and having received a letter prior to the commencement of the emergency debate last week, why did the Minister persist in misleading the House and Canadians into believing that the United Nations Convention is not being breached by Bill C-84? Will the Minister make the necessary amendments so that Canada can save face with the United Nations? In that regard, what instructions have been sent to Ambassador Stephen Lewis?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, 1 received the comments of the United Nations High Commissioner and I responded to those comments in a letter last week. 1 am confident my explanation will satisfy the concerns of the High Commissioner.
In the letter 1 said that the powers permitted to states by Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea authorizes the denial of entry and the enforced departure of vehicles from territorial waters where there is reason to believe those vehicles are transporting a person or persons to Canada in contravention of the Immigration Act or regulations. The Bill requires the Minister to exercise due regard to the safety of the vehicle and the passengers before giving the direction to depart. This provides ample opportunity for the Minister to take into account a variety of considerations before making his decision.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that the UN Commissioner is not stupid. His concern is for the safety of refugees. We are squandering the international leadership role on which Canadians have prided themselves. We are losing sovereignty at home, respect abroad, so what else is left?


An Hon. Member:: You!


Sergio Marchi: Bill C-84 will render our signature to the UN Convention on Refugees null and void as was diplomatically implied by the UN Commissioner. Why does the Government not have the honesty and integrity to tell Canadians and this House very clearly that it no longer believes in the UN Convention, that it is pulling Canada out of that convention, rather than trying to do it through a sneaky back door approach? You cannot have it both ways. Which one is it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I share the opinion of my colleague that the High Commissioner for Refugees is certainly not a stupid person, and this is why we responded at length to the question he asked us. I am sincerely convinced that the High Commissioner for Refugees will accept Canada's argument with respect to dissuading bogus refugees from resorting to illegal means to enter this country. We reserve the right to send back ships caught in international waters, but again with every assurance that in the case of people sent back, if ever this should happen, we will have given consideration to the safety aspects and made sure that neither the life nor the future of such individuals would be compromised in any way whatsoever.
August 17, 1987


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he has come back from South Africa with practical proposals to negotiate an end to apartheid. This seems to be a major development. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what these proposals are?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are no specific proposals and 1 regret having been misquoted. Some developments have come to light in my discussions with the African National Congress and the government of South Africa which are minimally encouraging. I must say that, as far as negotiations are concerned, 1 do not believe that there can be any major progress in the forseeable future, but there have been some elements of agreement between the two parties which hold some hope for the future. For instance, both parties have indicated that they would prefer a negotiated solution to one achieved through violence. Both have indicated that, in their opinion, if the apartheid issue is settled by violent means in South Africa, it will have terrible consequences for everyone in the region, both Black and White.
Third, and 1 believe that this is very important, the ANC recognizes that it is not the only group representing South African Blacks that must be involved in any negotiations. Finally, neither the government of South Africa nor the ANC have closed the door on future negotiations.


FORTHCOMING COMMONWEALTH AND FRANCOPHONIE MEETINGS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, quite evidently the visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to South Africa was intended as a preparation for both the Francophone Summit and the Commonwealth Summit.
In view of the experiences of the Secretary of State in southern Africa, is it the intention of the Government to bring forth any specific propositions at all to those two conferences? Quite specifically, is it the intention of the Government to fulfil its promise to try to agree to new sanctions by those two bodies in view of the lack of change in southern Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have the privilege later today of being present when the Prime Minister meets the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Ramphal, at which time there will be discussion of some of the matters which will come
Oral Questions
to the agenda of the Commonwealth Conference. Many of those will concern South Africa.
Although that conference is also dealing with a wider world and a wider range of issues, there are some specific proposals that will be considered. If those proposals are to have effect, they have to become subject to the agreement of all of the members of the Commonwealth there assembled. I frankly do not think they would benefit from publication here at this time.
1 received some suggestions during my visit, not only from Governments but also from, among others, Reverend Alan Boesak, that may provide some opportunity for action by the Commonwealth. We will study that very seriously.
With regard to the question of sanctions, I think it should be borne in mind that sanctions are one instrument of encouraging change and that there are others.
1 think it important to make the point, immediately after my return to Canada, that had the Prime Minister, the Government and I accepted, two years ago, the advice of some in this House that we rupture entirely at that time our relations with South Africa, Canada would not have been in a position to have had the discussions which I was able to hold. We would not have been in a position to put to work the unique credibility of Canada as a country which might be able to build some kind of bridge across which agreement between the ANC and the South African Government might move.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF COMMONWEALTH
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, surely the credibility of the Government and of the country is tested as much by the promise of the Prime Minister that diplomatic relations would be broken if there was not some amelioration of the situation under apartheid.
1 will direct my question to either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. It may not be that apartheid is the only issue at the Commonwealth, but it certainly is the most important. There is agreement that sanctions and other actions are necessary.
Is it not clear that unless some strong action is taken by Canada and the Commonwealth in response to apartheid in South Africa that in itself would pose a threat to the seriousness with which the Commonwealth is regarded by its membership?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the case. I think it is important that the Commonwealth act. However, taking an action is only part of the challenge. The other part of the challenge is that the action be appropriate.
I have discussed this matter in some detail recently with President Kaunda, who is not only the President of Zambia

August 17, 1987
Oral Questions
but also the Chairman of the Front Line States and the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity. I have discussed it with the leaders of the African National Congress. When the Prime Minister was in Africa himself in January he had the opportunity to discuss precisely these questions. We will continue to look for ways that will be effective.
If I may say so, part of the reason that we were able to have some small influence upon the possible elaboration of a possible negotiating position was because the Prime Minister has shown leadership on this issue which is recognized throughout Africa and, I think, throughout the developing world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Airline deregulation in the United States has had a direct adverse effect on safety. The Detroit tragedy of yesterday may well be another terrible example of this situation.
Why is the Government not ready to do anything to prevent similar tragedies from occurring here in Canada after Canadian airline deregulation?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, of course we all regret very much the very serious tragedy which took place in Detroit. I am sure all Canadians will mourn with the families and friends of those who perished. We extend to them the comfort and compassion of the people of Canada.
I find the Hon. Member's question quite irresponsible. This accident is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board. None of the facts has been determined. It involved an MD-80 aircraft which is a development of the DC-9. There are no such aircraft registered in Canada. The engines were a JT8D-200 engine which is a very much advanced engine. Northwest Airlines has an impressive record. 1 think that making that kind of allegation is totally uncalled for.
I simply want to assure Canadians and the House that one of the first things the Government did was to take extra precautions to tighten up on the safety regulations in the airline industry by passing a new Aeronautics Act which is the most progressive, advanced and far-reaching safety legislation of any country in the world. For the Hon. Member to tie politics to a very serious tragedy is most unfortunate indeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the
Minister's answer is not good enough. Does the Minister know that airline mechanical engineers are delegated powers by the Department of Transport in Canada and are put in charge of applying the standards laid down by the Canadian Department?
How can we have the companies policing themselves? This is unacceptable. I hope the Minister will be ready to change this practice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find this question totally absurd from a Member who has had some experience in transportation. He has been the critic for three years now. I invite him to reread the Aeronautics Act and to reread some of the actions which have been taken by the Government.
The fact is that we have added the strength of the airworthiness inspectors. That whole section has been beefed up. If the Member would like a full briefing, I certainly invite him to visit the Department of Transport in order to get the facts straight.


André Ouellet: There are fewer employees than before.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is with regard to the announcement the Minister made yesterday that the Government is sending two officials from the Department of External Affairs to Central America today to ensure that the five Foreign Ministers in the region are aware of Canada's support for the new peace plan, the accord reached in Guatemala City, and also to convey Canada's willingness to give technical advice on peacekeeping mechanisms.
We would not need to send two officials specially to make Central America aware of our support for the peace plan had we had, lo these many years, a more active and larger diplomatic presence in Central America. Is the Minister now prepared to consider increasing Canada's permanent diplomatic presence in the region, up to and including establishing an embassy in Managua?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to do that at this time. I do expect to be making an announcement in the next several weeks that, while not responding to the specific
August 17, 1987

questions that the Hon. Member has raised, will nonetheless enhance the capacity of Canada-a capacity which I think is already recognized in the region as being both strong and willing to help-to contribute to peaceful resolution of disputes and to the kind of economic and other development that we hope would ensue in Central America.


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry that at this juncture the Minister dismisses out of hand enlarging our permanent diplomatic presence with people from the Department, in a region about which Canadians have been concerned these many years.


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Pauline Jewett: Will the Minister give some assurance that the Governments of Central America will know from now on that Canada supports their efforts in the peace plan, as we did with Contadora? Will he do anything to ensure that again we do not have to send down two people to inform Central America of our support for their plans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why the Governments of Central America know that this Government of Canada has not only supported the peace plan but has been active in encouraging the development of economies and of peace in the region, is that they listen to the Government and not to the Hon. Member, so that they know the facts.
Let me be clear that we intend to continue a very active presence there indeed. 1 find it surprising that the Hon. Member would dismiss the importance of Canada sending experts down so that we can have discussions immediately and directly with the Governments concerned about practical means by which Canada might be able to apply our experience in control, in verification and other matters necessary to the establishment of a peace, if one is in fact established, in Central America.
As to other steps, we are taking several. Several weeks ago 1 initiated a meeting with Foreign Ministers of Latin America at the United Nations in September. We intend to maintain a very active presence, interest, and I, hope, effectiveness in Central America.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VENEZUELAN MINISTER OF ENERGY AND MINES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the Gallery of His Excellency, Doctor Arturo Hernandez Grisanti, Minister of Energy and Mines for the Republic of Venezuela.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


AIR SAFETY
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister who is well versed in the deregulation issue, his own baby.
Since the advent of deregulation in United States, the number of near-collisions in the air increased 300 percent- there are nearly 3 incidents a day.
What steps does his Government intend to take to ensure that this situation verging on catastrophe does not repeat itself in Canada with the advent of deregulation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that Members opposite have been searching very desperately to find ways and means to take issue with the long overdue regulatory reform that has been required in the transportation system in Canada, to make it more efficient and effective, more productive and safe. I am not sure how he proposes to use American statistics, where the situation is quite different in terms of the density and a host of other things, to apply to the Canadian scene.
The fact is that we are very deeply concerned about safety in the skies, safety at sea, and safety on the road in Canada's transportation system. We have taken those steps in a very deliberate fashion, consistent with maintaining a strong and efficient transportation system. 1 invite the Member to compare the legislative framework we have in Canada as compared to the United States, namely, the Aeronautics Act which this House approved, and I compliment all Members for supporting it.


POSSIBILITY OF ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS
Fernand Robichaud: My
supplementary is directed to the same Minister, Madam Speaker.

According to Jack Butt, Chairman of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association, the number of incidents, such as near misses and close calls, has quadrupled in Canada since 1983. Since 1985 the present Minister has implemented reductions in the number of air traffic controllers. There are now 200 fewer air traffic controllers than we had two years ago. How can the Minister assure Canadians that Canadian skies are as safe as they should be?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are not only assuring Canadians that we have the latest up-to-date

August 17, 1987
Oral Questions
resources in terms of personnel, we have assured Canadians that we are using the latest and safest technology.
The RAMP Program which employs the latest state of the art technology has had the result of providing safer and more effective services with fewer numbers of people.
I might remind the Hon. Member that the decision to implement the RAMP Program was taken by his Government, something that we support and I hope he supports.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On Friday the Minister said that he is prepared to consider amendments to Clause 95 of Bill C-84 to avoid punishing innocent volunteers helping refugees. Considering that the Bill also fails entirely to catch or punish the sort of entrepreneurs who, in the past two years, brought in over 5,000 bogus refugee claimants from Portugal, Turkey and Brazil to make frivolous or manifestly unfounded claims, does the Minister intend to offer amendments to the Bill which would stop such racketeers?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-84, hearings will start tomorrow in the legislative committee. 1 think that is the appropriate forum for discussing amendments. Indeed, I will be there tomorrow morning. If there are any amendments- and 1 would like to correct the perception my colleague wanted to give-ensuring that we can state matters differently without altering the substance of the Bill itself, I am ready to listen. But that will come from the legislative committee.


EFFECT OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the Minister's willingness to consider amendments and I hope he will do some thinking ahead himself because there is another matter that requires creative thinking.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said in his letter last week that Clause 8: "Could risk exposing bona fide asylum seekers and refugees to forcible return to territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened". This, of course, is contrary to Canada's UN obligations. Is the Minister willing to amend that clause in such a way as to protect both Canada's sovereignty and the refugees whom Canada has promised to protect?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty here. There has been a practice which has been respected in this House, although it has really been a matter of judgment for the Chair,
as to how far questions should go on a Bill that is in the midst of debate or has not yet cleared this place.
I understand the importance of this particular issue, especially in view of the fact that one of the reasons that the House is back here is to address that very matter. 1 will allow the question, but urge Hon. Members to reflect on what the Chair has observed so that what is properly a matter for debate is not put into the Question Period in such a way that the Chair would have to rule it out. I remind Hon. Members that on that particular Bill there will be a vote later this afternoon. The Bill then goes to committee where these matters can be pursued further. The Hon. Minister.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I read earlier the answer 1 gave the UN High Commissioner on Refugees regarding the concerns he set forth in his letter to me last week. I thought I was clear. I think that on the whole, Bill C-84 respects the concerns raised. That should be clear to Canadians.
Canadians and especially Quebecers would like to know where the New Democrats stand. For a week the New Democratic Party has been paralyzing the passage of a Bill Canadians want to see passed. Some day the New Democratic Party will have to tell Canadians exactly what it is against. It is against Bill C-22, which it has blocked for nearly a year. Today, it is blocking the Immigration Bill. 1 think Quebecers especially are starting to realize where you stand.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On August 13, last week, the Minister informed the House that the marketing branch of his Department was in the midst of investigating the alleged fraudulent practices of Principal Trust and the companies associated thereto. Today the director of that branch confirmed to my office that he was not aware of any such investigation. Would the Minister explain to the House why he has chosen to mislead the House and tell us who he is trying to protect-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member means to imply that, for whatever reason, most certainly an innocent one, the Minister may have left an impression on facts with which the Hon. Member does not agree. However, 1 know the Hon. Member will know that the suggestion that carries the
August 17, 1987

imputation of a deliberate misleading of the House is inappropriate. So 1 would ask the Hon. Member to rephrase his question and pursue the matter.


David Charles Dingwall: My question to the Minister then is why, in view of his previous statements, he has chosen to give certain representations to the House which are different from the facts. Who is he attempting to protect? Is he trying to protect the regulatory agencies in the Province of Alberta? Is he trying to protect his friends, or the friends of his associates, if you will, in the various companies, because he is certainly not protecting or enhancing the investments made by thousands of Canadians in those various companies?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom the Hon. Member was talking or to whom his office was talking, but the Hon. Member's allegation of misrepresentation is typical of his allegations, totally false and without substance.


Mr. Foster:: He talked to your office.


Harvie Andre: There was a meeting in Regina on July 14 where officials of the Marketing Practices Branch of my Department met with investors of First Investors. The Hon. Member for Regina East, I believe, was present, so the Hon. Member can check with him if he was in fact there. Questionnaires were distributed to investors who felt they might have had misrepresentations made to them.
If the Hon. Member would check his law, he would realize that this branch does not take instructions from me. It has independent power from Parliament to investigate these matters and to recommend charges if necessary.
If the Hon. Member would do his homework in that regard, he would find out that in fact it is carrying on with the investigation. I am informed it expects to have a recommendation by the end of August.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL INQUIRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. In view of the fact that this particular situation transcends the geographical boundaries of the Province of Alberta, and in view of the fact of its national importance and that it affects thousands of Canadians, particularly in investment communities throughout the country, does the Minister not see it as advisable, in the best interests of Canadians and to provide certainty and integrity within the investment community, to exercise his responsibilities and call upon the Government of Alberta to initiate with him a joint public enquiry into this whole matter in order to shed light and provide necessary information for the general public to address what is obviously a very serious wrongdoing to a great number of Canadians?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we understand the
Oral Questions
facts in this case. First, Mr. Cormie petitioned this company into bankruptcy. That was the first step. The second step was taken by the Government of Alberta by taking control of the assets. Third, and only third, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation made application to protect the depositors by asking for a winding-up order.
I would like to tell the House this afternoon that the court met this morning and has agreed to the winding-up order. The CDIC has agreed to the following, which may be in the direction to which the Hon. Member refers; first, the CDIC says it will continue its preparation to pay out to the depositors in a few weeks' time, but if a buyer can be found for this group it will not interfere and in fact will continue to encourage it. So the federal Government is simply an onlooker in this matter.
These companies are all provincially regulated. This is the wrong capital, the wrong legislature, in which to ask these questions. Insofar as we have any influence at all, the CDIC is the insurer and it is co-operating with the Alberta authorities.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PRINCIPLE OF NATIONAL TREATMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have just received a tape of an official briefing by a senior U.S. commerce department official, Mr. William Cavitt, in which he indicates that Canada has agreed to the principle of "national treatment", that is, that Canadian and U.S. firms be treated the same in this country. Will the Prime Minister confirm that Canada has made that concession? And will he tell us what Canada has received from the U.S. in return? Or is this more of the one-way giveaways we have seen so often from this Government?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a briefing of some kind given by Americans to Americans. He has access to that, apparently. So be it. I am surprised my hon. friend would raise questions of briefings because, when his Party asked for confidential briefings, the Minister agreed to brief you fully on what took place on the Canadian side and the New Democratic Party turned it down.
What has transpired at the bargaining table is very much in keeping with the outlines indicated here in the House by the Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and by myself, during debate and in Question Period. It is very much in keeping with the national interest of Canada. That was the kind of information that on a confidential and appropriate basis, the Government, through the chief negotiators, was ready to provide to the New Democratic Party and to the Official Opposition. I regret that my hon. friend chose to

August 17, 1987
Oral Questions
decline that invitation by Canadians to Canadians and chooses instead to resurrect items coming from the United States.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, a responsible Government would give this information to all Canadians, not just to parliamentarians on a confidential basis.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Steven W. Langdon: Will the Prime Minister also confirm what Mr. Cavitt goes on to say in this briefing, that the United States has taken a strong position against any binding neutral dispute mechanism of the kind we have sought, according to the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend surprises me and the House with his questions and allegations today. On August 5, Lome Nystrom, MP for Yorkton-Melville, wrote to Ambassador Reisman saying: "1 am writing to you on behalf of my New Democratic Party colleagues to request a private, confidential briefing by yourself, or one of your officials, on the progress of the free trade negotiations between Canada and the United States".
Three days or thereabouts later, on August 11, the Minister for International Trade, in response to a legitimate request for confidential information, wrote to the Leader of the New Democratic Party and stated: "As we are entering the final crucial stages of the free trade negotiations with the United States, 1 would like to extend an invitation to you to meet with one of the senior negotiators for a briefing on the status of the negotiations to date".
The negotiators, acting on behalf of the Government and the people of Canada, were ready to provide full and complete information in regard to sensitive national negotiations on a confidential basis to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. But, clearly, either the original request coming from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville was either a sham or, alternatively, the NDP is incapable of keeping confidential information designed to promote the national interest of Canada.
So you will have to make up your minds with respect to what you want because you have already turned down both possibilities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister will have no doubt heard that I did feel it necessary to make comments last week on the use of the word "you". I know that the right hon. gentleman will refrain from doing so in the answer to the next question.


IMMIGRATION
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Does the Minister agree with the report of the Senate Special Committee on Terrorism and Public Safety which states that Canada's current refugee procedures which were put in place in 1976 constitute a gaping hole in our security system? Does he truly believe that Bill C-84 will close that gaping hole, bearing in mind that this same Senate committee said that the RCMP takes at least 90 days in order to do a background check on everyone who applies for refugee status in Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think that 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the time, Senator Kelly's report on terrorism reflects the concerns of Bill C-55. It is clear that the present system for dealing with refugee cases does not provide for effective methods to deal with the problems of terrorism. One of our reasons for introducing some very strict control measures in Bill C-84 is to give Canadians the assurance that before we authorize anyone to enter Canada freely and fully, we must have the assurance, and I am thinking of the Immigration Officers hired especially for this purpose, that these people do not represent a threat in any shape or form to the security of this country. It is clear that these measures are essential, that they form a major part of Bill C-84 and that they will have to reflect the purpose of this Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be one more question from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and one question only.
I just want to say before Question Period ends that, while this has been a Question Period in which there has been a vivid exchange if, perhaps tomorrow and the next day, preambles could be a little shorter then answers should be a little shorter, and the Chair would be able to recognize more Hon. Members.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns a decision of the Government to close down client service centres for the elderly needing help with their Old Age Security cheques.
Over the last three months the Department of National Health and Welfare has announced the closing down of no less
August 17, 1987

than four client service centres in eastern Ontario, including the one in the community of Hawkesbury in my riding, under the pretext of replacing this service with a toll-free telephone line. How can the Government say that a faceless phone conversation to help senior citizens is as good as an official of the Department of National Health and Welfare on site? Why is the Government hitting at senior citizens again?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare 1 will take that question as notice, in no way agreeing with the premise or the allegations that the Hon. Member has outlined in it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English |

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Marchi, (p. 7338).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock there were nine minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).

1 will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to continue the period for questions and comments.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). The Hon. Member will know that at the present time the House is debating an amendment to the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), that this Bill not be further discussed until 1988. In other words, this very important question of refugee determination would be stalled for a further six months if the Liberal amendment, which I understand is supported by the NDP, is passed.
My hon. friend will know that the purpose of putting a second reading motion to the floor of the House of Commons is to get the matter into committee so that there can be discussions and so that there can be witnesses called. But the Liberal amendment would stall any discussion of this matter until 1988, six months from now.
I would like to know from the Hon. Member how she feels her constituents, many of whom are new Canadians, feel about further delaying any discussion of this Bill and about people jumping the queue. I know her constituency well, having spent
Immigration Act, 1976
30 years in Toronto. What I want to know is whether or not the Hon. Member will be supporting her colleague's amendment which is to further delay discussion of this Bill another six months, or will she be voting against it?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that a supporter of the Government should complain about delay with respect to Bill C-55 considering that the Government let the Bill sit on the Order Paper for a long, long time and only brought it in for three hours of debate before the House recessed at the end of June. We have now been brought back and asked to deal with Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, Bill C-84 being a curiously ill-designed, ill-thought out piece of legislation, obviously thrown together in a great hurry.
As I said in my speech, there is a real need for serious updating and review of refugee policy. But Bill C-84 is certainly not it, and Bill C-55 has some serious flaws in it, flaws which have been pointed out in the House and outside the House and which need to be addressed. If the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is serious about wanting to do a serious review of refugee policy, which is badly needed, then all he has to do is tell us that he is prepared to accept some amendments in committee.
With respect to the abuses referred to by the Hon. Member, the Government has known of abuses for a full two years. There are powers in the existing Immigration Act which it has not attempted to use. Under those circumstances, to say that the Government needs either Bill C-55 or Bill C-84 in order to deal with the abuses, simply does not make sense. It has known of the problems for two years. It has had the powers and it has not used them.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, during the course of debate much is being made about the delay between having a Bill read a first time and debate commencing.
Does the Hon. Member agree that there is a case to be made for having a Bill printed, and then having it exposed to interest groups, to discussion by the media, and to discussion by various parliamentarians? For example, members of our caucus met with interest groups on this subject matter on approximately June 10.
Does my hon. colleague agree that there is a case to be made for introduction of a Bill, and then a delay before debate starts, so that interest groups can be heard by the various caucuses? In that manner, there can be discussion in the media, and general discussion among parliamentarians and their constituents before proceeding with the legislation.


Aideen Nicholson: The technique that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary describes is certainly one that has often been used in the House where, in effect, the first reading of a Bill is treated like an exposure draft, then by the time the Bill comes to second reading and committee a much more informed debate takes place.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Government supporters cannot have it both ways. If they want a thoughtful, careful discussion, then they must be prepared to allow time for it. If the matter is one of urgency, then it is dealt with on an urgent basis. In this case, the Government has not made it clear in which way it is going. On June 18 the Bill was brought forward for three hours of debate as a type of "filler", and we have not returned to it. Today it has suddenly become a matter of urgency. There may be an explanation, but we have yet to hear it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall).


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, today I wish to address some of the arguments made by the opposition Members and certain vested interest groups who believe that the Government is over-reacting in proposing this refugee determination legislation. They believe that the refugee situation in Canada today is not that serious, and that it does not deserve our urgent attention. I do not know where our critics have been. In my riding this past weekend, and prior to the House being recalled, I have received numerous phone calls, letters, and representations in my four constituency offices, and here in Ottawa, which indicate that people firmly believe that the Government was proper in recalling the House to deal with these Bills.
I would like to lay before the House the notion that all Canadians are very concerned and interested in immigration, and that we as a Government deal with the Bills before us. Whether my colleagues across the floor will admit it or not, every Member of the House has heard from the public on this issue. The message coming through loud and clear is, we are mad as hell about flagrant abuses to our refugee determination system. We are not going to take it any longer. The Government has to do something, and do it now.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) should be applauded for coming forward in such a timely fashion with this take charge, take action legislation. Bills C-55 and C-84 will continue our long history of extending humanitarianism to those truly in need, while sending out a clear, uncompromising message to those who take advantage of our natural goodwill.
Around the world Canadians have the reputation of being good guys. From here on in, these "good guys" will not finish last when it comes to removing illegal immigrants, and stopping in their tracks the unscrupulous smugglers who traffic in human desperation.
The critics of this legislation lay the audacious charge that the Government does not care about the plight of refugees, and that the Government does not act on behalf of refugees. I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight and tell the House that the media and the Opposition have, by gross omission, left untold the many ongoing actions and financial outlays the Government has initiated to assist refugees around the world.
While the debate over the new refugee determination system focuses on refugee claims made within Canada, we must not forget that Canada offers protection to refugees through our overseas programs. In this way we have for years shared the responsibility for the international refugee situation. Each year we offer refugee status, transportation to Canada, and resettlement assistance to thousands of refugees in camps and in flight. We offer the same protection and assistance to thousands more in refugee-like situations.
Our role in selecting refugees abroad is an extremely important one that is perhaps too easily forgotten. For example, there are upwards of 1 5 million refugees in camps throughout the world. Selecting refugees from these camps is part of an obligation we have undertaken to relieve the burden on countries of first asylum, countries which are struggling to meet the needs of their own people. Very often these refugees have spent years in camps and have no hope of returning to their own countries or of being resettled locally. They are offered resettlement in Canada. It is agreed throughout the international community that although initially a refugee's most pressing need is safe haven, the ideal long-term solution is repatriation or local integration. Third country settlement away from a familiar culture, language, or landscape is the final, least preferred option. Resettlement is for the refugee who has no other choice.
Last year, and this year, the Government will sponsor and resettle 12,000 convention refugees who have applied at our embassies overseas, and who have been taken from camps. Some are interviewed in and brought out of jails, some are rescued at sea. There are also thousands of refugees brought here by groups or organizations acting as private sponsors.
The private sponsorship program has been operating since 1978. It allows all Canadians to become involved over and above what the Government is able to do. In fact, there is no limit on the number of refugees that can be brought into Canada in this manner. While the 1987 report on immigration levels estimates that there will be 5,000 privately sponsored refugees, this is not a ceiling. Many more could be admitted if the situation demanded it, and if Canadians were able to respond in kind. This becomes evident when we look at Canada's response to the Indo-Chinese boat people crisis in 1979 and 1980. The co-operation of private citizens and the federal Government saw Canada open its doors to some 60,000 Indo-Chinese refugees.
Our refugee selection program is so generous that we extend our protection to many who, strictly speaking, are not convention refugees, but who are in situations to which we feel we should respond. This is done in two ways; through the selection of people from designated countries that are undergoing strife or upheaval, and through the selection of those who warrant special humanitarian consideration.
Both of these programs offer protection to the Indo-Chinese and Eastern Europeans through resettlement. They also supplement our other refugee selection programs and assist
August 17, 1987

political prisoners, oppressed persons, self-exiles, and victims of disasters throughout the world. This year our humanitarian measures program allows up to 8,000 people to be admitted. That is over and above the 12,000 government sponsored refugees, those in the designated classes, and those privately sponsored.
We must remember that, to a large extent, it is through our overseas program that we best serve the world refugee problem. At the same time as continuing to express our commitment to refugees, we must balance our response to international developments, large-scale population movements, our international obligations, and the principles of fairness and justice. To this end Canada is working hard in many international forums to help alleviate the political, economic, and social problems which beset so many refugee producing countries.
We also work hard and in close co-operation with dozens of non-governmental organizations across the country to see that government and privately sponsored refugees, and many new immigrants as well, settle as smoothly as possible into Canadian society. I am happy to say that together we have achieved much in this area. We will continue to move ahead.
A great part of our commitment is translated into programs to ensure successful integration. Some of them start even before many refugees arrive in Canada. For instance, the revolving transportation loans fund of S90 million is used to cover transportation costs for eligible immigrants and refugees. We would like to note that loans to convention refugees and designated class applicants are interest free.
Once in Canada many refugees need our help to get their new life off to a solid start. If this is the case, the Adjustment Assistance Program helps ensure that these government sponsored newcomers have enough income to meet their basic needs. Funds available for this program total $49 million for the fiscal year 1987-88.
I would now like to mention several programs which provide ample proof of the positive and very flexible nature of the cooperation between the federal Government and NGOs. I am sure every Member of the Flouse would agree that this close co-operation can be held up as a model of its kind.
The Immigrant Settlement and Adaption Program has been developed to aid immigrant and refugee aid organizations in providing a wide range of services to the community. Through contracts with the federal Government, these activities include reception and referral services, interpretation, counselling, orientation, and general information.
This partnership has produced a nation-wide network of groups that ensure that newcomers, unfamiliar with certain facets of Canadian life, do not fall through the cracks and, may I add, they do their jobs in a highly competitive and professional manner. Funding for ISAP has grown 60 per cent
Immigration Act, 1976
in the past 2.5 years, and this fiscal year it totals almost $5 million.
As well we have set up programs such as the Host Refugee Program which is carried out jointly with community groups. Through it, government sponsored refugees have access to another source of information and, more importantly, support. Starting with an initial three pilot projects in 1985, host projects have sprung up across Canada, providing an additional safety net for those needing special attention which may not have been available before.
Briefly, then, these are the major pillars of our settlement program. We will continue to innovate, to develop, and to mould our programs as the need evolves. We are committed, as the House well knows, to reaching out to refugees in real need, to rescuing those fleeing persecution, and to responding to crises as they occur.
The more than 25,000 people coming to Canada under our humanitarian programs this year are living witnesses to an ideal which Canada will never and can never abandon. However, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration has stated time and time again, the existing system was never designed to deal with the growing number of claims or with the large number of false claims to refugee status. It is bogged down and can no longer respond effectively to genuine refugees in need of Canada's protection.
As the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) stated during a recent foray, as reported in The Globe and Mail, "the length of the process acts as a magnet for those who are not convention refugees".
The long-term solution as embroiled in Bill C-55 will give us the tools to deal with the circumstances which Canada faces now and in the future. However, we have to make changes to the existing legislation to enable us to mobilize our resources immediately and until Bill C-55 comes into place.
Clearly the deterrent and detention legislation holds the immediate answers. Bill C-84 is based on the principle of justice while achieving the balance of speed and due process which will make for a fair yet effective refugee determination process.
With the Bill and with the will of the House we have the means to act immediately, to put a halt to the most flagrant abuses of our refugee policies, and to make a start at putting our affairs in order so that we may resume our role as a champion for justice and a protector of the persecuted.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that our domestic refugee determination system is only one of several programs and initiatives which we undertake on behalf of refugees. It is only one aspect of a much larger and wider spread commitment to refugees which is and will continue to be enshrined in our legislation.
Through the rapid passage of Bill C-84, we will be taking the steps necessary to put an immediate end to the flagrant

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
abuses of our laws and to the obstruction of our refugee program, an obstruction that keeps those truly in need from the protection they deserve.
In so doing we will send a strong message to our constituents and to the world that Canada is a country which cares about human dignity, about human safety, and about doing whatever is within our power to prevent exploitation and to ensure protection from persecution. We will also be saying that Canada is a sovereign nation; that we will protect our borders, our humanitarian values and traditions as embodied in our immigration and refugee systems; and that we will safeguard the security of our country.
Let us work together, pass Bill C-55, and therefore take the course of action needed to serve our refugee determination over the long term. Let us also consider the deterrent and detention legislation which is before us. Let us pass both Bills without delay so that the Government may deal immediately and decisively with the events at hand.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, if I heard the Hon. Member correctly, I think he made a very prescient misstatement when he described the refugee determination process as being embroiled in Bill C-55. Indeed, what I think we have here is an issue which has become embroiled because of Bill C-55.
The Hon. Member also indicated his respect and admiration for the work of the NGOs and for the co-operation between his Government and the NGOs involved in the refugee movement. How is it possible for the Hon. Member to have spoken of the NGOs in such a glowing fashion, attributing to them, deservedly, good work in the area with which Bill C-55 has to deal and yet, on the other hand, have such a unanimous appraisal of Bill C-55 as bad in many respects and as denying what he indicated was important to him, that is, fair treatment of refugees in need? I believe that I am quoting him correctly.
Furthermore, he said that he wanted Bill C-55 approved quickly. My question to him is a very simple one. If the NGOs have been responsible for such honourable work, presumably the honourable work was based upon knowledge and experience. Would it not make sense to make Bill C-55, this oh so perfect Bill, more perfect by consulting those who are familiar with the problem, by responding to the concerns of the NGOs of which he spoke so glowingly, and by responding to the concerns of the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees in respect of Bill C-55 and these areas in which it denies refugees the fair treatment he says they should be accorded? Would it not make sense to the Hon. Member if, in the review of Bills C-84 and C-55, instead of manning the legislative committees with those who are ignorant of the process, they were manned with Members from the government side who have gained from long experience some familiarity with the issue? Would that not be more consistent
with the utterances of this Hon. Member who is, it is clear, so devoted to fairness for true refugees?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has had the opportunity to be in his riding and talk to his constituents. I wonder if he has spoken to those individuals who are trying to operate within today's system. Does he know the frustrations they are experiencing because of illegal immigrants?
Perhaps one of the ways I could describe this would be to
say-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: 1 wonder if the Hon. Member could answer the questions asked of him.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Perhaps the Hon. Member would give me the opportunity to speak. I did not interrupt when he was asking his questions. May I have the same opportunity?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Not to ask me questions but to answer.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Some of my constituents have compared the situation to lining up to see a show when all of a sudden someone from the back of the line butts in in front of you. They want to know if that is fair. That is really the situation with which we are dealing.
The NGOs are doing an excellent job, but this new legislation will allow them to do an even better job.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Just try to answer the question. Just give it a shot.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Again, I suppose it is hard for a member of the NDP to listen to common sense.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No, we prefer to have answers to questions.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: If the Hon. Member had listened to his constituents, this legislation would have been passed already. I am sorry, I suppose he does not listen to his constituents.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the Hon. Member and 1 was surprised when he said that we should pass these two Bills without debate. We have been debating these Bills for four days and prior to that we debated one of them for one day on June 18. Indeed, I hope that we do pass the Bill, but with proper scrutiny from both sides of the House so Canadians will have a chance to know what the Bills contain.
There are some good things in Bill C-55 but there are also some major faults which must be examined in committee and, if possible, improved. The Minister himself admits that he would be receptive to certain amendments which would not change the substance or the objective of the Bill but would make it more acceptable. That is what we are working on right now.
The Hon. Member spoke highly of NGOs. I take it he knows about Amnesty International, a credible worldwide organization. That organization wrote to all Members of
August 17, 1987

Parliament, and I take it the Hon. Member received a copy of that letter as well.
In that letter. Amnesty International raises some very serious points about the question of the safe third country. Reading from page 2 of that letter, Amnesty International says the following:
There are several aspects of the "safe third country" which cause Amnesty International concern. First and foremost is the fact that the list of "safe third countries" will be prescribed by Cabinet. As a result, Canada's refugee determination process shall for the first time be politicized. In the past. Cabinet has been reluctant to impose visa requirements on nationals of certain countries because of historical, economic and political considerations. There is every reason to believe that these same factors will be taken into account when determinations of a safe country are made.
For example, one wonders how easy it will be for our government to deem the United States as unsafe for Guatemalan and Salvadoran claimants, in spite of the high percentage of refugee claimants from those countries deported by the United States.
The Hon. Member knows the problem. I am asking him how to solve it. How do we draw up a list of safe countries? Does he have any advice on how to devise a safe third country list?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Yes, we have discussed the Bill in the House for four days and for three hours prior to that and I think his recommendation to send the Bill to committee is a good one. Questions such as the one he has just asked can certainly be discussed in committee. The sooner we get the Bill out of the House, the quicker it may go to committee and the quicker it will return to the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my hon. friend on his remarks and 1 would like to ask him a question. Hon. Members will know that at the present time, we are debating an amendment put by the Liberal Party, supported by members of the NDP, providing that this Bill shall not be discussed for six months. In other words, it is the position of the Official Opposition, supported by the NDP, that the Bill should not even be discussed by Parliament until sometime in 1988.
How would the Hon. Member's constituents feel about that suggestion? How would they feel if Parliament shut down, went home and sat on its hands for six months? Does he feel that would be acceptable to his constituents?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I would have to say that the voices from the riding of Timiskaming are very loud and clear. They are saying: "Recall Parliament, deal with the two pieces of legislation and please don't come home until they have been dealt with in the proper manner".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government Member just said that we should not discuss this Bill. The motion before the House is that the Bill not be read at this time but that it be read six months hence. The Government had told us that it wanted to look at this Bill in the fall, so 1 do not see what subterfuge is involved in this repetitive-


Philip Derek Lewis: 1 don't see your point of order.
Immigration Act, 1976


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The point of order is that it is repetitive on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to rise after every speaker and bore us with these half-truths.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As the Hon. Member does know, that was not a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it is with a sense of dismay and almost shame that I find myself having to address in the Canadian House of Commons a piece of legislation which runs so directly counter to and which so subverts the record of humanitarian concern, caring and openness with which this country has been associated in the past.
One of the events in my life I recall most clearly is flying from England to East Africa in 1972 and stopping at the Cairo airport. I am not certain how many Hon. Members are aware of what the Cairo airport is like. It is not exactly a haven of peace. It is a hodge-podge of tremendous uncertainty and turbulence. In short, it is not a very pleasant place to be in in the middle of the night. Yet, because of transportation schedules, we had to stop there for at least three or four hours.
In the area in which we were waiting out this difficult period there was a throng of perhaps 150 or 200 Ugandan Asians. They were sitting there with looks on their faces which I can only describe as reflecting the deepest possible relief anyone could conceive of. These people had faced the all too real possibility of death or brutal torture at the hands of soldiers of the Amin regime. Yet they had been accepted by Canada as refugees. A new life for them was now possible. They had to leave behind friends and virtually all of their possessions, but they were escaping that regime and finding refuge in Canada. That is what our refugee policy has been about in the past. Our policy has been to accept thousands of Czech refugees in 1968, thousands of Hungarian refugees in 1956, and tens of thousands of Vietnamese boat people. All those people faced brutal conditions had they stayed at home, so they escaped and ultimately came to Canada.
It is possible that we could think of all this as simple humanitarianism on the part of Canada. We have been good-hearted in the past, but things have changed under the Conservative Government. Let me suggest, however, that there is a different perspective which needs to be understood. 1 venture to suggest that virtually every Member of Parliament who has canvassed his or her constituency has been struck by this, especially if that constituency is in one of the metropolitan areas of this country. If those Members are like me, they have seen these refugees become the most constructive, productive and caring citizens we could possibly have hoped for. We are not talking about some kind of good-hearted gesture of charity alone, although that should be enough. We are talking about the fact that people who have come to our

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
country as refugees have made tremendous economic contributions to Canada.
In the City of Ottawa, which took in many of the Vietnamese boat people, we can ask ourselves, how many of them are a drag on our social system? How many do you find on welfare? How many do you find living off community resources instead of contributing? The answer is, very, very few.
Speaking as an economist, I have to say that most immigrants, particularly those who have come here as refugees, have made tremendous contributions which are illustrated by some very real facts. One such fact is that immigrants have significantly lower levels of unemployment than natural-born Canadians. Another fact is that the general level of income for immigrants is higher than that of those who were born here. After all, these people had to make a tremendous effort with great courage in order to get themselves and their families here. It is not surprising to see them making a tremendous contribution.
In my own constituency I have immigrants from virtually every part of the world. Some have come here as refugees, some as ordinary immigrants. Their economic contribution alone has been tremendous. Yet we seem to have lost sight of that in this Draconian, indeed vicious legislation which the Government has brought forward.
It is not just I and my Party who talk about the viciousness of this legislation. This is something on which there is unanimity among the churches of the country, something which is surely a rare phenomenon. I can quote to you some of the material which has been sent by those church groups. For instance, a telex was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) from virtually every church in this country; the Anglican Church, the Baptist Federation, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Canadian Religious Conference of Ontario.
In this telex, dealing specifically with this piece of legislation, they plead for a refugee determination procedure that is fair as well as fast. They urge the Prime Minister and the Government to replace Bill C-55 with different legislation which provides "access for all claimants to a full, fair and independent hearing" and to "a meaningful appeal".
That is why we suggest that this Bill should be hoisted for six months. We think that surely in the next period of time men and women of good will, many of whom are on the government benches, will see to it that new legislation is brought before the House of Commons which provides not the kind of viciousness, the kind of arbitrary constructs which exist in this piece of legislation, but instead provide that fast and
fair appeal system which people across the country are absolutely convinced is essential.
There have been various suggestions about what our constituents think. I believe that right across the country, in my constituency as well as in every other constituency of Canada, there is above all a commitment to fairness. Fairness cannot survive the arbitrary system which will meet potential refugees under this particular Bill, an arbitrary system which gives them no independent access to their own counsel, no capacity to prepare a case and no capacity to appeal if they fall into one of number of categories which leaves them outside of the restricted and privileged few which Canada will accept in the future.
That, Madam Speaker, is not the kind of country that I want Canada to become. We cannot permit that kind of arbitrary, controlled, almost fascist sort of approach to hold sway in this country. If we do permit it to start, its impact will be insidious. Its impact will grow. We will become used to this kind of arbitrariness with respect to not only people arriving as potential immigrants but with respect to how Canadians themselves are treated. That is the danger as we head down this path.
That is why I hope that the Government itself will see fit to withdraw this piece of legislation, to vote in favour of the Liberal amendment which gives it a six-month hoist, and to bring back, not nothing, not the existing system, but the very sensible, very straightforward, quite fair and quite open system which has been recommended by church groups, which has been recommended by Rabbi Plaut in his detailed study of this question, which has been recommended again and again by individuals who have studied this issue with some care.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I find it especially ironic that the Government has called back the House of Commons to deal with 174 new arrivals on the East Coast of Canada, 174 arrivals in the context of a Government that has not even been able to meet its own targets for immigration in the past year. Its own targets for immigration in 1986 were from 105,000 to 115,000 and it could not even hit 100,000.
It is not as though we are talking about a great inundation of people from outside of Canada. We are talking about what used to be a tremendous humanitarian tradition in this country. We are talking about, I hope, a tremendous humanitarian future which can only be achieved if the Government starts to listen-if it starts to listen to church groups, those who have studied the legislation in detail, those who have worked as lawyers with refugee groups, and opposition Parties in the House of Commons.
I hope that the Government will listen. It has listened in the past. I do not think it is too late for it to start now. However, I believe that for the sake of the country it is important that the listening begin very soon.


Mr. Crofton:: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. August 17, 1987

Langdon). 1 have served on committee with that Member in the past and he has had some very good observations to make from time to time. However, his representations today leave me very puzzled.
At the outset 1 would like to make a comment on his general remarks on refugees. There was an inference in his comments that Members on this side of the House are opposed to refugees. I deny that completely and absolutely. This country was largely built by refugees over many decades, whether economic refugees from the potato famine of Ireland, refugees from the pogroms of central Europe, the boat people, refugees from Europe after World War II, or from the uprisings in Czechoslovakia or Hungary. Those people came to Canada and were welcomed. 1 am not aware of one Member on this side of the House who in any way is opposed to refugees coming to Canada. It is a part of our country and our tradition. I invite the Member to withdraw the implication that we on this side of the House were opposed because it is totally without foundation.
My second observation concerns meaningful debate on what to do with the refugees who are coming to our shores at this time. We are supposed to be debating a six month hoist this afternoon. Members opposite do not have any kind of sinecure or lock on fairness. We are as anxious to see a fair and responsible immigration policy put in place. But it is quite obvious at this juncture that the immigration policy that is being administered is not fair because queue jumpers are able to come into this country and clog the system to the point where respect for our whole immigration policy is put in jeopardy.
We are attempting, through this special recall of Parliament, to deal meaningfully with how to evolve a fair, enforceable, reasonable and practical solution. Members opposite do not seem to be interested in that. I invite the Hon. Member to explain how he expects to get fairness if he is not prepared to discuss the issue.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I believe that government Members live in a dream world in which somehow their ears are closed to informed opinion with respect to an issue like this.
Rabbi Gunther Plaut, a person who has studied this issue in tremendous detail, says that we are trying perhaps to build a Berlin wall, and that instead of trying to tailor refugee procedures to control abusers we ought properly to concentrate on refugees and make the procedure fair and quick.
Amnesty International, which is hardly a partisan body, calls on the Government to withdraw the Bill. It calls the Bill regrettable and says that it blocks universal access to refugees. These opinions tell me that in fact this Bill has precisely those effects. It reduces significantly the capacity of refugees to seek a fair hearing in this country. They should not come to this
Immigration Act, 1976
country and automatically get in, but should get a fair hearing. That is what is so vicious and arbitrary about this Bill.
As 1 suggested in my speech, there is an alternative. That is why I suggested that doing away with the present Bill for six months would serve the country very well.
The Council of Churches, drawing on the work of people like Gunther Plaut, has come up with what it sees as a five-stage process which would be much faster than the present system for determining refugees, at least as fast as the process will be in this legislation for those small number of refugees who get past the gate posts. If we take their advice and pursue this five-stage process, it makes it possible to do something which is fair in terms of quickness, because people cannot be left waiting as the previous legislation has done. It also would provide fairness in the sense of giving people the right to be free of arbitrary control and allowing them to make their case appropriately and have it judged and appealed with the fairness to which this country has become accustomed.


Mr. Keeper:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I want to refer to a letter from an ordinary citizen in Winnipeg. Mrs. Anna Rondinella writes about the fact that the Government has brought in legislation to amend the refugee determination process. While she is in favour of action in that area, she also points out that it is not enough to amend the refugee determination process. She would like to see at the same time an amendment to the definition of family unification so that brothers and sisters are classed as close family and qualify for family unification, especially for a person like herself who has no other family and would like to bring at least one member of her family here.
She goes on to make an appeal to the Government to be more generous in the area of family unification. She says that it is not enough for the Government to appeal to immigrant communities by trying to say that it is not fair for people to sneak in under the refugee determination process, but that it is necessary for the Government to make some changes in policies that affect family reunification. Does my colleague agree with her request that the family reunification policy be more generous so that immigrants in this country can bring their family members here, rather than have the Government simply bash refugees?


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, there is an emergency with respect to immigrants in this country. That emergency has hit each of us who has dealt with constituency cases over the life of this Parliament. However, that emergency has nothing to do with refugees. It is that the Government has failed to move despite many recommendations to make it easier for people to come to this country to join their families. 1 found incredible slowness in the number of cases I have personally taken forward in an attempt to get action. It is like something out of Kafka, dealing with a bureaucracy that believes that 12 months is a short time. It is ridiculous.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
That is the emergency with which the Government should be dealing, not with the humanitarian concerns the country has always had with respect to refugees. To suggest that 174 people arriving in Nova Scotia has anything to do with making it harder for us to move on family reunification is simply bogus. It is simply not true,


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, the question we are dealing with today is complex. We are not talking about ideas or abstract concepts but about human lives.
Bill C-55 has to do with the critical situation of those who need Canada's protection. It so happens that the measure takes into account our own Canadian standards with respect to refugee protection.
Statistics on the number of homeless refugees throughout the world are practically endless, but statistics are little more than mere figures. A refugee is a human being whose life may be endangered. Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we keep this fact in mind. Canadians are fully aware of the human aspect of this problem. A recent poll indicates that three out of four Canadians feel that people fleeing from persecution must be protected.
Still the Government is convinced that it is becoming ever more important to keep Canadians fully informed with respect to refugees and matters related to immigration. This is particularly true if Canada is to play an adequate role on the international scene with a view to finding solutions to the refugee situation.
This is why I should like to comment on the need to keep people well informed and fully aware of what is happening. This approach can only stem from a long-term vision of Canadian programs concerning immigration and refugees.
This Government has already developed a longer term vision which looks upon these programs as means to reinforce national unity and contribute to a greater economic prosperity, while meeting its humanitarian objectives.
Following the 1984, fall election, the Government reviewed its immigration policy together with the provinces, some nongovernmental organizations, university professors and other interested parties. Following this review, it came to the conclusion that it was desirable to increase the immigration levels in a moderate and controlled fashion. This increase was made to the benefit of refugees who were languishing in camps abroad.
The Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration has had the opportunity to express its views on the issue. Other countries have reduced the number of refugees they will accept. Canada, for one, has kept its doors wide open and has established no ceiling as to the number of refugees it will help resettle. Moreover, this year we are contemplating
accepting 12,000 refugees sponsored by the Government, and at least 5,000 more sponsored by private organizations and groups.
What exactly is a refugee? No public information and awareness program could follow its course without an answer to this basic question. Canada accepts the definition of refugee as established by the United Nations Convention. In short, a refugee is a person who happens to be outside his country and unable to return to it because he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.
Our vision of the increasing importance of immigration for the future development of Canada is based on a series of factors. First, the economic factor: Immigrants create more jobs than they remove from the Canadian economy. They support economic growth and development by contributing to capital formation, increasing the demand for Canadian goods and services, bringing to the labour market their drive and much sought after expertise, and contributing to the tax revenues of all levels of Government. Socially, immigrants contribute to the ongoing development and diversification of the Canadian multicultural mosaic by which all our Canadian regions are socially and culturally enriched. That 70 per cent of immigrants belong to the category of family members underlines the emphasis given by Canada to the reunification of families by welcoming members who had remained abroad.
As far as demography is concerned, increased immigration levels will enable us to prevent the decline in the Canadian population projected for the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. There are a number of misconceptions that will be dispelled by informing the people. For instance, some people believe that when refugees arrive they steal the place away from legitimate immigrants. That is not the case, Madam Speaker. As Carol Goar pointed out in the Toronto Star, "This is tantamount to suggesting that people coming to hospital emergency take the places of people waiting for elective surgery".
Our action in support of refugees from across the world has been recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who awarded the Nansen Medal to the Canadian people. Further, Canada plays an important role in permanent discussions of the High Commission for Refugees and OECD on how to implement the broad international action approaches to the regulation of the movement of some 70 to 80 million migrants in the world.
As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, our doors remain open to refugees. I would like to point out that they also remain open to immigrants.
The 1987 level planning range is 115,000 to 125,000, much more than the low level to which the Liberal Government had let the movement decline. The Government recently held consultations with provinces, non-government organizations
August 17, 1987

universities and other parties on the direction to be given to the Immigration Program for the rest of the decade. It is evident from these consultations that we will likely need higher levels of immigration over the next decade to meet our own needs and to honour our international obligations. Departments concerned are presently evaluating the social and economic impacts of immigration on Canada while projected immigration levels for the 1990's are being established.
Madam Speaker, the Government of which I am a part is convinced that immigration represents an important factor in the economic and social well-being of Canada, one which has allowed us to take a leadership role in finding solutions at the international level to the problem of refugees and immigrants seeking assistance on humanitarian grounds.
It has taken some time to elaborate a long term perspective and this is partly due to the narrow view of the future which characterized the undertakings of the former liberal administration. We are now focussing on more effective means to make Canadians aware of the facts about immigration and the advantages which can result. In this regard of course, we give special consideration to the noteworthy efforts of nongovernmental organizations and to their information and public awareness programs.
Our consultation process with regard to immigration levels is among the most open and detailed in the world. It provides a better understanding of the impact of issues which have a bearing on immigration and refugees.
At the present time, Madam Speaker, the Government is carrying out consultations on immigration levels with nongovernmental organizations which involve 150 national organizations, 500 regional organizations and 40 university organizations, as well as with representatives of the provinces and the territories. During the last series of national and regional consultations we had no less than 23 meetings on administrative matters pertaining to immigration levels for 1988, 1989 and 1990.
Recently, in Toronto, we had a two-day meeting with national ethnocultural organizations to discuss questions concerning immigration and refugees. That meeting, the first since the beginning of the 1980s, reflects the Government commitment to a greater involvement of ethnic communities in the determination of immigration levels.
A thorough consultation process is the first element of an effective information program on immigration matters. The Employment and Immigration Commission has produced a series of free consultation reports on our programs and policies. At a time when we are almost always trying to recover costs, Employment and Immigration Canada continues to make documents available free of charge, to promote exchange of information. These documents are in addition to a wide range of free booklets already available.
Immigration Act, 1976
Passage of Bill C-55 will naturally require that new documents be prepared to inform claimants, counsels, parliamentarians and the general public of the new process. An important element of a well-conceived information program is a research program to make the population aware of some of the key policies and issues actively discussed regarding the immigration program.
Employment and Immigration Canada has undertaken to prepare a series of research documents to that end. Up to now we have published free booklets on aging of the population and immigration and on the impact of immigration on employment. Others to be published will deal with immigration of children and the relationship betweem immigration and migration.
In addition to these studies, Employment and Immigration Canada has a program of technical research in various areas, such as the settlement of immigrants and refugees, immigration and the economy, control policies and operations.
Two advisory committees made up of academics were created last spring to contribute to communications, research and initiatives. One will examine demographic factors, and the other the social and economic aspects of immigration.
Madam Speaker, to develop an extended information program, there have to be extensive consultations and detailed research. Employment and Immigration Canada is now looking at ways to publicize this program in Canada. The methods now being used or considered include the following:
Creating posters and information modules on immigration and demographic evolutions;
Organizing workshops on immigration for certain key groups, such as Members of Parliament, media representatives and teachers;
Writing articles to explain the new policy and program changes;
And I could quote many others.
Other initiatives to improve information on this program will be undertaken before the end of this year. The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) has recently underlined the high priority which will be given to such initiatives. I am convinced that we can count on the support of our honourable collegues in this regard.
An information program naturally requires an exchange between the one who gives and the one who receives the message. These last few months, Canadians have become aware of the difficult decision which must be made in relation with immigration and refugee programs. The Government now intends to emphasize the major contribution of immigrants on the social, humanitarian, economic and demographic levels.
Before closing, I would like to go over certain facts about Bill C-55.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Last Tuesday, August 11, Canadians were told once again and more firmly about the clear intention of the Government to implement quickly mechanisms to counter abuses related with the refugee determination process and to enable the Government to protect bona fide refugees.
The measures which the Government is planning to take are aimed at those people who show up at our borders or airports without papers or with false documents, as well as the smugglers who, through their fraudulent actions, are helping the entry into Canada of illegal aliens.
Under Bill C-55, the carriers will have to make sure that the people they are bringing to Canada are duly in possession of the required documents, failing which they could be liable to a heavy fine or a long prison term.
The Government is determined to have this Bill adopted. The Canadian public will have to strike a just balance between the need for compassion and understanding on the one hand and irresponsibility on the other. If we do not stop soon the abuse of our refugee status determination process, Canada's reputation as a country with integrity will be jeopardized. We will become the laughing-stock of a great many nations.
The Government is determined to defend its borders, but it will not allow regrettable incidents to become deplorable precedents and have its reputation as a country which accepts true refugees tarnished.
Many people have come forward to explain the Government's intentions. These intentions should not be questioned. I therefore ask all Hon. Members to remove all obstacles and finally put an end to a sorry state of affairs which we should not tolerate any longer.
Canadians will be able to share the Government's vision about its immigration policy and will be able to better support and understand its objectives concerning immigration and refugees.
Madam Speaker, many polls have been carried out. I was puzzled by one of them which was carried out throughout Canada and where the following question was asked: Do you agree that people jumping the line, those who are coming illegally into Canada should have the same protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as all other Canadians?
And surprisingly, and this is for my friends in the New Democratic Party, 80 per cent of those who say they would support a NDP Government are responding: No, we do not agree.
I will say to my dear friends in the New Democratic Party what it means:	it means that your members, your
"supporters", are people who agree with the efforts made by this Government to try to protect real refugees who are coming into Canada, but also to put in place a legislation that will allow us to "give the boot", as your leader, Mr. Ed Broadbent, said so eloquently on February 1 1, 1987, to give them the boot if we find that they are not bona fide refugees. He was answering a question put by Mr. Webster during a BCTV
program. Therefore, if the NDP Leader agrees with our position, why do members of the New Democratic Party, under the leadership of Mr. Broadbent, not agree with Bill C-55 which is supported by all Canadians?


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, 1 am puzzled by the speech made by the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) who just completed his remarks. On the one hand he tells us that the Government and the Department of Employment and Immigration are holding lengthy, detailed and careful consultations with people from one end of the country to the other on what should be our policy with regard to immigration and refugees. On the other hand, while supposedly holding these consultations, the Government brought in two Bills. It brought in those Bills before it could hear from the people with whom the Hon. Member says the Government is consulting. I find that hard to understand and 1 would like the Hon. Member to explain.
I would also like the Hon. Member to explain why the Bills we have contain so few of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which held a large number of meetings and which made a unanimous report. This committee is a committee on which a majority of members, because of the composition of the House, are members of the Conservative Party.
Why does the Hon. Member urge us to ignore the opposition expressed to these two Bills by, among other organizations, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, which represents almost all of the new immigrant groups which have come to Canada in recent years, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Labour Congress, Amnesty International, and virtually every one of the major churches in the country? All of these groups have expressed their very strong opposition to the major provisions of these two Bills while accepting the idea that we need to have a system which is humane, fair and which does not allow people to jump to the head of the line in front of many who have waited for years to have their applications dealt with.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I said that Employment and Immigration Canada had indeed consulted the Canadian people since last spring.
But for the New Democrats, consultation is forever. When you consult people, it does not take 14 months to know what they think about a bill. We do not need to talk things over. But I think that for New Democrats, it has become a tradition. They like talking, but they do not react or act very often. They would rather have lots of people lose their time. We went through a consultation process. It is going on and will continue in the future. The Bill before us is a result of that consultation.
August 17, 1987

You said that certain agencies were opposed to the measures advocated in Bill C-55. You must remember as well that last February if my memory serves me right-indeed this position was supported by some journalists-people were saying that the temporary measures which we as the Government had taken were unacceptable. It was impossible,
But I see today that Mr. Vennat in La Presse is suggesting that we ought to use those methods. They are good methods now, but were not so at that time.
Apparently the Opposition is reacting much in the same way today. In February we were using harsh methods, but today we ought to get back to the methods used in February and say they are the best available. The ones we advocate in Bill C-55 are no good.
I have yet to see a measure tabled by this Government in the House have the good fortune of being agreeable for even a fraction of a second to the Opposition. Madam Speaker, instead of suggesting ways to improve this Bill, the Opposition is engaged in outright boycott. They are saying: The Bill is no good. They fail to propose anything better.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's not true.


Marc Ferland: You have been saying that for months and years on end, but I have yet to see any results. And you don't seem to listen very often to your constituents. If you listened more often . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Chair would appreciate it if Hon. Members would refrain from getting involved in personal exchanges and address their comments to the Chair. The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) may proceed.


Marc Ferland: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologize. Of course, I should have told my colleague opposite through you that he was wrong and had no respect for the grassroots militants of his own Party of which 80 per cent support the action of the present Government, a Conservative Government. Madam Speaker, he should listen more carefully to what Canadians are telling him, and not pay attention to three or four people. The large majority of Canadians are worried, and Bill C-55 aims at protecting true refugees and punishing those who violate Canadian laws and exploit human misery.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) for his information that the New Democratic Party advocated a system for a much more efficient treatment of men and women who wish to claim refugee status in Canada, that other groups, including the Canadian Council of Churches, made very constructive suggestions in that regard, and that the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration submitted a unanimous report in November, 1985, almost two years ago, for the reform of the situation everybody said was needed. Now, the Hon. Member is saying that the consultation should not last 14 months, but we just wonder how the Government could wait as
Immigration Act, 1976
much as two years to accept the recommendations of this Standing Committee, instead of taking action and putting together a system which would ensure a more rapid treatment of these applications, a more efficient administration to ensure that the waiting list of some 20,000 refugees would not be as long as now.
The Hon. Member said that everybody agrees with the Government. Clearly, such is not the case, and nearly all the groups which commented on Bill C-84 were against it.
Madam Speaker, at issue is not whether one is for or against measures to punish the smugglers of false refugees. The New Democratic Party answers yes. At issue is the way to do it. And the Bills before us now are unacceptable, which does not mean that we, of the New Democratic Party, are opposed to the necessary measures to ensure that those who want to smuggle false refugees are punished. That is not the point. The point here is the deprivation of true refugees of their right to seek haven here in Canada. That is what the Government is trying to do with this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Portneuf may conclude.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I should like to call my hon. friend's attention to an information document. I see that when the time comes for them to obtain information, the NDP people are not in a hurry. You have a document in the folder before you, my dear colleague, a document which deals with the situation in Canada, Sweden, West Germany, France, Demmark, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. It compares Bill C-55 with the measures that exist in these other countries of the world which are considered as being very open. He would be in a position to see, Madam Speaker, my dear colleague from the New Democratic Party, that Canada is still far ahead of all those countries that claim leadership in the area of welcoming refugees, welcoming immigrants, family reunification and so forth.
But I would like through you, Madam Speaker, to remind my New Democratic colleague of statistics that do not lie- from 1978 to 1986, of 60,000 refugee claims, 6,376 only were officially recognized as such in Canada. It is my belief that Canadians are aware of those facts and appreciate that we must do something about it. When Canadians read, as hopefully the Hon. Member will do so, when they read the program as proposed in Bill C-55, they will realize that Canada is far ahead of all democratic countries in the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments after the speech of the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) is now ended. So is the first eight-hour period of debate. Accordingly, speeches will now last 10 minutes. Debate. I recognize the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I followed with interest the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) and I feel that once again he emphasizes that Canada has an open door for immigrants and used to have an open door for refugees. Unfortunately, such is not the direction that has now been chosen by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). This is a sham, and they are playing all kinds of tricks to keep confusing Canadians as to who is a legitimate refugee and who is an immigrant. I believe that as Minister of State for Immigration and Minister of Employment and Immigration, their job is to uphold the place of immigrants and the role they can play, and that refugees who become immigrants are welcome here. This is what they forgot to do and everyone is confused.
The lack of support for both the immigrant and the increase in family rejoining has become an unpleasant and unnecessary game plan on the part of the Minister of State for Immigration, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Instead of being clear, candid, and forthright and explaining that we are discussing two separate streams, there has been an incredible tendency to make the population in general feel that a person who is coming in as a bogus refugee is displacing the person who is an immigrant. That is false. The Government has gone to great length not to explain this to the general population.
There is a desire and need to improve the family reunification clauses that are in the present Immigration Act. The Equality for All report deposited in the House almost two years ago called for those changes, but nothing has happened. Now we see a refugee Bill that is restrictive. It has caused the United Nations people to request that we stop the type of abuse we are thinking of.
There is something wrong when traditionally Canadians have such a proud record. We were awarded the Nansen Medal for what we have done. We have brought into this country people who have enriched the tissue, the fabric, the expression, and quality of life for all Canadians from the economic and the social perspectives. Representatives from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Uganda, Cyprus, Vietnam, Poland, Iran, El Salvador, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and Guatemala live within the constituency of Mount Royal. I have spoken with them. In this regard, these people are not pleased with the performance of the Conservative Government. They are being made to feel uncomfortable as immigrants, as if they were asking for special favours because they want to have what is an extended family and their basic family considered. All they have received is words but no action.
Where there are refugees awaiting a determination of their status, from the Tamils all the way through to the people of
the Caribbean Islands, et cetera, they are being destabilized, they are uncomfortable, and they have a sense of dislocation. Is it not enough that they have had to suffer the trauma of dislocation? If Hon. Members opposite think they can say, "Wait, I am going to run back for my American Express card, my papers, and my visa", when their lives are being threatened and when they are in danger, believe me, that is not what refugees do. They are refugees because they feel threatened and they are no longer able to live their lives in peace and harmony. Their surroundings are no longer places of peace and harmony or places where they can live properly.
We have the unhappy situation of uprooting and the trauma of dislocation for refugees, and we are saying to these same people, "Refugees, go home". Most of them would go home; if they felt they could, they would. This is what we tend to forget.
I should like to suggest that the Minister of State for Immigration ought to read from Isaiah and then translate it into French for the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). I suggest that he recall the following:
Woe to you! you who make unjust laws and publish burdensome decrees,
depriving the poor of justice, robbing the weakest of my people of their rights.
International human rights indicate that Canada is a land of refuge for those in need. Your very Draconian, unfair, and inhuman approach to both immigrant streams-you promise but you do not deliver-and refugees whom you treat with disgrace will come to haunt each and every one of you, believe me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May 1 remind the Hon. Member that she should address her remarks through the Chair. The same rule applies on both sides of the House.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I thank you for that reminder. I suggest that there is a serious and real problem. That was addressed by the Robinson report, the Plaut report, and the standing committee report. How many more reports should there be? Maybe they should go back to school and learn to read; then they could follow these reports.
All those reports are in. They have had the suggestions and recommendations which they have totally ignored. They have followed their own little sweet path. I do not know who dreamt up the lines.
Perhaps it is better that they bring in the hoist, go out and talk to the constituency, hear what the NGOs, the churches and the synagogues have to say, and hear what the people who wrote the reports have to say. Did Rabbi Plaut find the response reasonable? Did he find that response acceptable? They can be assured that he did not.
What did Tom Clark, a worker for the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, have to say? He said:
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.
August 17, 1987

What did Michael Schelew of Amnesty International have to say? He said:
It's an about-face on Canada's humanitarian record, that may place people
fleeing persecution in jeopardy.
Who is listening in the Conservative Party, for goodness' sake? Is it not about time that you listened to the population who elected you?


Some Hon. Members:: We are.


Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, Madam Speaker. 1 think government Members should take heed of what is being said.
A rather well known personality internationally, Elie Wiezel, winner of the Nobel Prize, said:
! believe that a society can be measured and judged by its attitude towards
strangers ... 1 would hope that Canada would like to be measured according
to these lofty rules. I say Canada should lead by example.
I do not think Canada's example should be how to pick a safe third country, how to have two people at the border determining one's future, how not to have access to the legal process, or how not to do anything in the best interest of helping a person who is in crying need to get to safe waters.
The weaknesses of Bill C-55 are many. They are opposed by the NGOs. Its shortcomings include the prescreening system, the safe third country concept, the refugee determination board, to which no one can get because it is surrounded by all kinds of blockages, the appeal system, and the precedent which Canada has set for other countries by perhaps encouraging them to consider similar action. Certainly turning a blind eye to the refugees of the world is one thing Canadians need not do in a country of wealth and space which can use good, healthy, determined people who are looking to start a new life, much as it is uncomfortable, and to run away from the place they knew as home.
Canada is large. It is wealthy. It is rich in human and material resources, but it is not without its blemishes.
I only hoped that all of us in the Chamber learned from our blemishes-the indigenous people of Canada and those who fled Nazi persecution. 1 have not forgotten the story of the St. Louis at the Port of Montreal or the shores of Canada where refugees went back and then went through extermination camps. If one person has to do that, I hope the Ministers and that caucus will give serious thought to why their consciences will not let them sleep.
We were not kind and considerate to Canadians of Japanese origin. We have done many things which have been wrong. However, I think over time we have become a more humane society and a more concerned society with a better appreciation of the multitude of cultures, languages, skin colours, and faces of people who have come to enrich the tapestry that is Canada today.
Let us not be narrow-minded and bigoted or respond to the basest of feelings expressed out there. Let us be sure that we give a fair hearing to the refugees who come to our shores.
Immigration Act, 1976


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the City of Winnipeg which I represent, for 100 years or more has been the gateway to western Canada for people coming to this country.
My own constituency, with the exception of several thousands of native people who live in it, consists of people who are themselves immigrants or whose parents or grandparents came to Canada as did my father some 80 years ago. The original immigrants who settled in my area came from Great Britain, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, and other eastern European countries. We have had an influx since World World II of people from Portugal, the Philippines, Italy, China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Laos, Central American countries such as Nicaragua and El Salvador, and Caribbean countries such as Jamaica and Trinidad.
They are very interested in the kinds of policies which Canada adopts and implements with respect to immigrants who wish to come to this country and with respect to refugees.
More than half the people who come to see me when I am in my office have problems related to immigration. They are people who want to help members of their families, living in the countries from which they came, and come to Canada. Our rules and definition of who can be considered family are so restrictive that in nearly every case I must tell them that I am sorry but their relatives do not qualify for entry to Canada.
We are dealing with two Bills respecting immigration and refugees. They have been drafted in such a way as to make one believe that the Government has almost deliberately set out to ignore the recommendations made by a number of studies commissioned by the Government, or by the unanimous recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
I think Hon. Members should note the speech made in the House several days ago by the Chairman of that committee and his criticism of the legislation that the Government brought forward.
The fact is that virtually every organization interested in these questions has expressed opposition to the provisions of these two Bills. I should like to name a few-the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Labour Congress, and Amnesty International. Thirteen of the largest church organizations in Canada sent a telex to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on June 1 of this year in which they expressed their very strong opposition to many clauses in these two Bills. Included among these churches are the Anglican Church, the Canadian Baptist Federation, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Council of Christian Reform Churches, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church, the Salvation Army, the Quakers, the United Church, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
To indicate how strongly many people feel about this legislation, I want to tell Hon. Members that I was today in communication with people from Winnipeg and other parts of Manitoba who have worked to help facilitate the movement of refugees into Canada, representatives of the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mennonite Church, and they told me that if this Bill is passed and the work they do is considered contrary to the law and they are charged, tried and sentenced, they are prepared to go to prison. They believe that the work they are doing to help refugees come to Canada is so right and so justified that they are prepared to pay the penalty they may have to face.
These are people who are not political. They are not wildeyed radicals. These are people who have a firm commitment to seeing that justice is done.
What is wrong with this Bill? First, it is inaccessible. Instead of ensuring that all those arriving in Canada claiming to be refugees can have their claims heard, this legislation seeks ways to return them to other countries. This legislation has no provision for a meaningful appeal process. The initial screening can only be appealed from out of the country. There is no requirement that a written reason be given at this stage, thus making a legal appeal difficult. The second stage oral hearing can be appealed but only to the Federal Court and only on matters of law, not fact. We know what kind of legal costs that process would entail.
There is no provision in the Bill for humanitarian or compassionate cases as there is in the present legislation. Currently, about 12 per cent of cases that do not meet the technical definition are allowed to stay in the country by compassionate people and even cabinet Ministers. That will cease when this Bill is passed.
This Bill politicizes the refugee process by putting emphasis on whether or not the applicant stopped in a safe third country. Cabinet will decide what constitutes a safe third country. Inevitably, diplomatic and political pressures will intervene. The Minister has already been reluctant to deal with the case of the United States and Salvadoran refugees.
1 want to point out that under the same kind of legislation that is being proposed here, the United States has already arrested, charged, tried and convicted church workers in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. That is the kind of legislation this Government is proposing for Canada.
This Bill is unnecessarily harsh. Rabbi Gunther Plaut before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration suggested that what we need is fast, efficient and fair alternatives with widespread public support. We do not have that with this Bill.
This Bill attacks true refugees rather than zeroing in on those who try to abuse the system. If the Government were to bring in proposals designed to get tough with those who are trying to get around the system, the kind of people who have organized the boat expeditions and are ripping off refugees, the kind of people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars by arranging for these boat trips, we would support the legislation. We New Democrats will not support this legislation which uses an atomic bomb to kill a mosquito.
This Bill builds a Berlin wall around the country rather than promoting the humanitarianism for which Canada has been known. Furthermore, Bill C-55 harms the prospects of Canadian citizens and landed immigrants seeking to sponsor the immigration of family members from their countries of origin by reducing their effective right to appeal decisions on sponsorship.
Like every other Hon. Member from urban Canada, I have dealt with constituents who want to help relatives come to Canada but have been told by me that it is impossible because of the rules. We cannot support legislation like that. We are prepared to support any proposal the Government might make which would give us a fair, humanitarian, efficient and quick system for deciding legitimate applications, both for refugees and immigrants. That is something we do not have in the two Bills which are before us at the present time.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, the legislative process works well if the Government in power recognizes the value of the advice given it by experts in the field. If it does not recognize the value of advice given it by churches, human rights groups and opposition Members, then it produces a Bill which does not deal properly and effectively with the requirements of the situation. That is exactly what is happening in the case of Bill C-55.
Canadians who are knowledgeable about the situation recognize in this Bill some travesties which, if put into effect, will do a great deal of harm not only to the people affected directly by them, including immigrants and refugees, but also to Canada's international reputation. We proudly accepted a prize for being the country that best dealt with the refugee situation. We accepted a prize for being the most generous, for opening our doors and accepting people who were less fortunate than us. We proudly accepted that award and, in the light of that acceptance, we should put in place a Bill which continues the recognition of that generosity. We should put in place the kind of structure which allowed Canada to be generous enough to win the award.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
August 17, 1987


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PARITY PRICES FOR FARM PRODUCTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom that Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I want to make a few comments on Bill C-221. The purpose of the Bill is to provide parity prices to farmers based on a cost of production formula for wheat, oats and barley used for human consumption in Canada, and to establish voluntary marketing commissions for pork and beef.
We know the farmers of this country are having very serious problems. If it is not in one area, it is in some other area. We have heard over the last year or so the tremendous difficulties our western wheat farmers are having mainly because of world market conditions. U.S. farmers are being subsidized to the point of undercutting our farmers. EEC farmers are also heavily subsidized. We are, of course, all competing for the same markets. As well, we in this country have some very high production costs. While we are extremely productive, we do have some difficulties which are caused mainly by our geography in getting our products to market.
This Bill calls for a parity price within Canada related to the cost of production. There is no question that farmers need to have a return on their investment. That investment is immense even when compared to almost all other forms of business. Equipment and machinery is extremely expensive, not to mention the cost of land. We also have the additional problems of climatic conditions. Given that, there is no question that we in this House and in the provincial legislatures across the country should do everything we can in order to help our primary producers stay on the land and support their families and industry.
Agriculture, in one form or another, is the backbone of this country. Without it our country could not survive for very long. That is why we should be doing everything we can to help our farmers survive. In hard times we have to dig down into the coffers of Government occasionally in order to support the industry.
We are supporting not only the farmers, we are supporting every consumer. We often do not think of farmers as consumers but they are probably the greatest consumers we have. Their purchases of farm equipment and machinery create jobs, mainly in central Canada, and keep people at work. Farmers are great consumers. Not necessarily more than anyone else at the dinner table, but consumers of goods and services.
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
I only had time to go through this Bill quickly a few moments ago, but I would like to see it go to committee for further study. 1 certainly have some questions I would like to ask. For example, Clause 11 deals with establishing marketing boards. We want to make sure that the majority of farmers agree with this concept. It would be very helpful if we could bring our agricultural community, in the form of the National Farmers Union and the Federation of Agriculture and other organizations which represent that community, before the committee to see if something like this would work on a voluntary basis and whether the community would agree totally to this concept.
Of course, we now have legislation on the books, both provincial and federal, which provides for the setting up of marketing boards and commissions. In that respect I have to come back to the farmers I represent, that is, potato farmers. I know the difficulties they have had over the years. They generally say they are very fortunate if they can get one good year out of every four or five. Yet that is not good enough. There has to be a better way, not only in marketing but in bringing some stability to the industry. Last year, of course, was a reasonably good year for those farmers. We are hopeful that this year will be good, but people in my province are very worried about the low rain conditions. We will know within a few days pretty well whether we are going to have the kind of yield we normally have. Indications are right now that it will be much lower than last year because of drought conditions.
What is important is not only what you produce and how much, but what you get for it. Fishermen and farmers always seem to be faced with the great dilemma of producing a product and not knowing until after they produced it what they are going to be paid for it. Therefore, if there is anything that we can do in that respect through this Bill, I would like to see it go to committee so that we can make a determined effort to do it.
I applaud the mover of this Bill for putting it forward for discussion so that we can take a hard look at it. 1 hope something good will come out of it, not only for us as Members of Parliament but especially for our primary producers.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I must say that I cannot in any way claim to be an expert on agricultural issues. I cannot even claim to be someone who knows this policy area in any detail. However, I do want to say as a Member of Parliament from an urban riding in the City of Winnipeg that agriculture is important to us. Even if we are not tilling the fields ourselves, agricultural policy affects our quality of life. That which the Government does to farmers is important to us. The policy framework put in place for farming communities is important to us.
As I understand it, this legislation deals with the concept of parity pricing. Like most of the people in my riding, 1 cannot tell you exactly what parity pricing is, but 1 can tell you my

August 17, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
understanding of it. I understand it to be an opportunity for a farmer to earn his bread, to make a living.
Farmers should have their costs covered when they sell their product and they should earn a fair return on their investment. That is what all Canadians expect whether they work for someone else or have a small business, or even a large corporation. They expect to be able to earn their living from the sweat of their brow, from the hard work they put into their enterprise.
I have learned from my colleagues in my caucus who come from farming constituencies that in today's economy in order for farmers to be able to make a living they must have parity pricing. In order for them to be able to cover their costs of farming they must have parity pricing. Their costs of producing must be covered and they must earn a fair return on their investment.
One renowned and noted parliamentarian, John George Diefenbaker, came from the west and spoke eloquently in this Elouse. With regard to parity pricing he said that farmers want parity, not charity. In other words, they want an opportunity to earn a living rather than having to go into bankruptcy or live on welfare or public subsidies. This legislation asks for simple economic justice. It asks that a farmer who tills his soil and runs his business be able to make a living from his efforts. I think that that is only fair.
The international agricultural wars that have been going on for the last while have made it obvious to urban dwellers that agriculture is an important issue which touches them directly. The Americans and the European Economic Community so grossly oversubsidize their farmers that they are able to grab markets which have traditionally been Canadian. They drive down the international price of grain to a level at which even those farmers who raise grain in the most productive land in the world for grain, which is western Canada, cannot compete.
The international grain war has caught a lot of attention in the media and has brought agricultural issues home to urban Canadians. It also points out the need for government action. It is not enough to be able to plant your seed in the spring and hope to harvest in the fall. The Government must put in place the appropriate public policy framework.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has done farmers a favour by bringing forward this legislation with regard to parity pricing. In addition to putting this kind of policy in place the Government must be capable of negotiating effectively on the international scene in order to bring an end to the trade wars between the Americans and Europeans so that Canadian farmers will be able to sell their grain on the international market and earn a living.
John George Diefenbaker knew farmers well. While he was not a member of our Party, he hit the nail on the head in agricultural policy when he said that farmers want parity, not charity. In other words, they want to be able to stand on their
own two feet. They want to earn their living rather than beg for hand-outs. They do not want to have to go bankrupt.
Over the last year we have heard on an increasing basis about farmers going bankrupt. These people produce a needed product but have to sell it at such a low price that they cannot stay in business. In addition to this being unfair to farmers and their families it is a destruction of rural Canada.
Our rural communities are made up of farming families. If our farming families go into bankruptcy, there will be a devastation of rural Canadians. There will be fewer and larger corporate farms rather than the traditional family farm. As long as the present policies continue, rural communities in which people get to know one another and support one another will be a passing scene. It would be a great loss to Canada to lose our rural communities and end up with a large corporate enterprise approach to farming.
The Private Members' legislation introduced by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville which deals with parity pricing is meant to give farmers the opportunity to earn their living, to do what every Canadian considers to be his right, that is, to get up in the morning and, by the sweat of his brow, earn his income with a sense of pride in being a farmer and a Canadian. It is clear that for more and more farmers that is not possible today. The cost of producing grain and red meat is more than they can earn in the market-place. Unless we want to have a country without farms which, of course, is totally unacceptable and inconceivable, we must put in place policies which will allow farmers to cover their cost of production and earn a fair return on their investment. That, Madam Speaker, is fair.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to participate in this debate which is obviously of primary concern to western farmers and to all Canadians who are committed to maintaining a farm economy and understand the role of the family farm as one of the basic building blocks in terms of our social structure, not only in western Canada but throughout the country.
Hon. Members will know that the Central Experimental Farm is in my constituency, which gives me some added basis on which I can make a contribution to this debate on Bill C-221 which was introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
When I read the Bill, I anticipate that if some Hon. Members from the Conservative Party were to comment on it they would express great concern that the Bill proposes a marketing commission for beef, for pork or for grain.
The fact is that this is a means by which we can legislatively create a framework by which farmers can be assured of an adequate income for their important contribution to our society. Canada has one of the most efficient agricultural sectors in the world and we have overcome many obstacles,
August 17, 1987

including a harsh climate. We also must deal with the problem of subsidization which takes place in other countries.
I suppose it is fair to say that if there were not the degree of subsidization that exists in the common market, for example, perhaps some of these measures would not be required. Nevertheless, we live in a world where national governments tend to give a certain amount of precedence to their agricultural sectors, even in countries with much less efficiency in agriculture than we have in Canada. The question is whether we simply leave our farmers in a situation where they will literally be forced into bankruptcy.
I know that in Ontario it is now difficult for a land-owner with agricultural land to rent to find anyone to rent that land for anything more than a peppercorn rent. The reason is that the land does not pay to farm.
In western Canada where the average farm size has grown to some 1,000 acres, out of necessity, the farm sector cannot be maintained by farmers renting out land to one another. The sector will have to be based on the continuation of family farms.
That raises the question of whether farmers will be able to stay in business with the present price of grains. Over the last few years the price of wheat, oats and barley has come down substantially. In today's terms, I am told, that after the cost of freight and handling, the return to a farmer on No. 3 red spring wheat is some $2 a bushel, which is down from about $4 between 1978 and 1980, which were good years. In the early 1970s the price was also about $2 a bushel in net terms. In other words, over the succeeding time when the price of goods such as clothing and other necessities for which a farmer must pay have gone up, the net return on the wheat has been about $2 per bushel. The family car that cost perhaps $6,000 in 1974, today costs some $12,000 or $14,000.
Producers have succeeded in offsetting the falling prices to some extent by increasing their yields, but that has essentially come to an end. The figures speak for themselves. In northern Saskatchewan, for example, a producer who is efficient can get up to 40 to 45 bushels per acre of yield of excellent red spring wheat. At $2 a bushel, 45 bushels gives about $90 in net return. For a farmer with 700 or 800 acres in production it means perhaps $80,000 in return, net of freight and handling but not net of the other costs. These other costs include fertilizer, diesel fuel for the tractor, and the cost of payments for equipment which may have been financed. There is the cost of the seed and all the other costs entailed in running a farm. This must be paid out of the $80,000.
There may be a mortgage on all or part of the farm, particularly if it is a young farmer who has been trying to set up, or has had to buy a farm from the parents since they do not have pensions.
Obviously, farmers have great difficulty surviving. Most farmers in the West today are literally paying to put crops in the ground in order to harvest and sell them. In other words,
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
they are poorer by putting the crop in than if they did not put any crop in at all.
Is it such a radical suggestion to say that there should be parity pricing in this particular area on domestically sold output of grains? Surely the answer is no. Presently, we have a two-price system, which I realize the Americans are trying to eliminate as part of their onslaught on Canadian practices under the free trade talks. Nevertheless, we have a two-price system now under which the price for domestically consumed grains is substantially more to the farmer than the price of grains that are sold on the world market. This Bill simply entrenches that to make sure that the farmer can count on that lasting for longer than the whim of whatever government happens to be in power.
The other part of the Bill deals with the question of establishing a voluntary system of marketing boards for red meat, for beef, and for pork. It is crazy that we have marketing boards for turnips, beets, tomatoes and almost any kind of farm product one can imagine, but not for red meats. The cost of production in the red meat producing sector is closer to what people are receiving presently, so the problem may not be so imminent. However, why can we not be expanding our sales of red meat to markets like Japan and other markets in Asia where they are beginning to consume more meats that are very expensive to produce? In the Japanese market, meat is produced locally at $25 a pound, when we could ship and land Canadian steak for $2.50 a pound. We must look into that situation.
I suggest that it is no different to guarantee a certain return to beef producers, within reason, than it is to guarantee a certain return to workers in a farm machinery plant where they have a union and organize in order to have a decent living. If workers who produce the farm equipment can have a decent living, why cannot farmers who produce the food on which we depend also enjoy a reasonable living? We are not talking about boondoggles or raising prices unreasonably as far as consumers are concerned. We are talking about a system that will provide a levelling out and ensure justice for farmers who produce the food on the one hand, ensure that those who handle and deal with produce can make a fair living and also ensure that consumers are dealt with equitably. That is the structure of this Bill.
I believe this is the last day of debate for this Bill and I urge all Members to allow it to go to a legislative committee which has been set up to consider it. Some changes may be required to the Bill when it is considered in committee, but I believe the principles are acceptable and desired by many farmers. I believe they are acceptable to many Canadian consumers as well. I hope the House will endorse the Bill at second reading today.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today. Let me begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
August 17, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
Nystrom) for bringing the Bill before the House and persuading the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business to deem this Bill worthy of coming to a vote as it meets the criteria for votable items as set by the committee.
We are at a point in this Parliament when we are voting on some of the Private Members' Bills as a result of a new procedure set up for voting on Private Members' Business. As one who was involved with that reform, I find this to be an exciting time in the life of this Parliament. I do not think that the vote with respect to parity pricing will have the same tension or controversy as the vote which took place in the House with respect to abortion, but it is an example of how matters which might not otherwise come to a vote in the House can be decided.
The House will have an opportunity to express itself on this issue and I hope it will use this opportunity to send the Bill to a committee so that it can receive the appropriate attention. That way attention will be paid indirectly to the wider issue of agriculture in Canada in the future by the legislative committee when it looks at this particular Bill.
It is important that this Bill be accepted by the House because apart from its details and apart from what may or may not work with respect to the Bill, there would be an acceptance of the notion that in a country like Canada, in the year 1987, we should no longer put farmers in the position of producing the necessities of life for less than the cost of production. It is a bizarre situation when farmers are constantly put in the position of producing what we all know needs to be produced, grains and red meats, and have to do that for less than the cost of production.
What is involved here is the principle that farmers should be guaranteed both the cost of production and the return on their labour and the investment they make when they produce those necessities. I do not understand why that should be such a controversial matter. It seems to me that almost everyone could agree with that. It is a notion which has been around for a long time.
I am mindful of what a former Prime Minister of Canada said with respect to western grain farmers: "The western Canadian farmers want parity. They do not want charity". The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker used to say that, and this afternoon in this House Members have an opportunity to put into practice that statement and give parliamentary life to that principle by sending the Bill to the appropriate committee to have it studied.
How long can farmers go on when they are constantly put in the position of having to produce the necessities of life for less than the cost of production? I do not say that just with respect to the effect it has on some individual farmers and their families. 1 say it also with respect to the broader wellbeing of Canada as a whole and of the environment. In this respect I would like to say that as the price continues to fall lower and lower, more pressure is put on individual farmers to do things
that are not in the long run in their best interests or in the best interests of Canada. I am thinking of the way in which farmers have been pressured, particularly in recent years, to put marginal land into production in order to increase their income through volume. Because the price for their produce has been so low they have attempted to meet that personal financial crisis by putting more and more land into production, thereby eliminating wildlife habitat.
A great deal of concern exists in western Canada with respect to the elimination of the habitat of waterfowl. I was pleased to see that the Manitoba Government recently entered into a program whereby farmers would be compensated for leaving land out of production and designating it for waterfowl habitat. I think that is a step in the right direction. However, one of the ways in which we can address the problem more fundamentally is to have the price of grain reflect the true cost of production. We would then not be forced to bring in these kinds of ad hoc programs such as paying farmers not to destroy natural habitat. The pressure would not be on them to farm this land in the first place.
The continuing low price of grain has driven western Canadian farmers to overuse, in my judgment, fertilizers and herbicides in an attempt to get a higher yield in the short term, again to compensate for lower prices. However, it is reaching the point of diminishing returns. More and more is being put into the same piece of land by way of these additives or environmental externalities. It is not just a question of a guaranteed return for farmers; it is a question of having an agricultural system which does not have all these unintended effects, both with respect to habitat and to soil conservation and quality.
So 1 repeat, we have an opportunity here to pass this motion and create a committee which will have the unique opportunity of looking at all these questions. 1 firmly believe that we cannot continue to put farmers in the position they have been in for so long. We have taken advantage of the fact that farming, unlike a great many other things people do for a living in Canada today, is a vocation. It is an intergenerational vocation. It is a heritage. It is something people do because that is the way they are. They farm because they are farmers. They farm both out of a sense of their vocation and out of a sense that they are doing something worth-while in producing the necessities of life, long after it has become not profitable to do so.
Farmers can only do that for so long. We cannot expect them to continue out of this sense of vocation for ever and ever. I am reminded of a joke I heard which illustrates this all too painfully. A fellow went into a store one day and bought a $10 hammer. He then went out and sold the hammer for $5. He then bought two more hammers for $10 each and again went out and sold them for $5 each. He kept buying more and more hammers for $10 and selling them for $5, until finally the storekeeper could not contain his curiosity any longer and asked the man why he was doing that. He asked how the man
August 17, 1987

could expect to make a living. The farmer said: "Well, it is not great but it's better than I was doing before when 1 was farming". This is the kind of situation in which farmers find themselves today. They constantly have to sell their produce at a price lower than the cost of production.
The other version of that joke is that the fellow selling the hammers replied: "If I could only sell enough of them, I might break even". That is again the situation in which farmers find themselves. I repeat the call which was issued so long ago by a true Tory, not one of these neo-Conservative Yankees who sit across from us today. John Diefenbaker was a true Tory from western Canada and he said: "Western Canadian farmers want parity not charity". Let the Conservatives show that for once they will act in line with that tradition and pass this Bill today when it comes to a vote.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate, and although I come from the strictly urban riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, 1 realize that it is still important for us to listen to and consider the problems of Canada's farmers.

That is why I am proud to speak in this debate. I think even an urban Member of Parliament should take interest in farm issues in Canada. Agriculture is really our number one basic industry. We see signs which state: "Mining is the number one industry", "Tourism is the number one industry", "Steel is the number one industry". All of the industries have different claims. The service trade is probably the number one industry now in terms of employment. But there is something special about agriculture and about farming. 1 will never forget when, in 1982, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in the committee which was discussing the Constitution advocated saving the family farm. I thought that was one of the more poignant moments in the committee. Even urban Members can recognize that.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I realize that a great many Members of Parliament from urban ridings are not talking about agriculture. However, I think that most of them will know that I am Madam Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is certainly obvious, Madam Speaker. I am appropriately chastised. I sometimes lose my cool when I talk about agriculture, since it is such a hot topic.
As I was saying, there is a crisis in western Canada. You are not from western Canada, Madam Speaker, but as you know, there is a crisis there. There exists a double-whammy in western Canada in that the economy depends on the oil industry and on agriculture. Those are the bases of the economy of western Canada. I know that the Government has been trying to diversify the economy. It came up with a western diversification scheme. We in the New Democratic
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
Party announced our ideas on trying to diversify the western Canadian economy. There have been lots of ideas with respect to such areas as tourism, new industries, manufacturing, trade, Asian-Pacific matters, as well as specializing in technological goods and so on. But in spite of all these efforts the western Canadian economy for the foreseeable future will still be based on the twin pillars of oil and agriculture. In British Columbia, which is my area of the country, the economic base is forestry.
The Bill before us standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) proposes to tackle one of those areas, namely, the farming area. I note that when he spoke on this Bill on March 2, 1987, as reported at page 3737 of Hansard he said:
In essence, this particular Bill proposes the establishment of a floor price for agricultural products that has some reflection in the cost of production and a decent return for farmers. This Bill is proposing that, like workers who have a trade union or businessmen and professionals and their associations, farmers should have some guarantee that the price they receive will support them and their families in the production of food.
What this Bill tries to do is to give farmers some guarantee with respect to the prices that they will receive.
The Bill deals with wheat-and I will come back to that in a minute since we do have a form of parity pricing for wheat-as well as oats and barley which are now marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. It also deals with pork and beef since there are no marketing boards for those particular products. The Bill would establish a price that would reflect parity for what a farmer receives for grain with the costs of production and a decent return for his product. This applies only to domestic consumption. We cannot do this on the international level because we are a signatory to GATT. I am informed that there is a $7 domestic price for wheat while the international price can be $3 to $3.50 per bushel. So there can be differences in pricing. This has been done with wheat and there have been no technical difficulties, that is to say, price parity for agricultural products that are domestically consumed. We are talking here about 9 per cent or 10 per cent of the grain that is produced by our farmers.
1 now wish to draw a parallel to oil since 1 am the energy critic for my Party. There was a proposal put forward by small oil producers in western Canada when they bought and went out of the oil market. The small oil producers said: "Look, for a level of production give us a floor price". When the price went to, say, $10 a barrel they said: "Give us a floor price of $15 per barrel for a limited period and we will pay that back. That will keep us going, keep us living and we will pay it back later". They said, quite properly: "When the price of oil goes up through the roof the Government puts on a ceiling price," as was done in the early 1980s under the auspices of the National Energy Program. Some of these proposals have already been tried in terms of a ceiling price. They could be implemented as well in terms of a floor price. This could also be done in the area of agriculture.

August 17, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
What does the Bill before us deal with? I have indicated that it deals with areas other than wheat. Why is the Bill drafted in the way that it is? It is difficult for a private Member to produce a Bill that calls for a subsidy or a deficiency payment. That is why the Hon. Member has drafted his Bill in the way in which he has. I point that out to Members of the House so that they will understand and perhaps support the Bill.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) in the remarks which he just completed said that we could create a committee that would have a unique opportunity to look at these questions. On the basis that these are emergency questions and on the fact that the farmer is really hurting and that here is a proposal that could and would work, it would be worth the time of the House to pass this Bill and to get a committee to look at the matter.
1 would also like to express a couple of other opinions that are related to the matter. People say that we have a great surplus of food. Indeed, in the developed countries, especially in the European common market and the European Economic Community, as well as here in Canada, we have a surplus of food. But we do not have a surplus of food when we look at the whole world. There are still people dying of starvation in this world. Surely, in 1987, on the international level we are capable of eliminating starvation, either through taking some of our surpluses from the rich world and giving them to the developing world, or by developing agricultural efficiency in the Third World, which is an even better solution. Some countries have been doing this, in particular India. That country just celebrated its fortieth anniversary of independence. There was a great deal of comment at the time about the difficulties that India has. But one of the good things that India has managed to pull off is its increased agricultural selfsufficiency.
Is it possible to do this? Is this Bill a possibility? 1 draw the attention of Members of the House to the remarks of our farm critic, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), who spoke in the House on April 7 of this year. As reported at page 4955 of Hansard he said:
In spite of all the rhetoric I heard this afternoon from some of the Conservatives who spoke on this motion, this country is doing some of that right now. We have a two-price system for wheat at the moment, based at $7 a bushel for wheat consumed in this country, which comes close to the cost of production. We are doing that, and it is not wrecking the economy particularly, neither is it doing a whole lot of good.
However, it applies only to domestically consumed wheat used for human consumption and does not go quite as far as the Bill which was presented by my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, which would include wheat, oats and barley consumed by livestock and used for other purposes of animal and poultry production.
I think the Hon. Member makes the point that this has been done to a limited extent with wheat. That was not the entire solution since there are still some problems that exist. However, it was a step forward.
1 want to say that 1 had the experience a couple of months ago to be out in Calgary. I went north of Calgary to visit a vet and his family. The family I visited is named Sutmoller. Mr. and Mrs. Sutmoller took me to their house for the afternoon. They took me out into the neighbouring fields around Car-stairs, Alberta, and explained some of the problems.
I recognize the fundamental problems of the Canadian farmer. I submit to the House that the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville goes some way to helping solve some of those problems.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in the debate and take advantage of the few remaining moments to talk about parity pricing and some of the deficiencies in that particular proposal, at least as I understand them.
First of all, 1 wish to state that we are very much in agreement with our friends in the New Democratic Party and in the Official Opposition when we say that we believe Canadian farmers are deserving of assistance from Governments at both levels. That is the reason that during the course of the last 12 months the federal Government has provided an unprecedented amount of financial assistance to Canadian farmers, particularly to western Canadian farmers.
The largest difficulties being experienced are in the grains and oil seeds sector, which is the primary part of the agricultural economy. I wish that some of the provincial Governments, particularly of western Canada and my own Province of Manitoba, were more supportive. If the two levels of Government could co-operate, and there has never been a time in Canadian history when there was a greater need for cooperation, then the financial position of Manitoba farmers would be improved, if we could match the programs offered by the Alberta and Saskatchewan Governments.
The idea of parity pricing certainly has a surface appeal, which is perhaps one of the reasons why it is misrepresented by many. It has not been misrepresented by those who have spoken today, but misrepresented by many as being a panacea to agricultural problems.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the farm dollars earned in western Canada are earned through exports. Throughout Canada as a whole, 50 per cent of agriculture income is received from exports. The figure of export income is greater in western Canada than it is elsewhere. To this point in time, one of the principal weaknesses of parity pricing is that it can do nothing to assist the price that agricultural exports earn in the world market. For example, with reference to grains and oil seeds, where the vast bulk of our product is sold in the international market, parity pricing would indeed not constitute any significant increase in agricultural income.
Appropriately, reference has already been made to the two-price system which we have for wheat production. We in western Canada are painfully aware that the two-price wheat system means very little, because it represents a very small part of our total sales.
August 17, 1987

1 would remind Members of the House that when the committee travelled across Canada 12 months ago it looked at two-price wheat. Many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee also talked about parity pricing. There was a consideration of the concept, although not in the way that the mover of this motion would prefer.
Unfortunately, when examined under the microscope of that committee, neither two-price wheat or parity pricing represented the significant solution to western agricultural problems that many had hoped. The reason is that there is no proposal in parity pricing to augment income for that 90 per cent of the wheat that is not consumed in the domestic market.
We need to focus our attention on how to do two or three things. In this highly competitive agricultural market in which we live, we should be focusing our attention on how to increase exports. In western Canada, we are pleased with the record of the Canadian Wheat Board in this regard. Most Members of the House know that the exports have reached a record level this year, despite the very intense competition which exists in the international market-place. The Wheat Board, and others, are to be complimented. We must continue to move in that direction.
It would appear from weather conditions in the west, both during the summer and during the last few days, that production this year will not be what it was last year. Therefore, there will not be the same surplus to dispose of as before. We are still carrying a surplus from the previous year's crop, so we must focus on market development.
It is exceedingly important that we continue to work in the international community to end the trade war which is destroying international markets. Canadian farmers are among the most productive in the world. I know that talking about a "level playing field" is similar to a hackneyed statement these days. But as they have demonstrated in the past, Canadian farmers can do exceedingly well when they are given an opportunity to compete with others in the world market without any foreign impediment.
The principal thrust of Parliament and the Government should be toward trying to resolve that trade war. In that regard, a number of people have distinguished themselves in providing leadership. Beginning with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), and others have provided unprecedented leadership in the international community in attempting to resolve the trade war which has destroyed the economy of so many wheat and grain producing countries.
In Canada we cannot afford to match the subsidies of the Europeans and the Americans. In fact, I would go further and say that both the Europeans and the Americans are now discovering that they too cannot afford to maintain the present
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
policies. In the international community, there has been definite progress. There is evidence that the insane trade war is starting to wind down. There will not be any results for two or three years, I would think, and that is being somewhat optimistic. We must do what we can to resolve that particular trade war. We must pursue the policies that we have been pursuing. We must persuade the Americans and the Europeans that they are not helping their own producers. They are not gaining any additional share of the world market as they anticipated. In fact, we have gained it because of the quality of our product. We must persuade them as perhaps to persuade their own public I think they know that the only winners in this process are consumers in certain countries.
While that struggle goes on at the international level, with the co-operation of all Parties, and I must stress with the cooperation of the provincial Governments, we must continue to build upon the national and regional tripartite programs which are in existence.
The Western Grain Stabilization Program has generated unprecedented cash flows during the last 24 months. Unfortunately, that program is now virtually bankrupt, and it is being funded by the federal Government. Further amendments to that program will be necessary. We must do more in the area of red meat tripartite stabilization. There was a positive meeting recently in Quebec City. We must encourage more of the provinces to join.
What is necessary now is not the projection of certain formulas, which at first glance seem to be a solution to problems. What is needed now is co-operation among all levels of government and continued involvement of the farm organizations themselves. Never before have they had the say they have had in the last 18 months. They must continue to be an integral part.
With the two levels of Government working together, the cooperation of all of the provinces, the continued support of the farm community, an emphasis on resolving the problems at the international level, and in the meantime with continued amounts of massive federal and provincial cash injection into the economy, I think that we can get through the next two or three years until farmers have a chance to get back on an equal playing field. When they do, farm economies will rise to a level at which they deserve to be. Our farmers will quite easily and readily be able to compete, because they know that they are superior farmers, the quality of their product is superior, and their technology is superior. Therefore, we have a responsibility and I believe a commitment to provide that type of cash support until agriculture is back on its feet where it deserves to be.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired.

August 17, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, August 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, August 14, 1987, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division. Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the motion carried. Consequently, this Bill is referred to a legislative committee.
It being 6.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
Clifford
Forrestall


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, August 18, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers