1987-09-28

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-second report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the Parties and I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent to proceed with the following motions, one at a time, of course. The first one is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the composition of the Striking Committee of the House of Commons be amended by substituting the name of Mr. Fontaine for that of Mrs. Bourgault.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to present the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Norway from October 24 to October 31, 1987, inclusive, to visit aquaculture centres and to meet with Norwegian parliamentarians and industry experts for the purpose of the committee's ongoing study of new techniques applicable to Fisheries in Canada and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the final motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Edmonton, Alberta, from October 5 to October 9, 1987, inclusive, and be authorized to travel to Toronto, Ontario, and Montreal, Quebec, from October 19 to October 23, 1987, inclusive, for the purpose of holding public hearings on the committee's ongoing study of human rights behind the Iron Curtain and age discrimination and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition from the residents of my constituency dealing with the Fermi II nuclear reactor. There are 386 signatures on this petition. It is one of a large number which are coming into my office.
The petition points to the tremendous dangers associated with this nuclear plant which is just 10 miles from the borders of Essex-Windsor. It points to the tremendously dismal record of accidents at Fermi II and it calls for a joint review by Canadian and American officials of safety at Fermi II before any decision for full-capacity operation is permitted to be made.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 28, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the Elouse that I am in receipt of an application for adjournment on the basis of an urgent matter and I am informed that the Elon. Member who is putting the application is on his way. I am prepared to wait a minute or so.
The Chair always wants to be as generous as possible when dealing with the rules of procedure. I know the matter is an important one, but I am afraid that I must take the decision that the Elon. Member-


Mr. Gauthier:: Here he is.


Mr. Speaker:: In the interests of any Hon. Member or members of the public who are watching this, I should announce that the distinguished Hon. Member is now in his seat, and I will hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the slight delay. 1 did not realize that on Monday mornings, we conduct the House business with such dispatch and expediency.
This is the third day in a row that we have presented to the Chair a request for an emergency debate on the ongoing saga of the Canada-U.S. trade issue. I think it is fair to say that as each day goes by the arguments and reasons for that debate become all the more apparent and imperative.
There has now been a whole new series of meetings in Washington, contrary to previously stated positions. I can only say that the level of misunderstanding and confusion in the country is growing and expanding as each hour goes by.
1 simply repeat the case we made before, which is that the only way that this can be properly dealt with under our system is in the House of Commons, not on the sidewalk outside the Langevin Block. It is here where information, ideas and positions should be exchanged and presented.
If Your Honour agrees with me, I would suggest that this evening would be the most appropriate time to debate the issue. The meetings in Washington will be over by then and we will know the results of them. Therefore, the House of Commons would be able to address immediately what is perhaps the most important issue to face Canada in many a decade.


Mr. Speaker:: As the Hon. Member has pointed out, this is the third day in a row that applications have been brought to the Chair for an emergency debate on the trade talks. I should make it very clear that last week both opposition Parties applied. This morning the application came from the Official
Opposition only, but I think it can be taken that members of the New Democratic Party continue with their position that if I were to rule in favour of an emergency debate it would be appropriate and it would be welcomed by them.
However, as I said last week, while the matter is of very great importance, something with which all Hon. Members, no matter what their views on the issue, would agree, it is not the disposition of the Chair at this time to put this matter in the category of one necessitating an emergency debate.
On Friday I invited the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House Leaders to discuss this matter among themselves on an early occasion with a view to making arrangements for a debate to take place in this Chamber on another basis. I repeat that invitation because, as I say, the matter is important.
I have no criticism at all of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) or other Hon. Members who have brought the matter to the attention of the Chair. It is important, but it is not the disposition of the Chair to say that it crosses that sometimes difficult line between what is very important and what requires an emergency debate.
Again, I say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that that is my disposition today. That does not mean that something might not happen to change my mind. I thank the Hon. Member and would say, of course, that the conduct and decorum of this place is such that early-morning proceedings are conducted with great dispatch. If the Hon. Member wishes to speak with me tomorrow morning, it would be advisable for him to be here just a few minutes earlier.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gerry Weiner (for the Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome once again the opportunity to speak on this so urgent and important legislation, Bill C-55. For many months now, Canadians from all walks of life, and Parliamentarians from all Parties have had the opportunity to discuss and debate the terms and references of this Bill. Indeed, thanks to the Canadian media, it has been examined under the scrutiny of the public eye as few pieces of legislation are.
It is no secret that much of the participation in this debate has been on the part of those who have opposed or who continue to oppose this legislation. The Government has
September 28, 1987

welcomed this vigorous intervention, because public discussion of these issues has long been overdue.
Before this process began, refugee matters, and one could say immigration issues as well, were largely confined within a select community. Today they are in the public domain as never before. Because of that open visibility we have not only the opportunity to reconfirm Canada's long-standing commitment to the world's refugees, but also new possibilities as a people to work together to meet the challenges of such great need in our world.
It is time to eliminate the confrontational debate and begin to create the hospitable environment to continue building an even more generous refugee policy and an even larger immigration program. There has been a positive benefit from the outcry of the recent past. It allows us to focus on the positive contribution that immigrants have made and continue to make to our society. It has also increased the consciousness of all Canadians to the very sorry plight of the refugees of the world and to how much more we may be able to do together.
The country is all mixed up about immigrants, refugees and illegal aliens and we must clear up the confusion to avoid having decent Canadians fearing everybody from abroad. Clearly we are saying no to illegal aliens and yes to real refugees.
If we compare the situation before with what will be, we see that it was chaotic and unfair. We are bringing forward a system which will be fair and will deal with a real world situation. It is very important that we have criteria which are fair for all. We had a system which did not work. We will be putting in place a process which will work and will guarantee open determination to all in need of a secure and safe home.
It is only now as we reach the conclusion of our work in this Chamber that we can see that this is only the beginning of all that we must do. Our responsibility henceforth will be to ensure that this new refugee determination system works as it is intended to work. It will only be through such a system, one which works with compassion, fairness and justice, that we can affirm to Canadians that their sense of fairness and justice and their generosity have not been misplaced. Let no Member of this House be mistaken. The abuses which we have witnessed almost daily over the past year have given many Canadians cause to question their generosity, and not only toward refugees.
The new process will be a disincentive to abusers. Unfounded claimants will be disposed of very quickly. It will manage our resources effectively and eliminate the risk of backlogs and bottlenecks. It will give us the opportunity to remove, very quickly, security risks, war criminals, terrorists, and persons convicted in Canada of serious offences. There will be protection only for those who need protection.
Immigration Act, 1976
We have listened to the great debate. We have been very concerned about exploring ways to handle the situation. Under this new process every individual will be seen and heard by a Convention refugee determination board member. Independent board members will hear all cases in quality, oral, nonadversarial hearings with the benefit of the doubt going always to the claimant. Claimants will be represented by counsel at all stages.
The deluge of false claims for refugee status has been undermining one of the very pillars of our society, immigration itself. That is an erosion which we cannot and must not allow to continue. That is why Bill C-55 is so very important and why I remain ready, indeed eager, to meet again and again with Members of this House, with the refugee serving community, and with the ordinary citizens of Canada to help make our new refugee determination system work, to meet those concerns which remain, and to find the common ground. In return, the responsibility of the Government must be clearly understood. We will help the genuine refugee in need of help. We will not help those who are not genuine refugees or do not need that help.

That is our duty, and it is also the commitment we have made, a commitment which has rallied Canadians from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, the need to come up with a new refugee status determination process has been obvious for years. Indeed, each passing day makes that need more urgent still.
This year alone we can expect to receive about 30,000 refugee status claims in Canada-30,000 despite the imposition of control measures in February, measures which Members of the Opposition have described as being drastic and inhumane. Mr. Speaker, you and I as well as every Member of the House know full well that the great majority of these
30,000	claims we will be receiving this year will be false. Roughly 70 per cent of these claimants will be regognized as not being genuine refugees. As to the others, a good many of them already benefit from the protection of another country or have had an opportunity to seek such protection.
Obviously Canada must devise a practical and effective refugee status determination system which will enable us to make a quick and fair distinction between a legitimate refugee in need of our protection and all other claimants. This is what Bill C-55 will enable us to do.

It will do that in a way not only consistent with the stringent criteria set up under Canada's own Charter of Rights, but also in complete agreement with our obligations to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees as a signatory of the Geneva Convention.
Yet the Opposition is set to persist. We have been told in no uncertain terms that every obstruction will be used in the upper Chamber to delay this Bill. I do not think the public will

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
be confused by those who would use the misfortune of others for short-term partisan gain. Even those who still have genuine concerns about Bill C-55 realize that it is brought forward by a Government which has reaffirmed, not foreshortened, Canada's commitment to the world refugees. Our policy is clear. Both in terms of assistance here in Canada and overseas we have a refugee policy of which we are proud.
Last year the Government sponsored the resettlement in Canada of 12,000 refugees, an increase of 20 per cent over the last Liberal Government. Our actual immigration intake in 1987 will be 50 per cent higher than that of the last Liberal Government. We provide over $115 million a year in federal funds for the successful resettlement here in Canada of federally sponsored refugees and for the training of those refugees sponsored by private groups in the community. We give $16 million a year in food aid for refugees. Our financial contributions to international relief agencies including the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees are the fifth highest of all nations. Our total financial contributions to international relief on a per capita basis are second only in the world to the United States.

In no way does the Government have to seek justification for its commitments towards refugees of the world, nor for having introduced Bill C-55.
When the Bill was tabled the policy it advocated was already effective, constructive and equitable. It is even more so today.
Mr. Speaker, when the Government first introduced Bill C-55, a day marked by the virtuous indignation of Opposition Members, I stated here in the House as I did everywhere else from coast to coast that it was not a document carved in stone.
[DOT] (M30)

Time and again I called upon all Members of Parliament and members of the public as well to participate in making this Bill even more effective in its stated purposes. I am pleased and grateful that so much has been done to accomplish that goal.
Today, thanks to the amendments this House has accepted in committee, Bill C-55 is a stronger Bill. It is stronger through clarifying its intent, stronger in affirming its safeguards, stronger in its commitment to the genuine refugee. It has been further strengthened and improved during the course of the report stage. Your many hours of work-55 of them in public hearings alone-have brought significant improvement to the Bill. Let me quickly outline some of them.
The Bill now specifically states that the evidence to support a claim is in no way restricted and that each claimant has the right to testify on his or her own behalf. It spells out exactly what is meant by passing through a country while on the way
to Canada, and states clearly that individuals in transit are not affected by the safe third country rule.

The Bill explains what a safe third country is: a country which honours the provisions of the Geneva Convention concerning the non-return of refugees.
If the claimant agrees, a representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees may now be present at the inquiry as well as at the board hearing.
When the services of counsel must be provided by the federal Government, the Bill now makes it quite clear that it must be a lawyer.

The amended Bill will distinguish between claimants who are arriving with no documents by air from overseas and those arriving with no documents at our border with the United States. Only those arriving by air without documents will be subject to a presumption of law regarding the country of departure. We will not make any presumption of law as to where those arriving by land may originally have come from.
Amendments also provide safeguards of another kind, safeguards against the manipulation of a new determination system by those who clearly do not deserve its consideration.
They bring the Bill into line with Bill C-71, guaranteeing that war criminals will be treated the same as claimants found to be security risks. Suspected war criminals will not be permitted to use the system to delay their removal or prosecution.
[ Translation]
As a result of the report, other amendments have been adopted these past few days, particularly the addition of still more safeguards for persons who might not have an opportunity to submit a claim.
Even in that case, from a humanitarian standpoint obviously it would still be our duty to make sure that this person is not being threatened or is not likely to be persecuted. Therefore we did accept without reservation the recommendation of certain Members and private individuals that claimants whose case will have been rejected at the inquiry stage will be expelled only to a country where, pursuant to the Geneva Convention, they will be protected against return.

To achieve this, we have specified any deportation order made against the person coming from a safe third country can only be executed to that country unless the claimant himself waives that right. Such amendments will, I believe, greatly reduce, if not eliminate, any possibility of human error or oversight which might result, however remotely, in the deportation from Canada of a claimant to a place where he or she might face real danger.
September 28, 1987

1 cannot help but feel that in practice they will go a long way to answering those reservations which still exist toward Bill C-55.
I share as much as I value the opinion of my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), when he said in the House last Friday that even without amendments at this last stage the refugee determination system contained in the Bill would be the finest in the world. It really is no less than that.
We have not transferred to others, as others have done to us, our responsibility for refugees. Under Bill C-55 we honour as we have always honoured our international obligations without limit, and it is no surprise to me, although it might be to some, that the representative of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees testified that the essential features of this new system do not contravene the Convention.

But more than anything else, more than what the amendments-indeed a complete overhaul of the Bill-might ever produce, there is one thing which should rally the full support of Bill C-55 critics, an aspect which faithfully mirrors the sincerity of the Government which is determined to ensure that people needing the protection of Canada will indeed get it, and 1 am referring, Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Gordon Fairweather's appointment as Chairman of the new Immigration and Refugee Board.

Gordon Fairweather is a man of unparalleled commitment and compassion for the politically oppressed and persecuted. There may be someone somewhere in our country who matches his dedication to human rights, but there is none who exceeds him. His integrity, his indisputable honesty and courage should encourage all but the most mean-spirited and partisan opponents of the Government.
It should encourage them to see that when the Government promises a refugee determination system and personnel of exceptional quality and calibre, it delivers and will go on delivering in this field as in every other.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always lived up to its responsibilities and will continue to do so. We continue to honour the commitment made with respect to world refugees, a commitment of which we can be proud and which we will maintain.
We also respect our commitment to Canadians.
Let Hon. Members or anybody else not delude themselves: We have made a name for ourselves because of our assistance to refugees, but our reputation is not due to this Government nor any previous administration, but only to the generosity and openmindedness of Canadian men and women.
Immigration Act, 1976

We have not failed that trust and Bill C-55 is proof of that. Our duty of protecting the genuine refugee through this new determination system will be done. But we have never suggested that this is the total of our duty. Far from it.
I have already mentioned specific programs directed to refugee relief and assistance. One can add to them direct ministerial discretion through which thousands of people are helped every year, people who do not qualify under normal criteria even today, but who, on humanitarian grounds, still merit our assistance. That same ministerial discretion will apply after Bill C-55, as it does now. Yet one more safeguard, and perhaps the best of all for that discretion may be applied at any stage of the process.
I will not pretend to the House that the impulse behind Bill C-55 is not reactive. Obviously, it is a reaction to shortfalls and inadequacies in the refugee determination system that we inherited from the previous administration. It is a reaction to massive abuse.
But in other ways our policy toward refugees is in the forefront of innovation. We are leading the world in looking for new solutions to this universal problem of the 20th century. Canada has also initiated programs targetting specific groups in need of special assistance, including women refugees who are at risk, and other refugees with special needs.
We are determined that the world shall not turn its back on those in need of safe haven. We will argue that need whenever, wherever, and to whomever we can.
Bill C-55 draws a line that both common sense and justice demand be drawn. But we draw it in a manner which includes far more than it excludes. This Minister and this Government will not sit idly by and see that generosity and openness flagrantly and blatantly abused. Neither will we endanger our country's long-standing welcome of the immigrant because we failed to act.
One more time, Mr. Speaker, our duty and our responsibility is to aid the genuine refugee in need of our help. We can only do that through a determination system which once and for all will end the abuse of false or unjustified claims. Bill C-55 will get that job done simply, expeditiously, and fairly. It is time the Parliament of Canada got its job done by passing this Bill.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Official Opposition to third reading of Bill C-55, the refugee determination system.
In his opening remarks today, the Minister outlined that Canadians are mixed up with respect to immigration and refugees. One good reason why they are mixed up-if the Minister wishes to use those words-is because they have received mixed signals from the Government during the

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
deliberations. Perhaps there is nothing better outlining that confusion than what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has stated. I quote from an article in The Montreal Gazette where he is reported as saying:
This country shall always be a haven for refugees and immigrants seeking tolerance and prosperity. We want a tolerant and a growing and a sympathetic and a warm country.
With respect to the recent boat arrivals, the Prime Minister stated in an article in the Canadian Press dated July 31, 1987:
These people are by and large illegal aliens. They are people jumping the queue and taking the place of other immigrants.
Therein lies the confusion from the Prime Minister who, whether intentionally or not, is confusing the issue between refugees and immigrants. During the past two years in committee and in debates in the House we tried to distinguish between the line-up of landed immigrants who are legitimately seeking to come to Canada, and the line-up of refugees who are legitimately seeking to come to Canada. After due processing, those found to be illegitimate obviously have to leave our country.
But for the Prime Minister to confuse refugees and immigrants, and then to render a decision by stating, claiming, and judging that those individuals are illegal aliens before they have gone one step into the processing, raises the question and perhaps provides the answer for the Minister of State for immigration (Mr. Weiner) who this morning stated that Canadians are receiving mixed signals and are mixed up. The Minister must ask himself why.
In terms of challenge, there is the challenge to match the Government's intention with its legislation. The Prime Minister speaks passionately and warmly about immigrants and refugees and the manner in which this country was built, and relays his own personal and family experiences, which is moving. Then the Prime Minister's Government produces refugee legislation in Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 which runs counter to those sentiments, and runs roughshod over those aspirations. Therefore, there is a clear gap between intentions and the law. This country will have to abide by the law, and not by the intentions or speeches made by the Prime Minister or the Minister.
Mrs. Helga Kutz-Harder from the United Church of Canada, and a member of the Inter-Church Committee, who appeared before the legislative committee studying Bill C-55, ended her remarks with a very moving definition of what her intentions would be for our country and this Government.
I wish to begin my speech with her conclusion:
Our response as a nation to refugees is a matter that reaches far, far beyond immigration control. Your committee is charged with considering the effects your recommendations may ultimately have on human lives. The Christian community charges you to place the human person first and foremost in all of your deliberations. We will do anything we need to do as churches to hold Canada and the Canadian Government up to their very, very best. Our policies are not dictated by mood swings or public opinion polls. Our mandate is the eternal universal gospel of love and social justice. Our focus in this arena is on the stranger at our gates who we are commanded to love and to cherish.
I think those words are well advised. Perhaps those would set out the parameters of the constraints by which we should be drafting our legislation and enacting a new refugee determination system.
Bill C-55 is a very important Bill. It is a Bill that will reshape and reform the structure of our refugee process. It is of pre-eminent importance. It is far more important than Bill C-84 which this Party did not accept, and for which we still have very serious reservations. Bill C-55 with Bill C-84 will become the entire new system.
Perhaps it would be helpful if we look at why we need a good piece of legislation rather than simply passing Bill C-55 in quick order. We need a system that will be fair and expedient. We must avoid the line-ups and the backlogs that we have had in Canada. We need an inland processing system because the refugee movements have changed in the world. We are no longer living in the 1960s where we had the luxury of selecting our refugees from refugee camps across the world. We sent our immigration visa officers to those camps to select men, women and children based on certain criteria, and to do our part within the United Nations Convention and the international community to ease the plight of world refugees.
[DOT] (M50)
That has changed. The refugees are no longer waiting in those refugee camps to be selected by the visa officers from Canada, the United States, Belgium and other countries in the world. Those refugees are not moving solely into the camps but are going to various countries in the world, including Canada, and asking for refugee status. Therefore, there is a transition in the refugee movements that was not present when we only had government sponsored refugees.
Our refugee determination system has to be changed because the system which was there before was not able to meet the numbers which wanted to come to our country. That system was only able to handle the number of refugees who would complement the struggles we undertook to have refugees from the various camps come to this country.
When the Conservative Government took office there was a very urgent need to reform the system. There was a very urgent need to put in place a system that would be able to evolve with the transition in refugee movements. One has to ask oneself why the Government waited nearly three years before introducing Bill C-55, before moving on the reform. Rabbi Piaut was mandated by the previous administration to study and make recommendations on a new refugee determination system. We must keep in mind that we have had four different Ministers of Immigration under the present Conservative Government, all of whom said, upon being sworn in as Minister, that refugee reform was one of their first priorities as Ministers. We must keep in mind that the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration made a number of very moving recommendations, concluding that reform was needed. Many of the Piaut recommendations were
September 28, 1987

embraced by the committee and by many other Canadians. We must also keep in mind that the Official Opposition Party, together with the New Democratic Party, also made separate recommendations, whether in written or verbal form in debate on the floor of the House of Commons. The non-governmental organizations, the churches, Amnesty International, the InterChurch Committee, all made their recommendations to this Government, and in fact, the previous Government, with respect to ensuring that the proper reform take place rather than simply reform for the sake of reform.
The current chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, and Member of Parliament for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), a government Member, in his capacity as chairman, urged continuously for a refugee determination system that would do honour to our traditions and to the recommendations and input that had been received from the public for a good many years.
One has to wonder if the refugee determination was important to the Government, if the reform of the refugee process was a priority. After hearing all the evidence from Rabbi Plaut, the committee, Canadians, non-governmental organizations, why did it take three years before legislation was placed on the floor of the House of Commons for deliberation in this national Chamber?
One can conclude that it was not a high priority on the Government's agenda. It was not made a necessary prerequisite in order to clean up the system, to reform the system, so we could once again place the confidence of Canadians in an immigration policy and refugee determination system that works. The confidence of Canadians is a crucial variable in the over-all equation. Without the confidence, understanding and support of Canadians, governments are paralyzed. Governments are not able to enact progressive legislation unless that legislation is rooted in the sentiments of Canadians from one coast to the other. It is that support from Canadians that permitted former governments, including the short-lived government of the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, to enact a program. Between that Government and the Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, close to
106.000	Vietnamese boat people, were brought in, some
50.000	supported by the communities themselves, sponsored by Canadians, and the other 50,000 supported and sponsored by the Canadian Government.
There was the movement of 37,000 Hungarians in 1958, the movement of 11,000 Czechoslovakia refugees in 1968, the
7.000	Uganda refugees in 1972, the special South American program in 1973 which allowed 7,000 refugees to come in, the 11,300 Lebanese refugees in 1976, the 9,300 Polish refugees who were let into this country in 1982, the special Salvadoran movement in 1982 numbering 3,000 refugees, and so on and so on.
Therefore, when the Minister says the Government has increased Government sponsored refugees to 12,000, that is true. Those are refugees from the camps. But what the
Immigration Act, 1976
Minister does not say is that in addition to the thousands we as the previous Government sponsored, and in addition to accepting claimants from within the country, we have had thousands upon thousands of special refugee movements that this Conservative Government has not allowed.


Miss MacDonald:: Five thousand refugees from Vietnam is all the Liberals would bring in.


Sergio Marchi: When the Conservative Government attempts to create a crisis out of 300 refugees who came in on a boat, it is shameful against the backdrop of the thousands upon thousands who have been allowed to come in. The former Minister of Immigration is speaking from her chair. I hope at some point in the debate she will stand up and account for those numbers rather than looking simply at the 12,000 who were sponsored from camps.


Finlay MacDonald: All the Liberal Government would bring in were 5,000 refugees from Vietnam.


Sergio Marchi: I ask her to address herself to the other refugees Canadians have allowed their governments to move on. It is those same refugees who live in this country today. It is those same refugees who now expect the same tolerance, the same progressive attitude, that needs to be discharged with respect to refugees and immigration.
While they and every Member of this Parliament certainly do not want abuse and fraudulent claims, do not want to reward those who base their actions on human desperation, they do expect a policy that is tolerant, fair and speaks to a higher order and to the best interests of this country, rather than subscribing to those policies which may be politically expedient for the day but in the long term are found to be wanting.
With respect to fraudulent claims, the problem is equally crucial. If we allow into our system fraudulent claims, if we bring into this country those who do not deserve our protection, those queue-jumpers, that will in fact destroy any legitimate system. Any illegitimate claimant in the line-up delays justice for the individual who legitimately merits the protection of this country or any other country. There is no disagreement with that.
At the same time, however, in cleaning up the abuse, in dealing with those who wish to use our regulations and laws for their own purposes, we cannot lose sight of the protection for the legitimate person. We cannot lose sight as a country of the fact that legislation must be enacted which first and foremost protects those who legitimately need our assistance.
When the Government talks about deterrence, with which this Government has preoccupied itself in trying to sell the two refugee Bills we are discussing in the House of Commons, it always does so by saying it is against abuse and wishes to discourage people from abusing the system. It is as if to suggest that someone else in the House of Commons is in favour of abuse, as if to suggest there is a segment of society

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
that is in favour of those who do not follow our regulations and laws. Of course, that is not true.
If the Government was genuinely concerned about trying to deal with abuse, then what better way than to have in our laws a refugee determination system that works quickly and fairly? We then come to the delay of almost three years. If we had a refugee system in place that processed claims fairly in weeks and months rather than in months and years, then that would be the greatest deterrence to those who wish to do an end run around our system. Those so-called immigration consultants, those smugglers, charging up to $10,000 and $15,000 would not be able to sell their special packages since someone would not spend his or her life savings in order to stay in a country for a matter of weeks or months. They will come if they know that they have a chance to stay here for a few years. That would be worth their while. But if a refugee claimant who is not a bona fide claimant has to spend upwards of $10,000 to come here only to find out that the processing system allows for a decision in months, then that would be the greatest message of deterrence that the country could send out.
It is the type of signal that we should have been promoting rather than simply procrastinating for up to three years and then moving in a mass of hysteria in response to 174 arrivals with Bill C-84. We must keep in mind that Bill C-84 targets those who come in by boat. Of those in the current 15,000 backlog 300 have come in by boat. The other 14,700 have come in by plane, train, bus, car, and through American border crossings.
The Government has tried to market Bill C-84 as the be-all and end-all of refugee legislation. It is not that. It addresses itself to only a small portion of the larger looming dilemma that we face as a country and as a member of the international community.
If the Government were serious with respect to those manipulators who perpetrated the Portuguese scam, those who were responsible for the Brazilian scam, those who perpetrated the Turkish scam, those who sell visas, passports and false social insurance numbers, then it would have moved months and years ago. The Government should not have delayed any prosecution on those immigration consultants. As we speak today, those individuals are out on the streets of Toronto and Montreal carrying on their business as usual.
If the Government were genuinely concerned about abuse it would not have waited until the summer of 1987 to introduce a piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which runs counter to the best interests of the country. Rather, it would have taken the necessary steps along the way. If it wanted to put in place a deterrence Bill, then it could have put one in place in concert with Bill C-55. It could have introduced such a Bill not some months ago but early on in its mandate.
The Minister said that they listened and heard the great debate. I think that what he was addressing was the process by
which Bill C-84 and, indeed, Bill C-55 have come to fruition. It was not an honourable process. On the one hand Bill C-84 had one week of debate in committee. That was when we really had the chance to cross the t's and dot the i's and to go through a clause by clause study. There was one week in which witnesses were asked to participate. For the most part those witnesses came from central Canada because those in the regions, whether they be easterners or westerners, had no time to prepare.
Then, other witnesses were denied an opportunity to come before the committee because it was not prepared to have enough time in order to hear them. It was a process which dictated to Canadians. It was not a prime example of participatory democracy in which the aspirations of Canadians, their input, their suggestions and recommendations were listened to, but in fact the Government simply rushed the process. It rushed the process through the House and in committee and then back again to the House.
The process was not much better with respect to Bill C-55. In regard to that Bill there was some additional time for witnesses to be heard, but there was still a great rush to pass the legislation.
I said earlier that the Government should have introduced this type of legislation in the early part of its mandate rather than three years after its commencement. However, since it decided in its third year to proceed with such legislation, the very least it could have offered was a proper debate to ensure that we would be doing service and justice to a piece of legislation that would be in place for years to come.
This is legislation which is supposed to meet the aspirations of many of the organizations which are active on a daily basis in terms of the plight of refugees, and not a piece of legislation which in a few months or a few years will be struck down by the courts because of some aspect of the Charter or the Constitution. If that happens then it will place in jeopardy all the work that led up to the debate in the House of Commons. It will place in jeopardy our whole determination system and perhaps even paralyse it as a result of a Supreme Court ruling or a ruling by another court.
Then what will we say to Canadians? Are we to say, "Well, we passed the legislation. We thought it would pass the courts and it did not. We now have to start from scratch again"? That is why the process required a great deal of scrutiny. That is why the process required a greater sensitivity on behalf of the Government.
When the Minister came before the committee which studied Bill C-55 he said, "Over the last few weeks you have heard from many special interest groups and individuals, all with strongly-held views on the best course to follow and concerns about perceived weaknesses in the proposed legislation. Like you, I have listened to their suggestions and concerns". He then proceeded to deliver his prepared speech.
September 28, 1987

The whole point is that the Government did not listen to those concerns or to those witnesses. It did not listen to them in Bill C-84 when virtually every amendment from the NDP and the Liberal Party was defeated. They were not accepted at committee stage, nor were they accepted at report stage or at third reading.
Essentially, it was the same story with Bill C-55. It is true that the Government accepted a number of the amendments which it sponsored. It tinkered with clauses here and there, but with respect to the major tenets of the legislation, the major concerns of groups and organizations, it did not listen. It did not move and it did not allow those amendments.
I must ask myself why the process is there. What is a committee to do when it calls organizations from British Columbia to Newfoundland to come in to make presentations, to allow them to answer questions from MPs, when at the end of the process not one of their proposed amendments or concerns will be listened to? Their variables are not in the equation that we are discussing today. I find that upsetting because that is not the way that a democratic institution ought to function.
I am not suggesting that every opinion that one hears from every witness will be the major plank in the legislation. 1 am not suggesting that at all. I am saying that you cannot draft legislation in a vacuum and expect the country to agree with every clause in the legislation.
Yes, the Government is charged with proposing legislation but there should be an opportunity at committee stage for interested and concerned Canadians to be heard and have their concerns addressed. The process is as important as the substance of the legislation. The two go hand in hand.
It was therefore with some degree of sadness that many Canadians went through the system, after the so-called reform of the committee structure, only to find out that by and large the legislation is the same after the process. This despite the intervention of hundreds of organizations who make it their business to be vigilant about legislation affecting their constituencies.
Another important point is that as we discuss Bill C-55 we cannot forget Bill C-84. That Bill was introduced as emergency legislation. That is why one of our amendments dealt with a sunset clause. By definition, emergencies do not last forever. Therefore emergency legislation should not become permanent legislation. We tried to get the Government to be sensitive to that fact when dealing with Bill C-84, but without success, and the Bill will shortly be law.
The Minister said in committee, and again this morning on the floor of the House of Commons, that claimants will have a chance for a fair oral hearing. On August 26 he said in committee that everyone with an arguable refugee claim will receive a full oral hearing before an expert and independent
Immigration Act, 1976
tribunal. No claimant will be removed from Canada without being seen by a member of the new refugee board. If you are a refugee arriving by boat, those words do not apply. Under the provisions of Bill C-84 an incoming vessel full of claimants, who we know very little about, can be turned away.
That creates an unfortunate situation. For example, let us take the case of a brother and sister who have to flee from El Salvador. The brother takes an airplane and lands at Toronto International Airport. Unfortunately, the sister took a boat and arrived off the coast of Canada. Those two individuals can and probably will meet very different fates. The brother will be processed as soon as he lands. He will say he is a refugee and hopefully we will guarantee him a hearing under this Bill. His sister, arriving off the coast of Newfoundland or British Columbia, may be turned away along with everyone else on the boat before the claim can be heard. We are in a sense discriminating based on the mode of transportation.
The Government has not been able to say in any reassuring way that it will know how many of those people have documents, how many of them are making fraudulent claims. It cannot make the proper determination at sea unless it sends immigration officers to interview the individual passengers.
We suggested that we bring the boat in and, if it is determined that they are not bona fide refugees, that we charge the captain and the rest of the culprits and put them in prison or fine them. We are not discouraging smugglers if we just allow the boat to turn around at sea and go back to where it sailed from. The captain of the ship, having been paid anyway, can simply dump them somewhere else.
More importantly, we will not have had a chance to examine those people under the refugee determination system. That is why I have placed on the floor of this House our concerns about Bill C-84 and Bill C-55. They are not consistent with each other if we take the words of the Minister seriously. We are concerned about the contradictions between the two Bills. We should do something about them.
Another area of great concern is in the legality of both pieces of legislation. A great number of people suggested that certain clauses in both Bills are unconstitutional. They offend certain parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For that reason many people suggested some key amendments. Yet not only were those amendments refused, the Government also refused for a long time to allow officials from the Department of Justice to testify in committee.
The Government has refused to this day to show Canadians the basis for this legislation, including the legal opinions it received. Finally, it refused many requests, including that of our Party, to send the legislation, once it is passed, to the Supreme Court of Canada for judicial review. In that way we would know whether the legislation meets the standards of our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If it does not, then we are able to change it. Above all, we are able to do so with a great savings in time rather than see the piece of legislation being dragged through the courts and a decision

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
being rendered after many years of debate and challenges and after great expense to many Canadians and organizations.
When the Minister of State for Immigration appeared before the committee he said quite clearly in his speech that the fundamental objectives of Bill C-55 were to provide protection to those who need it, and that he believed this piece of legislation met the justice system, the Constitution, and the Charter. However, he said that without backing it up with a legal opinion and without allowing justice officials to make reference to the legal opinion which they drafted.
However, every other legal witness who appeared before the committee differed with the opinion of the Minister. In fact, Barbara Jackman from the Canadian Bar Association said that the association felt it did not comply with the Convention obligations and that many of the association's lawyers felt that it did not comply with the Charter. That was the representative view of many legal and expert witnesses who testified before the committee. They indicated that constitutionally the provisions in both these Bills w'ould be left wanting.
On the one hand we have the legal concerns. However, on the other hand we have the real concerns of Canadians much later in the process. If this piece of legislation, or Bill C-84, which preceded it, is found to be unconstitutional it will render our system null and void. It will place in chaos or in paralysa-tion a determination system which was supposed to work. That is the real problem in terms of the constitutionality debate. Canadians from one coast to the other will be angry with a Government in which they placed their trust and confidence to enact a determination system that worked correctly, under the law, quickly, and fairly for refugee claimants.
What will the Government tell these Canadians in a year or two years' time if it is still in power? What will it say to them about why it proceeded with the Bill? What will it tell Canadians after years of debate when they see another piece of legislation which does not do what it was purported to do, namely, provide a refugee determination system which works on behalf of Canadians, in which they can have some degree of satisfaction, trust, and confidence, and which works on behalf of refugee claimants who are accessing it?
That will be the greatest political dilemma. Perhaps it will place a barrier on further progression in terms of immigration policy and programs. It will have a long-term impact and effect upon what we legislate in Parliament.
Is the current Government serious in terms of raising targets? Is it serious about increasing the number of refugees it wishes to accept? The other day the Prime Minister said that the Government wishes to increase the number of refugees coming to Canada. If they are serious and genuine about those concerns, they must pay close attention to not allowing this piece of legislation to be struck down by the courts. If that happens, I fear that many Canadians will lose patience and
turn the frustration and anger which they feel for the Government into a policy of fewer immigrants, fewer refugees, less compassion, and less tolerance. That is a possibility.
As Canadians are watching the debate, perhaps they are assuming that the Government and the federal Parliament will take their legislative responsibilities seriously and pass legislation which is in keeping with our legal norms, with our justice system, and with our Charter. I say to the Government that it cannot have it both ways. It cannot have a piece of legislation which will be struck down by the courts and expect Canadians to have confidence in and support a progressive immigration policy and program such as we saw in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
Turning away from the domestic scene, another aspect is the international stage or the international community and how we appear among our peers, friends, or allies. What will be the world impact, repercussion, or impression when it learns about Bill C-84 and Bill C-55? What message will we be sending to the more than 100 countries that are signatories to the United Nations Convention on Refugees? What signal will we be sending to individual countries that are being urged to protect and encourage a resolve to try to come to grips with the refugee crisis in the international community? What directions are we encouraging those countries to take by our refugee legislation? Are we in fact strengthening that resolve among countries which subscribe to the United Nations Convention? Are we increasing their determination to stay the course or, by these two pieces of legislation, are we dismantling the incentive or efforts in trying to keep the pact together and to have it meaningful in these trying times across the globe? What happens to our international leadership in the field of refugee assistance? What is the significance to a country which for the first time won the Nansen Medal for its achievements and for its record of human rights in the area of refugee assistance? For the very first time a country and its people, rather than an individual or an organization, won the Nansen Medal. What are we to say to those who subscribe to the pride which all Canadians felt in being on top in this sphere internationally?
Quite often Canada, for a number of reasons and in numerous areas, has been able to play a complementary role with other countries in solving a problem. When it came to refugees, I think every Canadian felt a great sense of pride in Canada not being third best or second best but in fact being a leader in setting the trend and setting the standards. With that background, I do not think Canadians feel the same sense of pride once they learn about Bill C-55 and Bill C-84.
These are some of the questions and dilemmas with which the committee grappled. These are some of the dimensions which we should be addressing in this third reading debate.
Of course there are the problems with the Bill itself. We largely had two camps of organizations and testimony. On the one hand many individuals and organizations suggested that the Bill was badly drafted, that the Bill had too many shortcomings, and that the Bill did not do justice to our tradition in
September 28, 1987

terms of refugee policies over the last number of years. They suggested that the Bill should be redrafted, that the Bill should go back to the drafting boards so that hopefully we would come up with a piece of legislation which did justice to our sense of fair play, compassion, and assistance.
The other side of the equation involved organizations and individuals who said that if we wanted to have Bill C-55 we must simply make movement toward substantial amendments in three crucial areas of the Bill, namely, prescreening, safe country, and appeal. Basically they said that for their approval and support they simply had to be met part way, that we had to show good faith and sincerity in the negotiations, and that those negotiations had to be reflected in the pieces of legislation which we brought forward. They said that the prescreening, the safe third country concept and the appeal mechanism had to be drastically altered if this piece of legislation could be supported. In the end, substantive changes on those three areas were not made.
My colleague from Spadina and I offered substantive amendments to those three clauses of the Bill, but those amendments were not accepted. That is why I initially spoke on the process. Many other amendments were moved. Some amendments which were moved by government Members to cross t's and dot i's were accepted. As well, a great many others designed to clean up the language of the Bill here and there were also accepted.
The position of my Party was in between those who wanted to redrafted the Bill and those who were in favour of it. We clearly articulated the need to change those three clauses of the Bill.
Our strategy when dealing with Bill C-84 was to move a great many amendments. We took care to draft those amendments so that they would be procedurally correct as well as acceptable, but not one of them was accepted at committee stage or in the House of Commons. Therefore, we took a different tack on Bill C-55. We did not move 60 or 70 amendments like we did when dealing with Bill C-84. We were not prepared to play charades by suggesting amendments that were not substantive. I say this not out of disrespect for those who chose to move a great many amendments in the hopes of trying to make this legislation better. Our tack was just different.
The Government wanted to have a prescreening stage that would prejudge refugee claimants, it wanted a safe country concept that would send refugees into orbit, bouncing them around like a ball in a pinball machine from one country to the other, and it wished to subscribe to an appeal mechanism that was poor, substandard and would not offer claimants access to it. We felt that if the Government was not willing to substantively change those three clauses, we were prepared to move other amendments which by comparison would be academic and insignificant.
Immigration Act, 1976
If the Government was not prepared to accept amendments to those three objectionable clauses, we would not be pleased if the Minister told us that he listened because he moved six or seven amendments. The Minister did not listen where it counted. The Government did not move on these three clauses even though a great many people pleaded for it to do so.
1 have never before heard witnesses in a committee actually use words like beg and plead. Witnesses came before that committee and actually said, "For goodness sake, if you are going to change something, then make a change that will have an impact. Make a change that will offer refugees some hope. Do not simply change those areas that do not count, add up the number of amendments accepted and brag about how many were accepted. Ask yourselves what is the impact of those amendments on the over-all legislation".
Members of my Party are embarrassed by certain clauses in this legislation. We do not want to identify ourselves with those who are happy with a mediocre piece of legislation. We believe that as a leader in the international community, we should subscribe to those interests that are above those that are mediocre, particularly when offering people protection in order to save their lives. We felt it was important to stand by those principles. We are perfectly willing to be judged by Canadians on our position as it affects the basic elements of the Bill.
Let us look at the prescreening provisions. The Government introduced in the legislation a new refugee board which would deal only with refugee claims. It would be distinct from the Immigration Appeal Board which could deal with appeals made by individuals who were not allowed to visit here or become landed immigrants. That is a very worth-while and significant step forward. However, the Government built a barrier around the new refugee board.
The Government built a brick wall around the refugee board by placing a prescreening stage before the oral hearing stage. At the border, two individuals would determine whether a claimant legitimately deserved to go to the next step or whether he should be turned back. If there is to be a refugee board that will make that determination, why has the Government included a prescreening stage? What does it accomplish? The answers to both questions are quite frightening.
The prescreening stage undermines the very reasons we established a refugee board in the first place. In his testimony on the prescreening stage, Rabbi Plaut said the following:
This Bill has the wrong focus. It is not a Bill to determine refugee status
primarily, it is a Bill on how to deport people primarily.
Rabbi Plaut, the individual who was mandated by the previous Government to study the issue and who submitted his recommendations to this Government, said quite clearly that the Bill is primarily about how to deport people.
Fred Zemans, a member of the Canadian Jewish Congress and a professor from York University who is very much active

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
with the plight of refugees, said the following with respect to prescreening, and 1 think he put it in very clear language:
I believe that the pre-screening is inappropriate. We do not appoint police
officers to determine who is a criminal.
The point there is that police officers have a duty to apprehend suspects who then go before the justice system and a judge makes the final determination properly, fairly and logically. In the prescreening stage provided for by this Bill, there is no fairness, no logic and no sense of order.
The Government has said that it wishes to expedite refugee claims. Yet is is suggesting that there be a prescreening stage. That will expand the amount of time it will take for an individual claim to work itself through the system. There is more room for abuse if individual claimants know they can give their story twice rather than just the once before the refugee board. There will be longer line-ups as a result. The backlog will not be eased. We will be adding a bureaucratic layer at every border crossing in this country. That is very inappropriate if one of your goals is to cut down the amount of time a person has in the system.
It is also inconceivable that at the prescreening stage we are going to ask the claimant to give only part of his or her story. We will have two officers at the border crossing saying, "This is not the place to give us all the facts. We do not want to hear the whole story about how you suffered in prison, about how your family was persecuted and tortured or killed. Just give us a brief synopsis of your story". If you were a refugee claimant would you want to give just part of your story? Of course not. If you were escaping torture or in fear of your life you would want to put all your cards on the table. If that is to be done, and it should be done, then it is only proper that it be done in front of the refugee board. You cannot say to someone, just give part of the story, because there will be the fear that they have not given facts enough in order to warrant an opportunity to start a new and safe life.
How much is enough? What is a credible basis for a claim? How much time do you need; is it 10 minutes, or is it 20 minutes? How many relatives have to be killed, two, your whole family? Is it enough that they burned down your house in El Salvador? Is it enough that they kidnapped your parents or your sister? How much information do the two officers involved need in order to tell the claimant he has a case and to go on to the next stage? Those officers are going to go home at night and ask themselves if they did the right thing. Did that person provide me with enough information? They will wonder, because there was a plane load of claimants and they were under the gun, whether they made the right decision. Did that deadline and a shortage of staff have anything to do with refusing a particular individual an opportunity to give his or her story? Would you want to be that officer? Would I? I would rather do anything else. I would rather be a punch press operator in my father's tool and die shop than make those kinds of decisions. I say that seriously and I mean it, because
not only are we putting refugee claimants in a precarious position, we are asking immigration officials to make decisions which they may live to regret, for personal and religious reasons.
The prescreening stage is a grave obstacle to this process. We do not see the need for it. It will not expedite matters. It will not make the system simpler. It will not allow the claimant to give his story properly. Rabbi Plaut called that the building of a Berlin Wall around the refugee determination system.
Another important question is who will be the officials making the determination? One will be a refugee board member and the other an immigration adjudicator. We suggested to the Government that if it really wanted to maintain its prescreening stage, despite the fact we think it is wrong, then at least it should make sure those two officials are from the refugee division. They would then be knowledgeable, credible, and have had day-to-day experience in judging individual claimants. Why was it necessary to have someone who works for Immigration Canada? Why an immigration adjudicator? People asked,"Don't you trust our immigration officials? Don't you think they are competent? Don't you think they are trustworthy?" Of course we do. They are all that and more. We never suggested that they are incompetent. However, they have a function to fulfil. They are hired as immigration adjudicators, the Immigration Commission is their master. Madam Falardeau-Ramsay, a member of the Immigration Appeal Board, addressed that concern. She said quite simply that immigration officials would make good refugee board members if they were not immigration officials. Therein lies the reason. An immigration adjudicator works for Immigration Canada. They work on immigration-related matters, control, deportation, and the rest. A member of the refugee division looks at the merits.
We suggested that you do not confuse immigration with refugee-related matters. Keep the two clearly delineated. It is good that we have a refugee board-absolutely. However, when you are doing prescreening and you have both an immigration official and a refugee official, you obscure the two lines and create confusion. You do not allow the immigration program to operate properly. That was our first suggestion. We suggested that if they are to be in place they both should be refugee board members. Once again our concerns were not addressed.
We are concerned about what prescreening does. Does it make the system more efficient by allowing in fewer refugees? We came to the conclusion that that must have been part of the equation. The Government must have determined that in order to have a cleaner, more effective and efficient system it would limit the number of claims accessing the system. That is comparable to a hospital suggesting that it would become more efficient by limiting the number of patients it admits. It is comparable to maximizing the efficiency of hospital emergency departments by allowing no one in after a certain hour.
September 28, 1987

Doctors and hospital administrators know that they cannot do that and they accept it. Everyone has probably been to an emergency ward. We know that they could be more efficient. Sick and bleeding people have to wait in the corridors because there are not enough rooms available. We have all had friends and families, if not ourselves, in that situation. We could not understand why we had to wait to be attended to, but there were other people ahead of us who were sick as well. At least hospitals do not close their doors. They do not tell you to take your sickness or injury elsewhere. They allow you in and treat you as soon as humanly possible.
That should be the system with regard to immigration. It is clearly unacceptable to try to maximize efficiency by minimizing the number of refugees who can access it. The moral way to treat refugee claimants is to allow them to be heard. If necessary, we must increase the number of refugee board members. It is better to do that than to increase the number of officers at border points who will make prejudgments.
It must be difficult for government Members and Ministers to rationalize a prescreening stage. I am sure that the people who understand the Bill have said the same things to government Members as they have said to me. I am moved by those arguments, and not only because I happen to be in this place at this time in the Opposition. 1 do not talk about these things only for the sake of talking We are all in favour of maximizing efficiency, but my colleagues and I are also interested in protecting individuals who seek our assistance.
What is a safe country and why do we have such a concept? We have asked the Government why it has such a policy. The policy is basically that if a refugee comes from country A passing through country B, which is on our list of so-called safe countries, and arrives in country B, Canada, then whether they were in country B for five minutes, five hours, five days, or five months, they will be sent back to country B with no questions asked. We will wash our hands of responsibility. We will play the role of Pontius Pilot in dealing with the plight of refugees.
If we are going to place people in safe third countries we should define precisely which countries those are in order that we can be sure they will face no danger there. We do not object to sending claimants back to a third country where they have enjoyed refugee status, if they have enjoyed protection and can live a normal life there. There are many people in the backlog who have not enjoyed such protection and are threatened with being returned to a land where they will be persecuted. Therefore, people who enjoy refugee status in another country should take advantage of it and allow us to extend the same courtesy to others who need it. After due processing it would be proper and legitimate for Canada to ask such individuals to complete their processing in that safe country.
Prescreening and a safe country concept together result in a danger of prejudgment. Individuals are placed in jeopardy.
I see that you are signalling that it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I will continue following Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, occasionally a small piece of encouraging good news comes to our attention. In New Brunswick, Liberal Leader Frank McKenna, a constitutional expert, has said that if he is elected Premier he will endeavour to improve the Meech Lake Accord.
Mr. McKenna cites his concern for women's rights, the rights of francophones outside Quebec, and aboriginal rights. 1 share all of those apprehensions with this Leader and I would add equality for Canada's northerners under our Constitution to that list.
I urge the Government to adopt the proposed Liberal amendments to the Meech Lake Accord before we proceed with its ratification in the House.



MONTREAL INTERNATIONAL MARATHON-CONGRATULATIONS TO PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the town of Saint-Bruno de Montarville has earned distinction at Montreal's IXth International Marathon. A new page of history was written yesterday at the IXth International Marathon in Montreal when, for the first time ever, Canadian athlete Peter Maher led the best competitors to the wire, and two female athletes, Jacqueline Gareau and Nicole Caisse, both residents of Saint-Bruno de Montarville in the riding of Chambly, came in first and third respectively.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government, the Canadian people, and especially the residents of the riding of Chambly, I extend congratulations to all participants in the Montreal IXth International Marathon, and more particularly to Jacqueline Gareau and Nicole Caisse. Marathon President Serge Arsenault, another resident of Saint-Bruno de Montarville, also deserves commendation for his outstanding work.

September 28, 1987
Bravo and congratulations to them all, long live the Montreal International Marathon!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Government last week announced new measures for assessment and review of environmental impact. These new measures include a greater role for the public in environmental impact assessment, and that is welcome, for certainly ordinary Canadians want to be involved and environmental groups have great experience and expertise to offer.
However, the process is confined to planning only, and not regulation. Of course planning is essential, but planning without real teeth, without the prospect of regulation, is not enough. Environmentalists want to see legislative protection for the environment, with tough penalties and independent tribunals.
Cosmetic changes are not enough, given the seriousness of environmental destruction to date. There must be real protection in the future because industry is continuing this path. Potential polluters will be much more willing to build environmental concerns into their planning if they know that they face prosecution and penalties.
Canadians want a real Environmental Protection Act with an Environmental Bill of Rights. Nothing else will do.
community service. In my own community, Ismaili Canadians sponsor Scouts, Guides, Citizenship Courts and Blood Donor Clinics. Yesterday's Partnership Walk for Third World Development is another demonstration of the outstanding example they are setting for all Canadians to follow.

[ Translation]



FREE TRADE-JOBS-WOMEN-NEED FOR GOVERNMENT TO ACT

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr Speaker, we learned last week that the free trade negotiations had broken off or had been interrupted. In any case, they are now in an impasse, but every cloud has a silver lining, and I would like to explain what I mean.
Many seamstresses in the hosiery and leather industries heaved a sigh of relief because free trade would mean bad news for a large number of them: job losses, relocation of families, and so on. If the negotiations resume, more serious thought should be given to jobs for women under a free trade agreement. I know that many will object that the good of the country must come before anything else. However, I am indeed thinking of the good of the country since 52 per cent of Canadians are women who want equality at home and at work. Instead of giving us only rhetoric, the Government should take more positive action in the framework of free trade, including for women.
* *
*



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure along with 2,000 others of participating in the Partnership Walk for Third World Development which was held in Taylor Creek Park in my riding. This walk, as well as the similar walks held in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Montreal, was sponsored by the Aga Khan Foundation of Canada to increase awareness of international development among Canadians and to raise money to assist people in developing countries. The contributions are matched by CIDA, and in the case of Alberta residents, by Alberta Aid.
Foundation was established by His Highness the Aga Khan, spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslims. There are approximately 15,000 Canadian Ismailis in the greater Toronto area.
Since coming to Canada a few short years ago, the Ismailis have made their mark in the professions, in business, and in



FREE TRADE-POSITION OF SOCIALIST PARTY LEADER

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr Speaker, if I may, I would like to quote the words of the leader of the Socialist Party as reported on page 9346 of Hansard for September 25, 1987:
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to move the ajournment of the House.
Why? To discuss free trade.
Here is a second quote from the Socialist Leader, as reported on page 9232 of Hansard for September 23, 1987:
Would the Prime Minister now tell the Americans that those talks are now ended, finished?
On the next page, we find the folic wing:
We want these talks-
-on free trade-
-terminated.
Why? To stop discussing free trade, Mr. Speaker.
September 28, 1987

This is a simple, clear and recent example of the inconsistency, confusion and lack of intellectual rigour of the Socialist Leader.
Canadians must realize that, once again, the Socialist Leader does not know where he is going or even where he is.
If Canadians want to see what makes a good party leader, they will not find it by looking at the Socialist Leader.



LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker:
It is a great principle of public administration-I could even say an imperative-that to function effectively the Government and the public service of a democracy must have the trust and confidence of the public they serve.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) on September 9, 1985. In his open letter, he tabled a seven-point public sector ethics package which included instructions to "prepare on an urgent basis, legislation to govern lobbying activity". Over two years later we have yet to see action on public service sector ethics. Bill C-82 on lobbying has not yet been introduced for second reading and the Government has shown no sign of either introducing other public sector ethics legislation or in displaying public sector ethics.
We still face the spectre of continuous scandals-the Grossmann affair, questionable public works leasing arrangements and now the Memotec insider trading scandal-where an unending stream of Tory cronies and cohorts use public connections for private gain. Public confidence in our political system is plummeting as a result. I, therefore, call upon the Government to bring forth Bill C-82 from where it is hiding, and other aspects of the Government's ethics package right now.



POLICE AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was privileged yesterday, together with the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher), members of the House of Commons Security Staff, members of the RCMP, members of the City of Nepean and City of Ottawa Police Forces, and others, to
attend the 10th Memorial Service on Parliament Hill to pay homage to the police and protective officers who have given their lives to protect the lives and rights of fellow Canadians, your neighbours and mine.
In 1984 a Memorial Book of Remembrance for police and correctional officers who were killed in the performance of their duties was unveiled on Parliament Hill. Yesterday the names of four officers who gave their lives as a result of violent criminal action in the past year were added. They are Agent Robert Baril, Montreal Urban Community Police, November 13, 1986, 42 years of age; Gordon Kowalcyzk, Special Constable, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Calgary, January 26, 1987, 35 years of age; Sergeant Larry Young, Vancouver Police Force, February 2, 1987, 42 years of age, and Constable Emmanuel Aucoin, New Brunswick Highway Patrol, March 8, 1987, 31 years of age.
Many others have died in the performance of their duty in highway accidents or by other means. Their sacrifice is no less meaningful, their loss no less painful, and their contribution to the quality of life in Canada no less appreciated.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, for the past two months Albertans in Canmore and Exshaw have been outraged by a large brown streak of sewage debris in the normally sparkling blue-green waters of the Bow River. In September, bacterial levels near Exshaw reached 700 parts per million, three and one-half times the allowable level in Alberta. The source of pollution is the sewage treatment plant in Banff.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) should be reminded that as Mayor of Banff he is responsible for the operation of the treatment plant. Canmore's town manager, Frank Kosa, sums it up by saying: "Tom McMillan makes a big deal of protecting the ozone layer and he won't even clean up his own backyard".
And what about the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)? Where is he when it comes to protecting the health of his constituents? We have not heard from him on the pollution of the Bow River-perhaps he drank the water.
Pollution of the Bow River is a national disgrace. It enlightens Canadians as to the Government's commitment to water protection.

September 28, 1987
[ Translation]



THE CONSTITUTION


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Slowly but surely, Mr. Speaker, we are definitely paving the way for Quebec's return, together with its constitutional rights, to the Canadian fold. The Saskatchewan and Quebec legislatures have already declared their support.
As the House is to begin in a matter of hours the debate on the Meech Lake Accord, once more I want to state emphatically that I wish to see this Accord ratified as soon as possible.
Irrespective of our political allegiance, we, as Members of the House, must vote as one in favour of Quebec's return to the Canadian family. We must say so in so many words. Of course, the interest of Quebecers is at stake, something I am well aware of as a Quebec elected representative, but the interest of Canada as a whole is also at stake.
I therefore urge all elected Members of this House and all Senators who also will have to ratify this Accord, to respect the will of the people and to vote unanimously in favour of Quebec's return to the Canadian constitutional fold.
The Meech Lake Accord is a major step towards national reconciliation, and as was pointed out by Pierre Tremblay in his column in today's Le Devoir newspaper, "gone are the days of confrontation, now is the time for reconciliation and realism. The Meech-Langevin philosophy is a scenario for peace, whereas Trudeau's credo was to stir up war".
This House and the provincial legislatures which have not yet ratified the Meech Lake Accord ought to do it without delay: it is in the interests of all Canadian men and women.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence Seaway work stoppages commenced today with the withdrawal of services by engineers. This is an indication that the two parties were unable to achieve an agreement acceptable to both sides.
We on this side of the House hope that the two sides will get back to the bargaining table to hammer out an agreement. We ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to provide any assistance his Department can provide to ensure that a new collective agreement is negotiated.
We are also concerned about the growing trend across the country which insists that workers accept roll-back settlements even when there are profits. We believe that it is time for a
statement by the Government to indicate that a person who has been working for a certain wage for a certain length of time has a right to expect that type of guarantee of his income. We would like to hear a statement from the Government on this matter.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has recognized the Guelph community as an important centre, if not the most important centre, for agriculture in Canada. By moving components of Agriculture Canada to Guelph the Minister has ensured a new stress on co-operation between the University of Guelph and his own associates.
Today I would like to make another suggestion to the Minister. That suggestion concerns the moving to Guelph of the Food Research Institute in order that it can co-operate more fully with industry in southern Ontario and with departments at the University of Guelph which have considerable strength in such areas as food science, animal science, nutrition, food processing, food engineering, and other areas.
Such a co-operative effort could not fail to benefit the food industry of Canada and the agricultural community in general.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology made what I would describe as an admission of ineffectiveness and incompetence on the part of his government. As reported in the La Presse newspaper, he indicated that he would have to make a clean sweep of all the efforts made before by the Department of Regional Economic Development. In other words, he blamed his two predecessors implying that these ministers did not know what they were doing and had failed to properly administer the Department. As a matter of fact, the new minister indicated that he would have to set the Department's budget in order.
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unusual to hear, three years after this government assumed power, a minister step forward and recognize the incompetence of his own government.
It was pretty obvious Mr. Speaker, on the basis of its actions day after day, that this government had no overall policy
September 28, 1987

concerning regional and industrial development. However, I am quite sure the Canadian people will not appreciate the fact that it took the government three years to realize its lack of policy.
Therefore, I trust that the minister, who wants now to be known as the new prophet of regional economic development, will be able to come up with a new policy before the next election; afterwards would be too late; meanwhile, they would have lost both time and money.
*
* *



HOUSING


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the rise in the cost of living in Canada has not affected all those Canadians whose salaries or wages have kept up to or exceeded the rise in the consumer price index. Parliament must focus more attention on those who are well below, especially when we consider the increasing significance of the price of principal accommodation.
In 1980 it was rising at a rate much more slowly than the cost of food. In 1987 it is rising at a rate that is much faster. During that period of time the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Metro Toronto has gone up more than 50 per cent. It is becoming a critical challenge to many people whose incomes are so low that they must spend 40 per cent or more of their income to pay for minimal accommodation in a basement apartment.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my questions to the Prime Minister.
Last Friday in the House in answer to a question, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, " ... if there were ever to be any meeting on a higher level, it would occur only after a change in the United States position".
Yesterday on television we had the chief Canadian negotiator pro tern, Simon Reisman, say, "I have seen nothing in the suggestions put forward by the United States to change in any
Oral Questions
significant way the impasse and difficulties that we encountered last week".
My question to the Prime Minister is this. If the Government of Canada was only going to respond to a major change-and Mr. Reisman states there has been no major change-why have we sent a high-level delegation, headed by Mr. Burney, together with two of his assistants, to Washington to start negotiating a new deal?
Has there been a major change in the American position, or is it truer that the only change in position is the one that is taking place by the Canadian Government?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, following the interview that was given Sunday morning by Ambassador Reisman there were communications throughout the day. Ambassador Reisman was quite correct and entirely consistent in saying what he did when he did. There were further communications from the Government of the United States which the Government determined met the criteria as set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Friday, as a result of which the meeting is taking place just about now.


UNITED STATES POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister then saying that the United States Government is now prepared to make major changes on the question of the dispute settlement mechanism, and the major exclusion of programs like cultural industries and regional development?
Can we receive an assurance from the Prime Minister that the concessions are on the American side and not, as suggested on Friday, that Canada was also prepared to make changes dealing with the dispute settlement mechanism and to water down that program? Is it only the Americans who are making the changes at this point in time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is inaccurate in his characterization of what is taking place. The statement that was issued is fairly clear cut. Communications between the two Governments were continuing during the weekend. As a result of these exchanges, it was agreed that senior political representatives of the two Governments would meet on Monday, September 28, on this matter.
I think my hon. friend can safely conclude that the information that came from Washington was enough to justify the presence of representatives of the Government of Canada to see if there were adequate reasons for resuming formal negotiations.

September 28, 1987
Ora1 Questions


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I believe he would agree that over the last three or four days the primary source of information has been a form of sidewalk soliloquy by his press secretary and not information which has been given in the House of Commons.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether we can get assurances from him that he would be prepared to table the documents which changed hands this week between United States and Canadian officials and that tomorrow in the House, when his Principal Secretary returns from Washington, the Prime Minister or one of his Ministers will make a statement clearly outlining what is the present state of action in the negotiations, whether they will be resumed, what position the Canadian Government is taking in responding to those actions, and what concessions have been made on both sides.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with all the respect that 1 have for my own Director of Communications, Mr. Phillips, he has not been the primary source of information in this regard. He has been there to be helpful to the media in responding to their concerns.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister for International Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister, and I have been fully responding to inquiries all last week with regard to this. We have been forthcoming in providing my hon. friend, plus all Members of the House, with all relevant information.
My hon. friend knows full well that 1 have indicated many times that we will provide, at an appropriate time, all the information that he would wish upon which to make an appropriate value judgment.
At the moment there are discussions ongoing in Washington, and I know that he would want to do nothing that would compromise the possible success of those discussions.


PURPOSE OF DELEGATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister is unwilling to give us any real information on why this meeting involving hjs Chief of Staff and two of his Ministers is taking place, and in view of the fact that last week the Government not only suspended the free trade talks with the United States but said that Canada would not go back and that instead the United States had to come to Canada, isn't the only conclusion Canadians can draw from what is happening that the American Ministers are going to be receiving Canadian Ministers and Derek Burney who are coming to Washington with a view to doing nothing else but caving in and giving in to the Americans on their essential demands?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Isn't this the only reasonable conclusion that Canadians can draw from this strange spectacle which the Canadian Government is staging?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the Ministers "coming to Washington". In point of fact the Minister of Finance, the most senior Minister of the Government, has been in Washington for the last number of days-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Poor Maz.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In view of the indications that have been forthcoming-


An Hon. Member:: You are not senior any more, Maz.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my hon. friends would like the answer-in view of the indications that have been forthcoming from the Americans, it was deemed appropriate to ask the Minister of Finance to remain there to listen to their point of view.
The Minister for International Trade is there and the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, and I would not think that my hon. friend would find anything untoward in our responding to an action by the Government of the United States which may prove helpful at this time.


POSITION OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, wasn't the only action by the Government of the United States a two-page letter it sent late last week to Ottawa and which Simon Reisman said, after seeing it, was totally unacceptable because it did not represent any change whatsoever from the position the Americans were taking which led to the free trade talks being suspended?
If that is the case, I want to ask the Prime Minister, whether or not the Minister of Finance was already in Washington- and he was there for the IMF meetings and nothing else-isn't the fact of the matter that the Canadian Government took an initiative, which it said it was not going to take, to crawl to the Americans to get the talks started in a desperate effort to restore the remaining shreds of credibility of the Prime Minister on this failed, useless, and harmful free trade initiative.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we all know of the Hon. Member's deep antipathy for the United States of America. We all know of the anti-Americanism that permeates every statement the officials of the Liberal Party make. That is not the intention of this Government. That is not the true feelings of the people of Canada.
We are not negotiating with the people of the United States as we would negotiate, as he would suggest, with a hostile foreign power. We are negotiating on a country to country,
September 28, 1987

sovereign to sovereign basis, attempting to conclude what we believe is an important international initiative in trade.
The statement made by my hon. friend is quite wrong. There were many other discussions and communications over the weekend from the United States of America, no doubt inspired, for example, by a sentiment expressed by the spokesman for the President of the United States, Mr. Fitzwater, who said that the President is very anxious that those negotiations continue and hopefully reach a conclusion. It is because of that view that initiatives were undertaken by the Government of the United States which allowed the Government of Canada to meet with the Americans at this time. We believe it is very much in the national interest to attempt this kind of meeting and I hope my hon. friend will ultimately agree.


INQUIRY WHO SUGGESTED MEETING IN WASHINGTON
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, uncertainty still prevails in connection with the free trade discussions. Can the Prime Minister simply say who suggested holding this meeting in Washington today? The Canadians or the Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 already answered this question barely a few minutes ago. I went to the trouble of recalling the statements made last week by various Ministers, and in answer to a question from my friend the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor I just pointed out that there have been rather constant communications throughout the weekend. The Canadian Government has not changed its mind and came to the conclusion that President Reagan's attitude was serious enough to justify holding a meeting today. It seems quite normal to me that we should take this kind of approach.


INFORMATION RECEIVED BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Prime Minister has still not directly told us who made the suggestion, who suggested the initiative and who took that initiative. Since the Prime Minister has talked about it in his earlier answers, 1 would like to ask him precisely what information reached the Canadian Government which was so striking, so much of a change, that it led to a reversal of the very strong negative position Mr. Reisman had expressed with respect to the United States' letter which had been sent on Saturday. What information was that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded fully to that question. Now my hon. friend asks, in light of the information I have already provided the House, precisely what information reached the Canadian Government. If I provided him with that specific information, I would be as bad a negotiator as he obviously is.
Oral Questions UNITED STATES POSITION


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact it would give the Prime Minister a last chance to take Canadians into the confidence of the Government and to explain what is taking place in these negotiations. Since so much else has changed this weekend, I would ask the Prime Minister if he will make it clear once again that the Government will not start up negotiations once more unless the Americans indicate poitit blank and beforehand that there will be concessions made on their side, not on our side.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend would not ask anyone to take him seriously when he talks about an absence of consultation and says we have not taken people into our confidence. He is nodding in support of his own statement.
I wrote down where he requested an opportunity to be taken into our confidence. In point of fact, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville specifically asked for a confidential briefing on this matter. The Government responded that we were ready to take the NDP fully into our confidence and the NDP turned us down because they do not want to know the truth.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On February 12 the Minister informed the House that his Department had started an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Memotec stock issue. Seven and a half months have passed. In the meantime the Quebec Securities Commission decided to do something. That is very important, but does the Minister not think it would be time to let us in on the results of his inquiry?
Are we to expect a report soon? Is the work nearing completion? When are we going to have a report and, when it is completed, will the Minister table it in the House of Commons?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Director has indeed been conducting an investigation under the Canada Business Corporations Act in co-operation with the Quebec Securities Commission and the Ontario Securities Commission. In view of the fact charges were laid by the QSC, I asked him this morning to expedite the investigation and bring it to a completion as soon as possible. I asked my Deputy Minister to ensure that the Director has all the necessary resources. Yes, indeed, I am

September 28, 1987
Oral Questions
prepared to table his report in the House of Commons when it is ready.


OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. An inquiry was launched by the federal Government as early as last February. Quebec authorities have now made their inquiry and charges have been laid. Does not all this warrant shedding light on the matter, that a public inquiry be conducted so Canadians may know exactly what happened in this case?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should bring to the attention of the Hon. Member the words of Marc Barrierre, a spokesman for the QSC, who said, speaking of the persons charged: "They are charged with knowing that Memotec had bid on Teleglobe and benefiting from this knowledge. The charges do not concern the decision by the Government to sell Teleglobe to Memotec."
The reality is that the QSC acted on what they think is a violation of the Quebec Securities Act. We are investigating to see whether there have been any violations of the Canada Business Corporations Act. As I just indicated, I asked the Director to expedite his investigation so I can table his report in the House as soon as possible.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION-DIRECTOR'S RESIGNATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with the same issue. The Prime Minister knows that Peter Blaikie, the former national President of the Conservative Party of Canada, was one of those charged with insider trading. He also-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know where the Hon. Member's question is leading. As a consequence, I had to interrupt before he could perhaps get back on the fine line of appropriate questions in this matter. Hon. Members should be very careful to restrict their questions on this matter to those areas of ministerial responsibility. I have to say that the questions of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques were excellent and appropriate. I ask the same co-operation from other Members.
This is a serious matter but this is not the place to try anyone. It is the place to ask Ministers what they did or did not do or what they knew or did not know about those matters within their area of responsibility. Provided questions are along that line the Chair will of course allow them. The Hon. Member is very experienced and I know he will co-operate with the Chair.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Blaikie resigned on Friday as a member of the board of directors of the Canada
Development Investment Corporation, which, amongst other things, advises the Government on privatization, has the time not come for tougher guidelines concerning government appointments to boards, commissions, agencies and the like?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the appointment to the board of CDIC was made very recently. Mr. Blaikie offered his resignation and I accepted it on behalf of the Government, subject to Order in Council routine. I do not believe there is any need for an investigation. The investigation now under way by the QSC will determine the outcome of the charges. People have been charged; people have not been convicted.


PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS-REQUEST FOR STRICTER GUIDELINES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Prime Minister. On September 9, 1985, he wrote an open letter to all Members of Parliament and Senators on ethics in public service and public appointments and so on. When is he going to act on some of the recommendations he made? In particular, does he think the time has come for tougher guidelines on government appointments as well as things like patronage and lobbying?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to the fact that the guidelines were addressed to MPs and Senators. If he is suggesting that in this particular case-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The letter was.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The letter. If he is suggesting in this particular case involving Mr. Blaikie that there has been a violation by an MP or Senator, perhaps he ought to say so.
With regard to the allegation, Mr. Blaikie is a distinguished member of the Quebec Bar and I suppose my hon. friend would agree, I hope he would, that Mr. Blaikie, along with other Canadians, benefits from the presumption of innocence.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week, his Minister responsible for Regional Industrial Expansion and Science and Technology stated that Canada had no strategy for industrial development and thus acknowleged the helplessness and incompetence of the Conservative Government after having been in power for three years. During the weekend, the Minister responsible for Regional Economic Expansion in Quebec, Mr. Marc-Yvan Cote, while in attendance at the convention held by the Union of Regional Municipalities asked that the federal Government put its house in order and provide
September 28, 1987

a program which will really help the underdeveloped regions of Quebec. Will the Prime Minister tell us that after being inactive for three years his Government is without any policy on regional development and whether he will heed the provincial minister's suggestion and put its house in order?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should point out to my colleague . . . that 1 can also read newspapers. We inherited rather disastrous conditions. There had been no policy for regional expansion for 25 years. During that period, the Government was unable to reduce regional disparities throughout the country. This Government has taken several major steps. I mean more especially the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the setting up of a special expansion program for Northern Ontario and the establishment of a diversification office in Western Canada. We have taken a new approach to economic expansion, and to industrial expansion, as well as a new approach combining the very important activities related to science and technology to enable us to be more competitive in a world where the high technology sector is continuously changing.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DECIDE IN FAVOUR OF MONTREAL
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, if only this Government were that active! My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Minister in the same interview stated that indeed the Montreal Space Agency was on the Prime Minister's desk, and all it was waiting for was a personal decision from the latter.
The Prime Minister himself stated over the weekend that he had not taken any decision because of a very heavy schedule.
Here is my question to the Prime Minister: Could he take a few minutes this afternoon, go through the file and decide in favour of Montreal for the Space Agency?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would first point out to my hon. colleague that over these last three years, we have not been inactive as regards industrial development. We created hundreds and hundreds of jobs, contrary to the previous Government.
Speaking about a decision, why are you bent on killing Bill C-22? Why are you bent on preventing Canada from developing that area, from developing that high technology, which could create thousands of jobs?
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. The Minister will be aware that a number of representatives of organizations representing ordinary Canadians held a press conference today to indicate that in their view the Government's plans for the Post Office will result in a reduction in service. They had received post cards from tens of thousands of Canadians across the country.
What has the Minister to say to these ordinary Canadians who are protesting the fact that the Government's plans for the Post Office will result in a reduction of service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I understand the ordinary Canadians included J. C. Parrot and the Member for Winnipeg North Centre and a couple of his colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Watch it, Harvie, you're going to screw up.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps we have different definitions of "service". By "improved service" we mean getting the mail delivered reliably, early, and in a fiscally responsible way. That is what the Post Office is trying to do and the Government is encouraging it in its efforts.


WOMEN-POSITION OF MINISTER
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary Canadians have included the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, The National Antipoverty Organization, and the signatures of tens of thousands of ordinary Canadians in eleven mailbags. What did the Minister tell the women who understand services curtailment also entails a salary cut for postmasters?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there were several random and inaccurate thoughts in that statement. I will repeat that the corporate plan of the Post Office calls for the opening of 6,000 new postal outlets so that people will have services closer to where they usually shop and to where they live. The plan calls for independent auditors to provide independent verification that the mail is being delivered within the specified time, which may be two days or three days depending on its class and the distance involved.
We are trying to do that so that the price of stamps will remain within the reach of the famous ordinary Canadians the

September 28, 1987
Oral Questions
NDP now purports to represent. The NDP seems to be supporting policies which would result in Canadians having to pay 60 or 70 cents for the delivery of a letter.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Canadians are dismayed at the lack of progress on the acid rain front. In 1985 the Prime Minister lost one year waiting for the acid rain Envoys' Report. In 1986 he gave Washington the wrong signal by agreeing to five years of coal technology research and demonstration. This year in this Chamber the Prime Minister enthusiastically applauded President Reagan when he committed himself merely to consider the possibility of an acid rain treaty.
Now that the Government is awakening to the realities of Canada-U.S. relations, will the Prime Minister find the courage to total up the damage to Canadian buildings, to forestry and agriculture, to our maple syrup producers, and to human health, and present a bill to President Reagan for the damages inflicted on Canada, as we did as a result of satellite debris falling in northern Canada some years ago?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Consider it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says "consider it". Canadians did consider the fact that the inaction over many years in the area of the environment, particularly acid rain, was something for which they paid a heavy price. If my hon. friend, who seeks a non-partisan level, is critical of us, I think he would agree that his record as a former Minister of the Environment is substantially less than sterling in terms of his accomplishments with regard to abating acid rain.
My hon. friend is aware of the progress made in this area by the Minister of the Environment, most recently in ozone protection. He is aware of the advancements which the Minister of the Environment has made with South Moresby National Park. He is aware of the advances made by the Minister in introducing an Environmental Protection Act. I think he is aware of substantial accomplishment by the Minister of the Environment and I hope that at the appropriate time he will celebrate that accomplishment as well.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Canadians will be comforted by that decisive answer by the Prime Minister and his acceptance of his responsibility with regard to acid rain.


ACID RAIN-DAMAGES SUFFERED BY MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS-POSSIBILITY OF COMPENSATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, here is my question: Is at least the Prime Minister ready to bill Washington for the damages done to Quebec maple syrup producers, who have complained about the damage done by acid rain and are claiming a $1 million compensation for damages due to the acidity caused by the Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping in close touch with Quebec producers in that industry and are trying to get justice for them by the most legitimate and efficient means. I think my honourable friend will agree that when he was Minister of the Environment, he did absolutely nothing for years, so I think one might suggest he is not serious when pointing out the consequences of his own failures.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Minister for External Relations. Two weeks ago I asked whether consular access had been provided for our High Commission in New Delhi to Daljit Singh, a Canadian arrested in the Punjab.
Since India is obliged to provide Canada consular access to Mr. Singh under the Vienna Convention, can the Minister assure the House that consular access has now been provided and that our officials have verified that Mr. Singh did not suffer any physical abuse while in police custody?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and to reassure him that the High Commission in New Delhi has been advised by the Indian authorities that consular access has been authorised for Mr. Singh. An official of our High Commission will now be in the Punjab to meet Mr. Singh.
September 28, 1987


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On Friday 1 met in British Columbia with representatives of the Carpenters' Union who are deeply concerned and angered by CSIS involvement in the internal affairs of their union. Would the Minister explain to the House why an agent of CSIS met with members of the Carpenters' Union seeking to oust the incumbent executive during their 1985 elections? Will the Minister agree to the request of the union executive to meet with their officials to explain this very serious abuse of the powers of CSIS?
[DOT] (M50)


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, there was correspondence between my predecessor, the Minister of National Defence, the then Solicitor General, and Mr. Zander, president of the union, back in 1986. The then Solicitor General wrote to Mr. Zander on May 2, 1986, and I quote from that letter: "Concerning union members of Local 452 meeting with an employee of CSIS, I am able to assure you that such contact was voluntary on their part. CSIS committed no improprieties in relation to the internal affairs of this union and has no interest in legitimate union activities".


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, all that letter says is that there was not a gun held to the heads of the members of the union, who in fact were seeking to oust the incumbent executive.


PRESENCE OF CSIS IN TRADE UNIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a confidential document of the CSIS indicating that the secret service hired in Montreal a regional co-ordinator for information on subversive activities in labour unions. Can the Minister tell us the specific duties of this position, whether this agent co-ordinates sources in the CEQ, the CSN or other Quebec unions, and whether the Minister will finally order a parliamentary inquiry into these very serious matters? What are the duties of this agent who is working within the labour movement in Quebec?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have advised the Hon. Member in the House on many occasions, CSIS has no authority under the Act to investigate labour unions because they are labour unions. It does have the right to investigate anyone who is considered a threat to the security of Canada.
Because of allegations of this nature that were raised earlier in the year, I acted very promptly. In June of this year I asked
Oral Questions
the Inspector General to commence his investigations as provided for under the Act. The Security Intelligence Review Committee agreed to undertake an investigation in July. In addition, I have asked the Osbaldeston committee to take a look at this whole matter.
In addition to that, I would remind the Hon. Member that Section 41 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act provides that people who have concerns about improper investigations under the Act have the right to go to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and ask for an investigation. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that that is what they should do-follow the safeguards that Parliament has provided under the Act.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns once more the Inter Gestion GD matter. The affidavit filed before the courts by the RCMP alleges that there was a meeting between the former Minister of Public Works and a Metropolitan official in June 1985, 19 months before the Minister resigned.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House at what exact moment he was informed of this matter and whether this was a factor in the resignation of the Minister from Cabinet?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been dealt with in the House by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice. 1 have nothing further to add to the answers provided by the Minister of Justice on two occasions last week.


Don Boudria: It is interesting to see that the Government has nothing to say on this issue.


JOLIETTE AIRPORT CONTRACT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport. Again it concerns the Inter Gestion GD. Given that Inter Gestion GD is only listed with the Government as having expertise in the area of conferences and conventions, will the Minister explain why this company received a $75,000 contract for a feasibility study of an airport in Joliette, to do such things as prepare a preliminary design, cost estimate, and conduct an environmental impact study of an airport?

September 28, 1987
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants an answer to that he will have to ask the City of Joliette. It is my understanding that it was they who contracted with the individual involved.
In terms of the qualifications, the Hon. Member may want to correspond directly with the City of Joliette.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Late last week the National Energy Board refused the application made by the Manitoba Government to force TransCanada PipeLines to carry natural grass-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He said natural.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The decision by the National Energy Board means that Manitoba consumers will be paying much more than they should for natural gas. The concern of the people of Manitoba is that they are not getting the benefits of deregulation. What will the federal Government do to ensure that the consumers of Manitoba will be paying less for natural gas?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is quite aware that the National Energy Board is a quasi-judicial body that renders decisions from time to time with respect to energy. It has rendered a decision in this case.
There is a involved, and if any party wishes to appeal or wishes to register a differing point of view, a mechanism is in place for that to happen.
In light of the circumstances and the fact that contracts have to be observed-I think that was essentially the finding- I hope that the two jurisdictions, the Province of Alberta and the Province of Manitoba, can get together to resolve this matter in an amicable way.


NEGOTIATION OF PRICE BY LARGE CORPORATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, considering that natural gas deregulation was sold to the House of Commons and the people of Canada on the basis that it would benefit the small consumer, why is it possible for large consumers and large corporations to negotiate lower prices while it is not possible for the people of Manitoba to negotiate lower prices?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the Hon. Member is suggesting that contracts should be broken. A contract is a contract. I believe that is the principle the National Energy Board upheld.
The fact of the matter is that under the deregulation of natural gas prices there has been a general reduction in the price of natural gas. He should not lose sight of that.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to whatever Minister may be answering for the Minister of the Environment. Dioxin, which has been found in paper products in the United States, I understand is formed through the chlorine bleaching process that is used by American and Canadian paper mills. Bearing in mind the danger of dioxin, will the Minister give his undertaking that the Government will require Canadian paper producers to switch from the dioxin producing chlorine bleaching process to the safer oxygen bleaching process that is used by European paper mills?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is doing a detailed assessment of the health hazards related to dioxin. We will give those findings to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We are also working with Environment Canada.
I want to make one other point to the Hon. Member, concerning changing from the chlorine bleaching system to the oxygen system. There are certain studies that would indicate that it does not necessarily have the same efficacious health results as some people are putting forward. However, we are looking at the entire question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that several weeks ago a meat inspection stamp was lost at the J. M. Schneider plant in Kitchener. This, along with the general transfer of inspection responsibilities from inspectors to the company itself, could represent a threat to Canada's enviable reputation for meat inspection. What action is the Government
September 28, 1987

taking to ensure that this stamp is not being improperly used and that the integrity of the system will be maintained?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we did some checking, but not concerning the loss of this stamp. It was misplaced, we immediately took the measures required to locate it, and this has been done. We follow this kind of incident very closely to prevent abuses. I want to assure the House that we will do everything possible to avoid similar occurrences in the future, even if that means calling in the police or taking any other such measure.


REDUCED NUMBER OF INSPECTORS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would be ready to admit today that the cut-back in the number of inspectors is having an adverse impact on the integrity of the system. For instance, we are told that in some poultry plants the number of inspectors will be reduced to 85 per cent starting in the next month. Could the Minister explain to Canadians how, by reducing the number of inspectors in some of these poultry plants and changing to the American streamlined system, we can have as good a quality of inspection?


Pierre Blais: In my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, Canada would be justified to boast having one of the world's best-if not the world's best- inspection system in this sector where we have always taken measures to rank among the best. The mere fact that a stamp might be misplaced in a plant-and found the following day- does not justify questioning the soundness of a whole inspection system. We hired inspectors when there were staff shortages, and the House can rest assured that we will maintain our high standards in that sector and monitor this kind of incidents very closely.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Will he confirm that the Indian Government and/or Air-India
Oral Questions
requested bomb-sniffing dogs to protect its flights from Canada to India seven months prior to the Air-India crash? If it is true that they did ask and the Government of Canada did say no, will the Minister explain to the Canadian people why the Government did not provide that protection?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that Air-India did make a request that all bags be checked by dogs. It was not acted upon because it was decided X-ray equipment would be used to screen the bags and also because of the fact that, through discussions with Air-India, it was proposed they would use a mechanical sniffer.
I should also point out that dogs are used from time to time when there is a specific threat on a specific flight. In this particular case, because there was not a specific threat, those precautions were not taken.


GOVERNMENT SECURITY MEASURES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that not all the bags that were processed for Air-India flights over that period of time were in fact X-rayed or properly inspected. Would he now indicate to the House exactly what steps were taken, after hearing the request from Air-India, both for increased surveillance and the possibility of bomb threats? What steps did the Government of Canada, through the Department of Transport, CSIS, the RCMP, or whatever, take to ensure the protection of the people on those flights?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not say what the Hon. Member said I said. I tried to answer the question on the basis of the information which was provided to me. With regard to the specific flight, as has been indicated on many occasions in this House, there had been a request for additional security for all Air-India flights. That additional security was provided. That has been alluded to both in the CASB report and, indeed, the judicial inquiry by the Indian Government. It indicated that they had requested the additional security measures and that they were provided.
In addition to that, they did provide, on a regular basis and particularly in the case of Flight 182, for the attendance of a security supervisor who was flown in from New York. He works for Air-India and he supervised the whole operation. Really, in essence what I am saying to the House is that the requests that were made in terms of a general beefed-up surveillance that was required were in fact responded to by the Canadians.

September 28, 1987
Privilege-Ms. McDonald PRIVILEGE


ALLEGED MISLEADING INFORMATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last 1 raised a question with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) concerning leaked documents showing the presence of dioxin in ordinary paper products. The Minister in response to my question as to what he was doing to investigate and to ensure that Canadians were not being exposed to dioxins through their paper products replied that he had no such responsibility. He said:
I have to inform the Hon. Member that under the Hazardous Products Act, as passed by Parliament, it is not legally my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare-
He said further:
I will send the Hon. Member a copy of the Act and perhaps over the weekend she can read it and acquaint herself with Canadian law.
He did not send me a copy of the Act, incidentally, but that is not my complaint today.
The Minister said further:
Perhaps the NDP do not feel that the legal niceties need be obeyed as long as they have pronounced on it.
He also made a very mysterious statement. He said:
Under the Hazardous Products Act, we have the responsibility of making sure that hazardous products are identified, but not identifying what is or is not hazardous. That would fall under the Department of National Health and Welfare-
His first three statements are very clear. He does not have, in his view, any legal responsibility to act. However, if we actually look at the Act, and 1 have re-read it, we see it says in Section 8(1):
The Governor in Council may by order amend Part I or Part II of the schedule by adding thereto
(a) any product or substance that is or contains a poisonous, toxic,
inflammable, explosive or corrosive product or substance-that-is or is
likely to be a danger to the health or safety of the public.
Clearly dioxin, as the most toxic substance we have, qualifies and one might think it would be worthy of investigation if indeed the reports are true that there is dioxin in paper products.
Section 6(5) of the Act further states that an order amending Part I of the schedule may be made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The definition section clearly states that "the Minister" means the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It further says that where the Minister has reason to believe that a product, material or substance is a product, material or substance that may be added to Part I or II of schedule I by an order made pursuant to subsection 6(1), the Minister may request information as the Minister deems necessary for the purpose of determining whether the product, material or substance is or is likely to be a danger to the health or safety of the public.
Again it is clear that "the Minister" means the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister has enormous discretion. He may or may not act. He may choose to abrogate his responsibilities. He may choose not to act. However, I submit that there is no evidence in the Act that he is forbidden by Parliament to act in this area and I think his statement has been misleading.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member can assist the Chair. First, I think as Hon. Members know, the Chair has always had a very great concern about environmental matters and a great deal of latitude is sometimes allowed on those questions a latitude which some other Members might think is perhaps overly generous. However, I am having difficulty seeing how the Hon. Member's rights or privileges or her capacity to carry on her duties as a Member of Parliament have been affected by the answer of the Hon. Minister.
The Hon. Member may be absolutely correct when she suggests to the Chair that the Hon. Minister perhaps ought to have read the Act himself. However, that does not seem to me to be a question of privilege. I am having some difficulty in understanding exactly what the Hon. Member's point is.


Lynn McDonald: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, my point is that the Minister has certainly been misleading to the House. He has made a false statement. He has also suggested that I am unwilling to obey the law. He said: "Perhaps the NDP do not feel that the legal niceties need be obeyed". He suggested that I have never read the Act. He is certainly reflecting on my capacity as a Member of Parliament, a critic in this area. It is quite clear that this is a misleading statement. I think that if he is not prepared to withdraw it, he has infringed upon my privileges as a Member of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the Minister to make an intervention?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of your comments and in view of the comments of the Hon. Member I do not think it is necessary to make any submissions.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to what the Hon. Member has said. I will examine the comments as they are presented in Hansard.
The Hon. Member certainly has a complaint. I am not completely satisfied at this point that it amounts to a question of privilege. As I said, I will give the Hon. Member the courtesy of reading Hansard.
Because Hon. Members sometimes have some difficulty with the distinction between a complaint and a question of privilege, as also does the public sometimes, I wish to point out that there are many things said in this place by both sides that are not agreed with by the other side. Sometimes things are said by members of the Opposition, and sometimes there are
September 28, 1987

replies by Ministers, which are misleading, in the sense that they may or may not be absolutely accurate. Of course, what is the forbidden thing is to intentionally mislead. I suppose that often in the heat of debate things are said which may mislead a little bit but which are not necessarily intended to mislead. That of course is what I would have to look at very carefully in the comments made by the Minister, and I will do so.
I wish to say to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) that the substance of the matter raised is of importance and the Chair will look carefully at the matter and report back to the Chamber.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) had the floor.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was speaking on the safe country concept. I was beginning to address what is a safe country and to perhaps press upon the Government the need for a better and clarified definition.
We put to the Government on many occasions practical examples with respect to whether or not the United States of America can be considered such a candidate for inclusion on such a list given its record of refugees coming from Central America who are subsequently deported from the United States. We asked with respect to Salvadorans and Guatemalans whether or not the United States can be considered to be a safe country. We also set out Great Britain as an example. From that country a good number of Tamils are deported.
On several occasions the Minister has spoken about guarantees, safeguards and agreements with countries in terms of trying to define precisely our standards and the standard of those candidate countries we would be considering for such a safe country list. Those agreements, safeguards and guarantees have not found their way into the legislation. Therefore the Government has refused not only to define the phrase "safe country", but it has also failed to signal a willingness to enter into an agreement with a country or in fact to define what it means to have a standard that we claim to be safe. It also refused a number of amendments to alter such words as "returning to a safe third country" in exchange for "entry" or "admission" to that country which would more precisely define what it is we mean when we talk about returning to a country,
Immigration Act, 1976
since anyone can return to a country. However, that does not guarantee an individual the right to stay, to enjoy this status, or the right to even enter into the refugee determination system.
A very interesting witness appeared in committee on this subject. He is a lawyer from the New York City area working on behalf of the Committee for Human Rights. His name is Arthur Helton. With respect to the intransigence of a government in terms of not defining what it means by "safe country" and perhaps also answering whether or not the United States of America would be on such a list he said, "I think certainly that the United States does not deserve to be called a safe third country for Salvadorans, Guatemalans or Haitians. I can certainly tell you that if the United States was left off a safe third country list it would cause great embarrassment to authorities in the United States. It would create such enormous diplomatic pressures that the United States authorities would call on the Canadian authorities". He concluded by saying that it is incumbent upon the countries that have traditionally played a leadership role in refugee protection to resist most strongly any efforts to move away from that commitment.
Mr. Helton raises another area of concern. It is that we have the highest political body in the land charged with drafting such a list. The Government reversed a policy of the previous administration by eliminating the B-l list. This is a list of countries to which the Government of Canada said under no circumstances, because of those human rights violations in those lands, would we ever return a refugee to face continued torture or persecution. Not only did it remove the B-l list, which means that anyone can be deported back to any country regardless of human rights violations awaiting those individuals, but it is also prepared to draft a list of countries to which the Government is willing and prepared to send people back with no questions asked and without seeing the guarantees or agreements about which I spoke earlier.
When the highest political body in the land, that is, the federal Cabinet, decides which countries shall be on a safe country list, that Cabinet will of course be subject to great international political and diplomatic pressures. Our concern is that those pressures will be so huge and so powerful they will undermine the individual circumstances that should be addressed in terms of refugee claimants coming to Canada, having a possible safe country concept legislated in response.
The question which we must ask is whether or not some of those countries should be on that list. Or will it be the fact that our allies, our NATO partners or other countries with which we do trade will be on that list despite the fact that they may not merit being so because of their human rights violations? The question to ask is, of course, "What happens to individual refugees who because they come from a safe third country return to that country and we assume, or we would want Canadians to assume, that they are safe when in fact the opposite may be true?"

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
The other matter not answered by the Government is what will happen in the case of an uprising overnight in some corner of the globe. Here is a Cabinet which is in charge of drafting a list. Presumably it is also charged with adding or deleting member countries from that list. But how can a Cabinet react so swiftly and quickly in terms of internal strife in some country which would produce refugees who would come to our country and ask for status and we would check our list and say, "Well, 1 am sorry, the country from which you came is still on the list. We cannot help you". That would not take into account the latest and the most updated scenario in that country which may in fact be legitimate but because they are still on the list the prescreening officers will have to follow our safe country list.
The Cabinet is in charge of the nation's business and it faces domestic pressures. At this time the Cabinet is very much involved with the free trade question and other issues concerning the economy. We might have the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stay away for a period of time so that there would be a delay in terms of reviewing that list. In the meantime, what is the human cost to those individuals who have claimed status and have not been permitted to land here and have their cases considered because they happen to come from a country that is still on the list, but that should not be on the list? Those are practical concerns that must evolve with this policy. Entrusting Cabinet to oversee the drafting of such a list could be a very precarious responsibility indeed.
Therefore, in light of those circumstances, I together with others moved a number of amendments to attempt to overcome this situation. Our first suggestion was that a safe country concept is not necessary. In fact, those people who come to this country and obtain an oral hearing should have the refugee board members determine if their cases are legitimate without playing a game of chess and taking risks with prescreening and the safe country concept.
If the Government wished to insert in the legislation the safe country concept, we suggested that the Cabinet draft a list that would be advisory and not be the letter of the law and written in stone. That list would serve in an advisory capacity to the refugee board members. In that manner, if there was a mistake in the list, or if any changes were needed, then the refugee board members in that division would take it upon themselves to use that as an advisory list and make the required deviances. The Government refused.
We also suggested that the refugee division be empowered to draft such a list regarding the safe country concept. On a day to day basis they handle refugee claimants, they are in touch with the geopolitical situations in other countries, and they are in touch with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the international network. Therefore, there would be the assurance that this list had been devised, drafted, changed, and monitored regularly by people who are in the
business, are knowledgeable, have credibility, and make it their top priority, rather than a Cabinet with a million and one things on the go with this having to wait at the bottom of the list.
Those recommendations were made in an effort to overcome the practical problems envisioned by most organizations when they testified on the safe country concept. All of our efforts were unsuccessful. The Government persisted, it wished to move on the Bill, and it has.
What are the effects of legislating a safe country under the United Nations Convention? Will the United Nations High Commission on Refugees be enamoured with the possibility of Canada enacting safe country legislation, basically washing its hands of its responsibility, and passing the problematic buck to someone else? What message are we sending to the countries where we would be sending those individuals, or the countries that are members of the United Nations Convention when they are being asked to stay the course and make their commitment to refugees and at the same time we are stating in our policy that, if we can, we will send you somewhere else?
The message is not positive. Moreover, it will allow and encourage other countries to do the same thing. Other countries will say if Canada has been a leading authority in the plight of refugees and it can enact safe country legislation, why could we not do it. If Canada does it, perhaps it is the correct thing to do. One can see the cumulative effect of that type of thinking. Virtually every country under the pact, and nonmembers of the Convention, will legislate safe third country and the whole world will be a safe third country. Refugees will bounce between countries, orbit around countries, become more desperate and, therefore, perhaps give more impetus to those consultants, smugglers, abusers, and manipulators among us to take those desperate individuals and attempt to have them come in the back door rather than the front door.
While we do not condone abuse and fraudulent claims, we would prefer to send out the message that, if you have a claim then you have an opportunity to lay that claim fairly and quickly at the front door of this country, rather than locking the front door and encouraging more desperation and having the cumulative effect of people and manipulators spearheading the movement of coming in through the back doors of this country and other countries.
In the long run, having a safe country concept will not do Canada, or our international partners, any favours at all. We would rather pay the price now and have a system that gives people a chance, and which takes away the desperation and the impetus for those people to give $10,000 to $20,000 to a captain of a ship in order that they can be brought to Canada because they perceive no other way of getting recognition as a refugee. We are suggesting that that be removed, that we pay the price now rather than paying a higher price later on.
Another spin-off from the safe country concept that is left with many refugee organizations is that the Government is not intent or enthusiastic about having individual claimants
September 28, 1987

processed on shore. Perhaps the Government would prefer to return to the simple 1960s where it liked to be selective in the refugee camps. The situation then was a lot cleaner and more orderly. 1 suppose everyone would like to live in that ideal world, or perhaps everyone would like to relive the past and history. We are no longer in that era. We are in the present attempting to solve the problem faced by us and the international community for the next number of years. Therefore, it is impossible and irresponsible to wish to return to a different era. Governments and nations must take the future in hand and guide us through those treacherous waters and ensure that we come out in a healthy state at the end of the process.
Therefore, a government suggesting that it only wishes to select refugees from abroad, select the young rather than the old, the healthy rather than the ill, the skilled rather than the unskilled, the wealthy rather than the poor, or leaving the women in the camps with the first preference going to the male refugees is not a very realistic or responsible way to go.
For those reasons we cannot accept the safe country concept in the manner it is defined in the Bill without the guarantees and the agreement between the countries on that list, and without agreement that the list will not be drafted by the Cabinet. If there is to be a safe country concept the list should be drafted by the refugee division. We are only prepared to go as far as the Cabinet being able to draw up such a list, but that it only serve in an advisory capacity and not as the law of the land.
The final of the three areas of concern that our Party had a great deal of difficulty with, as did many organizations, is the appeal mechanism. There was a perception that the system is as good as the appeal. In terms of dealing with human beings, mistakes are very costly. Often mistakes can be fatal. Therefore, there was a sense that there was an urgency and a necessity to ensure that there is an appeal process that is as foolproof as possible. An appeal system will never be 100 per cent correct, 100 per cent foolproof. Yet we can strive toward that ideal appeal mechanism rather than stopping at a mediocre system that we have presently.
The present proposal suggests that there is an appeal with leave to the Federal Court only on points of law. It is seriously flawed. First, it is only done with leave rather than an automatic appeal. Second, it is to a Federal Court which most organizations and expert witnesses have stated is the incorrect body to deal with refugee related matters, that is not its area of expertise and a different body is required. Finally, it can only be done on points of law rather than, as we have suggested, to encourage and include points of fact, and circumstances involving the refugee claim. We do not want to have a court that does not look at the actual circumstances but looks at the process if the law was followed.
If the refugee board followed the law, it would not be necessary to consider the claim because it would meet the test
Immigration Act, 1976
under points of law. It may be seriously flawed, the refugee board may have erred, or new circumstances may have been brought forward by the refugee, but the refugee would not have an opportunity to appeal because they would not be points of law but points of fact and circumstance involving the case.
Rather than allow that appeal system to take place and to shape the new refugee determination system, we moved amendments. We talked about the inadequacies of the Federal Court before which only 2 per cent of appealed cases were successful. This means that 98 per cent of appeals were ruled out of order or not accepted. That is the reality of the Federal Court in respect of current appeals. It is universally maintained that it is not functioning correctly and is certainly not erring on the side of refugees.
Therefore we proposed a number of models. We suggested that perhaps there should be an automatic appeal and not one with leave. This would mean that the Federal Court would decide whether to hear an appeal, rather than saying that if an appeal is triggered the court must hear it. We suggested that it should not be on points of law, that it should be on points of fact and circumstance. Then we suggested other meaningful changes, such as, for example, that there should be an independent refugee body which would listen to appeals. We also suggested the possibility of a paper review, after which an individual reviewing the case would be empowered to order a new hearing.
As well we suggested an appeal to the deputy chairman of the refugee division or to a group of refugee board members who had not heard the claimant's case but would be in a position to review and to recommend a new hearing if a new hearing were justified.
All those models were rejected, even though they were presented to try to deal legitimately, under the process, with the situation that there may be mistakes in the process. Mistakes in this case are not mistakes that we can correct by other pieces of legislation or by a letter. These mistakes may not be correctable, because when a person has gone from being within our borders we may not know what fate awaits him if we indeed made an error. We wanted to assure ourselves that those fatal mistakes would not occur. We wanted a proper appeal mechanism in place in order to attain such a goal.
It was with good cause that many groups suggested that they would approve the Bill if substantial changes were made in terms of the three areas of concern-prescreening, safe country, and appeal. We moved amendments on these three areas in committee, believing quite firmly and genuinely that if amendments were not caused or accepted by the Government, the other amendments it would want to accept or promote would be academic by comparison.
What is the use of crossing the t's or dotting the i's on some page of the Bill if prescreening kept people out, if people were in orbit because of the safe country concept, and if an appeal would not be granted legitimately.

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
We believed that the current piece of legislation is seriously and fatally flawed. We hoped that through the public hearing process before the committee those changes would have had a chance to survive. As it is, today we are at third reading stage and we are still asking the Government one last time, in an eleventh hour plea, to make changes in those three areas. It should allow other people a place to stand and provide inspiration or satisfaction to the community serving refugees that some of its concerns have been heeded, considered, and implemented.
This piece of legislation was drafted in the Department, and at third reading stage it is largely in the same vein. Those individual Canadians are asking themselves what real democratic input and persuasion they were able to exercise, and the answer is an obvious one.
Aside from these three major issues, there are a number of other elements of concern. They were tabled before the committee and before the House. For example, in the area of legal representation a claim must be heard within 72 hours. Therefore, the suggestion is that unless the claimant obtains a lawyer within 72 hours the Government would appoint legal counsel for the individual. Many legal experts suggested that this would fly in the face of the Charter, in that every Canadian or other individual has the right to seek legal advice. A claimant who may wish to hire a lawyer who may be busy in Vancouver on another claim, may not have a chance within 72 hours to obtain the proper solicitor for himself in order to defend his claim for refugee status. It would be quite inappropriate for a government sponsored lawyer to be defending the individual against the Government.
We have suggested-and it was suggested by the court, the Canadian Bar Association, and others-that there be more flexibility so as to allow the claimant the full opportunity and option to select counsel of his or her choice rather than to throw in a rookie counsel or an individual who may not be immersed in the refugee law to defend an individual who in fact is fighting for his life.
Another area of concern was indicated by the National Association of Women and the Law which presented the committee with a forceful presentation on how the refugee phenomenon affected women. It was simply amazing to note from its presentation and statistics that over 80 per cent of all refugees in the world were women and young girls. That staggering figure brings with it a number of very serious questions and issues. The association had another extremely valuable statistic in terms of trying to understand the phenomenon. It indicated that 50 per cent of refugee women arriving in Canada had been harassed or sexually assaulted in the process of either fleeing their country or arriving in Canada.
When we couple those two very alarming statistics, we realize that the presentation on behalf of the National Association of Women and the Law made a moving and compelling argument that we needed to focus on the dilemma
being faced by women, a dilemma which is not faced by men. Women have been moved to be refugees as a result of sexual harassment and the fact that many of them have tried, in various parts of the world, to stand up for women's rights and individual rights. In certain parts of the globe that is seen as an offence against the state and therefore they suffer persecution.
Someone standing up for his or her dignity in our country- and in this case it is a woman-is not regarded as an affront to the state or to our way of life. However, in many parts of the world women must flee because of sexual persecution; they must pick up their bags and leave. Yet it is not recognized in the Geneva Convention as a reason for legitimate refugee status.
We must consider that 50 per cent of refugee women who come to this country have already faced sexual harassment and assault. Since most of the refugees selected from refugee camps are men and boys, there is something wrong within the refugee process. Given those statistics and the very compelling arguments made in committee, we owe it to refugees, and specifically women refugees, to re-evaluate our regulations governing the selection of refugees.
We suggested that if the Government wants to have a prescreening provision and use the safe country concept to deport someone, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees should be alerted so that it may play a role in the process. If a person is to be deported to a country in which he may face the danger of torture, harassment or persecution, we suggested that as a last-ditch attempt, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees could intervene to find that individual a safe home. That proposition was turned down.
The Government had to decide if it wanted the refugee board to play an adversarial role or a non-adversarial role. We suggest that it pretends to be non-adversarial. The legislation currently provides that an immigration counsel may question and challenge the authenticity of a refugee's claim and that information may be obtained at the very beginning of the process through the prescreening. We suggest that if the Government is trying to sell the legislation as being nonadversarial, it should follow this up in law and remove from the refugee board the very adversarial immigration counsel.
The Government was reluctant to make a provision for written transcripts of the first interview of the prescreening stage for appeal purposes. The Government suggested that the interview would be tape-recorded, but we suggested that it would be a very small price to pay to have those interviews officially transcribed. It should not be left up to the claimant or his lawyer to take from an interview what he wants to take and then have its authenticity challenged by the Federal Court of Appeal. We suggested that CPP disability hearings and workers' compensation hearings be officially transcribed and decisions in those forums made in writing so that an appeal
September 28, 1987

body may review a claim by reading the transcript rather than going by hearsay.
In the time allotted to me on third reading stage I want to reiterate our concerns about many things. We are concerned about the message this Bill will send to the international community and to those countries which subscribe to the United Nations Convention. There are essentially three concluding remarks I would like to leave with the House.
First, we must play a role of international leadership. We cannot look to other countries with substandard refugee protection laws. We won the Nansen Medal for a good reason. For the very first time, the Nansen Medal was won by a people as opposed to an individual or an organization. That suggests that Canada has set the trends and standards by which countries should be measured. Therefore, it is very important that we maintain that leadership, inspiration and encouragement to other countries to stay the course. We do not want to lead the international community in the wrong direction. If we do, we will not help provide an international solution to what is an international problem.
We do not want to be the architects of an international corridor of locked doors. By the time a refugee gets to the end of a corridor of locked doors, he is a desperate individual who is fighting for his life and liberty. When a human being is in a desperate state of mind, he fights back. That opens up opportunities for manipulators and smugglers who feed off human misery and desperation. Rather than encouraging people to come through the front door, this piece of legislation will encourage refugees to believe that the only way their claims will be assessed is if they come through the back door and try to rough it out. That is the wrong message. While there may be a short-term gain the Government wishes to sell, the long-term viability of the policy will be under attack.
The second part of my conclusion is that the Government owes Canada a clear vision of its immigration objectives and goals. It needs to trigger an enlightened and mature national debate. It needs to articulate a national goal for immigration. It needs to talk about immigration as a national building block and to talk about it in a positive and constructive way. It should not do something reactionary as it did when it introduced Bill C-84 at a time when some 300 individuals came to Canada while there is a backlog of thousands upon thousands lined up.
The Government must take into consideration our dwindling birth rate and our aging population. Some 50,000 people leave the country every year and we have a small population of base of only some 26 million people. We have a large land mass and great economic needs. We must still go abroad to find those with education that is not provided here. The Government must take cognizance of these factors and trends and ask how immigration can address them. It must ask how immigration can help Canada build a newer, better and more improved country. It must ask how many immigrants this country can absorb.
Immigration Act, 1976
What is the reality of the refugees who have been in Canada for five years? Are they milking the system or is the vast majority just as productive as every other Canadian citizen? Some of the studies which are available but are not promoted offer a very rosy picture of the refugee experience in Canada.
The vast majority of the 106,000 Vietnamese boat people whom Canada accepted as refugees are now Canadian citizens and are doing very, very well. Many of them have jobs or have opened small businesses. They have integrated into the community. In many cases, their children are doing better then their peers in the educational system. These people are doing well. They are tomorrow's leaders and tomorrow's Members of Parliament.
That is the reality of the majority. I know that we cannot have an ideal world in which there is no abuse of workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, CPP disability payments and the like. There is abuse by immigrants and nonimmigrants, young and old, people who have been here for many years and those who are here only a few weeks. You strive to eliminate that abuse, but what is the over-all picture? If it is positive, if it contributes to this country we call Canada, then let us show it to other Canadians. Let us remove the fear and pacify the critics among us. If the picture is positive, then the Government has a responsibility to demonstrate that and promote it rather than manipulate public opinion and fabricate a crisis which does not exist except in the imagination of government Members. That is the responsibility of a progressive Government because this country was built in partnership with immigrants.
Immigration is the most emotional area of federal public policy. When I go back to my riding office there is nothing more emotional than an immigration problem. People cannot understand why a relative cannot come here. A person cannot understand why his or her cousin, a refugee, cannot come here. Someone cannot understand why someone else was refused a visitor's visa. On and on and on. We must be very careful how we deal with an emotionally charged issue like this.
The Government must define the number of refugees in this program. It must define the number for family class immigrants. Is that the most important? If not, why? How many business immigrants should we encourage? Many? Few? Somewhere in between? How many visitors should we allow in? Should they all have visas? How many visas should we provide for foreign students? What about the people who complain that their son or daughter is bumped from school by some foreign student? What is the story on student visas? Many reports show that those people, when they go back to their own country, become ambassadors for Canada. If one of those foreign students ends up as the marketing director of a company in his own country, then you can bet your bottom dollar that Canada will be one of his markets.

September 28, 1987
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Government needs to have a mature debate on this subject in partnership with Canadians. It cannot dictate. It cannot refer it to a weakened committee which sends the Bill back to the House in its original form. That does not solve the real problem. It does not restore public confidence. The Government was elected to show responsible leadership on tough issues. It was not elected to run away from a challenge.
If the Government acts accordingly, we will once again be in a position to bring in special refugee flows like the Vietnamese boat people. If the Clark Government in 1979 or the Trudeau Government in 1980 reacted like today's Government, which makes a crisis out of 300 people, where would the Vietnamese boat people have been? Canada can safely lay claim to leadership in this area because it brought 106,000 of those people to our shores. Some 50,000 were sponsored by communities. Canadians said they want to participate. They accepted their responsibility and, together with the Government, led the way. Why can that not be done again? Why must we stoop to Bill C-84 and Bill C-55? Let us follow our best instincts and not the worst. Let us eradicate the fear rather than feeding off it. Let us tell Canadians the real story rather than a fabricated story.
Legitimate refugees are people who live in a world which can be described as one of horror. They live with the fear of being sent to prison, being tortured, and they live with continual harassment. That is the real world of the refugee. It is not an orderly world. It is disorder. They fight to put order back into their lives. They seek to bring dignity back into their lives. Fate dealt them an unfair hand. Fate dealt very harshly with those who were born in a number of countries which we do not even want to visit, never mind live there. Yet we can overcome fate. Why should the privileged countries not assist those people? Why can we not have a system as good as possible? One that offers leadership rather than mediocrity.
All Canadians have problems. All Canadians have day-today challenges. A husband and father becomes unemployed and that becomes a problem. Senior citizens experience escalating property taxes. They cannot pay and keep their home. We have substandard housing. University graduates cannot find employment. Someone gets sick or dies. Those are legitimate problems that Canadians face day after day. Sometimes those problems seem all-encompassing. We say we cannot deal with the world's problems because we have too many of our own. That is a legitimate human response. We try to solve our problems and hope the world will solve its.
Some people say it is tough to try to sell a progressive policy because the world is more complicated, life is difficult, and not everyone has pulled their share of the load. Notwithstanding those legitimate concerns, the problem of human life and human safety takes precedence. The responsibility for protecting human life is the first and foremost of our collective responsibilities. As parliamentarians we are in the business of solving problems. Nothing can be more important than trying
to come to grips with the problem of a human being seeking protection on our shores. Is that a crime? Should we look upon that person as a criminal?
Give people a legitimate choice and there would be no immigrants anywhere. Given a choice my parents would have stayed in their homeland. They did not have a choice. They faced poverty and had no future, so they left. This is their home now. They are proud, loyal citizens who would never dream of returning to their original homeland because this is their home.
There may be confusion between immigrants and refugees. It is incumbent upon immigrants not to close the door to others who follow them.
The problems of the world are very large, but we are in the business of solving them. We cannot run away from this challenge. We cannot afford to do so, nor can the rest of the world. We may be overwhelmed by the 10 million to 15 million refugees around the world. We know that Canada cannot solve the entire problem, but we can lead other countries toward the solution.
I will conclude by reminding the House of some of the words of Rabbi Plaut. He said:
Refugees are a fact of life. We are a large country. We are a rich country. I
think that we can at least afford to be fair to the very few who come to our
shores.
He concluded by saying:
If you save one life, it is counted for you as if you had saved the whole world.
We should remember those words when we believe that we cannot move the world.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Free Trade-Articles published in two Montreal newspapers- Government position/Free trade negotiations-Government position; the Hon. Member for Broadview Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Acid rain-position of United States President-Government position/Canadian message; the hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Harbourfront- Toronto project-future development.
September 28, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to have the honour of speaking against Bill C-55, not only on behalf of my Party and thousands of refugees from many countries, but also on behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians who have helped refugees to settle in Canada and will continue to help them to do so regardless of legislation such as this.
I am advised that there have been consultations among the Parties with regard to the length of time which I might speak, notwithstanding the normal rule. I will leave that to the appropriate people. I will simply advise that my speech would not take more than 50 minutes, if that is agreeable to Hon. Members.
1 wish to make four main points in connection with this Bill. We have discussed the details of the Bill on previous occasions and there is much to be said about the context in which this Bill will operate.
First, it is significant that Canadians, in extraordinarily large numbers and at no little cost of their time, have mobilized to register grave alarm against Bill C-55. Second, many Canadians are amazed and troubled that the Government has so adamantly ignored them in Bills C-55 and C-84 and has sharply changed Canada's policy toward refugees. They are asking why.
Third, the Government's chosen line of action against refugees is now seen by many Canadians to fit a pattern of other government actions during the past year, a pattern hostile not only to refugees but also to Canadians. Fourth, Canadians who have opposed the Bill and heard the Government's defence of it still oppose the Bill. They are now asking themselves what kind of Government we have that will turn needy refugees away from one of the richest countries in the world and, for that purpose, also reduce the liberties of Canadians. Canadians are creating a greater vision of Canada which may have no room for the outlook, values and policies of the Government.
Of the many distinguished Canadians who appeared before the legislative committee and spoke against Bill C-55 the best known is Rabbi Gunther Plaut. He pointed out that as a former refugee, therefore knowing the heart of the stranger, he had done a report on refugees almost three years ago that won world-wide acclaim. He was invited by the United States Government to give a one-day seminar to leading government officials which was also attended by many ambassadors.
Immigration Act, 1976
Yet, he said that we now have a Bill that was constructed by the Commission of Employment and Immigration and is brought forward as the will of the people. This Bill has the wrong focus. It is not primarily a Bill to determine refugee status; it is primarily a Bill on how to deport people. It is filled with constitutional problems. The process it proposes is not shorter but longer. However, he said that it has accomplished one unique thing, and that must be said to its credit. This Bill, like Bill C-84, has managed to unite all religious factions in this country.
Rabbi Plaut was right. These two Bills have raised a sense of alarm among Canadians not often heard. They have challenged Canadians fundamentally, challenged our sense of justice and even threatened our liberties. For that reason, not only the churches of Canada but also the Jewish Congress, by a remarkable consensus, have fundamentally opposed this Bill.
The Canadian Council of Churches representing 11 major non-Roman Catholic Christian denominations in Canada came together with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops through the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees to oppose this Bill. They said that for 10 years the church representatives have urged reform of the present cumbersome refugee determination procedures which are slow to recognize genuine refugees and which attract abuse.
Church leaders have presented the Government with alternative refugee determination procedures consistent with its own principles and with the report of Parliament's Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. It is frightening to think that a climate of panic could be created from the arrival of a mere 174 asylum seekers. It is more frightening that this should lead to the precipitous passage of Bill C-55 in the face of a more just, efficient, and viable alternative. A few minor amendments cannot rectify the fundamental flaws of the current Bill C-55.
The Inter-church Committee for Refugees spoke clearly for the right of the individual declared by international law and scorned by Bill C-55. It said that Bill C-55 flies in the face of a very strongly held principle of the churches, that is, universal access to a fair and just determination process. Blanket tests would arbitrarily remove from Canada persons who have a right to a full and fair hearing of their claim. We must always remember that it is an individual claim and it is an individual who says that he or she has been persecuted.
When hearings were finished the Government rattled through clause by clause amendments with very slight change. The Canadian Council of Churches wrote to us and said that this is a far shot from our obligation to give an individual who arrives in Canada fair hearing of his or her claim to a need for our protection. They urged us to abandon Bill C-55.

At their annual meeting the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed their views through the President, Monsignor Bernard Hubert: The legislative measure submitted

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
to Canadians does not respect any of the principles we have always promoted. It is even a step backward with respect to our international responsibilities. In addition it is unfair to refugees and to the other already heavily overloaded first asylum countries.
We also received a telegram on behalf of a third group of Christian churches in Canada. It states:
World Relief Canada, which serves as the refugee resettlement arm of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an association of 23 evangelical protestant denominations, strongly urges our Government not to pass Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 as originally proposed.
While we agree that abuses of our national largesse need to be prosecuted, we request that Parliament carefully consider amendments to the Bills which will strengthen fair treatment of bona fide refugees and protect Canadians who helped them out of compassion and conscience.
R. E. Reimer, World Relief Canada.
The Canadian Jewish Congress said:
As Jews, we ask you this time not for ourselves but for all those who arrive at our shores seeking refuge . . . (we) implore you not to close the gates by enacting this seriously flawed piece of legislation.
A few minutes later they were scornfully downgraded by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) as being among the special interest groups.
In fact, we have heard this scornful put-down from the Government for months. Every group that has worked for refugees and assisted the Government's refugee program and, on the basis of that expertise, opposes this Bill, is dismissed as a special interest group.
This way of dismissing criticism which cannot be answered, as the criticism of the churches and Jewish Congress has not been answered, is indeed quite traditional and goes back at least thousands of years.
We find in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 17, verses 6 to 7, that when Paul and Silas came preaching the good news of new life in Thessalonica, some of the townspeople organized a riot against them on the complaint:
These that have turned the world upside down have come here also-and they all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, one Jesus".
No doubt, the climate of panic was enhanced by the fact that Christianity was understood as an offshoot of Judaism. The Jews were considered a troublesome lot in the Roman Empire, partly because of their dangerous teaching that slaves ought to be freed.
Since many refugees are modern equivalents of runaway slaves, I am proud to see that Jews and Christians still get into trouble for trying to set them free.
We have not heard from the religious teachers of Canada's First Nations, but I doubt that they would support Bill C-55.
Besides these religious teachers, the labour movement spoke out. Both the Canadian Labour Congress and the Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux last spring issued condemnations of Bill C-55.
The Canadian Bar Association, representing 3,500 lawyers, was particularly firm in its rejection of Bill C-55. Its spokesperson reminded the Government that: "Section 3 of the Immigration Act sets out our objectives; the objectives with respect to refugees are: 3(12), to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and persecuted".
They also pointed out that when we signed the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees we did not obligate ourselves to select refugees overseas. The only thing to which we obligated ourselves in that Convention was to protect any refugee who arrived in Canada from being sent back to the country by which he would be persecuted.
In Bill C-55, Canada abandons its obligation on that point. Even though refugee claimants are returned only to countries that comply with Article 33 of the UN Convention, there is no guarantee that those countries will allow them to return and live there, or that they will allow them to make refugee claims there so as to get the protection of Article 33 against being returned to persecution. If Canada has refused to hear their refugee claims, how can we demand that other countries do it?
Of the many other witnesses we heard, I shall mention only the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. It represents immigrant groups whom this Government has tried to turn against refugees by saying that refugee claimants are queue-jumpers, preventing immigrants from bringing their relatives to Canada. Nevertheless, the council made it clear that it opposes Bill C-55 and, instead, supports the alternative model presented by Mr. Lome Waldman of the Coalition for a Just Refugee and Immigration Policy. It also said:
We would like to ask you to remember in your deliberations the wider
context of the refugee issue. We feel that Canada should play a role in pressing
for peaceful solutions to conflicts in areas of the world that produce refugees.
A total of 63 witnesses appeared before our committee, squeezed into 44 and a half hours. Every one, except ten from the Immigration Commission and two from the airline companies, opposed Bill C-55, and the chairman complained that they were repeating each other.
They all made the same chief points as the representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. First, the UN asked that Canada, according to the Convention we signed 20 years ago, should examine all refugee applications made on our territory, including ones that came from a so-called safe country. The Government refused this, and will send many away without a full and fair hearing.
Second, the UN asked that claimants not be excluded from a full refugee division hearing primarily on the basis of decisions about people who came before from the same
September 28, 1987

country. They said that more weight should be given to the circumstances of the individual who is coming now. The Government refused.
Third, the UN asked that a decision against a refugee should be reviewed because a mistake could cost a person's life. Again, the Government of Canada, a member of the executive of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, refused.
These three main objections to Bill C-55, made by every witness before the committee except those representing the Immigration Commission or the airlines, have been argued in Parliament and in public at every opportunity. The Government's refusal to heed them stands as a disgrace to Canada.
I also warn Hon. Members of the House and my brother and sister Canadians that we cannot deny justice and liberty to refugees without at the same time undermining and weakening the rights and liberties of Canadians.
We have seen how Bill C-84 denies the right and freedom of Canadians to help an undocumented refugee come to an immigration office in Canada to claim refugee status. Now Bill C-55, in the course of denying to a refugee claimant the right of a meaningful appeal of review of his or her claim, also denies to all Canadians the right to ask the courts to correct a mistake made by an immigration officer in the case of a Canadian applying to sponsor a relative for immigration. The Progressive Conservative Government, by whipping up a false panic about refugees, is eroding the freedom of individual Canadians to do what they believe is right.
1 have described the strong opposition of Canadians to Bill C-55. However, the question many ask is: Why is the Government doing this? There is no doubt that the number of refugee claimants has risen very fast. There are ten times as many coming to Canada as there were a few years ago. There were 18,000 refugees last year. This is the Government's chief excuse, yet the previous Progressive Conservative Government decided to bring 50,000 from Vietnam in 1979, nearly three times as many. Why is there panic now?
The biggest shift in the flow of refugee claimants is in the countries of origin. After World War II, most refugees to Canada came from the communist countries of eastern Europe. They were anti-communists-including some Nazi war criminals, we find-and they were white. Now, most refugee claimants are from former colonial countries, often from brutal right wing regimes and not all clearly anticommunist. Most of them are not white.
Why are they coming? This new wave of refugees is a sign of much larger trouble in the world, especially in the past ten years.
During the fifties and sixties, and into the seventies, the Governments of western Europe and North America accepted millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, short-term and longterm, Caucasian and non-Caucasian. They fueled our manufacturing and service industries with cheap labour, and
Immigration Act, 1976
strengthened the expansion of our markets into the former colonies of Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the southern Pacific.
However, when that expansion reached its limits in the midseventies, and markets began to shrink, the countries of western Europe and North America began to cut back. Wage freezes, currency devaluations and restriction of immigration began. To bolster our industrialized nations, agricultural prices were cut, impoverishing many former colonial countries. Multinational manufacturers also began shutting down factories and data processing services in industrialized countries and moving to the former colonies for cheaper labour. The recession of the early 1980s speeded this up. One result was a sharper cut in the demand for cheap labour in Canada and our neighbours in North America and western Europe. At the same time, areas like Latin America experienced growth of Governments preaching the doctrine of national security. With arms, military advisers and police training, provided mainly by the United States and western Europe, these Governments began attacks against what they chose to call "communist subversion", such as did Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973.
Powerful corporations joined with the military to suppress labour unions and hold wages well below the rate of inflation. In areas such as Latin America, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, peasants were forced off the land. Foreign-owned factories recruited labour at starvation wages, and more military repression was used to suppress unions. At the same time, the foreign owners of industry, including much agri-business, with the help of international banking institutions, ensured that more capital flowed out of these countries toward western Europe and North America than flowed into them.
The poverty of the people deepened rapidly. So the seeds of civil war were sown in many of the former colonies. From these same countries came refugees fleeing persecution because of their attempts to defend their right to eat or fleeing hunger in a land they no longer owned or where they could no longer grow food to eat.
More recently these former colonies have been burdened with huge external debts. Money spent to build and service factories there for foreign corporations, money lost to sinking agricultural prices, and cost of arms provided for industrial countries and used by the military to suppress discontent, was all charged against these impoverished Governments and hungry people. The refugees kept coming in search of a chance to live.
The peoples of these countries, officially politically independent, began movements and even wars of liberation from economic bondage that was killing them. The North Atlantic powers intervened to support Governments that would repay their debts to our banks regardless of cost to the people. More arms, military advisers and occasional military invasions

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
as in the Caribbean increased the misery and drove out more refugees. For these reasons, there are perhaps 15 million displaced people in the world, mainly in the former colonies.
Canada, the United States and western Europe which benefited from the financial rape of those countries, are now visited by some of these victims looking for some of the good things we have taken from their countries, so we have a refugee crisis.
What is the usual answer of the North American Governments? Fear, panic, hostility and the building of bureaucratic walls to keep people out. It suggests a guilty conscience. This has certainly been the answer of senior Canadian Immigration Commission officials and the Cabinet. One-sided pictures are fed to the media suggesting that nearly all refugee claimants are bogus or maybe even terrorists, in spite of lack of evidence by the RCMP.
Negotiations within the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to encourage burden sharing so that struggling countries like Mexico and Pakistan would not be overwhelmed by refugees, are being reversed. Instead, Canadian, U.S. and western European immigration officials-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired. However, I believe there is unanimous consent to allow the Member to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this privilege conferred on me and I hope those who voted for it will not regret their decision when they hear what I have to say. As I was saying, Canadian, U.S. and western European immigration officials meet in secret, excluding the UNHCR representative, to plan burden shifting, how to dump more refugee claimants onto countries too weak economically or politically to refuse them.
The Canadian Government's action in slamming Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 through in August and September is part of this exploitation of panic and exclusion. As aircraft companies manufactured more planes, as airline companies enticed more passengers, as the planes flew in both directions, as wars over markets and liberation of workers in ex-colonial countries increased, inevitably more refugee claimants arrived year by year in Canada. How did our Government handle this? In 1976, a new Immigration Act was adopted by Parliament.
After much discussion, the Liberal Government refused the urging of the churches and refugee aid societies and agencies who said that the only sound way to tell who was a real refugee was to let him or her tell the story face to face with those who decide a life and death question, in what the lawyers call an oral hearing. The Government said it would cost too much. Instead, the Government set up a cumbersome system, controlled mainly by the Immigration Commission, with hearings under oath, transcripts, a separate committee to study
transcripts without looking claimants in the eye, an appeal board with more ponderous procedures, and it starved them for staff. The system slowed down and a backlog began to build up. The commission staff, to cover up, began leaking slanted stories to the media about hoards of bogus refugee claimants.
The Liberal Government, instead of giving the necessary staff, commissioned reports the Robinson report in 1983, the Ratushny report, and then the Plaut report. The Conservative Government came in in 1984 and delayed tabling the Plaut report from December 1984 until June 1985. Clearly, neither the commission nor the Cabinet was ready to face the embarrassment of the system's breakdown.
On April 4, 1985, the Supreme Court exposed the basic flaw in the system by its decision on the Singh case. It said justice and the Canadian Charter demand that every refugee claimant physically in Canada be heard face to face in an oral hearing before those who must decide whether to send him or her back to possible imprisonment, torture or death. The commission was stunned at being invaded by the forces of justice. The then Minister, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), dutifully issued a statement, apparently drafted by the commission, saying that now the Government must decide who will have access to the refugee determination system with its oral hearing. This was a clear and cynical declaration of contempt for that very decision of the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian rights and freedoms, on which it is based.
The Progressive Conservative Government has consistently followed that line of contempt for the Singh decision from that day through Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 to this day.
In June, 1985 the Government stalled by asking the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration for yet another report, the fourth report in three years. The committee studied the Plaut report, interviewed commission officials and public witnesses, and tabled in November, 1985 its all-Party report, which essentially agreed with the Plaut report. It recommended that refugees status determination be seen as not an immigration question but a question of human rights. It said that there should be a refugee board independent of the commission. Refugee claimants should be sent directly to that board to be examined by people competent to decide human rights questions such as: "Is he or she a refugee?" Then the Immigration Commission should decide whether to land or remove that person.
A fair and quick system that would have taken all the profit from the racketeers who are taking big fees for bringing in bogus refugee claimants with the promise of several years of work before they are removed.
The Government was obligated by the new reformed Standing Orders of Parliament to give a comprehensive answer to our report in four months. It never did. In 22 months, the Progressive Conservative Government has refused to give a comprehensive answer to our report. It has refused to say which recommendations it accepts and which it rejects, and
September 28, 1987

why. This began the dismal pattern of this Government's habitual contempt of Parliament and the Government's duty to answer committee reports seriously, contempt which has continued toward other reports and other committees.
No doubt the commission bureaucrats impeded any attempt by the then Minister of State for Immigration to answer our committee seriously. Therefore, the commission's adamant hostility to refugees has helped to undermine the necessary rights of all Members of Parliament.
In May of 1986 the then Minister of State for Immigration made an attempt to respond to some of the committee's recommendations on the refugee backlog. These were soon twisted and undermined by the commission bureaucrats. The Minister of State was replaced by one who would do as he was told and not interfere with policy decisions.
The Portugal-Jehovah's Witness refugee scam brought in 3,500 bogus claimants, to be followed by a couple of thousand from Turkey and Brazil. The Government imposed visa requirements too late and, in 1987, after two years, began to lay charges against the scam operators. All this, of course, was presented to the media as a condemnation of refugees. It is the old dodge of blaming the victims.
Into 1987 the new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) was giving press statements that insulted refugees and sometimes other immigrants saying that Canadians are getting fed up with bogus claimants, telling the church and refugee aid representatives that he would base his new refugee system on the Canadian backlash he perceived and not on what he scornfully called Euro-Canadians, bragging that his part of Quebec had not been derange.
On February 20, 1987, he imposed new restrictive regulations. Central American refugee claimants were coming to our border to escape a new harsh law in the United States that would deport 98 per cent of them back to the death squads of El Salvador and Guatemala. New regulations cut that flow into Canada by less than half by forcing them to return to U.S. immigration officials and wait for an inquiry date in Canada.
Chileans, fleeing a crack-down by Pinochet, were stopped at Buenos Aires by a new transit visa requirement written literally with their country's name on it, although it blocks many others too, except of course it does not block eastern Europeans.
Refugees were not the only scapegoats chosen by the Government to divert public anger from government corruption and untrustworthiness. Unions are, of course, the target that this Government loves to bash. The postal workers were blamed for management's decision to reduce postal service in the interest of privatization. The staff person-years of the Canada Employment Commission and the Canada Immigration Commission were slashed while their workloads rose.
Immigration Act, 1976
Vancouver Port grain handlers were locked out by employers and accused by the Government of striking against prairie grain farmers. Letter carriers were forced to strike to defend their jobs and were upheld by the Canadian public. Railway workers were forced to strike and were immediately legislated back to work.
As we sit in session today, Canada Post, in violation of the Canada Labour Relations Board ruling, is stealing jobs from inside postal workers to give to under-paid, untrained, unequipped contracting small storekeepers who are in no position to defend themselves against predatory management.
In addition, of course, the Government continues the tradition of treating all unemployment insurance claimants as suspected cheaters. The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration reported upon the Forget Commission's recommendations that urged a unanimous recommendation, No. 55, that:
-under all circumstances, clients be treated with dignity and respect. Unemployment Insurance is the clients' program, and staff should presume that clients' intentions are honourable unless there is objective evidence to the contrary. In all cases, the onus of proof for ineligibility or disentitlement must rest with the Commission.
Again, as with the committee's report on refugee status determination, the Government refused to answer.
On the other hand, the Government issued in June its much publicized White Paper on National Defence in which it gives a rosy picture of arms manufacturing in Canada with never the slightest hint of multimillion dollar scandals by which defence production corporations reach into Canadian taxpayers' pockets. In fact, the Minister states in the section entitled "Defence Industrial Preparedness" the following:
Maintaining the conventional forces of NATO as a credible deterrent requires that our industrial base be able to respond to the needs of our armed forces and those of our allies, both for initial readiness and for follow-on sustainment.
A key element of both readiness and sustainment is the ability to equip and resupply military forces.
He also includes our research and development capacities in defence spending.
So there is method in this Government's madness and there is madness in its method. In order to promote super profits for what the Hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) calls "the North American defence production base", this Government revives the cold war politics of fear and counterterror saying-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would be the last one to interrupt the Hon. Member. However, I think that he is a little off the topic of Bill C-55. I hope that he will come back to the Bill, if he does not mind.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I will point out the relevance of what I have been saying. I am talking about a climate of fear being introduced in a number of ways. Fear of refugees is one of the leading examples. I am pointing out the consistency of

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
the Government's policy because in order to whip up the extra expenditures for the war program the Government is promoting a climate of fear and even panic. In fact, it is relevant to the Bill which is before us. Within a few weeks the Government will introduce second reading on Bill C-77, the security measures Bill. That Bill also allows the Government to suppress dissent by declaring an international emergency while our ally, the U.S., judged that its economic interests are threatened in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East or Central America.
These are dangerous politics for the Government to be playing. It seems that the Government wishes, whether it is with refugees, postal workers, or defence policy, to scare us into accepting these very dangerous politics.
When the boatload of Sikhs arrived in Nova Scotia in July, the Government was all ready to make a huge production of it with military guards and a military base. Potential refugee claimants were held incommunicado for a week without access to the press or lawyers, in violation of our Charter. There was scary talk of an invasion of turbanned aliens and security risks.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other Ministers kept calling the Sikhs and other refugee claimants "queue-jumpers", hoping to turn immigrants against them by suggesting that refugees were hindering them from sponsoring their relatives. Some Tory MPs also told their constituents that the Liberals and the New Democrats in the House of Commons blocked Bill C-55, thereby preventing the Government from having legislation to deal with the Sikh boat. That is clearly and deliberately false. They showed their purpose by giving out the constituency office phone numbers of the Liberal and New Democratic critics, encouraging constituents to tie up our phones with mistaken complaints.
The Government's hoax failed with the immigrant community. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council, in addition to presenting strong briefs against Bill C-84 and Bill C-55, sent an open letter to the Prime Minister dated August 10, accusing the Government of an information campaign that resulted in the manipulation of the media and public opinion.
Specifically, the CEC charged that in addition to holding the Sikhs incommunicado, the Government released the most controversial person first, Mr. Amrik Dhinsa, apparently to create a negative reaction; obtained damaging statements through questionable means, faulty interpretation and use of statements out of context; leaked a confidential unfinished report on security suggesting problems with immigrants; leaked false information claiming that 33 Sikhs had criminal records. Then there was the musical comedy spectacle of the Canadian Navy and Air Force searching the Canadian coast for an empty freighter, the Walvis, that was anchored near England. I welcome the courageous plain talk of the Ethnocultural Council in exposing this hoax.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), until this spring known as a leading advocate of refugees, heightened the hysteria by appearing on TV the day Bill C-84 was
tabled, stating, "This is not a Bill about refugees, it is a Bill about security". In fact, both Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 cast a shadow on all refugee claimants at a Canadian port of entry by allowing the Minister to order extraordinary detention, up to 28 days, renewable, and to issue a security certificate against them on secret evidence and without a fair trial. They are then denied the right of access to the refugee determination system, which Canada solemnly undertook to give them when we signed the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees 20 years ago, and which the UN representatives speaking to the committee urged us to honour.
The hoax that refugees are all to be suspected of being terrorists was exposed by the RCMP itself, just as it exposed a similar hoax used by the Liberal Government in 1942 as its excuse to imprison and rob 22,000 Japanese Canadians. In the case of the refugees, the RCMP witness at the Bill C-84 committee testified that none of the refugee claimants on last year's "Tamil" boat, or on this year's "Sikh" boat were found to be a security risk. When asked if any of the 5,000 screened by the RCMP in 1986, and the 6,000 in 1987 were determined as causing a threat to Canada, Deputy Commissioner Belanger answered, and I quote, "We have no documented evidence to that effect either".
Perhaps unintentionally, one more anti-refugee hoax was exploded by the Immigration Commission issuing the information that of the 99,206 immigrants landed in 1986, 6,571 were landed from within Canada through the administrative review of the refugee backlog in Canada. In other words, the actual recruitment of immigrants overseas, including refugees, fell short of the minimum target of the Government by almost 6,000, and its maximum target by almost 16,000. But it would have fallen short by more than 12,000 or 22,000 if the refugee claimants were not included. This means that there never was a queue, therefore, there could be no such thing as queue-jumpers in immigration.
Here is a context that explains the Government's rigid insistence on Bill C-55. First, following the former Minister of Employment and Immigration who justified the commission in trying to find ways to evade the Supreme Court decision in the Singh case, both the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), and the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) during debate this spring hinted strongly that we must change the Supreme Court's decision on Singh about the right of every refugee claimant to a full oral hearing before those who are competent to decide their fate. Instead of an open principle challenge by reference to the court, as we asked, they seem to be attempting to overturn that decision by indirect legislative tricks. They show their contempt for the court and the Charter in that manner.
Second, the hysteria whipped up against refugees is clearly to be used to exclude most refugees except those who are recruited overseas as immigrants. This would go hand in hand with a shift in Canadian government labour policy and may
September 28, 1987

herald further freezing or reducing the target levels for family class immigration.
In this context, what can we make of the promise of the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the day that he introduced Bill C-84 to allow unmarried children of all ages to come as family members? He has given us no details. Past experience with his new point system makes immigrants very doubtful that he will do them any favours.
It seems that the ghost of the Nielsen report is the guiding hand. That report intended to cut government expenditures harshly, and proposed four things on immigration. The Government should restrict refugees to overseas recruitment as immigrants, except for those in "hot flight" directly from the country of persecution which, in practice, is possible only from Communist countries. Second, phase out government sponsorship and rely entirely upon charity to bring in refugees. Third, reduce family class immigration. Fourth, concentrate on bringing in immigrants with investment capital or specially needed skills.
The Government has taken its stand against the rights of refugees as recognized in international law which Canada has pledged to uphold, and in doing so knowingly restricts the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
I have stated what I see as the source of the crisis over refugees. 1 have stated what I see as the Government's chosen response, and a very unfortunate one it seems to me. Now I wish to describe what I see as the actual response chosen by the Canadian people in their own personal right.
The people of Canada have spoken strongly for refugees. In The Toronto Star poll 75 per cent said, "Let legitimate refugees come". At first, when very few had received copies of the Bill, let alone understood it, many supported the Bill, including newspaper editors. Many of those switched their stand when they learned the facts about what this Bill does to refugees.
Canadians have used the people's organizations of Canada, notably the churches and synagogues, to express their opposition to this Bill. The churches act in the a tcient tradition expressed by Paul's letter to the Galatians (3:28): "There is no such thing as Jew and Greek, slave and freeman, male and female, for you are all one person in Jesus the Anointed One of the Creator". Nowadays I believe Paul may have added, "No such thing as citizen and alien".
The Jews speak from a tradition more than a thousand years older from the time when Moses organized the first brick-makers' strike in Egypt and led his people as refugees in the Exodus, the great walk-out from Egypt. They still remember the law he gave in Exodus 20:2-3: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other god to set against me".
All the other hundreds of people's organizations who came as witnesses, wrote letters and sent telegrams, and took up petitions and visited MPs; all the townspeople in Fort Erie,
Immigration Act, 1976
southern Quebec, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, southern Alberta, Vancouver, and Charlesville, Nova Scotia who welcomed refugees with food, shelter, and friendship; all the editorialists in Le Devoir, CSN Nouvelles, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Calgary Herald, Vancouver Sun, and many other papers; all these and more knowingly and instinctively took the side of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in favour of refugee claimants and against the Bill's exclusions.
Nevertheless, with all that pressure we gained very slight amendments. The word "any" is now placed in the "credible basis" clause so that the adjudicator or refugee board member must send a claimant to the refugee board if they find "any credible and trustworthy evidence". For some there will be a bar against refoulement, sending someone back to the country of feared persecution. Those claimants sent back to the "third country" they came from and returned by that country to Canada will be allowed to re-enter the refugee determination process at the next stage.
The Bill is still unjust. Claimants are "guilty" until they prove themselves innocent. They may be forced to return to a country with no agreed standard on whether they will be able to make their refugee claim there. "Credibility" is still mainly at the caprice of the Minister's staff. There is no fair review or appeal.
The churches, the labour movement, and many other Canadians will continue to demand a fair refugee policy, according to the Canadian Council of Churches' proposal; a fair immigration policy, oriented to families rather than to the rich, the skillful, the powerful, or the politically correct; a foreign policy building development and peace rather than arms trade, rape of natural resources, and debt slavery to make it no longer necessary for people for people to flee their native lands as refugees; in Canada, full employment, not to make the instruments of death for export but to produce the means of life; and the principle that we should observe the needs of the poor before the wants of the rich.
More and more Canadians are asking, Mr. Speaker, for a change of heart in government; a change by which complete love of our neighbours will cast out fear.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-55. I wish to express my gratitude to all those who during the last month have participated in the debate on Canada's refugee policy. The contributions of Hon. Members, and those who appeared before the legislative committee, have served to raise the level of understanding on this issue.
1 was somewhat surprised and disappointed when the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) stated earlier today that fewer refugees and immigrants are coming to Canada, and that our Conservative Government is less compassionate. The opposite is true. During the last three years of Conservative Government, immigration levels have increased from some

September 28, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
80,000 to 125,000 annually, while government sponsored refugees alone have increased from 9,000 to 12,000 annually. This is the best record ever for any Canadian Government in recent years.
This morning the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) took the high road on refugee measures, but not the Hon. Member for York West and previous Liberal Governments that only seemed to favour bogus refugees with money.
The Hon. Member for York West favours people who have money obtaining false passports and visas and paying large sums of money to transportation companies. The Conservative Government reaches out to the desperate and the needy in the world. The Government looks for places where they are waiting in camps. The Government goes there with its immigration officers and picks them up in Hong Kong, Bangkok, and other places where often the Americans got there before us to pick out the best.
The Conservative Government is not looking after the wealthy refugees, whom the Hon. Member for York West seems to be protecting, bogus refugees who pay fees to boat captains and immigration lawyers. The Government looks after all refugees in real need who have no other means to get to Canada.
The Conservative policy is clear. It is forward looking, humanitarian, and compassionate. As the Minister indicated this morning, it has three dimensions. First, the Government assists the UNHCR and Red Cross in many refugee camps in countries all over the world with food, shelter, and health costs. That is the first requirement for them to be safe. Second, we bring those refugees, especially the needy, to Canada in an orderly and timely fashion. Third, we assist those refugees and their families to settle properly in Canada. We assist them in finding shelter and jobs and in acquiring language skills.
The pre-1979 Liberal Government obtained only some 5,000 refugees from southeast Asia. However, what is the record of the Conservative Government? The Conservative Government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark), started to invite 50,000 Vietnamese from southeast Asia to Canada, which has been increased since then.
The pre-September 1984 Liberal Government sponsored only 9,000 government refugees annually, whereas the Conservative Government of today sponsors over 12,000 annually. Similar trends and figures can be cited for refugees from Central America from where very few refugees came to Canada under previous Liberal Governments. That has all changed today. The Conservative Government is far more humane toward Central and South American refugees.
Bill C-55 is part of a continuous process to ensure that our refugee policy is right for today's world. Canada's search for an updated refugee policy reflects our need to come to terms
with new global pressures. We are doing it in a way which respects our humanitarian tradition while seeking a practical solution to contemporary problems.
In this connection I should like to thank all church groups, the Jewish community, human rights groups, UNHCR, and others who not only assisted for many years in settling refugees in Canada but also assisted the Government with briefs and comments on both Bill C-55 and Bill C-84.
That Canada has a long and honourable tradition in helping refugees is beyond question. Even before the refugee was recognized as a legal entity, Canada was offering a safe haven to those who needed it. The United Empire Loyalists were probably the first group to come to Canada under those circumstances. Later, in the mid-1800s, black Americans fled slavery by making their way to Canada on the underground railway. After General Custer was defeated at Little Bighorn, Sioux Indians sought refuge in western Canada. Religious dissenters such as the Mennonites and the Doukhobors found freedom in Canada, along with many settlers who were fleeing persecution in their homeland.
However, it was not until after World War II that a specific policy for refugees began to emerge in Canada. Millions of people displaced by war were resettled throughout the world in those post-war years. Canada has done her share, offering haven to more than 500,000 refugees in the intervening years.
Although Canada participated in the drafting of the Convention on Refugees in 1951, refugees were still considered under general immigration policy. However, under those terms Canada accepted some 40,000 Hungarians after 1956 and some 12,000 Czechoslovakians after 1968.
One year later Canada signed the UN Convention and Protocol for Refugees, formally recognizing refugees as an entity separate from the general immigrant population. This marked an important watershed for the refugee policy. In the interim, Canada welcomed some 7,000 Ugandan refugees.
Our refugee policy continued to evolve. The proclamation of the Immigration Act in 1976 provided a legal framework for the determination of refugees among individuals arriving in Canada. The Act allowed us to control the intake of refugees based upon our priorities and international commitments. Refugees, like all other persons intending to settle in Canada, were expected to apply abroad. However, as a signatory of the Convention and Protocol for Refugees Canada also agreed that it would not return to their homeland those determined to be refugees and to whom we have granted protection.
Canada faces a different set of circumstances today from 1951, 1969, and even those of 1976. When Canada signed the Convention it was assumed that a number of applications by people who appeared spontaneously at our borders would be manageable, given Canada's relatively isolated position and her acceptance of refugees from abroad. However, refugee issues cannot be divorced from general world developments. We are currently in the midst of one of the largest migration
September 28, 1987

movements in history. It is estimated that between 70 million and 80 millions have left their countries of origin in search of a better way of life.
The problem is twofold. Unprecedent population growth in the Third World has raised expectations all over. The drift from the country into the city and severe economic problems have led to a vast movement of people looking for a better standard of living. On the other hand, changing economic fortunes in the late 1970s and early 1980s led developed countries to reduce greatly the opportunities for immigration and employment. As a result, a claim of refugee status became virtually the only means to obtain entry and work authorization.
This situation was further aggravated by a spate of ideological and civil conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, and Central America. Inevitably a large number of people affected by economic, political, or natural disasters not of their own making have tried to use the refugee claims system to enter developed countries.
There is no doubt that many of these individuals are genuine refugees in the true sense of the term. However, there are also many others trying to take advantage of asylum who are not persecuted or in fear of their lives because of their expressed opinions or beliefs. They are economic migrants who rightfully belong in the immigration stream.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before calling it five o'clock, I should like to indicate that the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) will have 10 minutes remaining on debate when we continue this matter tomorrow or whenever, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 31, consideration
of the motion of Mr. Young:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
Nuclear Armaments
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the motion was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner) had the floor. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the Private Member's Motion presented to this Chamber by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
The motion calls upon the House to urge that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the Government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
A nuclear weapons free zone can be established as an international zone by treaty or by national declaration and policy. They are generally considered to be a confidencebuilding measure which serves in peacetime to enhance international stability and provide a positive climate for arms control negotiations. Nuclear weapons free zones are a sane approach to the slowing of the momentum in the arms race by reducing the flexibility of nuclear weapons options and the circumstances under which they could be used.
At this time, roughly 59 per cent of all Canadians now live in nuclear weapons free zones. This is a circumstance that arises because some 169 municipalities have declared themselves to be nuclear weapons free zones. In fact, each time I leave my riding to return to Ottawa by way of the Regina airport, I am greeted at the outskirts of Regina by a sign that says: "You are now entering a nuclear weapons free zone". In fact, 168 other municipalities across Canada have made similar declarations.
In addition to the 169 municipalities, the Province of Ontario, the Province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories have all declared themselves to be nuclear weapons free zones. The municipal councillors who attended the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' annual general meeting actually formed a nuclear weapons free zone committee to found a national organization sometime in 1988.
The activities at the municipal and provincial levels have been ongoing. There is acceptance in many parts of Canada for this kind of a proposal. Today's motion would urge the federal Government to get involved as well to ensure that the other 30 per cent of the population will live in nuclear weapons free zones.
Around the world, there are now four international treaties that set up nuclear weapons free zones. These treaties cover the Antarctic, all of Latin America, the sea-bed and outer space. A fifth treaty, the Raratonga Treaty, attempts to

September 28, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
establish the South Pacific as a nuclear weapons free zone, but the treaty has run into some difficulties. While it has been recognized by those members of the South Pacific forum, including New Zealand, Australia, China and the U.S.S.R., both France and the United States have refused to sign.
As well, there are a number of other proposals for nuclear weapons free zones in the world. Talks continue among the Nordic countries to create a Nordic nuclear weapons free zone. Several countries in the Balkan Peninsula from Greece to Romania, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia are attempting to participate in an agreement that would make that area a nuclear weapons free zone. There is considerable discussion ongoing about extending that zone into Central Europe. Countries in the Indian Ocean area, some African and southeast Asian countries and some of the Middle Eastern countries are also discussing such a proposal.
It is of interest that the Inuit Circumpolar Conference is also at work drafting a proposal for an Arctic nuclear weapons free zone to comply with the ones in the Antarctic and the South Pacific. Seventeen nations including Austria, Japan, New Zealand and Sweden have declared themselves unilaterally to be nuclear weapons free zones.
As a symbolic gesture, the declaration of a nuclear weapons free zone is an expression of will to oppose the nuclear arms race. As one of the proponents has put it, it is a formal declaration by countries that they will neither acquire nuclear weapons nor facilitate the build-up of nuclear weapons by other states, that they will complement and support the nonproliferation treaty and that they will strengthen the momentum to freeze, reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.
Canada has long taken an official stand in international circles that is supportive of the declaration of nuclear weapons free zones. At the UN special sessions on disarmament in 1978 and in 1982, Canada voted in favour of joining the final declaration on the establishment of such zones. This stated support, however, has not materialized into concrete action in Canada. Only some of the provinces, territories and municipalities have participated.
In reality, Canada appears to provide support for the testing, development and training in the use of nuclear weapons. We allowed the testing of Cruise missiles, for instance. Canada places no restrictions on Canadian industrial involvement in the production of U.S. nuclear and nuclear-capable delivery systems or their components. Canada allows port visits by nuclear-armed naval vessels and has supported this commitment even further by the acquisition or declared acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines as proposed in the recent White Paper.
In addition to these more obvious breaches of our stated non-nuclear policy and our commitment made at the United Nations, Canada is less than stringent in the application of policy restrictions on the export of nuclear-fissionable materials. Although these are not to be used in Canada or
anywhere else for the production of nuclear weapons, there is some evidence to show that our exports to South Korea, France and the United States are making their way into the atomic bomb programs of those countries.
There are a number of things we can do to aid the program we claimed we supported at the United Nations. We can cancel Cruise missile testing and the testing of other nuclear weapons systems or their components in Canada. We can prohibit port visits of nuclear-armed ships as has already been done in Denmark, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and many other countries. We can pursue the creation of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Arctic together with other nations with Arctic interests, and we could end Canadian industrial participation in the development and production of nuclear weapons systems or their components.
In summary, I would like to put on record the words of representatives of Project Ploughshares. They said:
A nuclear weapons free zone is not an attempt to make one immune to the effects of war, rather it is an attempt to influence national and international behaviour before war breaks out, ... A nuclear weapons free zone is a peacetime measure to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons, to withdraw political and technical support for the nuclear arms race and to build trust between nations and regions of the globe.
I think Canada could have no better goal than the acceptance of this motion. I would hope that the preliminary step would be taken to establish Canada as a nuclear weapons free zone.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us reflects a concern on the minds of many Canadians. I refer to the role of nuclear weapons in preserving collective security and Canada's responsibility in that regard. Given the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons it is understandable that Canadians want to be informed and knowledgeable about their Government's policy in this area.
First, I would like to emphasize, as a matter of reality, that Canadian policy and practice is in many respects already in conformity with the resolution before us. Canada does not possess nuclear weapons. In normal peacetime conditions no nuclear weapons are deployed, tested or constructed within Canada, or transported through Canada. Neither could such nuclear weapons-related activities occur on Canadian territory without the express permission of the Canadian Government. 1 remind the House that Canada is distinct from several of our NATO allies in that we do not have nuclear weapons in our inventory or on our territory. As for Canadian exports, which we just heard about, it is Canadian policy that all exports of nuclear material, equipment and technology shall be for peaceful, non-explosive uses only.
Second, I emphasize that the Government is sympathetic in principal to the broad concept of nuclear weapons free zones. Canada has supported resolutions at the UN calling for the creation of such zones. I note, however, that in the few cases where such zones have been officially proclaimed, they do not
September 28, 1987

necessarily include prohibitions as comprehensive as those set out in this motion. For example, the South Pacific nuclear free zone, which Canada welcomed, does not prohibit transit through the zone by vessels which may be carrying nuclear weapons. This reflects the fact that even in the few regions where steps have been taken to establish such zones, the measures are adapted to the specific strategic realities and security interests of the countries concerned.
Our Government's approach is pragmatic. Our central concern is to ensure that our policies contribute to national security and international stability. A central pillar of this Government's national security policy is collective defence as exemplified by our membership in NATO and NORAD. The primary role of the alliance is to safeguard the security of member nations by deterring aggression. This Government believes, as do other NATO Governments, that the nuclear deterrent strategy of the alliance has been a critical factor in maintaining peace in the East-West context for over 40 years. Canada voluntarily shouldered the obligation to contribute to the capability of the alliance to implement its strategy of deterrence. It would not be consistent with our alliance membership, or with our own security interests, for Canada, as a matter of principle, to attempt to dissociate itself from any and all aspects of the nuclear deterrent strategy.
The second central pillar of our national security policy is arms control and disarmament. The Canadian Government, like other alliance Governments, recognizes the desirability of moving toward reduced reliance on nuclear weapons. The fact that the U.S. and the Soviet Union appear close to successfully concluding an agreement on the elimination of both short and medium-range nuclear weapons is most encouraging. I remind you, Sir, that those negotiations began as a result of an alliance initiative, and progress has in no small measure been due to the ability of the alliance to maintain a consistent and co-operative approach to the negotiations. Similarly, the alliance is lending its support to the efforts of the superpowers to negotiate radical reductions in their strategic nuclear weapons. As we move toward a less nuclear world, the conventional balance of forces gains an importance. In this area, too, alliance members are co-ordinating their efforts to bring about negotiations toward balanced, and preferably lower, conventional force levels in Europe.
Canada has been able to offer serious and constructive input to these several arms control negotiating efforts because of our presence at the table as an alliance member. Even in multilateral arms control forums, much of Canada's credibility and capacity for influence derives from our alliance membership. This signals to others our level of knowledge about arms control developments and our enhanced access to the deliberative forums. Without that membership we would have been poorly informed of developments, and our credibility seriously depreciated.
The question must be asked: What would be achieved by passing the motion before us? In many respects, as I noted, nothing would change. Canada would remain a country
Nuclear Armaments
without nuclear weapons and without direct involvement in the manufacture or maintenance of nuclear arsenals. By signalling a desire to dissociate ourselves from key aspects of the collective defence strategy, our credibility and influence would be significantly diminished. Our own security would certainly not be enhanced, and it could even be compromised. Our influence elsewhere would in no way be enhanced, and it could in fact suffer. It would, in sum, be worse than a futile gesture which would fly in the face of the reality of interdependence, which is as real in the area of national security as it is in other policy areas.
It took the world 40 years to get itself into the current situation of East-West tension and the build-up of nuclear arms. During the last year we have at last begun to see agreements which lessen tension and actually reduce the number of nuclear weapons. It has always been my contention that there is no easy half-hour television solution to disarmament and arms control. It will take patience as we move step by step towards the goal desired by everyone.
The conference on peace and security held last year, in which Canada played a major role, provided new measures to reduce tension in Europe. The proposed agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union on short and intermediate range nuclear weapons will eliminate, it is true, only about 3 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons. However, it is an important start.
Let us work towards the reduction of tensions and suspicions to a more open verification system for nuclear arms, troop movements, and chemical weapons. Let us continue to work carefully towards further verifiable reductions while at the same time keeping NATO strong. It is my contention. Sir, that the resolution before this House at this time does not do that.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). The motion says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
This, of course, is a very large subject. In the ten minutes I have I wish to concentrate on only one part of it. First, I wish to respond to two things said by the Hon. Member who just spoke. He said toward the end of his remarks that arms reduction will take a long time and will need patience. I agree with him. He, I, and many others in this House can remember discussions of this more than 40 years ago. I also agree with him that it is very heartening that now that the Soviet Union has achieved some parity with the United States on nuclear arms there seems to be some willingness on the part of the

September 28, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
United States to negotiate some arms reduction. I regret that it has taken so long and hope that it does not always depend upon the balance of terror, as the establishment likes to call it.
1 do not agree with the Hon. Member when he argues that Canada should reject this resolution because we need to participate in nuclear alliances in order to have access to their information so that we can to be credible when negotiating arms control. That reminds me of a cartoon in the Toronto Star by the famous cartoonist, Ben Wicks. The king was sitting on his throne with his jester in front of him and he said, "Make me laugh, tell me the one about getting disarmament through making more bombs".
It seems to me that if Canada, which has very considerable civilian knowledge of nuclear matters, were to withdraw from nuclear alliances, we would not lose our credibility. Unless the Government wants to cancel everything which the National Research Council does, we need not lose our ability to understand the peaceful uses of nuclear weapons. 1 think we would be more credible to the smaller and middle-sized countries of the world if we divested ourselves of our ties with the nuclear powers.
I want to concentrate mainly on the Arctic. I admit that 1 have not been there much. I went to the Yukon once, but all Canadians, most of whom do not live in the Arctic, must give it more thought because the Arctic is becoming very important. It could be the focal point for the expanding ambitions of several countries and, therefore, a focal point for the risk of nuclear war which, it is agreed, we need to prevent.
The Arctic is a major theatre of interest for the American Star Wars program, the American air defence initiative, which some people call Son of Star Wars, and the American maritime strategy, which includes invading Soviet ports in order to destroy the Soviet submarine fleet. For that they may want to use the Arctic, perhaps even part of the Canadian Arctic.
All of these plans are inherently destabilizing and aggressive. Deployment, which makes it possible to make such moves as 1 have described, is threatening the Russians with the possibility of a U.S. first strike against their retaliatory or second strike capacities. Most arms experts and nuclear experts agree that that would be the shape of a plan which would be perceived in that way by the Soviet Union. Even if we say that the U.S. does not intend to use it, it is very foolish to give the appearance of intending to use it. If they do not intend to use it, they could say so which, of course, they refused to do.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke about this on May 25, 1987, when he warned that if Star Wars are deployed with counterforce weapons, they do produce the option of a first strike. Some of the Government's actions are not consistent with that important understanding expressed by the Prime Minister. The policy of allowing Canadian corporations to engage in Star Wars research clouds that issue very gravely.
It is important for the Government to show leadership in this matter.
As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have said and demonstrated through their actions, we have the opportunity to get many other powers in the world to listen to us when we have a serious program. We could extend leadership toward the goal of helping to ensure that there is no nuclear war.
One way in which to do that is to negotiate for a nuclear free zone which would cover the Arctic. Not only the Canadian Arctic would be involved, and this is where the negotiating comes in. The Americans are present in Alaska and the Soviet Union is present throughout its side of the Arctic. Greenland, Iceland and the other Scandinavian countries all have a strong stake in the Arctic and the benefits of a nuclear free zone there. Canada could take a lead by inviting them to talk about that and trying to set up agreement in which all countries could participate on an equal basis to reduce the threat throughout the Arctic without any one country making itself dangerously vulnerable.
For Canada's part we would probably have to agree on several things. We would have to deny the use of Canadian soil and waters to the U.S. for their air defence initiative, their Star Wars, and their maritime strategy. The present Government of Canada has been investigating this possibility vigorously. We would have to investigate it more vigorously and perhaps more contentiously. We would have to continue the general work, especially as it relates to that area, of discouraging the build-up and deployment of nuclear weapons, at least within the Arctic.
We would also have to refuse to test the cruise missile, particularly the one using the stealth technology, which is the most obvious threat to the Soviet Union. We would have to ask that the Soviet Union also refrain from testing similar missiles on its northern territory. We would have to stop allowing the transit of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.
We have some rather slippery agreements with the United States which seem to say that they will not store, deploy, or use these weapons on our soil except when there is a crisis, in other words, except when they want to. They do say that when they are going to, they will let us know and we will have a chance to agree. It sounds like a 30-second phone call to tell us that they are coming over with the bombs and asking whether we object. I do not know what Canada will have to say about it at that point. We must make it clear that our territory is out of bounds for an action that might bomb the Soviet Union.
We must take over our own northern defence and warning system to ensure that it will be used for strategies which promote peace and the cooling down of tensions rather than threatening war. We must cancel low-level flight training for B-52s and other nuclear capable planes from the NATO countries. Finally, we must talk with the Inuit and other northern people around the Circle to find out what they are doing by way of negotiating among themselves.
September 28, 1987


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) for his presentation of this motion because it is efforts such as this by public figures that make it possible for organizations throughout the world to take action.
I also want to congratulate the organizations on disarmament and other anti-nuclear organizations whose persistence in many of these nations has made this a cause of the public rather than a cause of the few.
1 sometimes wonder what kind of world we would have today without those small groups of anti-nuclear activists, who march in the streets and demonstrate in front of the City Hall in Toronto or Vancouver. If they were not there to pressure the Government to put the reins on the development of nuclear weapons, what kind of world would we have? What kind of world would we have if the public did not take an interest in limiting nuclear arms?
I can only imagine the horror of what might have happened if there had not been organizations that dared to stand up and oppose the war machines of the world. I think, for instance, of the group holding hands around the nuclear base in England. This is the type of action that brings the concern of people to the attention of Governments throughout the world. If these groups were not persistent in making their views known throughout the world, there would probably be a much greater prevalence of nuclear development and armaments throughout the world.
We must give all our support to this kind of public intervention. I join an anti-nuclear march whenever I see one because I think it is that type of support that allows people in nations of the world to speak out against the development of arms that can destroy the world.
This debate has taken place on several occasions, and we hear the same arguments which attempt to negate the support we wish to give disarmament groups. However, I believe that the passage of such a motion for a nuclear weapons free zone would send a message that we not only support peace, we are willing to send a political message throughout the world that Canada is ready to take a decision on disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, there is always a chance they will be used.
The U.S.S.R. and the United States will retain those nuclear weapons for as long as they believe a nuclear deterrent is required. Presently, discussions are taking place in an attempt to reduce the number of weapons in the East and the West. However, if the U.S.S.R. and the United States believe they require a nuclear deterrent, why is it necessary for other countries to be part of the nuclear armament structure?
If Parliament is unable to pass a motion such as this, we will not be encouraging the development of the peace movement, or even giving the current disarmament discussions the support that is necessary in order to succeed. While this motion will
Nuclear Armaments
have no effect on the deterrent force of our allies, it would send a message to the rest of the world that there should be no further development of arms that can eventually destroy the world. Once the button is pushed, it makes no difference whether these weapons are designed for first use or for defence.
If the number of nuclear weapons free zones throughout the world increased to the point where the majority of countries declared limits as suggested in this motion, nuclear armed countries like the U.S.S.R. and the United States will perhaps listen to what we say.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part briefly in the debate on the motion moved by our friends to the left on August 31. First, I want to say that this issue is quite serious. On the one hand, we have heard some of our colleagues in this House support a motion to have Canada withdraw from the nuclear club. On the other hand, others say that agreeing with this motion would displease our allies since we could no longer take part in some aspects of our agreements with them.
The issue before us is indeed one that is of unimaginable proportion. In 1945, the first atomic bomb was exploded in the desert of New Mexico. From that point on life itself changed. Man and humanity had created the power to destroy itself. We cannot change that. It has happened. It is here and here to stay. Some people will argue that since the Hiroshima disaster, the so-called theory of mutually assured destruction has worked. Mutually assured destruction is abbreviated as "MAD" and there is something to be said for that abbreviation.
Of course, not only do we have mutually assured destruction in the event of a war but at the present rate of building up nuclear armaments, we have in fact mutually assured destruction whether we press the button or not at some point in the future. The point I am making is that in everyone and every thing there is a margin of error. The people who work in nuclear silos, the people who operate that machinery, and even the decision makers are not beyond the potential situation of making an error. Sooner or later-hopefully, much, much later, or not at all until we have totally dismantled nuclear warheads-we will have an error of some sort. Obviously, given that there is no room for any error, that day could be quite sad, not only for the people who started the confrontation, not only for the other side, but potentially for everyone.
The Secretary General of the United Nations gave a speech to the UN General Assembly on December 12, 1984. He described the situation I have just outlined with the following words:
No ideological confrontation can be allowed to jeopardize the future of
humanity. Nothing less is at stake: Today's decisions affect not only the

September 28, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
present, they also put at risk succeeding generations. Like supreme arbiters, with our disputes of the moment we threaten to cut off the future and extinguish the lives of the innocent millions as yet unborn. There can be no greater arrogance. At the same time, the lives of all who lived before us may be rendered meaningless. For we have the power to dissolve in a conflict of hours or minutes the entire work of civilization, with all the brilliant culture heritage of humankind.

What Javier Perez de Cuellar was telling us, Mr. Speaker, was that we have not only the power to destroy, but also the power to make our future and our past completely meaningless because the destruction would be of such a magnitude that what came before and what will come in the future would have no real meaning as our way of life would be completely destroyed.

The only atomic bombs which have ever exploded have been in two cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We commemorated the 40th anniversary of that event here on the steps of Parliament Hill sometime ago. I was there at that august ceremony to remember 40 years ago. There was a woman there who came to describe to us how she had lived through the incident. She was there the day the bomb exploded. She described the horror of those days. Today we have one million times the nuclear power that destroyed Hiroshima. I am told that the nuclear power the world has now is enough to destroy the planet 40 times over. One would think that once would be more than enough, but we have enough to do it 40 times. Obviously there is a message there. Apart from everything else, there is the tremendous waste of energy and human potential, the tremendous waste of resources. Surely there are better things we can do with our money than to buy enough armaments to blow ourselves up 40 times over.
One cannot help but wonder what the last 39 times is supposed to do after we have destroyed our world once? I do not know the answer to all of those questions.

It is quite possible that no one in this House can reply to all these questions, Which makes it difficult to understand why Governments, individuals and countries would want to accumulate these nuclear devices.
I believe that it is important for us Canadians to do two things. First, we should take concrete action to encourage other countries, and preferably all of them, to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Second, I believe that it is important, and here I disagree with the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), to preserve our alliances with our friends. However, Mr. Speaker, even though someone is our friend and our ally, this does not give him the right to destroy our planet.
While I am myself in favour of Canada remaining a member of NATO and NORAD, I believe that it is important for us to support such a motion to indicate to the United States, to the Soviet Union and to all other countries that what we want
most of all is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to get rid of their nuclear weapons. By giving our support to this motion, and I hope that it will be adopted, we shall at least be telling those two countries that we are willing to do our share even though we are not a major power, and that we have the courage to do something which might lead the way to more concrete action by greater powers than Canada.

In conclusion, the Secretary General of the United Nations also stated that no one had given the United States and the Soviet Union the right to decide whether this world was to live or to die.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to support the motion put forward by my friend, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), that the Government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone. I note that in his motion the Hon. Member included the transportation, testing, construction and deployment of nuclear weapons and associated equipment.
First, we must acknowledge that while Canada has begun to take steps which contribute to the ultimate goal of Canada becoming a nuclear arms free zone by ensuring that nuclear weapons, as my hon. colleague stated, are not stored or deployed on or from Canadian soil, we have not taken as a nation full measures which would show to the world our commitment to the full participation in the prevention of war. In fact, some countries might say that Canada's stance has been hypocritical. For example, Canada has voted in favour of treaties establishing nuclear weapons free zones on the seabed, in the Antarctic, Latin America, outer space and similar initiatives in Africa, the South Pacific and the Middle East. Despite the fact that 169 Canadian municipalities, and Ontario, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and, I am proud to say, the area I represent, the Yukon, have declared their regions nuclear weapons free zones, Canada has declined to do what it supports others doing. Ostensibly, one of the reasons given is our NATO commitments.
NATO commitments aside, whether we agree or disagree with them, the North Atlantic Treaty makes no reference at all to nuclear weapons. In fact, the eight members of NATO have some sort of prohibition on the deployment of other NATO members' nuclear weapons in their territories. This excuse just does not wash.
Despite sentiments supporting Canada's role in the nonproliferation of nuclear arms, the Government still places no restraints on industrial involvement in the production of U.S. nuclear and nuclear capable delivery systems or their components. Canada still allows port visits by nuclear-armed naval vessels. Canada is a regular producer of components for an arsenal of nearly 30 different nuclear weapons and related weapons, aircraft or other weapons systems. Nuclear weapons
September 28, 1987

training by the United States, and possibly other NATO powers, takes place across Canada from the Northwest Territories to the U.S. border.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), so eloquently stated the other evening when he was presenting another Private Members' Bill, "Citizens are not reassured by the proliferation of arms; citizens are reassured by the reduction of arms", as noted by the recent welcome news that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have been successful in at least some measure of arms reduction. The argument that we can only be strong as we participate in increasing arms, because that will make our citizens feel secure, just does not wash either.
Today, there is an immediate action that the Government can take, an action that would send a strong signal that the country does not support the potential proliferation of nuclear trade. Currently, the United States is in the process of deciding whether to sign an agreement to transport plutonium dust over Canada's North. While this is reactor-grade plutonium, there will be enough plutonium on each flight- and it is estimated that there will be a flight every two weeks over 10 years-there will be enough plutonium to build 15 to 20 bombs, each one the equivalent of the Nagasaki bomb. Should this plutonium fall into terrorist hands, not only Canada's North but all of Canada and the world would be at risk. Canada must not participate even by default in such a potential horror. Should this agreement take place, 26 times a year this possibility will exist. Over 10 years the odds for hijacking or a crash, which would have equally devastating environmental effects, may also occur. We have only to say, "No".
Similarly, in the Arctic, as my hon. colleague from Spadina pointed out, despite proposals since 1964 to de-nuclearize the Arctic, about one-third of the nuclear submarines proposed by the Government will be sent there. It is considered that there will be an escalating effect of both militarization and nuclearization of the entire Arctic.
Canada has a proud history of peace-keeping. Through this motion we have the opportunity to be a part of peace-making.
Canada is certainly not a major world power in terms of our amount of arms and in terms of being a major physical deterrent to war. We are not one of the superpowers in that sense. However, we have shown through our history that we have been able through negotiation, through moral suasion, and now with this motion through action, to show that we do not support the proliferation of the nuclear race in any way, not only by not storing arms on our soil, which we do not do, but by not participating in any way in the production, the transport, or components-in any part of the nuclear race.
1 believe that if the House supports this move, as many municipalities and regions in Canada have done, what we will see is much greater support by Canadians who want to be a
Adjournment Debate
part of the peace-makers of the world and who do not want to join the nuclear race through any form of production of nuclear arms. We have an opportunity here to be a leader in this area. As I mentioned earlier, Canada has supported very strongly the fact that other regions such as Africa and Latin America have treaties with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. We can join them by taking such action and by reinforcing that leadership.
I urge all Members of the House to support this motion unanimously and to show the people of Canada that we will not participate in a war in any way, that we will make a strong statement and we will work for the preservation of the world and all its citizens.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a question that is not only important today but is one that has been important in the past. We have been able to arouse the interest of Canadians. We know that this is a priority subject.
I certainly had the opportunity to bring it forward in another forum in which there was a referendum held on whether or not people wanted their municipalities to be nuclear weapons free. There was an overwhelming response in favour of that referendum. We then asked all the municipalities across the country if they would put such an issue on a referendum. Over 60 per cent of the Canadian population spoke out on such a motion.
What we are looking at today is the ability of the House of Commons to support this motion and to bring forward a Bill which would say to Canadians, "We are leaders. We understand the nonsense of being able to destroy ourselves 40 times over. We recognize the fact that we have the ability of showing other countries that Canada is truly a peace-loving and peacekeeping country".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. When debate is resumed on this motion the Hon. Member will have seven minutes.

The hour set aside for consideration of Private Members Business has expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) this order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
September 28, 1987
Adjournment Debate

[Stage Direction]
MONTREAL NEWSPAPERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION / FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on the question I asked last Friday, September 25, concerning the break off of free trade negotiations with the Americans.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, we saw so many contradictory moves and heard so many contradictory comments on the part of the Government that we simply did not know who was telling the truth. As the common saying goes, it was as though we were looking at a government running around like a chicken with its head cut off.
For his part the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speaks from both sides of his mouth, depending on where he is and which newspapers he is talking to. The English newspaper The Gazette has him stating that there can be no question of convening a summit meeting to discuss the break off of negotiations. To the French daily La Presse he is reported as having said that he is prepared to meet with President Reagan. In Saturday's newspapers certain editorial writers referred to the situation as a dialogue of the deaf. Le Devoir, La Presse, everybody was asking: But who is telling the truth in this case?
In the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said, and I quote his very words: It would be, I think, inappropriate at this time and perhaps unhelpful at this very moment for the President and myself or anyone else at that level to get involved. As he was saying this his Chief of Staff Derek Burney was talking to his American counterpart Howard Baker, and today we see that two of his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade, are in Washington to discuss with American negotiators in the hope of getting the negotiations back on track.
Mr. Speaker, the truth in all this is that last Friday a rumour was circulating among the public, in fact there was a news item in several daily papers that the Minister of Finance had contacted American Treasury Secretary James Baker to tell him about five conditions to reopen negotiations. I will read the text of the conditions which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) allegedly gave Mr. Baker. Indeed The Globe and Mail rather accurately sums up the five conditions. First:
Rules applying to fair and unfair trade such as dumping, countervailing duties and subsidies, spelled out in extremely clear terms and subject, in the event of disagreement, to "impartial, binational and definitive resolution;"
Clear general rules interpreted in an objective fashion with all elements of the agreement subject to speedy dispute settlement procedures;
Balanced widening of access for each country's agricultural and food products in the other's market;
Changes to automotive trade rules only if they hold the potential for more trade, production and employment in both countries;
A 10-year period during which virtually all tariff and non-tariff barriers to almost all trade would be removed with no new barriers introduced.

When I asked the question Friday, I was told: No! No! That does not exist, and to quote him, Mr. Speaker: "The answer to the question is no, the Government of Canada did not submit five conditions-nor three nor seven-since the chief negotiator suspended negotiations". I am not the one who said that, the Right Hon. Joe Clark did, the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, in reply to my question, said: No! No! There were not five conditions. Mr. Speaker, the question that comes to my mind is where will we get information and who is telling the truth.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the whole matter is that the Canadian Government once more was deluded by the Americans. Mr. Simon Reisman himself, the chief negotiator, over the weekend stated on CTV's Question Period that in his opinion, the American administration had many other concerns besides free trade. The discussions never received all the attention they deserved at the highest level of government, and to quote him: "They only got involved over the last 24 or 36 hours".
This Tory Government is so obsessed with the United States that it is missing completely the time perspective of the rest of the world. As stated today in Toronto by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), and I will quote him because this is important:

"In its obsessive focus on the United States in the last three years, our Government has lost opportunities in the Pacific Rim, in the European Economic Community, and with many of our other trading partners outside North America. Our trade deficit with the Pacific Rim countries has jumped from $764 million in 1984 to $4 billion in 1986.
With Japan alone, our deficit went from $71 million in 1984 to $1.7 billion in 1986. Imports from the United Kingdom and other European countries are up 54 per cent from 1984, while our exports to those countries have only increased 14 per cent in the same period".
That was a quotation from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) from a speech that he made in Toronto today at noon.

If at least, Mr. Speaker, that blindness, that boundless attraction to the United States had been benefical to us, we could and we would then understand that something had to be handed out in the negotiations. But the net result of the Canada-US relations is rather sad. Let me recall it. According to Mr. Reisman, they never took us seriously in those free trade conversations. During that time, Canada for its part dismantled the Foreign Investment Screening Agency and abandoned the National Energy Policy to please the Americans. The latter responded by imposing all kinds of restrictive
September 28, 1987

and punitive measures against Canada, as the import tariffs on books, the export tax on lumber, cedar shakes and shingles, the pressures on the pharmaceuticals industry with Bill C-22. The list is long, Mr. Speaker, it even includes Christmas trees. Is that long enough? Now they are talking about potash, pulp and paper, cultural industry, the Auto Pact, just to name a few. Mr. Speaker, there was a lack of seriousness in these negotiations: in the discussions the Government should have talked about such realistic things as how to implement a comprehensive agreement, an agreement which would have boosted trade between both countries. But no, they talked about other things, and I should like to remind the House that a very sobering article by Maxwell Cohen was published in weekend newspapers.

Maxwell Cohen says it very nicely:
It is difficult to understand the mind-set that led to the delay in focusing on what now appears to be the most serious obstacle to a comprehensive free trade agreement. Indeed, it is arguable that the absence of a vision of the system that was to come out of these negotiations-constitutional, administrative and adjudicative-affects not only the dispute-settlement issue but also many of the implementation and substantive questions, from agriculture to investment, to cultural/intellectual property, to services.

Mr. Speaker, I could not put it any better than that. Mr. Cohen said it all.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, not to be provocative, a lot of people can say it better than the Hon. Member. He started off his diatribe tonight by saying that the Conservatives were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Can one imagine a federal Liberal saying today that we are running around like chickens with our heads cut off? I mean, they cannot make up their minds on the Meech Lake Accord. They cannot make up their minds on trade. They cannot make up their minds on many things. For the Hon. Member to accuse us of running around like chickens with our heads cut off is being, to be kind to him, a little exaggerated, just a little exaggerated.
I only have three minutes, unfortunately, because there were so many exaggerated, unfounded, and untrue claims in the Hon. Member's speech about so many things.
He said that the Government is attacking Canada on the lumber industry. It was the lumber industry which filed against the Canadian lumber industry; it was not the Government. It was the potash industry in the United States which filed against the potash industry in Canada. It is not the Government attacking the Government.
The Liberals have been going around spreading all these claims. They say that we sold out on shakes and shingles. They slapped a 35 per cent tariff on shakes and shingles. The federal Government, the Government of Canada, stopped shipping our cedar logs to the United States, so they are in a worse situation
Adjournment Debate
today in the United States than they ever were. The only thing they accomplished was jacking up the prices. We are still exporting our shakes and shingles down there, as we are our softwood lumber.
The Hon. Member does not have his facts right. He talked about these five principles which are the bottom line for us. Those five principles are nothing new. They were expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) right from the very start. They are nothing new at all.
He talked about our negotiators. Everyone in the United States who has anything to do with our negotiating team has said that we have the best negotiating team-the best equipped, the best informed, and the most solid negotiating team going.
When the Americans were taking us for granted, the negotiating team walked out. However, now the Americans are not taking us for granted. Now the Americans are saying: "Come on back to the table, we want to negotiate again".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are crawling there on your bellies.


John Horton McDermid: We did not crawl. They called us back, and that is why they are down there today.
I will tell the Hon. Member what is going on down there today. Maybe he could understand this analogy, just maybe he could understand it. Let me use baseball because it is current right now; everybody is paying attention to baseball. We are in a rain delay right now. Does the Hon. Member understand that? We are in a rain delay right now. We have to wait for the outcome of the talks between the officials to see if the players will be asked to resume the game or go to the showers. That is what is happening right now. Those talks are going on now, and I hope they will come to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary just struck out.


ACID RAIN-POSITION OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION-CANADIAN MESSAGE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on September 18, I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) regarding acid rain and what the Government is doing about Canada's number one environmental problem. I received a rather unsatisfactory and complacent response. At that time, the Minister said the following:
We have already taken a major step because we have here in this House a
statement from the President of the United States on the matter of acid rain.
The American President simply reiterated a promise already made about expenditures and about taking the problem seriously, a promise he had previously broken. We are not very optimistic that it will be honoured the next time around. The President still thinks that trees cause acid rain and other kinds

September 28, 1987
Adjournment Debate
of pollution and still does not see the responsibility of industry or of Government to push industry into cleaning up.
Why are we getting this response from the Americans? I suggest that it is in part because our own Government has sent a mixed message. It has told the Americans it will be friendly and will go along with whatever they say.
The joint report of the special envoys on acid rain by Drew Lewis of the United States and Bill Davis of Canada is an embarrassment and a scandal. It opts for more research, as if the problem was not already too well documented and as if we were not losing time in the battle against acid rain. It was a complacent report, agreed to by Canada's representative. We lost more time dealing with the report.
Why has this become another issue just recently? Just published has been a study by the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program in the United States. This report has the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) all riled up, as it well ought to. It is entitled The Interim Assessment of the Causes and Effects of Acid Deposition. I might say that the phrase "acid deposition" is a way of escaping responsibility for acid rain.
The report says that acid rain might not be such a bad problem and wants things to be more thoroughly documented. It points out, for example, that the farming soils in Canada are not yet ruined by acid rain. If we waited until the soils on the Prairies were acidified, we would have lost them. Imagine replacing all the soil in Canada because it has become acidified. We will have enough trouble with the waters in our lakes and rivers.
The idea that we should wait until it is too late to correct the problem is totally irresponsible, yet that is what this group has suggested. I suggest that the Government itself must bear some responsibility for allowing it to think that that would be acceptable.
The Minister of the Environment called the report voodoo science. There is nothing wrong with the science in the report but it is short-sighted and does not look to the need to implement measures of prevention before it is too late. It is wrong in its application. In fact, it did not consider the Canadian problem at all. It ignored Canada, and the Government has allowed the Americans to do that.

A week ago I was in southern Quebec's Eastern Townships where one third of maple stands have died as a result of acid rain emanating from the United States. Forest decline over there is now far advanced-one third in that region-and the scourge is unrelentless. If one third of trees in the border area are affected, the other regions will be just as badly affected. And perhaps next year half the trees will have died because of acid rain, and again one third or one half in other regions. We cannot afford to wait for an effective remedy against this scourge.

Acid rain is our number one environmental problem. One half of acid rain in Canada comes from the United States. Yes, we must clean up our own act and we are not doing as much as we should, but in the region of Estrie, more than half the acid rain comes from the United States. This area has not been significantly affected by Ontario emissions. We know that the problem is coming from the United States and that our own Government is not acting strongly.

The environment is a major concern of Canadians. Acid rain is the most urgent problem with respect to Canada's environment.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want concrete steps to be taken.
We have had enough of research. It is time we had serious action. The response of the Government to date of just waiting for the Americans, having a chat with the homologue of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not enough. We need to send a strong and consistent message to the U.S., not just publicity programs. It cannot be botched up by sending a confused message of acceptability of the current state of affairs.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Government's initiatives on acid rain and respond to the Hon. Member. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is in Washington today pressing for a reduction in acid rain causing emissions affecting our country. His schedule includes meetings with congressional representatives, environmental organizations, industry, and the administration. I do not call that complacency. The Minister has done more on the environment than any Minister in the past 20 years and is finally getting the U.S. to react. The message he is delivering is clear, simple and reasonable: Canada is taking action to reduce emissions and expects the U.S. to do likewise. Is that a complacent response? I hardly think so.
Our strategy vis-a-vis the U.S. is three-pronged. First, we must continue our efforts to convince the administration of the need for a positive response to our proposal for an international agreement to reduce the transboundary flow of emissions. The President's commitment to consider that proposal will be the focus of our efforts in this regard. Resolution of this problem is one of the Government's highest priorities, and I mean highest. Every effort has been made to this end. We have the Prime Minister's repeated personal interventions, representations by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of the Environment, and lobbying by the all-Party Special Committee on Acid Rain. Every effort will continue to be made in pursuit of an agreement.
September 28, 1987

Second, we must continue to ensure that Congress is fully apprised of the Canadian position. Full and accurate information will be crucial to congressional action on any eventual agreement we conclude with the administration. Members of Congress should have the benefit of our knowledge, research and experience. They should know where we stand and how important their efforts are on our air and rain.
Third, federal and provincial Governments and private individuals alike must work with interested Americans in an effort to broaden the understanding in the U.S. that acid rain is a serious international problem which must be addressed now. We know what we are demanding is not easy. We are conscious that it is not cheap. Delay will, however, not make it any less expensive for either of us. Indeed, in the end it will add to the expense.
We are asking the Americans to do no more than we are doing ourselves. When they act we will both be beneficiaries.


HARBOURFRONT-TORONTO PROJECT-FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, a week ago yesterday afternoon I was fortunate enough to attend the official opening of the Harbourside Co-op at Harbourfront in Toronto. From your earlier remarks I know you are a baseball fan and you will be interested to know that that co-op is built on the former site of Maple Leaf Stadium in Toronto. That stadium was demolished a number of years ago and is now part of the Harbourfront site.
I know you are well acquainted with the Harbourfront site because we have chatted about it previously. You will remember, of course, that it amounts to 100 acres on the waterfront. It is owned and operated by the federal Government through a board of directors appointed by us. They have been and are doing an outstanding job. You know as well that they turned the site, which in addition to the baseball stadium included old warehouses and other structures, into some marvellous housing, office and retail sales projects. Some 4,000 different activities are carried on there every year.
I am sure that you saw a recent advertisement in a number of newspapers placed by the Harbourfront board of directors indicating that they just won a very outstanding award. That award was made by the Waterfront Centre of Washington D.C. and is called the Honour Award for Excellence on the Waterfront. The federal Government's Harbourfront in Toronto was selected from over 100 waterfront developments across North America as the best. You can see what an outstanding job they have done.
At the same time there are problems with the Harbourfront. Many people are concerned about what the future holds. They are concerned that there has been overdevelopment of the site. They believe that the waterfront is being closed off to view. Some people say that a ceramic wall is being built between the
Adjournment Debate
water and the people of Metropolitan Toronto by all the overdevelopment on the site.
As a result of this concern the City of Toronto placed a development freeze on the site at Harbourfront as did the federal Government through the Minister of Public Works, the Secretary of State and the President of the Treasury Board. They decided that they would step back from it and take a close look at the situation. When that freeze was put on, six buildings were under development or in the pipeline at the time. They are, therefore, called the pipeline properties. All six of the pipeline properties were frozen as well when that freeze was put on by the City of Toronto and the federal Government.
I had the opportunity to be at the opening of the Harbour-side Co-op. That is a marvellous co-op which provides affordable housing for low and modest income people. We need a lot more of that in Metro Toronto and right across the country. At that time I spoke to many families and found that their main concern was what would happen with future development at Harbourfront and, in particular, the six pipeline properties. I found that the people either wanted the pipeline properties to be eliminated altogether, shifted to another site, or downsized. They were talking especially about the three properties which are right on the waterfront.
Interestingly enough, just prior to the official opening of the Harbourside Co-op the federal Government released a new report on the site which was done by an American town planner by the name of Garry Hack. Mr. Hack is a well-known waterfront planner who has planned over 12 different waterfronts in North America. He is a man of some reputation.
The things he recommended after studying the Harbourfront are very interesting. He recommended a slight reduction in the amount of housing planned, a slight reduction in the amount of office space, and a substantial reduction in the amount of commercial space. He recommended that nothing be built over 25 metres in height. He also recommended that Harbourfront maintain the same amount of open space as exists at the present time.
With regard to the pipeline properties he recommended that three of them go ahead; the Co-op on Bathurst Quay and the two rampart condominiums on Spadina Quay. He said that the two Konvey condominiums on Bathurst Quay should be redesigned altogether and that the Huang & Danczky building on Maple Leaf Quay should be eliminated altogether.
That is very interesting because it runs exactly contrary to what the City of Toronto council has now recommended. Not too long ago the City of Toronto council decided that all six pipeline buildings should be allowed to proceed as long as the federal Government agreed to transfer 6.5 acres of parkland to the city and to reduce future density of development on the site.

September 28, 1987
Adjournment Debate
In the past, the federal Government has always followed the advice and recommendation of the City of Toronto Planning Department as far as Harbourfront is concerned. It does not have to do so because this is federal land and under the Constitution the federal Government can override everybody and everything on federal property. However, in consideration of proper planning principles we have always followed the requests and direction of the Planning Department of the City of Toronto. That is the way Harbourfront was developed.
The question is now, when we have two dramatically opposing reports, whether the federal Government will follow our own planning report or the City of Toronto's planning report, which is dramatically different. The people of Toronto want to know and I know the Parliamentary Secretary will reassure them and me tonight.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all these questions deal with two different matters: the first one is about a ground lease, and the second one about the progress of a policy review concerning the Harbourfront area in Toronto, or its Old Port area, as we would say in Montreal.

The first question concerns a ground lease which Harbourfront entered into with the development firm of Huang and Danzckay. The question was raised in April, when the lease was signed, and is being raised again by my honourable colleague, the Member for York East (Mr. Redway). Why did the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) allow the lease to be entered into if a policy review of Harbourfront Corporation's role and mandate was just commencing and a pause in development had been initiated?
The simple answer is as follows: Pursuant to the terms of a purchase and development agreement between the corporation and the developer, all pre-conditions having been met, the next logical step in the agreement was the signing of a ground lease by a date specified in the agreement, April 30, 1987.
Because the corporation would have been legally liable if the lease had not been entered into at that date, and because the signing did not prejudice the outcome of the policy review, the Minister concurred that Harbourfront enter into the lease.
The second question relates to the progress of the policy review. Work on the policy review has continued through the summer and is now close to completion. Those officials responsible for the review have maintained close communication with the city officials, specifically through the Commissioner of Planning and Development.
On August 10, 1987, the city adopted its position on changes it would like to see at Harbourfront, seeking assurances that 40 acres of parkland would be delivered to the City of Toronto. The city's position was based on extensive public input from the Harbourfront Review Committee. The views of the City and the public input have been taken into consideration in the policy review and an announcement will be forthcoming very shortly.
On behalf of the Minister of Public Works, I wish to assure my colleague and the Canadian public that federal commitments on Harbourfront will be met fully very soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

Tuesday, September 29, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers