1987-03-24

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-830 to 332-832 inclusive, 332-918 to 332920 inclusive, 332-1111, 332-1112, 332-1116, 332-1117, 3321123 to 332-1127 inclusive, 332-1213 and 332-1214.



STRIKING


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventeenth report of the Standing Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT AND CURRENCY ACT


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-46, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 74 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 74 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POSTAL SUBSIDY PROGRAM

['Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada, most of them in the City of Toronto but some as far away as Willowdale and one from Ballinafad, Ontario. These residents of Canada support the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Parliament on a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force. They note that it is supported by the Canadian', '\nCouncil of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and other groups and individuals. Therefore, they request Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.']
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, either I did not hear you properly or you forgot to call petitions. I have a colleague who would like to table some petitions.


Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is correct. I think it would be appropriate to revert to petitions.



Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michei-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to table a petition concerning the housing policy in Canada. It is signed by some of my Saint-Michei-Ahuntsic constituents who object to the Government's decision to make major changes to the housing policy in Canada.
They feel, in this International Year of the Homeless, that this Government's definition of essential needs is preventing hundreds of thousands of Canadians living below the poverty line from receiving government housing assistance.
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to provide immediate additional aid to co-operative housing.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. I table it pursuant to Standing Order 106. This petition is also signed by some of my Saint-Michei-Ahuntsic constituents who object to the proposed amendments to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act.
They feel that the Government's proposals will increase the already high costs of the provincial health insurance plans and also directly affect all Canadian men and women who are not covered by private drug insurance programs.
The petitioners ask the Canadian Parliament to turn down these proposals which would increase the cost of drugs for all Canadians.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, on behalf of employees of Canadian National residing in my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton. These workers are protesting that management employees with less seniority are drawing money out of CN's pension plan ahead of union employees with greater seniority. They ask that Parliament investigate and correct this unjust situation.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the first petition I have the honour to present relates to the question of refugees. The petitioners are concerned about the fact that recent regulations are turning away genuine refugees. They call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which has also been duly certified, relates to proposed legislation to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. It points out that this will result in increased costs both for individuals and for provincial drug plans. It calls upon Parliament to reject these proposals forthwith.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present two petitions today. One relates to changes to the Patent Act. The people who have signed the petition are from the Province of Quebec, and I have the honour to present a petition on their behalf. They are opposed to the Government's intention to change the Patent Act. They believe that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs for provincial government plans. They believe that it will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They also believe that it is yet another example of the Canadian Government making concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by residents of Canada. They indicate their concern about the Government's attempt to change the refugee status and procedures for refugees in the country. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, with universal access to such hearings for each claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada, most of them in the City of Toronto but some as far away as Willowdale and one from Ballinafad, Ontario. These residents of Canada support the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Parliament on a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force. They note that it is supported by the Canadian


Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and other groups and individuals. Therefore, they request Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) moves his motion, since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply Bills.
In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the supply Bills be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for creating a state of confusion within its immigration program and for its lack of leadership and vision, which has seriously undermined the confidence of Canadians in the over-all direction of immigration policy;
That this House also deplores the Government's failure to address the growing frustration experienced by large numbers of Canadians who are unable to sponsor successfully family members as immigrants from abroad and its recent actions that undercut Canada's humanitarian assistance and protection for refugees legitimately seeking haven in Canada;
That, therefore, this House urges the Government to:
(1)	recognize the long-standing importance of family class reunification and to re-establish this program as the cornerstone of Canada's immigration;
(2)	adopt a fair, humane and efficient refugee policy which would reinforce Canada's past proud tradition and honour Canada's international obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees, signed in 1951;
(3)	introduce immediately a new and independent refugee determination system that would assure claimants processing that is fair, effective and expeditious while discouraging fraudulent applications; and
(4)	initiate a comprehensive educational program that will fully inform all Canadians of the facts about and benefits resulting from immigration and develop a long-term vision that would utilize immigration as a vehicle to strengthen our national unity and to contribute to greater economic prosperity.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a long-standing history of providing an opportunity for immigrants to start a new life. Past Liberal Governments have been especially hospitable to family reunification and compassionate toward the plight of legitimate refugees. We are a nation which opened its doors to the world and invited people to join in the building of a new country, a new life, and a fresh beginning.
Supply
Immigration has enjoyed a prominent place in Canada's history, but I am troubled by the questionable and confusing actions of the Conservative Government in Ottawa in respect of immigration policy. Thus, we in the Liberal Party have moved the motion today with the hope that by examining the status of our immigration program, the Government will end the uncertainty and aggressive ideology paralyzing the direction of the immigration policy in the country.
For my part, I would like to focus on three issues: family reunification, refugees and the need for a comprehensive vision of immigration. As a Member of Parliament for the riding of York West and as my Party's Immigration critic, it is painfully clear that under the Conservative Government one of the greatest frustrations experienced by Canadians is an inability to sponsor relatives from abroad successfully. Not only must they overcome the aggravation of a lengthy processing time, but at the end of that long road all too many applications are rejected. Canadians are asking themselves why. Four reasons help account for that frustration.
First, under the Tory regime the priority for the family class designation has been lowered substantially. Conversely, under Liberal led Governments, family reunification was the cornerstone of the country's immigration policy. In his announcements of the 1987 levels last October, the Minister, who is still not present in the House, limited and froze the family class proportion to only 30 per cent, whereas under Liberal Governments in the mid-seventies and early 1980s the family class stream ranged from an impressive 45 per cent to 55 per cent of the total program.
Second, last June, the Minister refused the Liberal Party's recommendations, contained in the immigration committee's report on family class immigration, that prospective immigrants who have family in Canada should be awarded additional points under the current point system. The result would often make the difference between a negative and positive determination. We also encouraged the Government to expand the definition of "family" so that brothers and sisters of Canadian citizens could also qualify for priority processing. These recommendations were founded on the principles that as Liberals we believe in the important and relevant role played by the institution of the family within the immigration process. For it is the family in Canada that provides the newcomer with a cultural, linguistic and psychological bridge as well as opportunities for employment, shelter and financial assistance. Consequently, having relatives in the country should be elevated to as an important criterion as other variables, such as education, language and job skills. These reforms would be welcomed by Canadians. They would be far reaching toward easing the frustrations that grip many Canadians.
Third, the Conservatives doubled the number of entrepreneur immigrants permitted into Canada. While we all welcome and recognize the economic benefits of business class


Supply
immigrants, this category should not develop into the predominant one and create a situation whereby those immigrants, able to pay their way into the country, would be the only or principal benefactors of our system.
In addition, our immigration officers abroad have reported to me personally that as a result of the ambitious, entrepreneurship targets imposed by Ottawa and the extensive work required to review and approve each single business proposal, financial and personnel resources are being shifted away from the family class sector into the business immigration class. The net effect, of course, of the family reunification applications processed is both fewer and slower. This should not occur. Yet the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) allows the practice to continue unchallenged.
The Minister also refused to increase the visa fees for business immigrants, who are more than able and willing to pay a higher rate, so that additional staff could be hired with the extra revenue to facilitate additional business immigrants. Instead, because the entrepreneur and family class applicant both pay the same $125 charge, imposed for the first time in Canada's history by this Conservative Government, we have the absurd situation where the wealthy are being subsidized by the poor and where the family class reunification is being hampered by the entrepreneurship program. It is a reality which is most unfair and in need of immediate reform.
Fourth, the recent targets for immigration levels announced by the Government are misleading. While the Minister increased the target levels, he has not provided our immigration posts abroad with a proportional increase in visa officers who are required to process the additional immigrants. As a result, in 1986, while the target was established at 115,000, projections indicate that we were going to fall short of that figure by some impressive 30,000 individuals.
Therefore, when the Minister announced a further increase for the 1987 levels to 125,000 without allocating additional resources, he was simply being intellectually dishonest with Canadians because these figures will never be realized. If the Government is unwilling to increase resources to match the increased targets, then it should stop playing politics with immigration targets and honestly inform Canadians of the real number of immigrants arriving and allowed to enter Canada.
When these four factors are taken together, it is obvious why such delay and frustration exists within the family class levels. Again, we call upon the Minister and the Government to re-establish the family class reunification stream as the undeniable, unquestionable cornerstone of our immigration program, and further, that he accepts the Liberal Party's recommendations which would serve to relieve the pressures within the family class system and substantially eliminate the frustrations felt by thousands of Canadians each year when they attempt, unsuccessfully, to have their relatives join them in Canada.
With regard to our responsibilities toward the plight of refugees, and as a signator to the 1951 United Nations
convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1968 protocol, Canada has developed an honourable tradition of humanitarian assistance to those who are displaced, persecuted and who are fleeing in search of a new home. The proud record, Mr. Speaker, for which Canada recently received the Nansen medal took many years to achieve. It was only made possible with the extensive and warm support of all Canadians.
However, the recent actions of the Tory Government are cause for grave concern. In a few short months, Tory initiatives have begun to undo our country's hard-earned reputation in the area of refugee policy. Canadians are witnessing a Government preoccupied with fabricating a refugee immigration crisis and thereby manipulating public opinion in a desperate attempt to bolster its sagging popularity in every part of the country. The Tories are labelling the current situation as a crisis. On this basis they have advanced the regressive changes announced on February 20. The only crisis is the one which lies on the Government benches, the Tories inability to provide moral leadership and compassion in what is one of the most sensitive and emotional areas of federal public policy.
In past years, Liberal Governments, together with all Canadians have demonstrated their belief in a humane and generous refugee program. Canada has welcomed special refugee movements in an addition to annual quotas in response to crises around the globe. Consider the past acceptance in individual years of some 37,000 Hungarians, 12,000 Czechoslovakians, 7,000 Ugandans, 7,000 South Americans, over
50,000	Vietnamese boat people in the late 1970s and early 1980s, 11,000 Lebanese, 9,300 Poles and 3,000 Salvadorans. How shameful it is in the backdrop of these numbers, approved and taken with open acceptance by Canadians, for a Government which now attempts to create a crisis out of some 85 stranded Chilean refugee women and children in Argentina who, with their husbands and families in Montreal, were caught in transit following the changes of February 20, to have refused them entry into this nation just recently. I submit with all due respect that this is a tactic which is morally bankrupt. Whatever happened to the Prime Minister's announcement of August 19 last year when he said in reference to the plight of refugees " ... and if we err, we will always err on the side of compassion, and on the side of justice."
Despite yet another shattered commitment from the Government, I and my Party have faith in the judgment and fairness of Canadians. I have every confidence in their genuine desire to overcome the politics of fear and deception. Together with them, the churches and the countless refugee organizations that have strongly protested the direction of the Government, I call upon the Ministers responsible for immigration to stop turning back the clock on the refugee policy, not to return it to the dark ages but, instead, to present and discuss the straight facts before Canadians and involve them in making the appropriate choices that would be fair, sensitive and just to


those fleeing persecution, and in the best interests of our country and the international community.
Another significant drawback has been Canada's unwillingness to distinguish between a landed immigrant and a refugee. The circumstances moving these two types of individuals to come to Canada are entirely different. While the immigrant seeks to join his or her family, to improve his or her lifestyle and to start anew, something which is completely legitimate, welcomed and acceptable, the legitimate refugee is escaping persecution, torture or death and is seeking a life of order and security. Yet there is one system through the Immigration Appeal Board dealing with the two types of applicants. The result is a backlog and questionable judgments.
As well, an outdated system is addressing a new phenomenon. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the task was largely limited to selecting our quota of refugees from refugee camps around the world. It was then a relatively simple and effective method. In recent years, however, people have been arriving on our shores claiming refugee status and we lack a system capable of addressing them in a fair, humane and expeditious fashion. The backlog is further aggravated and, to a great extent, the Conservative Government is the architect of its own misfortunes. It has failed to act by establishing a new and independent refugee determination system. Such legislation has been promised for the last two and a half years by no less than four different Ministers of Immigration. The Government's inaction cannot continue.
The Plaut report, the Standing Committee on Immigration, the churches, the refugee organizations, the legal community and interested Canadians have all endorsed the concept of a new structure. The Liberal Party's position for a new refugee determination system with proper safeguards and a strong appeal mechanism is crystal clear and was fully explained and illustrated in a recent minority report. Our model advocated a fair and expeditious hearing, one which would discourage potential abuse of and within the system.
The evidence is clearly in, yet the Government continues to stall and to further complicate the system by tinkering with temporary short-term measures. It makes tough policy stands one day only to be followed by intentions of imposing a general amnesty the next day. The Government is adding layer upon layer of confusion and this is causing Canadians to lose confidence in the entire system. In addition, within such a disorderly and unpredictable atmosphere, it is the legitimate refugee who suffers while the chances for fraudulent applications are greatly improved. This situation must stop and it must stop now. We cannot afford further delay. The Government must introduce reforms immediately.
The third failure is the Government's lack of leadership toward developing a long-term strategy for a progressive immigration policy for Canada, a strategy that would seize immigration as a tool to strengthen national unity and create greater economic prosperity. We need a strategy that sensitizes Canadians to the benefits resulting from immigration, a strategy that addresses our nation's massive landscape and
Supply
abundant resources, a strategy that accounts for our dwindling birth rate, our aging population, our need for skilled labour and the net outflow of 50,000 Canadians every single year. We need, therefore, to articulate what role immigration can play and how it can best play that role for the future interest of Canada and its future generations.
Of particular importance is the need to communicate the advantages of immigration and to refute some of the prevailing myths. Throughout the cent' ry, Canada's birth rate has been gradually declining and particularly so since 1960. The fertility rate in 1976 was 1.8 per family. Over the decade, it has fallen to 1.6 as of 1985. Projections indicate that the birth rate will continue to fall to 1.5 by 1991 and to 1.4 by 1996. By the year 2031, our country will begin to face a sharp decline in population. Such a dwindling birth rate has been considered by many policy-makers as being dangerous to a society such as ours with a relatively small population. I would submit that a coherent immigration policy can help to solve that dilemma.
Conversely, Canada has a rapidly aging population. While this can be claimed as being a victory over mortality and ill health, many studies on the age structure see this as being a social crisis for Canada. The ramifications this will have on our labour and employment needs, our social services, our health and educational institutions and our viable continuing support of a pension system are indeed profound and serious. Once again, immigration can help address this challenge facing Canada.
Regrettably, immigration has been perceived as contributing to unemployment. It is felt that immigrants place a heavy burden on the social service infrastructures. Yet study after study has painted a very different picture.
A major 1986 report entitled "The Employment Effects of Immigration: A Balance Sheet Approach" by John Samuel accounted for jobs created by business immigrants, for jobs created by an increased number of consumers, for the skills immigrants have brought with them to Canada and for the capital and investment they have brought into Canada. The study concluded decisively that between 1983 and 1985,
17,000	more jobs were created in Canada than there were immigrants coming to Canada to fill them in those two years. Another report by the same author found that newcomers to Canada generally found employment relatively soon. A 1980 study demonstrated that immigrants spend fewer weeks on unemployment than their domestic cohorts. As well, statistics reveal that of the 10,000 applications for welfare received each month in the Province of Ontario, it is estimated that only 800 originate from refugees.
Immigration can and does increase domestic demand, worker productivity, economic growth and job creation. In addition, there is the value of the skills of immigrants, skills for which Canada has not had to pay. The investment value of the capital and earnings they bring to our shores further stimulates our national economy. The Government, however, has failed miserably to communicate these aspects of immigration and has ignored the solutions an immigration policy can provide to


Supply
some of our more pressing and major social and economic challenges. It is a responsibility that the Government must actively and immediately pursue if it is genuinely concerned about its immigration and refugee policies. I invite the Minister to do exactly that.
The history of this country is deeply rooted in the moving and magnificent saga of a people uprooted by circumstance and history who arrived on our shores to an undying promise of hope and purpose. Make no mistake about it, immigration will continue to play an integral role in shaping the Canada of tomorrow. That tomorrow can, however, be clouded by a Conservative Government which today advances a mean-spirited and disjointed immigration and refugee policy. That attitude and approach must change. It is not in keeping with the proud heritage which the Conservative Government received from previous Governments and Canadians at large.
Future legislation must be of a radically different temperament. It must recognize that social progress and social justice are the fulfilment of freedom. It must recognize that one moral obligation of free men and women and free nations is that of employing all our ability in improving the lot of our fellow human beings. Canada must be a leader in the international community in addressing the plight of refugees. It must not by its actions encourage other countries to opt out of collective international agreements arrived at after many years of struggle and debate. It is also essential for the Conservative Government to remember that this year has been designated the International Year of the Homeless. It must ensure that its philosophy, actions, statements, legislation and leadership is guided by that spirit.
Finally, we in this House and in this country must recognize one undeniable reality. History has placed us all within one common border and under one common law. All of us, from the wealthiest and most powerful to the poorest and weakest share one precious position; we are Canadians. Granted, from time to time it is not easy to remember what that means, but in large measure it means to have left the familiar for the unfamiliar. If the Conservative Government continues to deny the stranger among us, it will be denying the very essence of Canada and its future. I look forward to hearing the Ministers responsible for immigration and government Members as well address this motion today. We should be able to leave this Chamber and use the debate as momentum to indicate Parliament's resolve to create a better country today and a better country tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a question or comment, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, before directing a question to my colleague concerning his remarks, I should like to say where I stand in this debate. If I may, I want to tell the House that my Lithuanian grandmother and my Polish grandfather came to
Canada in 1904. On my father's side however we have been French-speaking Canadians for 200 years. So I might indicate that I am somewhat emotionally divided in this debate, but certain facts did take some significance in the course of my life. This is why I should like to ask my colleague a question about his approach to this issue. He confuses refugee and immigrant, and he refers to the welcoming country which Canada once was and which, as he sees it, is threatened by political changes or quite simply by refugee regulations.
With that in mind I will quote from a February 21, 1987 editorial published in Le Droit and entitled:
So that refugee status might regain its legitimate meaning
-and subtitled:
A pause
In his first paragraph Alain Dexter writes:
A Minister of Immigration in a Government which does not rally full public support has to show some courage to take position on an issue such as refugees. Any decision on so impassioned a topic automatically becomes a controversy.
Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say:
-there exists a commercial trade in human misery.
Were the Ottawa Government to accept unconditionally all foreigners anxious to come to this country it would play into the hands of those unscrupulous "travel agents" who exploit the naivete of people who seek to better their living conditions by looking for a piece of land where prosperity, they are assured, is a sure thing.
And further on:
Some people accuse the Mulroney Government of betraying a long-standing Canadian tradition-
In fact, Ottawa is doing nothing more than reverting to the practice followed by the previous Liberal administration.
So I should like to hear what my colleague has to say, knowing as I do that he is quite sincere. He is the son of an immigrant. I am the granddaughter of immigrants, and 1 should like to have a truly serious response, Mr. Speaker.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the family history of the Hon. Member for Gatineau. I think she is sincere, as most members are sincere, in relating her family history. However, it was not this Member of Parliament for York West who lumped immigrants and refugees together. What I was attempting to do in the time allotted to me was make the Government aware of the position it is putting immigrants and refugees in when it lumps them together in one stream. We cannot allow the Immigration Appeal Board to judge the immigration application of someone's grandmother from Holland and at the same time deal with refugee applicants from El Salvador. The two are very different. Unless we separate the two, we will not only create a backlog, we will also be making erroneous judgments in life and death matters. It is my duty and the duty of the Government to distinguish between the two and give us a system to deal with them independently. That would be much more fair to both groups and would resolve the frustration many Canadians experience in their attempts to have relatives join them in this country.


The Hon. Member referred to an editorial which suggested that Canada cannot allow everyone from all corners of the world to enter Canada unconditionally. I hope she is not suggesting that I or my Party believe that we can. Everyone knows we cannot accept the 15 million refugees searching for a home around the world. However, what we can do, and what Government has done in the past, is play our role and provide leadership to the international community. If we opted out, as we seem to be doing, given some of the regressive moves introduced by the Government, we will be sending a signal to the Great Britains and Switzerlands of the world that they, too, can opt out. They will use Canada as justification for their actions. If Canada can do it, and it is in the forefront, then we can as well.
The corner-stone of our policy has always been family reunification. That is what Canadians want. That is what they had. My father entered this country with S30 in his pocket. He was able to build a life, educate his children, buy a home, start a small business, and become a proud, loyal and contributing Canadian.
We on this side of the House are suggesting that while we need to take in more business immigrants to help us build a stronger economy, the country will also be built in the future by immigrants who have neither dollars nor investments. Given the opportunity, they will help to enhance and develop this country so that it will become even bigger and better than it is today.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his answer, but I would remind him that I also asked a question concerning the editorial sentence which reads:
In fact, Ottawa is doing nothing more than reverting to the practice followed
by the previous Liberal administration.
This is why I am wondering.


Mr. Prud'homme:: What practice?


Claudy Mailly: It is explained in the editorial. I quote:
the practice ... of having betrayed a long-standing tradition by repealing its
policy under which refugee status claimants were not deported.
It says that the practice existed before, and that it was a practice of the previous Liberal administration. Would Mr. Dexter be wrong?


Sergio Marchi: The Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) should have listened more attentively to my speech. We are not talking about returning to the practice of past Liberal Governments because the phenomenon of refugees has changed. In the 1960s and 1970s Canada played its role by going to the refugee camps and selecting a quota of refugees which would best integrate into this society. That method was very clean, clear and effective. However, in the last several years some refugees have not been waiting for our visa officers
Supply
to visit them in Bangkok, the Philippines or Hong Kong. They are arriving on our shores by sea and by air, sometimes coming across the American border.
The system we used in the 1960s and 1970s was right for that time, but we are now living in the 1980s. We are asking the Government to put in place a system which can meet the needs of the refugees of today. Only then will we be able to build upon the heritage and traditions of yesteryear. If the Member for Gatineau suggests that we should return to the systems of yesteryear, she will be placing her Government in an even more precarious position because that is to say that we should get refugees only from the refugee camps and close our borders. That is not our position.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for the motion he has introduced. I will have more to say about it later. Would he expand a little on his comments with regard to the Government's recent actions which he finds unfortunate? Would he comment on what he thinks may be the reason for the Government's action? Would he also comment on whether there are similar patterns of action in governments of the United States and western Europe?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP immigration critic for that question. As he well knows, on February 20 the Government moved, in our estimation, in a regressive way. I said that the actions were disturbing and disconcerting because one of the actions was to remove the B-l list from our immigration policy. That was a list of 18 countries developed with Canadians and External Affairs offices abroad. We said that the situations of humanity in those countries were too fierce to deport individuals. Overnight, and apparently without consulting External Affairs, the Government removed those countries from the list and said that individuals from those countries must now apply within the process. The Government has thrown away a number of years of work in producing that list for maximum protection.
When that list was in place individuals from the Soviet Union, as an example, would not be deported and, therefore, were not placed through our refugee stream. By eliminating the list the Government is placing in that refugee determination system thousands of people who otherwise would not have gone through it. Therefore, in addition to it being unfair, the backlog has been increased.
In addition, the Government has touted an agreement which it supposedly has with the United States. To this day we have not seen one line on one piece of paper showing conclusively that there is an agreement between the two Governments. Perhaps in their upcoming meeting the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his friend, President Reagan, can elaborate for Canadians on whether such a legal and binding agreement in fact exists. If it does not, they should tell Canadians.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard).


Supply


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think it is unfortunate that today's subject for debate is immigration, since the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is not in the House and in fact is out of town. I think he would have made a very constructive contribution since, his knowledge of the daily operations of the department, he would have provided the kind of information that I think would have been of interest to Hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In any case, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate, because I believe we all realize the importance of this issue and of the various points raised in the motion presented by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
In my opinion, Canada will have many challenges to meet in the years to come, especially with respect to immigration, which has always been, and still is, an important factor of our economic and social life.
The present Government is now giving immigration a new orientation which I believe will better serve the cultural, social and economic interests of the Canadian society.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying a few words about future immigration levels. Last November my colleague, the Minister of State for Immigration, announced levels for 1987 of 115,000 to 125,000 new Canadians. This is an increase of 10,000 to 20,000 from 1986. Our reason for increasing immigration levels is fundamental. Canada needs immigrants. We need the growth and enterprise the immigrants represent.
This not an isolated gesture. We have increased the level every year since coming into power. We have sought out new Canadians who can build the economy. We have made room for refugees from camps overseas. We have increased family reunification flows and made the procedures simpler. The Government understands and supports the importance of an immigration policy which emphasizes economic, social and demographic growth.

Mr. Speaker, this Government believes and has always maintained that far from taking away jobs from Canadians, whatever they may be, and I think this is fundamental in this debate, immigrants create jobs. Basically, they bring in capital. They set up businesses. They stimulate consumer spending. No other Government has worked so hard to make Canadians aware of the positive impact of immigration on our economy.
In setting immigration levels, both social factors and humanitarian considerations are taken into account. Family reunification is and will continue to be the cornerstone of the immigration program. We are always extremely diligent in reuniting families separated by vast distances.
Forty-five thousand immigrants in that class will be admitted to Canada in 1987.
In charting this course, we placed unprecedented emphasis on the consultation process. Last year our consultations involved more than 600 groups, including non-governmental immigrant, church and community organizations; provincial and territorial Governments; other federal Departments; and experts in immigration and demography.

Mr. Speaker, we are putting more emphasis on consensus. In December, we sent some important documents to volunteer organizations and the private sector. In those documents we outlined a number of measures aimed at improving the process for consulting with the private sector on immigration levels.
Mr. Speaker, we received many replies, which contained some valid proposals, both regarding the process itself and some specific factors that should be considered in determining future immigration levels.
We fully intend to maintain and refine the practical and compassionate method we are using to set immigration levels in the years to come.

This consultative process has prompted the Government to increase immigration levels over those set by the previous administration. Contrast this with the decline in announced levels from 130,000 in 1982 down to 90,000 in 1984.
With the Government's first level announcement in 1984, we moved to increase immigration in a moderate and controlled manner. Let the numbers speak for themselves. In 1985, we increased the levels from 85,000 to 90,000; in 1986, from
105,000	to 115,000; and 1987, from 115,000 to 125,000. This simply demonstrates our strong commitment to bring more immigrants to this country.

Mr. Speaker, as far as established levels are concerned, we shall not only maintain a humanitarian attitude towards refugees but we will go further. Canada will admit 17,000 refugees in 1987. Of that number, 12,000 will be sponsored by the Government.
Furthermore, Canada is co-operating closely with international organizations dedicated to the cause of refugees, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross, which receive major contributions from this country.
Mr. Speaker, I think Hon. Members are aware that recent events have posed a serious challenge to the Government's refugee policy. The aim of our response has been basically to maintain the credibility of the Canadian government policy. With this in mind, on February 20 we adopted a set of temporary measures-the operative word is indeed temporary-to control arrivals of claimants and to minimize abuse


of the system. We have always said, in the House and elsewhere, that these measures were basically aimed at controlling abuse of the system and thus protecting the bone fide refugee.

Canadians appreciate, even if certain Members of the House choose not to, that these measures to stem the flow of illegal claimants do not signal a move away from the basic humanitarian thrust of Canada's immigration policy. On the contrary, they seek to preserve the integrity of that policy for bona fide refugees. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) says that the Government has created confusion and it accuses us of lack of vision.

Mr. Speaker, we are not creating a state of confusion, on the contrary.
Admittedly, the situation is difficult and unprecedented: the facts of immigration have changed and 50 million people in various parts of the world are looking for a land of refuge. This is an international political fact, but not specifically a fact of our immigration policy. Indeed, it is because of the concerns of this Government for genuine refugees that we believed at the time and still believe that the action we took was necessary.
Let us talk about the control measures. While this term might seem frightening and likely to describe a mechanism used to restrict freedom, I believe that some control was necessary. These measures not only show that it is unfair-and I emphasize this basic fact, Mr. Speaker-it is unfair to process the claims of people who ask for refugee status without justification when tens of thousands of people ask to immigrate, and I am indeed talking about immigration, through legal channels, but these measures also indicate that Canada alone cannot solve the problem of international economic disparities.
Mr. Speaker, no government can allow the refugee status process as a subterfuge to allow people to usurp the immigrant status, for which they must basically apply.

Significant reforms are currently before Cabinet and new legislation will soon be introduced in the House reflecting commitment, fairness and efficiency. The Government's record in this regard is indisputable.
In addition to developing this expansionist, enlightened legislation for the future, we have already put in place the most sweeping quality of service changes ever seen in immigration operations. Canadians seeking to bring relatives to Canada can now deal with increasingly streamlined, efficient offices, radically different from the neglected and outmoded standard of service only a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, most Members of this House are probably aware of the excellent work carried out by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration chaired
Supply
by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), which Committee made 59 recommendations. The importance of providing a quality service to the public, the consolidation of the administrative methods on which officers base their decisions, the acceleration and improvement of the family reunification process for close family members who already have relatives in Canada.

This Government was quick to respond to the recommendations of this all parliamentary committee, adopting more than 50 of its recommendations. Before, a sponsor had to visit a Canada Immigration Centre to sponsor a relative abroad. We are conducting pilot projects on the benefits of doing this by mail. We are actively pursuing other means to ensure that family reunification is dealt with more expeditiously overseas. Decisions will be rendered within months, instead of years, as was too often the case. In order to do this, we will take advantage of modern technologies and eliminate unnecessary steps.

As for processing each claim in the substantial backlog accumulated under the Liberal Government, matters are now progressing well. We are now dealing with the increasing number of claims filed in Canada in an orderly and timely manner. While the number has been high, we have responded to each claim in an orderly and timely fashion.

In short, we have dealt and we continue to deal head on with the variety of immediate immigration issues, as well as with the legacy of neglect inherited from the previous Government. We are also addressing the long-term implications of immigration as no other government has. Although they have come in record numbers, we have responded in a manner that has allowed orderly processing and timely attention to everyone seeking assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member describes the immigration policy as confused. The fact is, and I believe that this is important-
We have to remember that a government must settle a problem with firmness and equity. That the Liberals have never done. I think this is something which could create confusion, but I also think Canadians are fully aware of what we have done and support fully the Government.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand our commitment to immigration, to genuine refugees and to our humanitarian traditions. They understand that this Government makes decisions which will benefit Canada, as well as all Canadians


Supply
now and those who will apply for citizenship in the future, both in the short and the long term.
Mr. Speaker, this country has a proud tradition of welcoming people from around the world. We shall maintain and emphasize this tradition in coming years.

We are making the tough decisions both in the long-term and short-term. Let me assure the House that we will continue to make these decisions in the days ahead.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. The policies of the Government are certainly tough and they are not humane. They do not, in my estimation, meet with the long-term goals of Canadians, once Canadians are given the straight goods, and the straight goods alone, and they are far from fair to those who legitimately seek entry into this country.
The Minister spent quite a bit of time speaking about increasing the immigration levels and targets. Can he tell the House why, when the Government has increased the target levels, it has not increased the resources to allow our ministries abroad to increase their production, as it were, in order that those numbers can be realized? In 1986 the Minister said the Government was going to allow 115,000 persons into the country, but predictions had only 80,000 to 85,000 people coming into the country. The Minister should answer that question in terms of correlating the resources and the target. The Government can have one million as a target but if it does not attach sufficient visa officers to those posts, it will still be processing 80,000.
The Government talks about family class reunification. Why did the Government's figure of 45,000 only represent 30 per cent of the entire immigration program? In the 1970s and the 1980s it was as high as 55 per cent. Out of those 59 recommendations, I support and compliment the Government on the 50 it approved, but it refused the more far-reaching and implicating type of recommendations, such as increasing the points for people having families here and increasing the definition of family. Why were those recommendations rejected?
Where is the agreement with the United States of February 20? Is it legal? Is it binding or is it a glorified statement between officials of both countries? Why did the Government remove the B-l list without consultations as was specified by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark)?
When is the legislation for a new refugee determination program which was promised going to be introduced? With all due respect, the Minister's predecessor suggested that we would have it immediately after the Plaut report in 1985. The Minister of State (Mr. Crombie) said it would be the fall of 1986. Then it was Christmas of 1986, then January of 1987, this year. Then it was February. We are now in March. Can the Minister tell the House and those groups across the country who are very interested and frustrated with the Government's promises in the last two years, when Canadians
can anticipate new legislation so that the work can really begin?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with the last question about when the new legislation will be brought forward. It certainly will be done a lot quicker than when the Liberals were in charge. The previous Government took three or four years and came up with only two reports regarding the question of refugees and immigration. I do not believe the Liberals had the courage at that time to face what we face today. They always put off any decision about immigration. They decreased the level of immigration, and that is all they did in 1982. I can tell them that in 1985, 45 per cent of immigrants accepted in Canada are family reunification. We do understand. When I talk about bringing the legislation in pretty soon, I say to my colleague quite frankly that I hope it could be within the next two or three weeks. I say I "hope" because there are many reasons for the delay, the first one being the complexities of this House.
The Hon. Member asks about the agreement with the United States. I know of the Hon. Member's commitment and the commitment of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). I do not want to play the kind of game where we put the refugees at the United States border with more problems than they already have. I can tell the Hon. Member we have all the guarantees. It is not a question of signatures and so on. We have the guarantee, and I challenge my hon. friend to tell me one person who was deported from the United States before requesting the status of the refugee at the Canadian border? It has not happened, and I do not want it to happen. If it does happen, I hope I will be informed by the Hon. Member or by someone else.

Concerning the whole immigration policy, it is my view, following the Hawkes Committee report which was submitted to us by all the people involved, I believe, that actually Canada is asking for just two things: first, that general immigration levels be raised, and, if possible, pretty soon I will strongly recommend to Cabinet that they be raised to 150,000, perhaps
175,000	immigrants a year, and that we be provided with the resources needed to implement that. I am convinced that Canada must not only maintain its immigration levels, but that it definitely must raise them.
As I said, what Canada needs is not just a political formula, I have always said and I will always repeat that Canada was born, developed and enriched by immigration. And Canada can go on doing it. However, this must be done in an orderly fashion and within parameters determined by the Government of Canada, rather than by way of measures that would not respect them.
Again, it is my view that within that process, and I think that the Committee last year proposed-I stand to be corrected if I am wrong-a particular section, a specific part relating to family reunification. I think that is an excellent recommendation. We were not ready at that point to respond, but there


certainly will be recommendations I would think will be made in that direction for the development of our future policy.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the Conservative Government's immigration policy is a consistent one, basically a policy evolving from parameters which respect it.
I will never accept that such a policy be managed on the basis of exceptions. I am just as sensitive as the Hon. Member to the question of refugees, having lived as I have, in the last three months, those events in a very intense way. But as I said, it is my view that this country will not accept that people should, using mechanisms other than those provided by the Act, enter into Canada and take the place of thousands of immigrants who run the risk of not being accepted themselves for lack of being refugees-resort to subterfuge, and take a roundabout way of entering Canada. All refugees, all genuine refugees who apply to Canada will be accepted. Those who are not, and this is a method that has been used far too long already, those who are not will unfortunately have to go through the standard procedure, seeking immigrant status or whatever.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions which I would like to ask the Minister. In 1986 the total number of immigrants who entered Canada, including refugees, fell 6,000 short of the Government's minimum target. The minimum target was 105,000, while the maximum was 115,000. The total number of immigrants admitted was 99,000, even though the Government had been warned that the new point system was too restrictive. I want to ask the Minister why the Government did not correct that restriction.
My second question is the following. Nine months ago in its report to the then Minister the standing committee proposed that an information package containing the information needed to complete an application for immigration be given either in Canada to the sponsor of the applicant or to the applicant himself overseas. Thus far little or nothing has been done about those suggestions which would have speeded up the process at no significant cost. In fact, there would have been a saving in terms of time in respect of interviews. I want to ask the Minister why nothing has been done.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member specify what he means by "restriction" in his first question?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the number of points required was increased from 50 to 70 out of 100, making it nearly impossible for a great many applicants to succeed. Over 180,000 people made the initial inquiry in 1986. Yet we did not even fill the modest number proposed by the Minister's predecessor. That is one restriction.
The other restriction is that the number of points attributable to family relationship was cut from 30 to 15. Therefore applicants were reduced in their ability to meet a standard that
Supply
had been increased by 40 per cent. It is no wonder that the Minister fell short of his target.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is something about which I would like to look at further in light of the fact that we dealt with a smaller number of immigrants in 1982. The number of people we had on staff at that time was in relation to the number of applicants we had to process. The increased level of immigrant processing does not have to be dealt with with the same efficiencies that were in place at that time. It is possible to improve, and I spoke about that in my speech. We have already improved a great many different parts of the process. I agree with my friend that it has to be possible to improve.
In terms of the main target, we do not want to say that we will accept 120,000 immigrants and accept 100,000. We want to accept 120,000 immigrants. We will consider all the ways by which we can do this. At the same time this is something upon which we can improve. Once again, in 1982, 1983 and 1984 we dealt with 70,000 people. The Hon. Member realizes the complexity of the system. It is not always easy to improve the services and the efficiencies in the great number of offices that we have as quickly as we decide to increase the number of immigrants.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that the previous Government put off the question of refugees. Is the Minister aware that in 1982 the Liberal Government admitted three special movements of refugees? It admitted 9,344 Poles following the Solidarity crisis; 3,024 refugees from El Salvador; and 2,501 refugees from Iran. These were all special movements which were taken into consideration in addition to the regular flow of refugees. Just before 1979, with the crisis in Lebanon, some 11,321 Lebanese were admitted. After the Vietnam war in 1975 some 9,060 Vietnamese were admitted into Canada. In terms of Ugandan Asians, in 1973 some 7,069 were admitted. After the Czechoslovakian problem in 1969 some 11,943 Czechs were admitted into Canada. Following the Hungarian crisis in 1957 the Government admitted 37,149 Hungarians. These figures are what led Canada to its receiving the Nansen Medal last year. Why does the Minister not follow the good example that we set in recent years and provide for special movements instead of cancelling them? Why does he not keep up with the record that we established?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I was not referring to numbers. I was referring to two reports which were tabled during the time the Hon. Member's Government was in power and to one report tabled since we took office. The Hon. Member's Party never had the courage to deal with those two reports. This is not a question of numbers; it is a question of making a very tough decision. The Government of the Hon. Member decided not to deal with the question of refugees but rather to deal with the matter by exception. That is the reality which we face today as a result of his Government. Members of the Opposition want me to deal with the refugee issue by exception. There is always an exception somewhere. Just two weeks ago there was a matter


Supply
involving Chileans, and last week another involving Lebanese. I am sympathetic to the causes, but at the same time we have to be sure that these people are refugees. It is not the Minister who decides if they are refugees or not. It was decided at the time that they were not refugees. The Government of the Hon. Member did not have the courage to deal with changes in refugee and immigration policies. That is what I meant.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague, the Liberal Party critic for immigration, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), for the introduction of this motion. It provides a good basis for debate. The main point of it is to condemn the state of confusion in which the Government has maintained our immigration policy, particularly the frustration experienced by a large number of Canadians who are unable to sponsor successfully their family members as immigrants and the recent actions which undercut-I would say reverse-Canada's humanitarian assistance and protection for refugees who are legitimately seeking protection in Canada.
First, I want to say that during the debate not only of the last few weeks and months but of the last two or three years I have become aware that there are many men and women of goodwill in all three Parties in the House who are concerned for both immigrants and refugees and who recognize more and more that these are two distinct matters not to be confused with each other. I hope today's debate will contribute to resolving the difficult problems that we have to face. I wish to talk more about the problems than about the possible erroneous attitudes of the Government, even though that subject cannot be entirely set aside. I wish to talk about the history of our immigration policy since World War II.
Second, I wish to talk about the recent attempts which I think will reverse that policy.
Third, I wish to deal with the strong push from Canadians who insist that we not only continue our policy but extend it further and improve it.
Fourth, I want to talk about specific recommendations on that matter. The recommendations which I favour, in line with large bodies of Canadian opinion, are not only my own personal opinion, nor are they the personal opinions of members of our caucus. They were endorsed, if not unanimously then by overwhelming and uncontested vote, at the biannual convention of the NDP a few days ago with the following resolution: "Be it resolved that the NDP strongly condemns the Conservative Government's February 20, 1987 guidelines on the treatment of people who come to Canada to seek protection as refugees; and be it further resolved that the NDP endorses a refugee determination process that is speedy, fair and accessible to all and which ensures the safety of those who seek refuge in Canada".
To develop the first point I mentioned, after World War II Canada greatly increased our immigration policy. In fact, the
population of Canada more than doubled since that time. While it was not all due to refugees-we had the baby boom- we took in many hundreds of thousands of refugees at that time. We developed, as has been said, as the corner-stone of that policy the principle of family reunification. We also brought in independent workers. Many of the manual workers in the factory where I served for 18 years came in at that time. We also brought in skilled workers, although many of them did not get skilled jobs here, and we also brought in immigrants with lots of money. It was one of the criteria used, however informally. I will not go into the political selection that was carried on at that time, which is being documented even now.
The refugees who were mostly selected-and perhaps beginning in the sixties a few were allowed to seek asylum in Canada and to make their claim here-were slowly recognized as a distinct group. Distinct practices, regulations and, eventually, legislation were developed. The United Nations played a vital part in that by developing the principle of asylum, the principle that a refugee is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution for race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or social group. In the five years following World War II, and into the fifties, that criterion was worked out among a large number of the nations of the United Nations, and documents were signed legally, in international law, binding countries including Canada to observe those principles.
Since then, as has been pointed out, Canada has received many thousands and many tens of thousands of refugees, sometimes in large numbers in a short time-and it has done it willingly-from Europe, from Uganda, and from Vietnam.
The rationale for that appears to be that it was in one sense the final stage of the European conquest of North America, doubling the population almost entirely of Europeans in the country. Second, it was also a magnificent source of cheap labour. I remember one of the immigrants in the factory telling me-and he could laugh about it because it was years past-that he was lucky enough when he came over to meet a fellow countryman from his own village who had a construction company and took him to work in his truck every day for a year, until the immigrant learned enough English to find out that he was being paid less than the minimum wage. That happened thousands if not millions of times, and it is still happening.
A third part of the rationale clearly is that we developed a humane principle, the principle that every human being has a right to be protected and that every state in the world-at least every state which signed the UN Declaration as has Canada- has an obligation to ensure that protection, not to close the door and say "go somewhere else".
In the publication Refugees from the UNHCR, the special issue on Asylum in Canada, a very good point was made. It says that it is remarkable "the international community still maintains an agency responsible for the defence of individuals in their relations with states." In other words, the refugee law of the United Nations protects every individual in the world, to


the extent that it makes it a duty of other states, if necessary, to protect an individual against his own Government. It continues:
In 1986 a Group of Governmental Experts' report identified "coerced movements" as sufficiently reflecting the rationale for refugee flight. It is compulsion in a wide sense, including war and armed conflict, which induces flight in fear for life, liberty and security.
They are broadening the definition of "persecution" to fit the facts of our time.
It continues:
UNHCR is a human rights organization in the sense that these basic human values are central to its organizational ethic.
It was very important that we developed that understanding. It would be very unfortunate to have it reversed. That appears to be what may be happening now, and the question is, why?
We have been told that there is a backlash. The Minister himself referred to the backlash in statements at the beginning of January, and he has built on that story which he told us. On January 8-and this was published in Refugees internationally- the Minister said, "we must face up to the reality that two-thirds or three-quarters of the people", meaning the people who come claiming status here, "abuse the system". That is false. The committee, in studying the matter, found that at least 50 per cent of the claimants were in fact either bona fide refugees or had a bona fide claim to humanitarian consideration. In fact, more than half the Chileans, more than half the Salvadorans, and more than half the Guatemalans who applied to our country have been found to be refugees. To slander all of them as being in majority false claimants is in fact promoting the very backlash some people have called racist.
It is very unfortunate that the Government, not just the Minister but senior officials, talked for years about queue jumpers and cheaters as though all refugee claimants were nothing but immigrants trying to get ahead of other people in the line. It is very unfortunate that they have encouraged, whatever their intention was, such a backlash. In fact, two years ago Canadian officials took a leading part in demanding that the countries of western Europe should collude with each other to shut the doors to refugee claimants. Canada's action in the United Nations High Commission Executive was to demand a "get tough" policy with refugee claimants. That is a disgrace to Canada.
We must recognize that our humanitarian policies going beyond the strict definition of refugee were dictated by what Canadians felt was good reason that a person should not be forced to return to the U.S.S.R.; after the Khomeini revolution or coup, a person should not be forced to return to Iran; by the same token, during the period of martial law against Solidar-nosc people should not be forced to return to Poland; and, likewise, people should not be forced to return to El Salvador.
We have had no assurance from the Government that in any of those countries, or in any of the others on the list of 18, the situation has changed so that it is safe to force people to return
Supply
there. In other words, the policy which the Government is now following is a policy of saying: "We will accept refugees only by selection overseas, only if they measure up to our needs for immigrants, whether it is for manual labour, mental labour, or any other purpose". We will not take refugees, is the Government's clear intention, except when we find they serve our purpose. They are to be kept at a distance, thousands of miles, until we give the signal to accept them.
A very foul example of this kind of misleading propaganda against refugees is to be found in The Saturday Star for March 21, 1987. On the front page is an article written by Gordon Barthos. He went to Salvador to find out why Salvadoran refugees were coming. His opening statement is that last year Salvadoran refugees cost Canadian taxpayers $11 million. He begins right away to attack them simply for being here. Then he asks why. He goes on to suggest that the first cause is the earthquake. That is so patently false because, although the big flow of Salvadorans started almost at the very same time as the earthquake, they were coming from the United States, not from Salvador. I am sure the reporter knows that and I am sure his editors know it. It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. He goes on to say:
Before rattled Salvadorans had time to recover from Wednesday's tremor, rebels raced through the city spraying machine-gun fire at several political targets.
In a half page story this so-called news reporter has not one word of acknowledgement of the billions of dollars which the United States has spent to arm and supervise the military of El Salvador in its war against the Salvadoran people by its intensive bombing of civilian villages and the assassinations by government-sponsored death squads. There is not one word in this whole misleading article. Then Mr. Barthos talks about the trickle of Salvadoran political refugees turning into a torrent. Six thousand people is a torrent when we took nearly
100,000	refugees from Vietnam? Mr. Barthos is trying to mislead the public. He goes on to write:
Canadian officials in Central America say deported Salvadorans face no risk of persecution in returning.
That is false, Mr. Speaker. If the reporter had examined the report done by the American Civil Liberties Union, he would know that there are documented cases of murdered returned refugees and that other reports show it to be very difficult to find most of the returned refugees when people go looking for them. They may be there, but nobody knows, and nobody knows what has happened to them.
Mr. Barthos comes close to the truth without actually hitting it when he says:
The war since 1980 has left 60,000 dead and a million displaced;-
He ignores, of course, universally attested statement that it is primarily the Government that has killed those people. The article goes on that the war has:
-caused $2 billion damage to the economy;-


Supply
He says people are forced to work for $4 a day wages. He implies that because, and only because, they are forced to work for $4 a day wages and that therefore they are coming to Canada as economic migrants and not as genuine refugees. His whole article denies the truth of persecution in El Salvador. This is the same paper which, with crocodile tears, published an editorial last Wednesday saying we should help the refugees.
The majority of Canadians have no use for such false propaganda. The Canadian Council of Churches representing the major denominations of the Protestant religion in Canada have called for a program in which the refugee claimant would arrive at the border and immediately be sent for an appointment with the refugee board. He would have a hearing at the refugee board with counsel if he wished. There would be a quick review of any negative decisions, not another hearing, and the individual would have a chance to add any further information. The whole thing would be done in about three months. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have said:
We wish to join with other community organizations and church groups in expressing shock and deep concern following the adoption of restrictive refugee measures, as recently announced by the Minister of Immigration.
That was written on February 25, 1987, speaking about the Minister's action on February 20. They say that the Government of Canada:
-must fulfill its commitments and grant asylum to all refugees, as defined by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
The Canadian Jewish Congress has taken the same stand endorsing what they call the "Hawkes model" which provides for universal access and a right to a review on the merits of all cases.
The CSN-
[ Translation]
The CSN said on February 27, 1987.
The right of asylum must be recognized, respected and protected. If persecuted people in this world are to have a way of escaping such situations, the right to seek refuge must actually exist. Any open policy is subject to abuse-it is incumbent upon us to find an effective procedure to discourage and fight such abuse. We therefore request:
(1)	that the right of asylum be fully maintained;
(2)	that the centres for applying for refugee status be maintained, and that the staff concerned be increased.
And, item 8
(8) that the CSN make representations to the federal Government for the repeal of the three measures recently adopted that change refugee access to Canada.

The Canadian Labour Congress has demanded that the Government re-establish the B-l list and that it take measures to speed up the determination process and guarantee that claimants will not be returned to Guatemala or El Salvador. It has demanded that the Government take special measures to ensure Chileans are not unduly singled out as they were by name in the Government's regulation for transit. It was
specifically directed against Chileans. The Congress goes on that the Government should reverse the policy of staff cutbacks in the federal Public Service. In other words, to allow that the good work be done. It wants the Government to ensure that funds are made available to those provinces which are faced with large numbers of refugee claimants so that humanitarian and legal needs of these persons can be met without an unfair drain on provincial resources.
The Canadian Auto Workers write:
We call on the Canadian Government to rescind recent measures directed against refugees. We further call on the Government to resist the temptation to play to one of Canada's most unpleasant galleries: the nativist Canadian element including Government Members, who arouse public passions in spite of their own immigrant roots.
There are many other groups who have endorsed this position. I want to speak about what it means to them. They represent millions of people. First, they want a society based on a commitment to mutual obligations rather than on force or on the advantage of money. Founded on that, they want solid human rights recognized, such as the right of asylum with no turning away from the person in need. What they have said in effect is that what we deny to others we implicitly deny to ourselves. What we wish for ourselves, we must extend to others.
Finally, this calls for a fair division of the labour and wealth of this world. Instead of using those people in El Salvador to run factories for Canada or the U.S. at $4 a day wages and insisting they stay there and work, with their union leaders shot, their co-op leaders shot, their church leaders shot, such as Archbishop Romero, for starvation wages for our benefit, we have to seek a fair division of the world's wealth and work so that those people will stay in the country they love and be able to live there, work there and be our neighbors.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make. I was very surprised and indeed shocked that this motion should be introduced today in view of the fact that the number of immigrants admitted to Canada since 1984 has been greatly in excess of the number admitted in the previous two years. This has been a pro-immigration Government which has recognized how immigration has been part of the Canadian story and has a positive contribution to make to the life of Canada.
As I understand it, the Government is attempting not to close off immigration or to reduce it, not to close off our borders to legitimate refugees, but to have a rational immigration policy that gives a fair chance to all who are legitimately seeking admission to Canada. I find that the changes in the regulations affecting immigration have received the most strenuous support from members of ethnic minorities in my own community.
I regret very much the reference to something called nativism. I believe that the support for the Government's policy is nowhere stronger than among the ethnic minorities


who have been outraged that so many people waiting their turn, going through the legal process to gain admission to this country, have apparently found others getting ahead of them in the line. I believe that it remains part of the commitment of the Government that every legitimate refugee who is truly fleeing from persecution will still find asylum in Canada and the refuge that has been part of the Canadian tradition.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Hon. Member did not ask a question. Perhaps that is because he knew the answer. I am sure the Hon. Member will recognize the following statement if he has read this month's issue of the Canadian Churchman:
"We are of the opinion that Canadians want a policy in relation to refugees that is generous, but just,"-
This comes after the article indicates that "the current government policy is unjust, unworkable and unconstitutional". The article goes on:
"We need a better process," he said. "Immigration officials are not the appropriate people to decide if a person who claims to be a refugee is, in fact, one.
The article goes on:
"The days when we go off to refugee camps to select people to be admitted are over," he said. "The new situation is that refugees will arrive on our shores and at our airports. That phenomenon will not disappear and the government must enact procedures to deal with it."
I hope the Hon. Member is in communion with that sense.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I was curious to hear from my hon. friend about the union movement. In my speech, I indicated that one of the myths that has been allowed to continue is that somehow immigrants increase unemployment and take away jobs from native Canadians. I also indicated that studies clearly show that not only do immigrants not take away jobs but they create them; a general impetus of a healthy national economy.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) could share with me the viewpoints of union leaders across Canada who are affiliated very closely with his Party. Perhaps he could tell the House about their thinking on the economic equation as it relates to our policy of immigration and refugees vis-avis employment opportunities and the needs that exist within the labour market at present.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to report to the Hon. Member that the position of the Canadian Labour Congress for some years has been to redouble our efforts for family reunification and for refugees. The Congress recognizes problems that have been associated with immigration in the past including those to which I and the Hon. Member referred. The mistreatment of immigration workers has the effect also of weakening the position of earlier immigrants and Canadian-born workers. In other words, the congress is wary of how immigrants are used to cut wages or to create unsafe working conditions because of their desperate need. Nevertheless, it has
said that we should redouble our efforts for family reunification and for the refugees.
I do not know if the Hon. Member was listening, but I quoted strong statements from the CSN, the Canadian Labour Congress and Canadian auto workers. I also could have referred to strong statements from the Toronto Labour Council and the Ontario Federation of Labour but I did not have the time to do so in 20 minutes. The labour movement strongly supports a generous refugee policy and a generous family reunification policy.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for the very enlightened approach he took in his speech. He pointed out the falsehoods in the story in The Saturday Star and he said that Canadians have no use for that kind of false propaganda. Earlier he referred to a false statement made by the Minister who had claimed that up to two-thirds of the refugee claimants were bogus and then detailed the fact that that was a false statement. Does the Hon. Member have any idea why the Minister would make a statement like that when the facts are completely different? Does the Minister not know the facts? If he does know the facts, why does he not come clean? Why does he try to present a false picture?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, in this debate there are men and women of good will from all Parties. I recognize that only a few months ago the Minister took responsibility for the portfolio of immigration as well as employment. Therefore, he is at the mercy of senior officials who give him their select information and their views. These are the officials who went to a meeting in Geneva in October 1984, the minutes of which record that "the Canadian delegation called upon the High Commissioner of refugees to undertake to study the issue of irregular migration of refugees in its broadest aspects, focusing on identifying the flows, both the source and the destination, the question of fraudulent documentation and associated issues". In other words, Canadian immigration officials have been campaigning for several years to restrict the entry of refugees into Canada. They have not been ashamed to use the newspapers as outlets for their misleading propaganda. I regret that they may have had some effect on the Minister, considering the tremendous responsibilities he undertook last year when he took on the super-large portfolio of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his recent Budget piled more and more hidden taxes on low and middle-income families. In addition, the Budget imposed a 12 per cent tax on potato chips.
I recently received a copy of a letter that the Manager of the Prince Edward Island Potato Chip Co-operative wrote to the Minister. The Manager wrote, "The P.E.I. Potato Chip Cooperative was founded in May, 1986, and expects to start commercial production in two weeks time." He told the Minister the 12 per cent tax is causing them immense concern. It threatens the survival of their project which otherwise has the potential to make a genuine economic contribution to their region and our province. He also told the Minister the tax will have a very damaging effect on both their business and other enterprises. I ask the Minister to take immediate action to ensure that this industry is not destroyed by his tax grab.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in 1988 the 4-H movement in Canada and Manitoba will be 75 years old. This organization got its start in the late 1800s in the U.S. Its goal was to improve farming methods by teaching young people new farming skills. Since then its role has expanded to helping youth between the ages of eight and 19 improve their people skills.
Through numerous projects, whether it be caring for a calf and preparing it for show, or participating in public speaking competitions, 4-H members learn co-operation, responsibility and leadership. Lately 4-H clubs have also taken on the important role of educating the public about the continuing importance of agriculture to the economy and the need for support for family farms.
A Manitoba group has requested that a commemorative stamp be issued in honour of this upcoming anniversary. As 4-H has made such a positive contribution to some three million young Canadians, I wholeheartedly endorse this request and urge Canada Post to issue that stamp at the appropriate time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 210,000 British Columbians suffer the tragic effects of unemployment because neither the federal nor provincial Government has had the imagination or the commitment to adopt a full employment policy. Five years ago the B.C. Federation of Labour tried to help those workers by opening unemployed action centres throughout the province. They spent over $7 million to maintain them. Since the Conservative Government withdrew its funding in 1985 the B.C. labour movement has spent $36,000 a month to keep those centres open. Unfortunately, they can no longer afford the funding and most of the centres will close March 31. However, the problems and suffering continue.
Is it not time that the Conservative and Social Credit Governments took their responsibility seriously and acted to create jobs for British Columbians?



WAR CRIMINALS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's response to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals is indeed welcome news to members of Canada's Baltic, Ukrainian, and Jewish communities. The Government found the problem of war criminals in Canada to be far less serious than originally considered, but that if even one individual guilty of war crimes has sought refuge from justice here in Canada, it is a matter of grave concern.
Canada will try any war criminals under Canadian laws, any investigation would take place under the jurisdiction of the RCMP and the Department of Justice, and we would not create a special organizational body. The findings and recommendations of the commission are fair and just and provide an excellent basis for our Government to develop a Canadian policy on war criminals. I commend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for his prompt actions in responding to this report and helping to finally put to rest a most difficult issue.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, more than 1,000 early retirees attended an information meeting organized by the Coalition de la defense des droits des preretraites, and they unanimously decided to continue fighting against the injustice which the Government is trying to do to elderly workers.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to give only one example. An elderly worker who was earning $385 a week and is eligible for unemployment benefits of $231 but gets a $300 pension from his former employer forfeits any entitlement to UIC benefits. However, another elderly worker who earns $385 a week and is eligible for $231 in unemployment benefits and who gets $300 a week under a registered retirement savings plan is entitled to the full $231 weekly unemployment insurance payment.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that Conservative Members will continue to pressure their Government so that the Minister will introduce just and equitable legislation concerning all elderly workers in Canada.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, for years many Canadians living in Canada's north have been treated unfairly. Those who worked for the Government or large companies generally received subsidized housing and/or special wage supplements to compensate for the high cost of living in the north. Those who worked for smaller businesses or were self-employed did not. The Government moved to return fairness to the rest of northern Canadians by making much needed changes to the Tax Act to allow the same benefits through the Northern Tax Benefits Program. I applaud those changes.
Unfortunately, the present eligibility criteria have created tension between neighbouring communities in the Peace country. Unless the eligibility boundaries are adjusted, neighbours in my constituency will be pitted against each other with one having an advantage over the other. I urge the Government to re-examine these criteria as soon as possible.



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, those on the government side who have recently boasted about the bright future being built for women in this country obviously have not heard about the case of Bobbi Stadnyk. Ms. Stadnyk was one of Canada's few female Transport Canada firefighters and worked at Regina Airport until being fired in 1985. Her case is a horror of harassment and discrimination at the hands of some other staff and management.
In addition to being subjected to lewd behaviour, her equipment was faulty and dangerous and was sometimes tampered with. Her personnel files were falsified, and daily, for a three-week period, insecticide bombs were discharged within the cab of her truck in order to make a dangerous and unpleasant mess for her to clean up. Much of what occurred was with the knowledge, participation, or actions of management.
Three investigations have concluded that Ms. Stadnyk was fired without cause and that she was a victim of harassment. I call upon the Government to do the proper thing, to compensate Ms. Stadnyk fully and offer her another position in the Public Service. The Government must also hire additional airport firefighters whom we so desperately need, and ensure that equal opportunities for those positions are given to women.
* V *



FINANCE


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, news reports claim that banks are reviewing their credit card rates and are expected to cut them before the end of next week. We are also told that major department stores are reviewing their charge card rates. Since those rates are still
28.8	per cent, the level at which they were when the bank rate was over 21 per cent, that review is as late as spring this year is early.
In 1974 when the bank rate was 8.75 per cent the stores charged only 21 per cent. Now that the bank rate is down to 7.14 per cent, what justifies these big stores insisting on a whopping 28.8 per cent? May their review be as short as the patience of their customers has been long.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, by forcing Bill C-22 through Parliament the Conservative Government has proposed to destroy a vital part of Canada's health care system. For more than 15 years Canada benefited from some of the lowest drug costs in the world while still allowing the pharmaceutical companies to be one of the most profitable sectors in all manufacturing industries.
Canadians have expressed their disapproval of this legislation. Thousands have signed petitions, and hundreds of groups and individuals wanted to appear before the Committee on Bill C-22 to voice their concerns about the legislation. However, the Government of Canada and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) have chosen to ignore these concerns. Rather, they are more prepared to listen to the demands of American multinationals and surrender, all in the hope that this might enhance the opportunity for some kind of free trade agreement.
Canadians are not prepared to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more each year in order for the Government to satisfy the demand of foreign lobbyists. The sick and the elderly and the poor should not be made to pay the price for the Government's mistakes. I call on the Minister to withdraw this legislation immediately and to end this unfair attack on the poor, the sick, and the elderly.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the centralization shown by the socialists during their latest national convention is a telling commentary on their Party's democratic discipline. It amounts to centralization with respect to both ideological principles and geography. British Columbia had twice as many delegates as the Province of Quebec. These "twice as many" travelled 3,000 miles to go to Montreal. Quebec socialists who live close by accounted for only 5 per cent of delegates, while Quebecers make up 27 per cent of the entire population of Canada.
The socialists used Quebec as a camping grounds whence the leader tried to kill the old resolutions and define the substance of the new resolutions of his Party. Quebec is not a camping grounds, not for the 1,391 socialist delegates any more than for their leader's camping trailer every year in the month of July.
My advice to the socialists: Study our country. Quebec is a lot more than a camping grounds.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this week the leaders of the Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, and United Churches of Canada urged the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to press for an end to U.S. military involvement in Central America when the Prime Minister meets with United States President Ronald Reagan next month. We in the New Democratic Party strongly endorse that call.
The church leaders have reminded all of us that the U.S. administration's aid to the Contras and its economic blockade of Nicaragua are unacceptable to Canadians.
They have reminded us as well that the continuing militarization of Central America is creating a mounting economic and refugee toll.
At a time when the United States has announced major new military activities in Honduras, involving 50,000 troops, it is crucially important that the Prime Minister put Central America on his agenda and make Canada's voice heard for peace and the withdrawal of all foreign troops and advisers from Central America.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) brought in his unfair legislation, judging that pensions and severance pay were to be considered as income for the purpose of unemployment insurance, not only did he attack in a discriminatory fashion those people who have retired on company pensions, he also attacked those who are hurt when companies close down.
Consider the situation of Otis Elevator in Hamilton. The Government of Ontario, in an attempt to redress the damage done by the federal Government, brought in new legislation to permit workers to collect severance pay. As a result of the new legislation of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, that severance pay right will no longer be available to those workers.
I call on the Minister in particular to consider the case of the more than 200 workers at Otis Elevator in Hamilton who have a right to the severance pay. They in fact want to continue to work and would have liked to work, except that the company has closed down. They should get support through severance pay benefits.


I plead with the Minister not to bring in this legislation retroactively to cover those workers who have already been forced to leave companies, and to make sure that Otis Elevator workers are included in those who are still able to get severance benefits.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, last week a number of us were visited by students who are very concerned about the continuing plight of Jews in the Soviet Union. The facts presented to me by Steven Cohen and Joel Busner, of Montreal, stand in stark contradiction to Premier Gorbachev's much publicized campaign of glasnost, or openness. The students point to the grim statistics which show a drastic reduction in the number of Jews being permitted to leave the U.S.S.R., coupled with continued suppression of Jewish culture, and with the Soviet police practising antiSemitism in many forms.
I know that at every appropriate occasion Canadian Ministers and officials urge the Kremlin to adopt a more compassionate approach toward Soviet Jewry, because our Government does know of the Soviet Union's failure to comply with its international human rights obligations. There are small, encouraging signs toward reunification of a few families with their relatives in Canada.
But the Canadian Government must step up its contact with the Soviets, in the name of religiously persecuted Jews in that country, if glasnost is to mean more than just another word in the Soviet dictionary.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the period for Statements by Members, the Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) rose to complain about the way the Government brought in the taxation of northern benefits. The member is quite correct. About a year ago we knew that there would be a change in the taxation of northern benefits. We tried to get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to meet with labour representatives and people in the north so we would not end up with the type of system we have at the present time.
The Conservative Member for Peace River is quite right in saying that the system is unfair at this time. However, the Conservatives had the choice. They had the option to meet
with northerners and to meet with the unions affected. They could have brought in a fairer system. It is ironic that the Conservative Government brought down the regulations about which the Conservative Member is now complaining after this House recessed, after we had passed the tax law, and therefore, Members of Parliament were not able to stand in the House and complain about the unfairness before it became a fact.
I call upon the Government to listen to its own back-benchers and to the people in the north, and change the law.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the Finnish population in Canada have made a vital contribution to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of this country ever since the first Finns arrived on the shores of Vancouver Island in the mid-1880s. The skills, enthusiasm, and initiative they have shown in building this great nation of ours are recognized and respected by historians and the Canadian population alike.
Today there are well over 50,000 Finns living in Canada making a positive, multifaceted contribution to the Canadian way of life. In light of this important contribution I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to act swiftly to ensure that the Canadian Embassy in Helsinki remains open. In addition, the Government of Canada must continue in its efforts to enhance its historically strong commitment to the country of Finland and to the Finns settled across this vast nation of ours.



PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, Quebec Conservatives were visited by "Royalty"! In fact, Canadians were astonished when the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary, Mr. Bernard Roy, stood up to make a partisan speech before a group of Conservative Members and militants from Quebec. As if this were not enough, the same Mr. Roy decided, unless the Prime Minister made the decision for him, to go before the people of Canada by appearing on the CTV public affairs program, Canada A.M.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Conservatives are in deep trouble and that in their desperation they are ready to do just


Oral Questions
about anything-in fact the dissent proves it-but there is a limit, even for Conservatives. If Mr. Roy wants to get into politics, let him run for office, and if he wants to be an organizer, he should get himself hired by the Party, but if he wants to keep his present job, I would advise him to stop abusing his office.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since we started negotiations with the Americans almost two years ago on free trade, we have had nothing but a series of trade harassments emanating from that country. The latest was a decision yesterday by the International Trade Commission of that Government to approve unanimously an application of injury by the $600 million potash industry, particularly founded in western Canada.
On March 3 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he would personally undertake to talk to Secretary of State George Shultz concerning the potash dispute. Did he raise the matter with Mr. Shultz and did Mr. Shultz give him a commitment that the United States Government would totally and completely disavow the continuing trade harassment in this very important potash case?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I told the House of Commons I would raise this matter with Mr. Shultz and I did so. The Hon. Member would know, because he is not entirely ignorant of these things, that what we have is a pro forma process, a pro forma decision, the first step in a process seeking an antidumping investigation. We certainly intend to do everything we can to ensure that Canadian interests are well protected, but the Hon. Member should not raise false alarms too early.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, we received exactly the same kind of assurances in the softwood lumber case which was totally fumbled and bumbled by this Government to the point it is going to cost the Canadian industry $600 million.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: 
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade is participating in a meeting with other Ministers of Trade to advance the cause of multilateral trade negotiations. A little while ago some spokesmen of the Liberal Party were in favour of multilateral trade negotiations. I understand from the question posed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that they are now divided on that, too. They are divided on the negotiations with the United States. They are divided on the MTN. They are divided on the Cruise. They are divided on the question of a nuclear freeze. Is there anything on which they are united?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Secretary of State I would say, yes, we are totally united in standing up for the interests of Canada against those types of trade harassments, something that this Government is clearly not against since every time it gets a chance it surrenders those interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT CANADA PRESENT CASE UNDER GATT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs is so interested in multilateral initiatives will he tell us if the Government has now exercised its proper right to go to the international trade forum, GATT, and bring a case against the Americans on potash, basing it on the fact that they are committing a major action of trade harassment?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is most at issue here is whether or not the present system relating to the resolution of trade disputes between Canada and the United States is adequate. That is a system which grew up under Liberal Governments. As I understand the several positions of the Liberal Party, it seems more or less to want to support the present system in which we are vulnerable to American actions on potash-


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you going to help Saskatchewan or not?


Charles Joseph Clark: -softwood, and a range of other issues. What we are seeking to do is put in place a better system. For years and years the Liberals ignored that duty, as they ignored their duty to defend Canada's interest in the Arctic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the Minister said that the Government has the authority under the International Civil Aviation Convention to forbid overflights of Canada by planes carrying highly dangerous plutonium to Japan. Why is the Government waiting until the United States and Japan sign and ratify an agreement on these flights before taking a stand? Why will the Minister not say right now that, no matter what agreement is ratified, the Government will say no to any such overflights of dangerous plutonium to Japan by the United States?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, whenever something is in the newspaper we can depend upon hon. gentlemen opposite to behave like Pavlov's dog. They salivate whenever they think there is something about which they can ask a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the dogs would just stop for a moment-


Mr. Foster:: You are the guy who is salivating, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: -the answer is that Canada made representations in May and August of 1986 to the U.S. Government with respect to the U.S.-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement. So we are well ahead of The Globe and Mail. We are well ahead of the Liberal Opposition. We are well ahead of the NDP Opposition. We are way ahead of the game.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What about in the polls?


John Carnell Crosbie: If the little crackies will quiet down, under the terms of the U.S.-Japan agreement all countries en route will be fully consulted before any steps are taken. As a matter of fact, the shipments may not transit U.S. territory unless they are satisfied with respect to the safety measures taken and the cask that will be involved. So the hon. gentleman can relax. Everything is under control.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED USE OF UNITED STATES AIRSPACE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the Minister's answer millions of Canadians will be very worried. They will ask, and I am doing it on their behalf, why the Minister will not give a clear no to this request to transfer dangerous plutonium by air to Japan. Why does the Minister not tell the United States to use its own airspace? Why can he not do that today?


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


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman wants us to say no before anything has even been proposed. There has been no proposal that aircraft cross our airspace with a plutonium cargo.
There is an agreement to be negotiated between the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. has not even yet agreed to have U.S. airspace used. If the time comes when we need to say "no", we will say "no". However, that time has not yet come.


POTASH EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He knows that yesterday in the United States the International Trade Commission ruled that Canadian potash mines are injuring American producers in New Mexico, a ruling which effectively penalizes Canadians for having more efficient mines and more efficient ore. In light of the statement made by Pierre Gosselin, the Canadian Trade Commissioner in Washington, that the industry will fight this to the end, I want to know whether or not the Government will join in that fight. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House in detail what steps the Government will take to make the Canadian potash case to American officials?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Hon. Member was out of the House when his soulmate from Winnipeg-Fort Garry asked that question and received an answer.


INDUSTRY'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm to the House that up until now the Canadian potash industry did not really want him to be involved in this case because of the screw-up in softwood lumber? Could he confirm to the House that that was the industry's position?


Charles Joseph Clark: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, he does not confirm it, but I notice that he does not deny it, either.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY UNITE ON ISSUE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that, just like in the case of softwood lumber, some six potash mines are now in the process of filling out a questionnaire of more than 40 pages, as has been demanded by the U.S. Commerce Department, detailing transactions between Canada and the United States? Is he


Oral Questions
aware of the fact that they have been asked to fill out these questionnaires? If so, will the Government now take the lead and sit down with the industry, with the unions, and with the two provincial Governments involved, in order to get our signals straight and speak with one voice on the issue like we didn't on softwood lumber?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes.


Ms. Mitchell:: Very cute.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that even I can get anything more out of the Minister than that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, whom I welcome back to the House. He is probably aware that U.S. Secretary of Energy Herrington is reported as saying that the Prime Minister will accept five acid rain research and demonstration initiatives at the summit. Is the Prime Minister aware that on January 22 of this year his Minister of the Environment issued a press release, on blue Tory paper, indicating that in the absence of an American acid rain control program none of the currently planned American clean coal technology initiatives will provide any significant reduction in American transboundary air pollution flows for at least the next 25 years?
Does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to wait until the year 2012?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that by the year 2012 the Hon. Member will still be asking the same old, stale questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: That's right, because you will have done nothing about it.


Mr. Frith:: Exactly.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The fact is-


Lloyd Axworthy: Now you have the point, Tom.


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


Thomas Michael McMillan: The Hon. Member is taking issue with a very small part of the total $5 billion clean coal technology program in the United States, not with $150 million, but rather with some part of the $150 million. Quite apart from the fact that he is nickelling and diming the program, the truth is that a panel will be established by the U.S. Government, on which Canada will be represented, to vet every single project which will be considered for receipt of funds under the same program. We will have a direct input into the relevant decisions to ensure that the applied research money, designed to slash acid rain-causing emissions in the United States which travel into Canada doing irreparable damage to our environment, does meet the criteria of the Envoys' Report.
[DOT] (M30)


TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, these are the words of the Minister of the Environment. He says that for at least the next 25 years there will be no consequence as a result of the technology research programs to which the Prime Minister is adhering. Those are his own words. I have to ask the Prime Minister again when will he muster enough courage to tell the President of the United States frankly that what Canadians want is not further research but cuts in emissions targets, deadlines, and percentage cuts, for a program that is parallel to the one that Canada has launched.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that our objective is a treaty with specified targets. As the Leader of the NDP indicated the other day, the Government of Canada has indeed made progress on acid rain. We are going to be making much more progress. I think the indication of the firm commitment was acknowledged yesterday. The member quoted Secretary of Energy Herrington but he did not say that "U.S. Secretary John Herrington predicted yesterday that Congress will approve Reagan's request for $2.5 billion in acid rain projects". That is half of the amount to be committed, which will then be a further step-


Mr. Caccia:: Are those cuts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -that we are working on to meet the ultimate objectives of the Government of Canada. I think my hon. friend, and I say this with some sadness, after his desultory record as Minister of the Environment should be the last person ever to raise acid rain in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Coleco company in Montreal.
Does the Prime Minister think it is proper for a company like Coleco which has received $2 million in grants to lay off 250 employees? And what is he doing to help these employees?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that we were of course advised of Coleco's decision to close its operations in Montreal. I must say that we accept this decision which reflects a trend in the industry, not only in Canada but across North America. We must remember that the company also closed several production plants in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we intend to work together with this company to try and find alternative solutions for the workers affected by the company's decision.


CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Government cannot even keep cabbage patch dolls produced in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: I have to ask the Minister what conditions were put on the grants, the most recent of which was given last year, from his Ministry to keep these jobs guaranteed here in Canada, or did the Minister just simply forget about that?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, obviously, every time grants are given, the question of job creation is always a major point.
I would also like to point out to the Hon. Member that, since September 1984, many new jobs had been created as a result of new opportunities introduced by this Government, especially in the province of Quebec where more than 130,000 jobs have been created since September 1984.


INQUIRY CONCERNING CONCRETE MEASURES GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE TO ENSURE INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY OF MONTREAL
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and also concerns the closing of Coleco in Saint-Henri. Mr. Speaker, after the decline of Montreal East's industrial base, which the Government has done nothing about, the southeast is now feeling the effects of the shutdown of Stelco and, more recently, Coleco. 1 want to ask the Government what specific steps it intends to take to renew Montreal's industrial growth, other than
Oral Questions
creating a lot of committees that are producing absolutely nothing.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, we shall go on doing what we have been doing since September 1984, which is creating jobs seven times as fast as the previous Government.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the Government goes on doing what it is doing now, plants will continue to close.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Jacques Guilbault: The announcement of the closing of this plant has definitely shocked employees. Just before Christmas they were told their jobs were guaranteed for five years. They took loans to buy houses and cars and now that is all down the drain. What concrete steps will we see to foster the improvement of the Montreal industrial base? We do not want any more committees. Montrealers have waited long enough. They want action.
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I realize they want action. They never had any before 1984. However, it's the kind of action we can take, because-


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Michel Côté: -because, Mr. Speaker, by consulting not just with the industry but also with the workers, we have been able to create this level of employment, reduce unemployment and reduce interest rates to their lowest levels in thirteen and a half years. That is what this Government's performance has been.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. I have to admit to the House that I do not really understand how Canada Post works. I also have to admit that I still have a lot to learn about the way they do things in Newfoundland. Notwithstanding these personal shortcomings, would the Minister relate to the House why the Government has found it necessary to close some post offices in Newfoundland, but more important, why is the Government just closing the ones in Conservative ridings?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Oral Questions
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): That is a good question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: Do I have any volunteers from the Opposition?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The Post Office, as everyone knows, has a horrendous program of trying to bring some sanity to a corporation as a result of political interference which has developed truly massive problems. We are trying to do it in a reasonable and proper manner which will result in the improvement of service while bringing the fiscal situation under control.
I might just add that two weeks ago a list was published by one of the unions about supposed closures around the country. I denied that, and I was challenged on it in the House. A few days later the union had to admit it had created the list and that it was wrong and inaccurate. I would counsel members of the House to be very careful about accepting the kinds of observations that are being made.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COMMANDER OF THE SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA AND BERMUDA
Mr. Speaker:: 1 would draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Commissioner Will Pratt, Commander of the Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister approve of what his Minister of the Environment said yesterday in this House of Commons to the effect that when Congressman Gerry Sikorski from the United States criticized the Prime Minister's approach on acid rain in the United States he was engaging in partisan tripe? I wonder if the Prime Minister is aware that Congressman Sikorski is one of Canada's staunchest allies on acid rain abatement in Congress. Does the Prime Minister not think that it is a particularly dumb strategy to dump all over the few friends we have in Congress rather than being able to take friendly criticism?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was referring not to the few friends we have but to the few friends he has. With regard to the Congressman-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Brian and Ronnie sitting in a tree.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not even the presence of the Salvation Army does much good for Hamilton East.


Mr. Speaker:: Just remember, there will soon be two of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let's go for a majority.
I think the point the Minister was trying to make was a very simple one. One of the principal obstacles to acid rain legislation emanating from the Congress of the United States is individual Congressmen who, in the main, are of the same political Party as Congressman Sirkoski-


Some Hon. Members:: Sikorski.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I had never heard of him before in my life.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That's the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister could answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My kids have never gotten over being called Muldoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister was trying to urge that particular Congressman to begin the process by persuading members of his own Party who are committee chairmen, sub-committee chairmen and members of the Democratic leadership, to support Canada's vigorous position on acid rain. If he began to do that, then he would be doing a service for those of us who believe in trying to get rid of acid rain. That is what the Minister was trying to say.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Minister said. He accused the Congressman of engaging in partisan tripe. I find it disappointing that so much humour should attend a very serious question like this one.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Prime Minister has not heard of Congressman Sikorski, one of the major movers of acid rain legislation and one who hosted our Special Committee on Acid Rain in


Minnesota in 1985, a committee of which the Prime Minister is fond of bragging, tells us a lot about what the Prime Minister really knows about acid rain legislation in the United States.
Why is there a double standard? Why is it that we are constantly lectured about the inadvisability of tossing verbal hand-grenades across the 49th parallel? Why is it not okay for people to criticize President Reagan whose commitment to acid rain legislation is minimal, if it exists at all, yet it is okay to cast verbal hand-grenades at one of our few allies in the U.S. Congress?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that this particular Congressman is one of the major movers of acid rain legislation in Congress. If so, he has not been moving very fast. One of the key problems is that the leadership on both sides of the aisle-


An Hon. Member:: That's incredible.


Martin Brian Mulroney: NDP Members raise the question of acid rain. They contend that they are concerned about the environment. Yet when we begin to deal with it seriously, all they can do is heckle and chortle from the back-benches. Canadians will find that unacceptable.
The point is that one of the problems in not having a treaty is the disinclination of members of the Congress on both sides of the aisle to bring one forward and to pass one. If this gentleman is interested in having the United States fulfil its responsibilities in regard to acid rain as it must, I believe it would be very, very helpful if he convinced his next-door neighbours down the aisle in Congress who are members of his own Party and who are resisting acid rain legislation. Get them onside and I guarantee that all Canadians are onside.


BANKS AND BANKING
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday he undertook to look into the problem of farmers who had signed promissory notes at fixed rates of interest while the banks kited those rates of interest and put them on a floating rate, costing farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal interest charges and forcing many of them off their land in the last few years. Is the Minister prepared to take action now to roll back these illegal interest charges?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question would be more rightfully handled by my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, but he is in Montreal today. Let me comment from my knowledge of the situation. I believe there have been court judgments on both
Oral Questions
sides of the question. I think the Hon. Member is aware of that. Because there are judgments on both sides of the question, it puts the Government in a difficult position when taking one side or the other. It seems to have happened that in the relationships between farmers and other citizens who have borrowed from the banks, there have been unwritten understandings that are subject to interpretation. That interpretation is best made by the courts.


REQUEST THAT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BANKS CONDUCT AUDIT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, many farmers who have been put in a very difficult financial position because of these excessive interest charges, are simply not able to afford legal counsel to fight their cases in court. Would the Minister be prepared to have the Inspector General of Banks undertake a full audit of all those accounts for which interest has been unfairly or improperly charged to farmers and other small businessmen, and have proper restitution made?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to discuss this further with my colleague who has looked into the matter. As I indicated yesterday in the House, he has indicated that he will get back to Hon. Members who have taken an interest in this. I would caution the Hon. Member that there are different points of view on this as interpreted by the courts. It is difficult for us to make broad rules in a blanket way because of those different interpretations based on the different circumstances or relationships between the banks and the borrowers.


SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister told reporters that there has been progress in the discussions with Washington regarding Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and the U.S. desire for rights to transit the Northwest Passage. Since, according to the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday, these discussions are accelerating, would the Prime Minister explain why the duly elected Legislatures of Yukon and the Northwest Territories have been excluded from these accelerating discussions to this point?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was raised yesterday in the House. If it was not raised, at least it was answered. I indicated that if we reach a point where we believe we have a positive result to the process I announced a year ago September with respect to a discussion with the United States,


Oral Questions
of course we will consult with the elected Heads of Government in both Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I repeat that assertion.


THE 1002 QUESTION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday he confirmed that serious negotiations and consultations are under way between himself, Tony Penikett, and Nick Sibbeston regarding what the Americans call the 1002 question. Will the Minister commit himself today to expand those negotiations to include those matters of sovereignty within the Canadian Arctic presently being discussed with Washington at, as we learned from the Prime Minister, an accelerated rate?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the record, there are no negotiations between Canada and the Territories with respect to the representations we are making on the 1002 matter. There is very active co-operation between our Government and those of the Territories. I am quite prepared to get on the phone again to the Heads of Government of both the Territories and the Yukon to bring them up to date on where we are in the discussions with the U.S. There is nothing final to report yet but I am certainly prepared to give them a progress report, as I have yesterday and today given the House of Commons.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations started today to give away more fish to the French for the next four years while the St. Pierre-Miquelon boundary is being discussed. Some people are wondering why the Government of Canada did not look to international precedents such as the Channel Islands arbitration in developing its policy. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware that France was able to limit Britain to a six-mile zone around the British protectorate islands off the northwest coast of France? When the shoe is on the other foot and France is demanding a 200-mile zone around its own protectorate islands off our coast, why are we bending over backwards to please the French?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, this important precedent raised by the Hon. Member underscores the reasons for the Government's course of action in negotiating with France a set of conditions known as un compromis whereby the boundary issue would be referred to international third party arbitration. We feel this
and other precedents may very well lead to a final determination which will be very much to the benefit of the fishermen of Newfoundland, Labrador, and indeed all of Atlantic Canada.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, France has no right to any fish in Canada in Canadian waters. The Minister knows it. The only fish they have a right to are those necessary to satisfy the needs of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Pour Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, oui; pour la France, rien\


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister offering more fish during these negotiations when he has already given them unlimited access to what his Government calls the disputed zone? That zone is 200 miles and larger than the entire Province of Nova Scotia. Why is the Government so weak-kneed, impotent, and a scaredy-cat when it comes to dealing with France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to educate the Hon. Member, but I can assure him that there will be absolutely no fish given away to France in negotiations under way today. I should remind him again that French quotas of cod and other important groundfish in Canadian waters in 1987 are half what they were in 1986.


FISHERY RESOURCES OF ATLANTIC CANADIANS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The people of Atlantic Canada are very worried as the Government sits down to discuss with France the process for resolving the long-standing boundary dispute around St. Pierre and Miquelon. They are worried that their resources will be bargained away as the Government tries to maintain good relations with France. Will the Government reassure the people of Atlantic Canada that their resources will not be on the bargaining table, and that it will use all its foreign policy instruments to ensure a reasonable resolution of this dispute without always trying to bribe France to come to the bargaining table?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course I will give that assurance again as it has been given before in this House. Let me, if I may, in a House of Commons generally marked by a more internationalist perspective than that shown by the Hon. Member, warn him of some of the consequences of deliberately mounting attacks against other countries and saying things that can only be interpreted as being anti-French in their design, with all the implications that carries.


James Douglas Manly: I do not think our Party can be accused of being anti-French. I think we are very much pro-Canadian and proAtlantic Canada. We would like to see the Government stand up for Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRADE IMBALANCE WITH FRANCE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, France has a $600 million trade surplus with Canada. Will the Minister assure the people of Atlantic Canada that this trade surplus and not their resources will be on the bargaining table if France is not prepared to co-operate in this matter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have already made some very significant progress in repairing the trade imbalance which existed between Canada and France. That issue is separate from the fish negotiations. If I may say so, we know perfectly well the position of the NDP. It is to get out of NATO, get out of NORAD, and then to attack France.


John Carnell Crosbie: Rambo Manly.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. His first reaction to the unanimous committee report on rural post offices was, "The Minister responsible gets yelled at in the House of Commons if Canada Post acts unreasonable". How much yelling do Members of Parliament and other Canadians have to do in order that the Minister understands that Canada Post is treating Canadians unfairly? Will he accept the report and order Canada Post to implement the report?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, two or three weeks ago I wrote to every Member of the House, including the Hon. Member, outlining the policies Canada Post would be following regarding any change in postal service. If he rereads that letter, and reads the recommendations of the committee, he will see they are essentially identical. In fact, Canada Post has in place now the policies recommended by the committee with one small, minor exception, depending on the interpretation. A formal response to the report was requested by the committee and that will be made in due course.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REQUIRE CANADA POST TO ACT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY CITIZENS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to keep their post offices and receive their mail without discrimination on the basis of where they live. Is the Minister going to ask Canada Post to act as a corporation that serves all Canadians, without discrimination, or will he, like his two predecessors, go on protecting the
Oral Questions
Corporation as it continues to cut services to Canadians who need those services?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, after some 20 years of political interference in the operation of the Post Office, there was a terrible mess with a monstrous deficit and deteriorating service. We are trying to turn that around. We are making good progress in that regard. I think if the Hon. Member were being fair and reasonable, he would recognize that fact. We cannot continue to ask future generations to deliver the mail today. Through privatization, better management practices, better labour relations, and a whole host of other procedures, we will improve service and operate in a fiscally responsible way. I think the Hon. Member should applaud that.


COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications and has to do with the appointments, or rather the lack of women appointees to boards of directors of organizations under her responsibility.
How can she justify the fact that only one woman was selected among a total of 12 appointees? Does she not know any qualified women, or does she prefer appointing Conservative gentlemen, particularly those who have contributed to the Conservative Party coffers?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should be fair-minded enough to recognize that since this Government came into office it has increased the number of appointments of women from 15 per cent to almost 27 per cent of total appointments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: When I was speaking the other night the Hon. Member would have heard me say that I think the Government should be doing more in appointing women to boards and agencies in the broadcasting field. We will be doing that. However, at the same time I urged that throughout the whole broadcasting system there be more women in decisionmaking roles, running stations, running networks, and making day-to-day decisions in the programming. I hope the member would support that.


Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will support that, but there has not been one woman appointed in broadcasting since the Minister took charge of the Department. Will she be willing to consult arts organizations and women's organizations to ask them for proposals of competent women, of whom there are many across the country? Will she take them seriously rather than going through the old-boy network which she has been drawing on so far which is quite unacceptable to Canadians, especially Canadian women?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will be pleased to know of the reappointment of Rosalie Gower to the CRTC.


Lynn McDonald: I am indeed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you. I am sure she will be glad to know that Jocelyne Bourgon is being appointed to the National Film Board which has had a shortage of women. There will be others. Those kinds of appointments will continue. I look for the member's continued support.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last Friday the Minister of Employment and Immigration told the House that it was the Minister of Finance who decided to take pension income into account in the calculation of unemployment insurance benefits.
Yesterday in Montreal I met with almost 1,000 older workers who want to know why the Minister of Finance has chosen to discriminate against older workers who contribute to an employer pension plan, as compared with older workers who belong to a registered retirement savings plan. As a result, the older worker who draws the employee-employer pension is being denied full unemployment insurance benefits, whereas another one who receives payments under a registered retirement savings plan is eligible for full UIC benefits.
Why this double standard?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie knows the answer.
A registered retirement savings plan is of course an optional savings plan for individuals, whereas public plans are mandatory for both employers and employees. I might add that the
Minister of Employment has always been a staunch supporter of the principle under which people, who after 1986 received payments from a pension plan administered as I explained, are considered to have an income for the purposes of unemployment insurance. I fully agree on that.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT GIVE EXPLANATION TO ELDERLY WORKERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer shows that the Conservatives favour rich people.
Can the Minister explain to the elderly workers of Coleco, who have just learned they will be laid off, that they will not be entitled to their full unemployment insurance benefits simply because they get employer-employee plan benefits, whereas workers aged 30 are eligible for full UIC benefits?
Can the Minister explain to all elderly workers in Canada that, in future, if you lose your job the Government will penalize you for withdrawing your contributions?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is flying off at a demagogic tangent. He will resort to just about anything. Coleco has just closed its doors, it has just made the announcement, and already he has cut off their unemployment benefits. We did not even have time to take appropriate measures.
Mr. Speaker, we listened to the Hon. Member. He should listen to others. We listened to him a moment ago. 1 suggest the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie ought to learn one thing, namely that we have regulations in this country. Since January 1986, any pension fund benefits paid to people have been considered to be an income for unemployment insurance purposes, and there will be no change. That is quite clear.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise the House that I will recognize two members for single questions and that will be all.


DISASTERS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I understand that after the Chernobyl disaster extensive testing of Canadian caribou and the lichen on which they feed took place and has now been completed. Can the Minister tell us what levels of radioactivity were found and whether the caribou remain fit to eat?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Hon. Member and all Canadians living north of 60 and in northern Quebec who use caribou as part of their food cycle that the testing which we did indicated that levels of radioactivity relating to the Chernobyl accident were substantially below the levels in the 1960s when atmospheric nuclear weapons testing was taking place. We will continue to test, but I can tell northern Canadians, as we have through a press release dated, I believe, March 19, that they need not change their dietary habits. All testing we have done indicates that they are not in any danger. We will continue to monitor any radiation on an ongoing basis.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister is well aware of the historical significance of the Grassy Island National Park to the Atlantic Canadian fishery and the people of Canso. Can the Minister provide a status report on efforts to achieve this development?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the further development of the Grassy Island National Historic Park is, in fact, a departmental and a government-wide priority. In that connection, we have developed a management plan which we are putting in place. About $733,000 has been spent to date. I regret that I cannot give a commitment to the Hon. Member today to further funding imminently.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I know of no other Member in the House who has campaigned harder at Environment Canada on any issue than has the Hon. Member. I hope his lobbying will pay off before very long.


PRIVILEGE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I seek your advice as to whether this should be called a question of privilege or a point of order. I am concerned about remarks made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary yesterday. I do not wish to reopen a discussion on the substance of the debate, but as reported on page 4429 of Hansard he said: "-when they present petitions-", that is referring to members of the New Democratic Party, "-certified by other Members in a deliberate attempt to create the impression-" and so on. On page 4430 he said:
Privilege-Mr. Heap
-the delaying of the presentation of petitions in order to pretend that a longstanding issue exists is a cheap political trick. It is a complete fabrication and a charade. It is an attempt to mislead the House and the Canadian public.
Further on he says:
-is also a cheap political trick, a complete fabrication and charade, and an attempt to mislead the House and the Canadian public.
Those comments, taken together with those at the bottom of page 4429 and at the top of page 4430 where he said it more indirectly, at which point you warned him, comprise a very clear accusation which is unparliamentary. I request that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary withdraw those remarks.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that you interrupted me, as indicated in Hansard at page 4430, and said that you had heard my words very carefully and indicated that I used the word "if' indicate that you were following the exchange very closely. None of my hon. colleagues in the New Democratic Party sought to interfere with the debate which was going on.
I stand by what I said. I suggested that the effort to mislead the Canadian people into thinking that there was a grand swell of public opinion by distributing petitions to others to distribute was a charade, a complete and absolute fabrication and charade. I was shocked that other colleagues in the New Democratic Party would participate in that charade. Quite frankly, I thought better of them.
As I indicated yesterday, there is more to the petitioning process than coming into the House and handing petitions to colleagues for presentation. I stand very strongly behind the petitioning process. The request for redress of a grievance is very valid, but to come into the House and deliberately put petitions that were certified the day before to four other colleagues is nothing more than a charade and fabrication.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to contribute to the substance of this debate, but I think that some Members of the House sometimes say things which go a lot further than they intended. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to be an honest man. I also know that our rules prohibit the use of the terms he employed yesterday, even if this is done with some ability. I would like to refer to page 4429 of Hansard, where we find the following:
If that is not deliberately misleading the House, it comes as close to deliberately misleading the House as anything in my experience.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member clearly used these words and accused an other Member of misleading the House deliberately. I believe that he should withdraw what he said, to maintain at least some civility in this House. I therefore ask the Hon. Member to think this over and withdraw the words he used if possible.


Privilege-Mr. Heap


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I made the request for withdrawal.
I could argue the point and suggest that the precedent claimed by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary means that we can say anything hypothetically, which has not been a custom in the House in the past, or we can accuse somebody of misleading the House or attempting to mislead the House so long as we leave out the word "deliberately". I believe that this will create a precedent and give the House some difficulties. However, I will not argue the point further.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has raised a matter which gave the Chair some difficulty yesterday. Hon. Members will recall that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary raised a matter which involved the presentation of petitions that had in fact been signed some time before they were presented to the House. His position was that this created an impression that perhaps was not entirely accurate. I believe that is the basic thrust of his comments, which I have deliberately put in very mild language.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said, as reported at page 4430 of Hansard, and has been referred to in interventions today:
If that is not deliberately misleading the House, it comes as close to deliberately misleading the House as anything in my experience.
The Chair is always in the position, when it hears something that may lead to difficulty, that it ought to intervene. Sometimes the Chair intervenes too rapidly and sometimes the Chair waits too long. There is no particular science to it.
In any event, I did rise and say:
I heard very carefully the words of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, which were "if that is not deliberately misleading the House", it comes very close to it. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is also as close to getting out of order as he can be. I will take account of the very careful wording he used, but 1 would ask that he be extremely careful as he continues his remarks.
1 believe I made it clear to Hon. Members at that point that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was getting awfully close to being out of order. I do not think that should be interpreted to mean, as the Hon. Member for Spadina has warned the Chamber, that just by putting the word "if' in front of provocative words, it will always meet with the satisfaction of the Chair.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I take your admonition.
He continued, and at that point the Parliamentary Secretary was in a close position but nonetheless a proper one. I took it that his remarks were directed not at any particular member of the New Democratic Party but at the New Democratic Party and its particular strategy in the case being debated. After saying that it is a complete fabrication and a charade, the Parliamentary Secretary stated:
It is an attempt to mislead the House and the Canadian public.
Then he went on to say:
The holier than thou New Democratic Party ....
The Chair heard this and was listening carefully. The Chair felt that those words were directed not at any particular member but at the strategy being used by the Party in question.
I will consider the matter carefully, but I must say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I did not take his comments as aimed at a particular member. I see he is indicating that. He may want to make it very clear to the House that my interpretation is in fact correct and that might end the matter, except to say that it is an example of how we must be careful in what we say.
My comments today do not take away from the point the Parliamentary Secretary made yesterday with respect to the use of petitions in the Chamber. I will return to the Chamber at an appropriate time to discuss that matter further. However, if the Parliamentary Secretary would like to indicate to the House that at no time was he directing that particular comment at any particular member, it might be helpful to the Chair.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you have interpreted my intent accurately. I meant to encompass the entire tactics of the New Democratic Party and not to single out any one person as being any more guilty than another. That was my intention.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchi:
That this House condemns the Government for creating a state of confusion within its immigration program and for its lack of leadership and vision, which has seriously undermined the confidence of Canadians in the over-all direction of immigration policy;
That this House also deplores the Government's failure to address the growing frustration experienced by large numbers of Canadians who are unable to sponsor successfully family members as immigrants from abroad and its recent actions that undercut Canada's humanitarian assistance and protection for refugees legitimately seeking haven in Canada;
That, therefore, this House urges the Government to:
(1)	recognize the long-standing importance of family class reunification and to re-establish this program as the corner-stone of Canada's immigration;
(2)	adopt a fair, humane and efficient refugee policy which would reinforce Canada's past proud tradition and honour Canada's international obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees, signed in 1951;
(3)	introduce immediately a new and independent refugee determination system that would assure claimants processing that is fair, effective and expeditious while discouraging fraudulent applications; and
(4)	initiate a comprehensive educational program that will fully inform all Canadians of the facts about and benefits resulting from immigration and develop a long-term vision that would utilize immigration as a vehicle to strengthen our national unity and to contribute to greater economic prosperity.
[Stage Direction]

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today which was presented by the Liberal Party condemns the Government for its misguided policy with respect to immigration and refugees. Since my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), who introduced the motion, dealt with the Government's lack of policy with respect to family reunification, I want to concentrate on the refugee question.
First, I want to put this problem into a proper perspective. Hon. Members should know that there is a growing tragedy of refugees and misplaced persons in the world. This has been due in part to the incidence of regional wars, civil conflict and revolutions throughout the world.
Since 1945 there have been 120 regional and local wars in the world, resulting in 19 million deaths. Two-thirds of those 19 million deaths were inflicted on non-military personnel and 16 million of those 19 million deaths took place in the Third World. Those who say we have had peace since 1945 do not know the facts. The figures I just gave the House were as of February, 1986. They are a year out of date. There have been 120 regional and local wars on this planet since 1945 resulting in 19 million deaths. As a result of those conflicts the United Nations estimates there are between 15 million and 20 million refugees in the world today, people who have been displaced from their homes and countries due to conflict, persecution, local wars and so on. The greatest number are from Afghanistan. The next greatest number are the Palestinian refugees. Then there is Iran, East Europe, Central America, Chile and so on.
This human tragedy cannot go unanswered. I would like to remind Canadians that all of us in this country, except our aboriginal people, came here as immigrants or refugees; either ourselves, our parents, our grandparents or our great-grandparents came here after fleeing from conditions of persecution, hunger, or whatever. My own family, which is basically of Irish origin, came here after the famine in 1840 and conditions of persecution.
As Hon. Members know, Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Refugees in 1969, according to which Canada agreed to receive refugees as defined in that treaty, and now as defined in our own law. In order to decide who in fact were refugees under the treaty and who were not, a previous Liberal Government set up a process by which to decide, including a body known as the Refugee Status Advisory Committee.
While this process might have been adequate in the early days of its establishment, it was found in more recent years, with the growing volume of refugees, to not be adequate, that the number of applicants was too great for the system with the result that a large backlog of refugees developed. At one point that backlog amounted to almost 20,000 refugee applicants who had to wait up to two or three years for their cases to be heard by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. This in turn led to more problems in that by the time the applicant finally
Supply
had his case heard after two or three years, he very often had married someone in Canada and had children. It was then extremely difficult to deport him even if it was found he was not really a refugee according to the definition in the international treaty. In other words, the long delay, the backlog and the overwhelming number of persons in the system, led to many problems which led to still further problems.
Faced with that situation, the former Liberal Government appointed the Plaut Commission headed by Rabbi Plaut of Toronto. He was appointed in 1983 to advise on a new refugee determination process and a system to deal with the large backlog. Rabbi Plaut reported back in April, 1985, after a change of Government. He gave his report to the new Conservative Government. That report in turn was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, of which I am a member. That Committee heard witnesses and heard all points of view and reported to the House of Commons in November and December, 1985.
The Plaut Royal Commission and the standing committee recommended that there be a new refugee determination process which would be quick and fair. It was very important that it be quick, because if it could be decided within two or three months after the refugee lands on our shores whether he or she is a legitimate refugee then that system would discourage fraudulent refugees who come here and get into the backlog, which takes two or three years, knowing that it is difficult to deport them after that period of time.
The Conservative Government of the day responded in part to the reports of the Plaut Royal Commission and the standing committee in May of 1986. The former Minister of State for Immigration promised in May of 1986 that there would be new legislation to deal with refugees in September of 1986, more than six months ago. There was no legislation in September of 1986. There was none in October, November, December, January or February. We are now in the third week of March and we still have no legislation to deal with this important problem.
This morning, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), in answer to a question said that we will see the legislation soon. We have been told that now for many, many months by the Minister and his predecessor and still the legislation is not before us. These delays and procrastination have encouraged more fraudulent claims for refugee status and the problems resulting therefrom have doubled and tripled. Finally, in panic at these developing problems, the Government brought in ad hoc measures on February 20, 1987, which not only shut out the small percentage of fraudulent claimants but also legitimate claimants, those suffering severe hardship, the really legitimate refugees.
In order to support its ad hoc panic measures, the Government is giving a false impression of the refugee situation at our borders. The numbers at our door in recent months have not been greater than those who have come here in special movements over recent years. The special movement which is being denied entry right now is principally from Central
[Stage Direction]

Supply
America and South America. These people are from Guatemala, El Salvador and Chile. The Government said about 5,000 people applied near the end of last year, which has given the perception that that situation is worse than it is. What heightens that perception of something wrong is the fact that we had the Sri Lankan refugees dropped off by boat off the coast of Newfoundland last summer. There was a reverse reaction to that. There was also an adverse reaction to a statement made by one refugee in Montreal who did not like his accommodation in the Lasalle Elotel in Montreal. I think his comments were badly placed. Those comments in that situation received a lot of publicity which was blown out of proportion and gave a bad perception of what is the real tragic situation.
I want to point out that the 5,000 number near the end of last year may sound large, but it is not an unusual number, especially when we recognize that we have between 15 million and 20 million refugees in the world, and considering what we in Canada did in former years. I put that on record to a certain extent this morning in my question to the Minister. I feel it is very important that we recognize what has been done in Canada with respect to refugees over the past few years so that we can see that what we are trying to do now is not extraordinary. In the one year of 1982, in addition to the usual flow of refugees which amounted to 16,900, we took in three special movements. We took in 9,344 Polish people who fled Poland as a result of the Solidarity crisis in that country. In the same year we took in 3,024 refugees in a special movement from El Salvador and 2,500 refugees from Iran. So we took in three special movements in 1982 in addition to the usual flow of refugees. In the years leading up to 1979, as a result of the horrible situation in Lebanon, we took in 11,321 Lebanese. As a result of the end of the war in Viet Nam, prior to 1978, we took in 9,060 Vietnamese and Cambodians. From 1975 to 1979, as a result of the situation in Chile and Argentina, when that country was under a dictatorship, we took in over 7,000 South Americans. At the time of the crisis in Uganda, when the Asians were being expelled, we took in 7,069 Ugandan Asians. In 1969, following the uprising in Czechoslovakia, we took in 11,943 Czechoslovakians. After a similar situation in Hungary in 1957, we took in 37,000 Hungarians. We must recall that at the end of the Second World War when displaced people from central Europe had nowhere to go this country took in up to 186,000 displaced persons per year when the population of our country was but 15 million.
1 have referred to these special movements of refugees, the members of which have all integrated well into Canadian society. They are now leading productive and full lives in this country and have not caused any problems. There are not many of us here in the House who can refer to any of these people as a group which has caused any problems here in Canada. As a matter of fact, we know them as neighbours and as people with whom we work. They are contributing to our society in a positive way.
1 have referred briefly to the refugee movements, which are separate and distinct from the movement of immigrants. We take in refugees, in accordance with a treaty to which I referred, when people are displaced from their countries because of persecution, war and so on. These people are refugees. On the other hand, with respect to immigrants, we set down legislation. We bring in immigrants in accordance with our needs. Last year we brought in 97,474 immigrants. In 1957 we brought in 282,000 immigrants. In 1967 we brought in 222,000. In 1974 we brought in 218,000. During most years in the post-war period we brought in over 100,000 immigrants per year.
When we look back we have to admit that these immigrants and refugees integrated well into our country. They have become good citizens. If there is now a problem with respect to the number of refugees who are at our door it is because the Government has not brought in the legislation which was recommended to it by Rabbi Plaut and by a standing committee of this House. This is legislation which the Government promised to bring in last May, legislation which would have provided for fair and quick treatment of refugees and which would have discouraged false claimants, those who would have jumped the line.
I fully agree with the Government. We have to do something about false claimants, about those who want to jump ahead of others who are in line, but not in the manner in which the Government has undertaken it in its new ad hoc policy announced on February 20. In doing that it not only shuts out false claimants but it shuts out many legitimate refugees. In bringing in this sort of ad hoc policy the Government is playing right into the hands of those in our country who are prejudiced against immigrants. We have to admit that such prejudice still exists today. The Government is contributing to the situation by giving out false information and by leaving a false impression. It may not be doing it intentionally, but that is the result.
In general terms, immigrants contribute much more to this country than they take. They are all consumers. As soon as they arrive here in the country they become consumers. They need homes, clothing, food and household products. They need education and health care. These needs create employment. In addition to being consumers many of them create their own employment by starting small businesses. They pay taxes. In fact, they pay more than their fair share in taxes in many cases because they often have larger families than native-born Canadians. There may be individual cases in which immigrants take jobs which might be open to Canadians. But, on balance, they create more jobs. In any case, our immigration policy over the years, and it is still the case today, was designed to concentrate on immigrants whose skills are needed rather than those which are surplus in Canada. I must continue to make the distinction between immigrants and refugees. As I said earlier, members of refugee movements which we let into Canada in the years since the Second World
[Stage Direction]

War have not caused the disruption that is now being feared by some Canadians.
What are other people saying? We can look to some of the comments in the press with respect to these measures. I have in front of me an editorial taken from the Calgary Herald of February 24, the title of which is: "Restore the refuge". It states:
Immigration Minister Benoit Bouchard has gone overboard with tough measures to curb the wave of bogus refugees flooding Canada.
Rather than being content with addressing the problem of fakes and frauds who want to end-run the system, Bouchard appears to have drawn a bureaucratic paper curtain, nearly as impenetrable as any of iron, around Canada.
I now refer to an article in The Vancouver Sun of February 21, 1987, which is entitled: "Heart and head on the refugees". It states:
The new rules for the admission of refugees to Canada are far from being a perfect way of sorting out the mess created by the lack of a coherent immigration policy. At best they offer an opportunity to stem the flood of refugee claims until the government can finish drafting a new policy that is both humanitarian and practical.
It is distressing that the government is taking so long to produce a program and that it must respond to each new refugee crisis with ad hoc regulations like those announced yesterday by Immigration Minister Benoit Bouchard.
There are reports which we have to the contrary of what was told to us by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). There are reports that some of these people who applied from the United States are being deported from that country. I would now like to refer to an article from The Globe and Mail for February 24, the title of which is: "Refugee claimants may face deportation". It states:
Central Americans awaiting hearings get no guarantees from U.S. officials.
Despite assurances from Canada's two immigration ministers, Central American refugee claimants who are returned to the United States to await an immigration hearing in Canada have no guarantees that they will not be deported.
In Le Devoir for February 23 the policy is described as follows:
[Stage Direction]
-irresponsible and inhumane.
[Stage Direction]
In conclusion, we must do something about false refugee claims. But the Government's ad hoc policy is not the way to go about it. That policy is keeping out many legitimate claimants, as well as fraudulent ones. If the Government had not procrastinated, if it had not dragged its feet, we would not be faced with the specific problems which have led to these misguided measures announced on February 20. Rabbi Plaut and the parliamentary committee recommended a new and improved system in 1985 and 1986-some two years ago. The Government promised action in May of 1986 for September of 1986, and we still have nothing.
I conclude by asking the Minister the following question. Unfortunately, he is not in the House. When will the Government finally act? When will it bring in a Bill that will deal
Supply
quickly and fairly with refugees in accordance with our obligations under the United Nations' treaty?
Mr. Oostrom:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). First, I wish to congratulate him for having perceived the contribution of not only the skills but the economic contributions that immigrants have made to Canada. He has a great perception of that economic contribution. However, my question concerns the problems we are facing today with economic refugees. Back in 1976, why did the Liberal Government, of which he was a part, not take any measures in respect of refugees who obviously abused the system? Abuses were taking place some 10 years or 20 years ago. I would like to have an answer to that question.
My second question concerns a CBC interview on August 16. I am sorry I could not be present this morning, but I was on the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. However, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) referred to the middle ground as being something like a holding centre, a detainment centre, or what is commonly known as an economic refugee camp. Is this now the policy of the Liberal Party?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is also a member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, along with me and a few other Members of the House. He has studied the issue along with me. He asked why nothing was done to deal with the problem of refugee abuses in 1976. He is a new Member of the House, having come here in 1984, so I must tell him that there were changes.
Very substantial changes were brought in by the Government in 1981. I believe there were changes in the 1970s as well. I cannot recall the exact year. I have been here 22 years and I have dealt with continual changes to the system.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1975-76.


William Warren Allmand: I thank the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). In 1975-76 there were changes to the legislation. In 1981 there were changes to the regulations. Also in 1981 the advisory committee on refugee status was set up. Changes were made over the years.
The refugee problem is a difficult one. The Hon. Member will recognize that the problem is becoming more and more severe world-wide. With air travel being what it is today, compared with the early post-war years, it is easier for people to board planes-and for that matter, boats-and leave their countries. Sometimes it the only way they can do it. They do not have time, nor is it safe, to go to the embassy to obtain a visa and so on.
In recent years the problem has become more serious and more tragic. That is why the Minister responsible for immigration in 1983 appointed Rabbi Plaut to come up with a new


Supply
system to deal with the problem. The Hon. Member was on the committee with me. We recommended a new system as well. We were more or less unanimous on it. We made a report in November-December, 1985. If the Government acts on that report, I am sure we will have a much improved system, and we will support the Government in bringing in such legislation.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) would question Liberal immigration policy when he was quoted recently as favouring only trained workers from western Europe entering the country. Then he tried to hide that by saying it was because they were more adaptable to our winters. I do not think that he should be asking questions about our Liberal policy if that kind of talk is representative of the government benches.
I thought my Liberal colleague articulated very admirably the whole question of refugees. In terms of the question posed by the Hon. Member for Willowdale about why the Liberal Government did not move on some of the things he thought it should have moved on, would the Hon. Member explain something which I think is very important? In the 1960s and in the 1970s the process was to select refugee claimants and our quota of refugees from refugee camps, whereas now, particularly over the last two and a half years to three years, we have been seeing individuals coming to our shores. It is no longer a question of why it was not done in the past. It is more that the system in the past was then and we now have an outdated system to try to address a new phenomenon. Would my colleague be able to make some comments on that particular aspect of the policy?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. In the 1960s and 1970s it was not as common to have refugees simply arriving on our shores and claiming status. That was not the phenomenon at that time. It happened, but it was not as frequently as it happens today. I tried to refer to that in my earlier answer.
I visited Central America and some of the Salvador refugee camps. Even those refugee camps were raided from time to time to time by members of the Salvadoran death squads. Refugees were dragged out of the camps and they were decapitated, only to be found by the side of the road. This sort of thing happened very often because they were opposed to the regime in power. There has been a change in refugee movements and the way in which they have claimed status around the world in recent years.
I did not know of the statement made by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom), but we cannot presume that because people come from western Europe they will adapt more quickly to Canada than people from more southern climates. Some of the most hardy individuals in our winter climate are people who came from South American, Asia, and many other such countries. Many people of our background cannot stand the winter and often go to Florida and the
Caribbean to take in the sun. We cannot generalize on such things.
We have good immigrants and refugees from many parts of the world. That is the way Canada was built. I hope we will continue to live up to the record which earned us that Nansen award from the United Nations last year.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not reply to my question on whether he agreed with the Hon. Member for York West that perhaps we should have detention camps in Canada for economic refugees.
The only change made by the Liberal Government from
1981	to 1984 of which I am aware was a consistent reduction of immigration levels every year. Particularly it froze the category of independent immigrants who could make a great contribution to Canada. Why was that done in those days? Today the Government is trying to reverse that whole situation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member's last question first by giving him the figures. In 1979 we brought in 112,000 immigrants. In 1980 that figure was increased to 143,000. In 1981 it went down to 128,000. In
1982	it was at 121,000. There was a sharp drop for 1983 and 1984, he is quite correct, but I remind him that we were in a world-wide recession. I do not recall his Party or any other Party in the House suggesting at that time, when the unemployment was almost 12 per cent, that we should bring in large numbers of immigrants. Refugees were always welcome under the law. The point is that in 1983 we brought in 89,000 and in 1984 we brought in 88,000.
Now, three years after the recession, the Government brought in 97,000 last year. It has in no way matched the numbers which we as Liberal Governments brought in during the 1970s and the 1980s. I referred to those numbers earlier. In 1974, we brought in 218,000. In 1967, we brought in
222,000.	Perhaps the Hon. Member could look at the figures over the years. It is true that we dropped in the two years of recession, from 1982-83 to 1983-84. However, I was on that side of the House at the time and there were no questions from Conservative Members asking us to increase those numbers.
When the Hon. Member's Party returns to even the 121,000 figure which we had in 1982, then he can start preaching lessons to us.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government and also as the Hon. Member for Willowdale, I am pleased to participate in debate on the motion respecting the central role played by family reunification in our approach to immigration.
Our Government has introduced significant and forwardthinking adjustments to both policies and programs as well as to procedures in order to reaffirm and consolidate the priority of family immigration. To suggest otherwise, as outlined in the


motion, is to ignore the numerous important initiatives that have been undertaken. I know, Mr. Speaker, that these adjustments in policies and procedures may not be enough, but in the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, of which I am a member, we continue to work and suggest further improvements, and we expect to meet this week to that end.
The Government's policy regarding family reunification intake is really quite simple. Applications from close family members from abroad which are accompanied by sponsorship undertakings by their eligible relatives in Canada are accepted. It is that straightforward. The only requirements are that the applicants be in good health and of good character, requirements which apply to all immigrants to Canada. For 1987, the planning estimate is 45,000 family class landings. If more than that number of 45,000 eligible applicants come forward, they will be admitted.
By way of clarifying the Government's position in this matter, 1 can only stress that there is no numerical limit on family class immigration whatever. The 45,000 planning figure announced by the Government last November is just that, an estimate of client demand made for administrative purposes. It is not a quota, it is not a ceiling and it is not a target. I think it is important to emphasize as well that the total family class landings in 1987 and beyond will not be affected by increases or decreases in any other immigrant categories. In fact, far from restricting family class levels, we are pursuing measures to expand the scope of family reunification as suggested by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in reports tabled in this House.
In 1986 our Government introduced a policy aimed at increasing immigration levels in a moderate and controlled manner. It is important to understand that although no restrictions are placed on family class immigrants, there is nonetheless a casual relationship between the global announced level for all classes of immigrants and the number of family class immigrants who are admitted. Simply stated, increased numbers of immigrants generate increased applications for family reunification over time.
For instance, in the past year, the Government has extended eligibility for 119 new occupational groups of selected workers who may be admitted without pre-arranged employment in Canada. This increase in selected worker landings will be reflected in increased family class landings in 1987 and beyond as recently arrived selected workers become established in Canada and begin sponsoring close family members who are still abroad. This will reverse a trend that developed in previous administrations from 1982 to 1985 because of restrictions on independent immigration, and I am sure that my hon. colleagues will appreciate these increases. As I pointed out earlier in the House, the past Liberal administration decreased immigration levels from 1981 to 1984. Our Conservative Government has increased levels since taking power in September, 1984. It is our policy to continue that.
Supply
In addition, refugee and humanitarian intakes have also risen in the past three years and many of these immigrants, once firmly established, will also sponsor close relatives who were not able to come to Canada with them. When we combine these developments with the improvements in procedures and processing times, which I will address later, we are clearly looking at a growth scenario as far as family class levels are concerned. In these terms, it becomes clear that the level of family class immigration revolves on sponsorship demand which, in turn, Mr. Speaker, hinges on global immigration levels. At the same time, however, parliamentarians should recognize that there is an element of family immigration that is largely hidden.
It is worth noting that in the first 10 months of 1986, in addition to the 34,239 family class landings, there were an additional 21,420 landings of the spouses and other dependants of applicants in other immigrant categories. The total of 55,659 family members represents fully 70 per cent of all landings in that period. In fact, all successful principal applicants from any immigrant category may be accompanied to Canada by their spouses and dependants. Clearly immigration to Canada is a family movement.
An overview of client and sponsor patterns reveals some other facts that confirm the family's pervasive influence on practically every aspect of immigration activity. During the 1980s, for instance, only 20 per cent of landings can be attributed to the arrival of immigrant children under the age of 15. In 1986, more than 45 per cent of the applicants in the new occupations, opened for the selected worker category, had one or more relatives already in Canada. Some of these applicants will have gained bonus selection points on the strength of undertakings of support submitted by these relatives. This overlapping, interrelated aspect of immigration categories was not lost on the Hawkes committee members. In an attempt to clarify and consolidate the interface between families and the Department, its report recommended the creation of a new assisted family class category constituted of parents with dependants, siblings and non-dependent children.
The proposed assisted family class, and several other closely related recommendations, have far-reaching implications for future immigration policy in Canada. These recommendations speak of a fundamental reshaping of family class immigration that must be carefully considered, both in terms of its effect on operational procedures and its impact on the provinces and private sector immigration organizations.
We have begun discussions on these proposals as part of the ongoing process of consultation that provides the essential input needed to keep immigration policies and systems in touch with evolving needs. Last year, our consultations on the assisted family class and many other issues involved more than 600 groups, including non-governmental organizations; provincial and territorial Governments; other federal Departments; and academics and experts in immigration and demography.


Supply
1 want to assure all Members, Mr. Speaker, of the Government's commitment to family reunification as we embark on an era of progressive, expansionist immigration policy. It is widely recognized that for Canada to realize the objectives of this new era of heightened emphasis on immigration, our immigration services must be streamlined. The fact that processing improvements are being implemented both at home and abroad has special relevance to family reunification. Now, family class applicants and sponsors alike will be the beneficiaries of fully co-ordinated procedures more attuned than ever before to their related needs.
While many of these initiatives will be internally generated, the invaluable contribution of the report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration on family reunification must be recognized.
Under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) the committee made 59 recommendations that addressed three key areas: the importance of high quality service to the public; the strengthening of the management systems that guide officers in their work; and the acceleration and the improvement of the reunification process for close relative members abroad with their relatives in Canada. The Hawkes report and the Government's fast and positive response to it clearly signalled a long-term commitment to the family unit as the central fact of immigration policy. Already the Government is moving to implement recommendations to expedite the processing of spouses and dependants. The improvements being implemented signify the beginning of a new era for sponsors and their relatives. It is an era that will be characterized by service that is faster, fairer, more courteous and more humane.
What do these improvements mean to our constituents? It will be more convenient for sponsors of family-class immigrants to file sponsorship applications. Families will be encouraged and will find it easier to complete their own applications. The waiting period for sponsorship appointments will be, and in fact already is, considerably reduced. In addition, services for immigrants overseas will be enhanced through more efficient security and background checks as well as through improved medical processing.
These improvements will be an encouragement to all Canadians who want to bring close family members to Canada. They are also consistent with our goal to provide the highest quality of service possible. The way in which we respond to immigrants says much about Canada as a whole and the national values we espouse.
In conclusion, I would reiterate that the one value that remains a constant is the pre-eminence of the family in Canadian life. Immigrant families have provided the very foundation of Canadian nation-building. As we begin to chart an exciting future of increased immigration as an essential element of demographic, social and economic growth, the
family unit will remain the corner-stone of Canadian immigration policy. In Willowdale, there is already some evidence of that. However, some people from the U.S.S.R. are not being allowed exit visas for family reunification in Canada. We have to do a bit more work and apply some more pressure there.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Toronto, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom). My riding of York West happens to be a very multicultural riding, and many people who live there are still in the process of sponsoring their relatives. In my experience, the greatest frustration experienced by those individuals and individuals across Canada is their inability to sponsor relatives from abroad successfully. The Hon. Member for Willowdale has said that the Government is entering into a new era of progress and expansion in family class immigration, but that is hard to believe after looking at the facts of the matter.
In the last immigration targets, the Minister froze family class immigrants to 30 per cent of the entire immigration program. In the mid-1970s and early 1980s, that figure ranged from 45 per cent to 55 per cent. It is hard to understand how the Hon. Member can say on behalf of the Government that we are entering into a new era of progress.
As well, the Hon. Member mentioned that over the last couple of years, the Minister has increased the targets. However, the Hon. Member has failed to inform the House that while the Minister has increased the targets, there has not been the increased allocation of resources needed to process the increased targets. The Hon. Member and I were both fortunate enough to be able to travel with the Standing Committee on Immigration. He as well as I received information from visa officers abroad indicating that it is very easy for a Minister to increase targets, but if he does not allocate personnel and financial resources to meet those ambitious targets, he will simply not get the people coming into Canada. The year 1986 was a perfect example of that. The Minister announced a target of 115,000, but we fell 30,000 short of that. Is it any wonder that we are seeing the frustration of Canadians who are unable to sponsor family relatives from abroad successfully?
I believe it is incumbent upon the Hon. Member to explain why the Minister is playing the politics of targets. If the Government is not prepared to increase resources, then let us not get into an intellectually dishonest campaign. Let us tell Canadians how many people are actually coming to Canada without pointing to targets which are basically not worth the paper on which they are written unless they are supported by increased resources.
Could the Hon. Member tell us why, at the standing committee of which he is a member, the Minister accepted a good number of technical recommendations but failed to agree to two essential recommendations that were designed to break the bottleneck in family class immigration? The first was our recommendation suggesting that there should be more points allotted to prospective immigrants with family members in


Canada in order to recognize the role of the family in immigration, and the second was the recommendation to expand the family class definition to allow brothers and sisters of Canadians to enjoy some kind of priority in processing. Can the Elon. Member explain why the Minister refused to accept those two recommendations?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has some difficulty with statistics. For example, he said that during the Liberal administration, approximately 45 per cent of total immigration was family reunification. That is simply not true. In 1975, family reunification accounted for 34.1 per cent and in 1980 for 35.6 per cent. It was only when the Conservative Government came to power that family reunification as a part of total immigration increased. As a matter of fact, in 1985, it was already close to 46 per cent and we will continue in that direction.
I can understand the Hon. Member's frustration if he is looking at the wrong figures. Last year he said that we fell
30,000	short in immigration. That is simply not true. That is the tactic members of the Opposition have employed continually in the House. They are misrepresenting facts and figures, and the people in our constituencies simply do not understand the truth if the right figures are not made available to them. I understand that last year, the total number of immigrants came to 97,500. That is a figure I got from officials and it indicates that we did not fall 30,000 short. We did fall short by a few thousand, but we are trying to make up for that this year.
Again, it is simply not true that the Minister did not comply with the recommendations of the standing committee. I think we submitted some 70-odd recommendations and only one was rejected by the Minister. He held six in abeyance and was to report back to us on them at a later date. He approved all the others in one way or another. In fact, he approved well over 50 recommendations. I do not know what more the Minister can do. He is one of the best Ministers we have when it comes to responding to requests of the committee.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I welcomed the Hon. Member's comments with respect to the Government's intentions concerning immigration. As the Hon. Member will know as I have discussed this with him before, I feel that my family and I would not be in Canada if we had been faced with the immigration policies, procedures, rules and regulations that exist now. My family came to Canada approximately 100 years ago from Britain. At that time, we had no family here. We would not have qualified as family class immigrants. At that time, we had just gone through bankruptcy proceedings in England. We had no capital and could not have come here as entrepreneurs. At that time, we would not have qualified as refugees seeking refuge in a new land so we could not have come here as refugees. It was an era of great unemployment not only in Britain and in Europe but in Canada. Certainly if the rules and regulations we now face as a result of economic
Supply
conditions were in place at that time, my family would never have got here and I would not be here.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the comment of the Hon. Member that the Government intends to take some initiatives to increase the number of people who qualify to come to Canada. I suspect what the Hon. Member is referring to, and what the Government has in mind, still would not allow me to come to Canada today under those conditions, but at the same time I welcome what he had to say.
I look on him as an expert in this area and I would like to ask him if, as far as he is aware, it is the Government's intention to broaden the category of family class immigrants. In that way not only the spouses of landed immigrants or Canadian citizens, under age and dependent children and other relatives in those categories would be allowed into Canada, but other family class immigrants such as working children, brothers and sisters and other relatives would be allowed in as well. Is that what the Government intends and, if so, when can we look forward to something of that sort?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. In those days there were not that many restrictions because there were quite a few independent immigrants who could quickly come to Canada. Those restrictions were implemented a few years ago and we are trying to open it up again. Personally I think there are not enough immigrants, but we also have to think about the family class and refugees. While I would like to increase it even more, it is coming along very well.
Our committee suggested that we should have a population study, such as that currently being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare. We foresee a population for Canada of about 30 million by the year 2000. That would mean that we need to have 200,000 immigrants every year until that year. Naturally, as the Hon. Member suggested, there would be many more independent immigrants in that category and many more family class immigrants. As a matter of fact, if one includes all the independents and the children in the other groups, we can see how in 1986 we had almost
21.000	landings of other independents. That has grown now to
31,000,	and I admit that these are preliminary figures. That brings the total landings estimate which the Hon. Member referred to earlier to 97,474. We are moving ahead. It is perhaps not fast enough, but we have to consider all opinions and we are doing a lot by seeking opinions.
What should the total number of immigrants be? We hope the standing committee will be involved in that once the study by the Department of National Health and Welfare becomes available. We can then ask questions of Canadians. How big a population do you want Canada to have? Is it 30 million? We know the population, we know the death rate and we know the number of children. Unfortunately, Canadians are having smaller families, so the difference will have to be made up by immigrants. That could well mean a figure of more than
200.000	every year until the year 2000.


Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) and the questions and answers which followed. I recognize the obligation on a government Member to put the best possible light on the policies his Government is following. It is easy to talk about a fairer and faster way of handling immigration applications. That is easy to say, but it is strange when the reality of past years does not coincide. It is easy for the Government to point to an increase in the immigration figure. Of course what those figures are is a nice question. As the Hon. Member said, these are not goals and they are certainly not quotas. They are supposed to be targets, but they are not. Last year there was a significant shortfall in family class immigration, 5,000 under the supposed target. There were
10,000	fewer assisted relatives than had been allowed for by the Department in its planning. Why? Primarily because of the lengthy procedures those people faced. As the Hon. Member recognized in giving the figure of 97,000, which he was able to get thanks to the resources of the Department being made available to him as a government Member, that resulted in the Government's hopes for immigration last year not being met. Will they be met in the coming year? Fine words in this House are not going to do it. Much more is required.
Because of the necessity of developing a policy which will ensure the increase in immigration which various members think is necessary, it is useful to have this sort of debate on an opposition motion to condemn the Government for failures in its immigration policy. It has created confusion and suffered from a lack of leadership and vision. That is seriously undermining the confidence of Canadians in the over-all direction of immigration policy.
I want to say something in general about immigration and explore various aspects of the kinds of immigration to Canada that we enjoy these days. I say "enjoy". I know there are many Canadians who have a very real interest in our immigration policy. Many of them want to see that policy conducted in an expansive and fair way. Many are dissatisfied with the way in which the policy has been applied by the present Government and, to some extent, by preceding Governments. I do not think the Liberal Governments did everything perfectly in this area either.
First, immigrants have played a vital role in the development of this country. We can say quite truthfully that we are all the descendants of immigrants. Even the aboriginal peoples might be prepared to recognize a migration to North America once upon a time. Without arguing that point it is obvious that immigration has brought us a great diversity of human resources, cultures and communities. That is a fact and something we should all appreciate. Certainly with respect to multiculturalism, we have a national policy which asserts that that is a good thing. It allowed us to cultivate the consequences of immigration to this country. We need to assert that because
the Minister suggested in a speech in January that there are those who like to celebrate their homogeneous societies and like to think of themselves as untouched by immigration and its various realities. That statement, which I asked him to withdraw and he did not, might have been allowed to pass until now if it had not been for the fact that he brought in guidelines on refugees at the end of February which suggested that he meant every word of what he said. It suggested that he would be quite happy to exclude from this country certain international realities, the creation, if you will, of refugees in various parts of the world and their desperate search for a sanctuary which these days seems to be available only in Canada.
In considering the question of immigration as my friend, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), did this morning, we face various attitudes over the years. I do not deny the fact that in labour circles in the past there has sometimes been ambivalence about immigration. That was quite understandable in cases where immigrants could be used in industrial relations against those who were then employed or those who sought to better their livelihoods. Wherever there were such experiences, one can understand people reacting against them. That is surely part of the reason the history of British Columbia was so disfigured by anti-Asian feeling from the late 19th century on into this century. It is necessary to transcend that by ensuring that there is fair treatment in the workplace and that employers do not do that.
At various times the reality of unemployment has led people to see immigrants as competitors and to want them to be excluded from the country. We obviously ultimately need policies that will ensure that we are near full employment which will allow us to look with pleasure to the arrival of people bringing in skills and abilities which can be developed and put to good use to build up the economic potential of the country. In the last 20 years there have been very important and significant developments of that sort.
I submit that to regard immigrants as competitors is misguided. As my friend from Spadina pointed out so well this morning, evidence from various labour organizations shows that it is not a concern these days. We have instead a growing recognition of the need for higher levels of immigration to this country in order to ensure that the Canadian population grows rather than stagnates as a result of the very small families which Canadians have these days, the result of which is that we are not even maintaining our population by natural increase.
There had been a suggestion that we should be aiming at a level of 30 million by the year 2,000. That calls for immigration levels well above the 125,000, or a little more that we have at the moment. If the Government recognizes these needs, we will see movement toward 150,000 or 200,000. That is surely necessary. When we do that surely arguments about people being economic refugees, wanting to come to this country not because there is anything wrong in their homeland but only


because it is good here, would fall by the wayside. We want to recognize that when people have skills and see opportunity they should be encouraged to bring their skills to Canada and seek the opportunity of a good life here. In the process they can only enrich Canada by living here, working here, and maintaining their families here.
Every time I hear someone talking about economic immigration or whatever in this critical sense, it seems to me that there is a hint of that kind of opposition to immigration peeking through. I do not think that should exist in the Canadian mind. It should never be expressed by persons in government or speaking for government. We want to rule that out because Canada is a land of opportunity. We very urgently need persons of ability to come here to improve themselves and build Canada.
I said a few moments ago that in the past 20 years laws have been in operation which have brought to this country persons of high ability. That has been a basic factor in the growing diversity of the Canadian population, the development of a multiracial Canada. In 1967 the laws were changed to remove elements that had been fairly clearly racist in their intent. Instead of maintaining a white Canada we began to build a Canada of ability and merit, if you will. We began to accept immigrants who had the education and ability to contribute to Canada. One may say that is, in a sense, creaming off the population of other parts of the world, but I do not suppose I should make very much of that, any more than I should deny the right of others to complain about economic motivation in bringing people to this country.
The high quality of immigration is worth noting. It has many, many consequences. In the City of Toronto there is a remarkably high percentage of people of Asian origin among university graduates. They certainly comprise a much larger proportion than do other segments of the Canadian population. That is one of the realities in a multicultural Canada. It is one of the realities that drives on the demand for full participation by individuals and communities.
It is this sort of experience that has me celebrating immigration year while recognizing that the opposition motion which we are debating today is appropriate and necessary because there have been shortcomings. All the fine words of one member or another from the government benches cannot deny the fact that the perception in the country is one of a tightening up. Many of us have the perception that the procedures are very lengthy in too many parts of the earth from which people want to immigrate to Canada. As a result, we have the low figures which I have already cited, 5,000 and 10,000 below the figures which were supposed to be the target for immigration to this country.
I was talking earlier today to one of my assistants in my constituency who takes primary responsibility for immigration cases, if you will, which come to my attention. We were exploring the situation which faces us, particularly the reaction which public opinion polls suggest is developing among too many Canadians these days. As she said very truly, the fact
Supply
that many people think that the present system is unfair has a good deal to do with the fact that when they try to work within that system they face so many delays and roadblocks that they become terribly frustrated. When they see those who have managed to circumvent the system by extra-legal means of one sort or another they cannot help but become angry. This means that the limited personnel involved in handling cases and the drawn out procedures which presently prevail are really at the heart of the unhappiness which has developed among many Canadians with regard to our present immigration system.
If we were operating the system fairly, if all of the talk about family reunification were actually being acted upon by the Government, if those who seek to bring relatives to this country were able to do so as they should, they would not become unhappy because a group of Tamils from Sri Lanka who had become anxious about their ability to stay in Europe safe from the civil war that is raging in northern Sri Lanka decided to go to a country where they would be safe, namely, Canada. We would not have reaction against their landing on our shores of the sort that we had last August.
In emphasizing the fact of the inability to achieve family reunification I would like to allude to a couple of cases which my assistant, Judith Foulds, has had to deal with. I, of course, have dealt with the persons as well. We have the case of an East Indian family, a physician and his wife. The wife would like to bring her elderly parents to Canada. There have been some medical problems with her parents. Yet they face the declaration of the Canadian Government that they may be a burden on the medical system of the country and will not be allowed to emigrate here. I submit that this physician is perfectly capable of providing for his in-laws and would surely do so.
Now that these people have applied to come here, they are caught in the system, and the possibility of coming to Canada to visit is excluded because of the rampant suspicions in our system that visitors will turn themselves into immigrants. When relatives die in other parts of the world because of the rigidity of our system and the anxiety that our prized medicare system will suffer a slight burden from people from other parts of the world it is nothing less than a system of institutionalized brutality. It is outrageous. That would not happen if we had any kind of humanity in our refugee policy, overseas development aid policy and our immigration policy generally.
When one examines the visitors' visa applications with which we have had to deal, they underscore the lack of political will in these areas at the top of the Department and some levels down. I must also say that the personnel with whom we deal at the lower levels are excellent in their administration and are humane and sensitive in their undertakings. These include personnel at the Thunder Bay office and the lower levels at the head office here.


Supply
That lack of political will in the case of visitors' visas is exemplified in another case of an East Indian family. There was an application for relatives to visit. The husband is employed by Air India and the wife is a teacher in India. However, they were denied visitors' papers at the High Commission because of the obvious distrust that they would try to stay in Canada if they visited. It was appealed all the way to the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). There was no resolution, but there was a hard line attitude taken by the Minister and his officials. Such an attitude is an indication of what is wrong not only with the federal Government but with the administration of immigration and visitors' visa systems of government.
The complaints I received reached their ultimate ridiculous point when I tried to help someone from Poland pay a visit to Canada. He was denied a visitor's visa, but all he wanted to do was come to Canada to sightsee, fish, and have a rest. I do not know what else visitors want. He had no intention of working and it was not obvious that he would want to try to stay here. Yet he was denied his opportunity to visit, which perfectly demonstrates the kind of inhumanity that has crept into the administration of our laws. That is the case, whatever may be the protestations of government Members in the House.
This inhumanity reaches its ultimate point when refugees from various parts of the world are faced with similar drawn out procedures and similar hostility in the administration of the law.
I suggest that for the last 200 years refugees have made a vital contribution to Canadian history. As a matter of fact, the bicultural and bilingual nature of central Canada, certainly in the 1960s, was a result of the initial arrival of United Empire Loyalists who were political refugees from the new United States of America. They were refugees as diverse as Mennon-ites, who came here in the realization that they could have a freer life in Upper Canada than in the United States. They were refugees as diverse as the Six Nations Indians who settled in the Red River Valley.
The United Empire Loyalist migration was fundamental to the development of a Canada and les Canadiens. These English and other settlers of great diversity began to build and continue to build a diverse Canada.
I am of Mennonite origin. There was the Mennonite migration of the 1870s and, more particularly, the 1920 political refugees from Soviet Russia who are very grateful to be in Canada.
Let me suggest that refugees from authoritarian and repressive regimes of the right surely are the most valuable addition we could have in this country. They seek a free society in which they can practise their faith, speak their mind, and lead the kind of open lives that it is not possible to lead in a repressive military dictatorship in Chile, the civil war situation in El Salvador brought on by the desire of a few to maintain their power and the desire of the majority to break free from
it, or the Palestinian situation in the Middle East which has not been resolved in over 40 years.
One can think of the Hungarians who left after the abortive attempt to change the society of their country in the 1950s. There are the East Indians who were forced out of Uganda in the early 1970s. There are the boat people of Vietnam. Surely these are people who had some independence of mind in most cases, if not all, and have sought to maintain their freedoms and speak their minds. Surely they are the kind of people we want.
In conclusion, I plead with the Government to respect the letter and the spirit of this resolution as coming from both opposition Parties. It is expressing our intense desire that in 1987, a year after Canada was awarded the Nansen award for its openness to refugees over the years, we cannot go back and see Parliament adopt principles that are truly unfortunate in the administration of refugee requests. Let us maintain the openness that this society should have and increase the numbers we need in order to build Canada for the 21st century.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the speeches of government Members in this debate as fine words with nothing in the way of substance behind them. I have concluded, after listening to the Hon. Member for some 20 minutes, that his comments were a lot of fine words and very supportive remarks for immigration, whether it be immigration of refugees or others, but lacking in specifics and substance.
Will he outline specifically what his policy and that of his Party is with respect to immigration? Is his Party's policy with respect to refugees to wipe out the recently introduced rules and regulations and return to the rules and regulations introduced in late February of this year? Is it his policy and that of his Party to wipe out all the rules and regulations relating to refugees altogether, as he seemed to imply in his comments? Is it their policy that those who are able to get out of camps or places in which they were detained and come to this country by hook or by crook are the ones whom we should accept? Should we scrap the system altogether and let anyone arrive who wants to come here? Or should we design a new streamlined system which in some way changes the procedures to speed things up? Perhaps there should be a different quota, an increased quota for refugee claimants. What specifically does the Hon. Member and his Party advocate with respect to refugee immigrants to this country? At the same time, can the Hon. Member tell us what specifically he and his Party advocates with respect to immigration generally? Again, is it to scrap all of the system and have no rules and regulations? Or should there be some rules and regulations which differ from the ones we have now? If that is what he and his Party advocate, does the Hon. Member advocate an increase in the quota? If so, has he some specifics in mind as to how much that should be? Does he advocate a broadening of the definitions of the categories of who should be allowed to come to Canada? If that is what he and his Party are advocating, what specifically should it be?


I think rather than being generally critical of the policies of present and past Governments-and I am certainly not immune to that sort of thing-the time has come to be positive and to tell us what he and his Party stand for, not what they are against.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's last words were a gratuitous shot. If I was anything, it was not negative. I spoke of what we needed to do. I celebrated immigration and refugees. The Hon. Member recognized that himself in suggesting he would like to have some specifics as to what the system actually ought to be. I noticed, incidentally, in his previous question and answer exchange with the Hon. Member for Willowdale that the Hon. Member himself was uttering a critique of the policy by suggesting that if the present system had prevailed at the time his ancestors arrived, they would not have been able to stay in this country. That is itself eloquent enough. He is an able Member of the House. If his ancestry had not been allowed to stay here it would have impoverished Canada somewhat. Surely that is what we are suffering these days.
The Hon. Member has asked a great variety of questions. I would not presume to answer them all, although I can start. The answers clearly need to come from the critic for this area rather than from one of the other members. However, to ask if what we should do is to go back to the system which prevailed before the end of February, is to ask one question which is very easy to answer. That system was so unsatisfactory and had been criticized by so many people. We are not that kind of fools. We have humanity. We want the recommendations which have been made in the area of refugee determination to be overhauled. We have more than enough studies on the matter. I remember that a year ago we finally passed the Bill which provided for an enlargement of the Immigration Appeal Board. That is something which should have been done a year earlier. What we clearly need is a procedure under which refugee determination can be carried out expeditiously. We in our Party are quite pleased to draw on the expertise of those who work with the situation. We are quite pleased to look to the work of the Canadian Council of Churches and those groups which come together under its aegis to consider the question. I could take the time to read their recommendations. There are proposals for a refugee status determination which could be completed in about 14 weeks. If it were necessary to have an appeal to the Federal Court, perhaps that would take up to another 13 weeks. That is an expeditious process, a simplified and humane process. That is the kind of action we in the New Democratic Party look for.
As far as targets of immigration are concerned, I believe I was speaking within the parameters of what the Hon. Member for Spadina, as critic, is developing in putting forward what I regard to be a positive program for immigration to Canada.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for a question or comment.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, our Party has many spokesmen and I do not think that I will have an opportunity to speak today. However, I would like to make a comment and ask a question to my colleague. I was listening carefully this morning when the Minister spoke about immigration and the refugee problem.
What my colleagues and myself, and especially our immigration critic, have suggested is that Canada should now show some leadership in this issue at the international level. While I am speaking about the refugee issue, I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with our suggestion that Canada has not only a mission and a responsibility in this regard, but also a duty to do something more in view of its good reputation throughout the world as the problem has become so prevalent internationally. Is it not time to take the first step and even to call if necessary an international conference of major Western countries to deal with the refugee problem immediately? Would the Hon. Member tell the House what Canada should do to fight against the serious international problem posed by refugees, which everyone realizes will become the major problem of the nineties? The refugee problem will obviously become the major problem of the last decade of this century. Because of our privileged situation in Canada, it is our duty to understand the refugee problem. I would like to ask my colleague if he can tell us what he thinks about this suggestion which we intend to develop and to put forward, probably even in our electoral program.


Abram Ernest Epp: I thank the Hon. Member for that very good question. I am not sure it is going to be a crisis of the 1990s. It certainly is a crisis already in the 1980s.


George Albert Proud: A world crisis.


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, it is already a world-wide crisis. We have massive movements of persons. Some of these migrations are the result of political difficulties of one sort or another, and those are the ones to which the system is sensitive. I think the Canadian Government should look down the road and recognize challenges and needs and see them as opportunities to play a leading role on the face of this earth. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) taking his seat. I would suggest that we have here not simply a matter of refugee determination, not simply a matter of something which should be provided for within immigration, but we have a challenge to our role as peacemaker, if you will. I have become somewhat involved with difficulties in several parts of the world which generate refugees. It seems to me-


Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn), on a point of order.


Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the interpretation system has been out for several mininutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will ask to have the system restored as soon as possible.


Abram Ernest Epp: As I was saying a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, in various parts of the world we find political situations which are producing refugees. Some of those situations we may not be able to do anything about. I suppose we can do precious little to change the Government of General Pinochet in Chile. We might be able to have some influence on other parts of the earth. I look to the Government of Canada to do its part in these areas, drawing on our Canadian experience with the federal system in which we have not always been brilliantly successful, yet we have retained a peaceable society. We have managed to absorb dissent. We have managed to overcome even violent dissent in this country. Perhaps that gives us some reason for acting in some of these areas to encourage federal solutions, if you will, perhaps a redrawing of boundaries. I do not mean to dodge the question at all. I recognize the world-wide nature of these difficulties. However, I think there are possibilities of going beyond our national defence-based role in providing peace-making forces to certain areas and trying very actively to deal with the political difficulties and to encourage solutions. If we were to do that then the Canadian people could see our activity here as an indication that we want to enable people who want to stay where they are in the world to remain there and to live in peace and security. On the other hand, those who are not able to stay, or those who do not want to, should be encouraged to come here.
1 think a Canadian initiative through the United Nations which would come to grips with this situation is what is needed. The suggestion I have made is designed to keep the global problem within manageable dimensions. Without such manageable dimensions we cannot end repressive regimes, and wars cannot be brought to their end. From such situations we need to challenge other western countries, if they are to be the prime recipients of refugees. I suppose those are the countries about which we are aware in terms of refugees. I suppose that refugees end up in all parts of the world far from our borders and we are hardly aware of them. However, if they are confined to refugee camps in Thailand and Cambodia or in the Middle East that will never be satisfactory. We need to do something about that situation. A United Nations initiative on the part of the Government would be a splendid step to deal with that.
I thank you for your indulgence for allowing me this extra time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in their book entitled None is Too Many which addressed the question of why Canada was closed to the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s Professors Irving Abella and Harold Troper wrote as follows in their preface:
To the condemned Jews of Auschwitz, Canada had a special meaning. It was the name given to the camp barracks where the food, clothes, gold, diamonds, jewellery and other goods taken from prisoners were stored. It represented life, luxury and salvation; it was a Garden of Eden in Hell; it was also unreachable.
They go on to state that the barracks at Auschwitz symbolized what Canada was to all the Jews of Europe throughout the 1930s and 1940s-a paradise, enormous, wealthy, overflowing and full of life, but out of bounds-a haven totally inaccessible.
You might think that it is perhaps inappropriate to draw a parallel between what Canada's policies were in the 1930s and the 1940s, Mr. Speaker, and what they are today. However, I will defer perhaps to a higher authority than myself, namely, Dr. Rabbi Plaut, who authored the report on Canada's refugee policy which was presented to the Government about two years ago. In an article in The Canadian Jewish News of Thursday, March 12, he states:
We have instituted measures which are effective practically, and defective morally. We have signalled a return to former practice which made Canada all too often inaccessible to those most in need of succor.
Last February 20 will go down in Canadian history as a day of shame, for it is the day that our Government closed its doors to refugees.

It was the day when this Government announced a series of cruel measures that go against the humanitarian tradition established in Canada about 40 years ago. It was on February 20 that the Government erected a barrier, not just on the U.S. border but across the world. From now on, refugees who knock on our door and ask for Canada's protection will get the following answer from the Conservative Government: Do not disturb. Don't call us, we'll call you.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) tells us that our policy is unambiguous, and I quote: We offer asylum to all bona fide refugees arriving in our country.
The Minister does not say that the Government has just erected a barrier around Canada to ensure that no one will be able to enter the country. The Minister does not say either that the true objective of his policy is to discourage refugees from knocking on our door. The Minister does not say that the message transmitted throughout the world is that Canada's doors are now closed.

It has been made abundantly clear in recent weeks that the Minister of Employment and Immigration and a bunch of mean-spirited Tory back-benchers call the shots when it comes


to the Government's immigration policy. The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner), the junior Minister, does not have a word to say about the formulation of policy. But he has become the major apologist for the Government. The Minister of State for Immigration says that real refugees will never be sent back. He says that every claimant will be entitled to a fair and open hearing. Should we believe him? After all, the Minister of State is an honourable man. Let us examine what has happened in the past month.
On a snowy Sunday one week after our Government closed Canada's borders to refugees I visited a refugee shelter in Plattsburg, New York, 60 miles or so from Montreal. I talked to refugees at the shelter who are fleeing violence and death threats in Central America. Many have been living underground in the United States. They were homeless, penniless, scared and, in many cases, separated from their families. They came to our border and asked for Canada's protection. We told them: "Wait for a month or two in Plattsburg and then we will admit you to Canada for an immigration inquiry".
When they were turned back at the Canadian border these people had their first encounters with U.S. immigration authorities. They were forced to sign documents voluntarily agreeing to leave the United States. Many were living underground and had not had any previous contact with U.S. immigration authorities. If not accepted in Canada they will not be allowed to stay in the United States and, presumably, they will have to return to the countries they are fleeing, or face deportation. They were not quite sure what awaited them a month or so down the road in Montreal.

Among those I met, Mr. Speaker, there was a boy with his mother and sister, all three from Guatemala, whose father had been in Montreal for some time. Our Government is obliging them to wait at the border for at least a month, in uncertainty and squalor. Why make them wait? The Government is making them stay at the border pending an inquiry in Montreal that will rule on their application for refugee status, a process that may take several years. During that time, they will be able to stay in Canada. Making them wait at the border, 1 should point out, makes no difference to the investigation. Does it make sense to make them wait 60 miles from Montreal while they could just as well wait for the inquiry with their father in Montreal, and enjoy the support of the churches and various organizations that provide assistance to refugees? Why make them wait? Mr. Speaker, this is harassment. The Government is making them wait for no reason at all, in squalor and uncertainty, at the Canadian border, because the Government and the Minister want to discourage and prevent refugees from entering Canada.
As of February 20, the Government also requires transit visas for refugees from some 98 countries who plan to stop over in Canada en route to another destination. People from
Supply
these 98 countries include refugees who used to be on our nondeportable list. The countries include Afghanistan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iran, Cambodia, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and Viet Nam. Just to recite the names of these countries tells us that they are countries torn by violence and war to which our Government, up until now, considered it too dangerous to deport refugees. They are countries, Mr. Speaker, in which neither you nor I would want to live and would think twice about visiting these days.
Refugees from these countries are often lucky to get out with their lives. Now they are told by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to put their lives in further danger by openly presenting themselves to Canadian embassies and consulates and indicating that they want to leave their countries permanently. Does the Minister not understand that going through such bureaucratic procedures is a luxury which refugees cannot afford? Does the Minister not understand that refugees are lucky if they have the time to pack a bag and run?
The Minister says that he wants an orderly process. I can tell him that he has succeeded. Transit visas are indeed very effective, as we can see from the example of the Chileans who were caught up in Argentina. The Minister did not even have the basic decency to allow for the fact that they had already left Chile for Canada at the time the new measures were announced on February 20.
Last August the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) urged Canadians to show compassion toward the Tamil boat people who had arrived on our shores. At the time he said: "It is not the presence of 155 frightened human beings searching for freedom and opportunity that is going to undermine Canada or our immigration policies". Never a finer statement was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but it begs a question. If 155 Tamil boat people will not upset our whole immigration policy, why would a few thousand bus people from Central America over the Christmas holidays upset it?
In recent months the Ministers responsible for immigration have actively promoted the idea that we in Canada are facing a wave or flood of refugees. I note the use of words which convey a sense of natural disaster. However, what evidence is there that we are facing an unmanageable number of refugee claimants?
Last year, 18,000 claims were made in Canada, not more than the number of people it would take to fill an average hockey arena in Canada. The Minister of State for Immigration stated on a number of occasions that because we took in a thousand a week in the first few weeks of 1987, we would have reached some 52,000 by the end of the year. Perhaps that is what he was afraid about. However, is it accurate that this number of refugees would have continued every week throughout 1987?
What evidence is there? The Minister has not given us an iota or scintilla of evidence to prove that his forecasts were anywhere near realistic. Indeed, a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court on the rights of refugees in that


Supply
country will probably have the effect of substantially reducing the numbers that would have come to Canada.
When I was in Plattsburg, representatives of local social service agencies told me that rumours had been circulating for weeks that Canada would bring in tough new refugee rules. If this rumour had reached Plattsburg, is it not logical to assume that the unusually large numbers which we saw in the first few weeks of 1987 were people who were trying to get into Canada under the wire? I would remind the House that in the last few weeks before the Berlin Wall was put up in 1962, thousands of refugees crossed from the East to the West because they knew it would be their last opportunity to do so.
What evidence is there to suggest that Canadian society has reached its capacity to absorb or integrate refugees or immigrants? Have we reached that level? The evidence suggests that we are far from it.
Let us look at what our country was capable of doing for Indo-Chinese boat people. At that time the Government showed leadership. I am happy to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) present in the House today. He was the Prime Minister at the time the Government appealed to the better instincts of Canadians, to the generosity of Canadians, who sent up sponsorship groups in community after community across the country. We opened up our military bases and chartered aircraft. Since 1979 we have taken in over 100,000 Indo-Chinese refugees, with over 60,000 in 1979 and 1980 alone. Today, seven years or eight years later, all these persons are contributing to our country.
The question I would put to the Government today is: Why not act in a similar fashion in 1987? Why not, if we are afraid of a large number of refugees perhaps coming to Canada because of inhumane laws in the United States, remind President Reagan of his responsibilities? Why not call an international conference on Central American refugees where each country would agree to welcome a certain number of refugees? Such a conference was held in 1979 to deal with Indo-Chinese boat people. Why not show this kind of leadership?
Instead, we have a Government which has let the situation deteriorate. It has delayed bringing in legislation to deal with refugees for over two years now. The Government has also failed to commit adequate resources and has taken no action against fraudulent counsellors and travel agents.

In Quebec, some people say our province has taken more than its fair share of refugees. In fact, that was the conclusion of a poll published in Le Devoir a few weeks ago. It is just not true. We have ranked fourth for at least seven or eight years, coming after Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, some people insist that immigrants are taking away our jobs. I would like to thank Senator Rizzuto for suggesting the following argument: If it is true that immigrants are taking away our jobs, how come Ontario, which year after year has received three times as many immigrants
and refugees as Quebec, has an unemployment rate of only 6 per cent, while Quebec's unemployment rate is 10.5 or 11 per cent or more?

Canadians are a generous people. If presented with the facts, they will respond positively with generosity. Canadians are capable of rising to the occasion as they did with the IndoChinese boat people.
I have had occasion to work with some of the people who help refugees and immigrants-non-governmental organizations, church groups, and immigrant aid societies. I visited refugee camps in southeast Asia in 1980 at the height of the crisis. People who work with immigrants and refugees are extremely dedicated and committed. If we present them with the challenge, they will respond.
These groups are dismayed with the policies of the Government. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who was here several minutes ago, shook his head when I drew some parallels and said that the doors of our country were closed to refugees. He seemed to disagree. I ask him to speak with the people in the Mennonite Church whom he knows intimately and to ask them what is their opinion of his Government's policies. These groups, Mr. Speaker, will not accept these policies and will not stop fighting until they are changed, until this Government adopts the recommendations of the Plaut report, the report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, and introduces a refugee determination process that is independent, fast and fair. Our Government is capable of better. Canadians are capable of better.
If I might just close my comments on what I regard to be a rather depressing situation, perhaps one can make a point better in a humorous fashion than one can in a serious fashion. A predecessor of mine in the Liberal Party, Sam Jacobs who was the Member of Parliament for Cartier district in the 1930s, which takes in much of the same area that I represent today in the riding of Laurier, once said that Jesus of Nazareth would be barred from Canada under current government policies. Why, Mr. Speaker? There are four reasons? One, he would not have a proper passport. Two, he had no relatives in Canada. Three, he would not be travelling to Canada by a continuous journey-the same thing could be said about the refugees who now require a transit visa. Four, he was a carpenter. Who needs carpenters? Mr. Jacobs also at one point said that the policy of the present Government on immigration is like the wisdom of God, it surpasseth understanding. The same thing could be said today.
I hope that the Government will review its policy introduced last February 20, read history and listen to what people like Rabbi Plaut are saying. Again, I would ask the Minister for National Health and Welfare to speak to his friends in the Mennonite Church and ask them what they think about these policies. He was part of a much more generous Government. I


would ask the Government to show leadership and tear up the shameful refugee policies that were introduced last February 20.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) who I think spoke with compassion and integrity. His interest in the over-all subject of immigration and the plight of refugees goes beyond a one day debate in the House of Commons. The Member has been very active on that front.
I was interested by the debate earlier on with respect to perhaps paying some attention to the international community and to the international obligations that we signed on behalf of the plight of refugees in 1951 as well as the protocol of 1968. If Canada has been a leader-and it has-then the type of policy announcements that we have seen coming down the pipeline will send a very dangerous signal to other countries. We will soon see the Great Britains and the Switzerlands begin to retract, and regrettably they will use Canada as a justification for doing so.
If we are to play that educational role in calling for an international agreement or a strengthening of those agreements through an international conference, what about a domestic international campaign which the Government ought to begin to initiate? It should present Canadians with the straight goods. The Government should begin to put this in the perspective of our declining birthrate, of our aging population, of an outflow of 50,000 Canadians each and every year, of our needs in terms in skills and labour and those jobs that you and I, Mr. Speaker, perhaps do not wish to do as well, as the other benefits we have been talking about. What are the views of the Hon. Member for Laurier in conducting that type of domestic educational campaign and structuring a positive constructive role rather than trying short-term temporary solutions that only feed off misconceptions and fear for the benefits of a political Party?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, it would be great for the Government to undertake an educational campaign but it would have to change direction 180 degrees from what it has been doing. We have a Government which is morally bankrupt. It has manipulated public opinion. People are beginning to see through this facade. There have been a number of well-thought opinion articles and editorials in newspapers across the country which point to the hypocrisy of the Minister of Employment and Immigration . . .

-who wept crocodile tears when he heard about the poll published in Le Devoir which said that Quebecers thought they were getting more than their fair share of refugees. This is the same Government and in fact the same Minister who let the system deteriorate for two years and procrastinated and failed to introduce the Bill all groups have been waiting for, the Bill that will correct the present situation.
Supply
I agree the Government could set up some kind of policy or campaign to educate the public, but that would require a drastic change from what we have been seeing in the past few months.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, primarily I have a comment. As you know, Ministers do not very often intervene in the comment or Question Period. I think it is important for me to comment in view of some of the statements the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) has made which are erroneous-I cannot use an unparliamentary word to describe them. He said that the refugee numbers have decreased. The member used the 1979-1980 figures. He did not mention that it was a Government at that time, along with many volunteers, led by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who initiated that policy together with the present Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).
Let me come to the present situation. It is not true and it is patently false when the member says that refugees are being cut off by decisions taken by our Government in February. In fact, the number of refugees has increased. The Government made a very clear point when we assumed power that we would increase immigration. Immigration flows when we came into Government were 89,000. The 10 year average is about
140,000.	Most of us who had some dealings with immigration in the past know that we have to increase those numbers. That is a given fact.
We also know that if we look at demographic factors Canada is below replacement value. The demographic studies taking place now in the Department of National Health and Welfare as we look to the turn of the century show that immigration has to increase. Immigration has been good for Canada. Statements should not be made which are not in keeping with the facts.
In 1984 we had 89,000 immigrants. The Government came forward with an amendment, which I moved way back- supported at the time-that the Government of the day had to come before Parliament and give annual targets. We did that. We hoped that we would have an improvement in the economy and there would be new employment, which is taking place, and we said we would increase that figure to 105,000 in our first year and that we would increase it to approximately
125,000	the next year. What other decisions the Government will take when we have to appear before this House-I think it is in November this year-will again show an increase.
Let us look at refugees specifically. We increased the refugee numbers along with the entrepreneurial class. We went to 12,000 of government-sponsored and another 4,000 of cosponsored refugees. Just recently, after the announcements here on the refugee matters, I was in Traiskirchen, the basic camp from which eastern Europeans come. I met with NGOs there. To a person, they told us to keep our refugee policy.


Supply
They said we cannot jeopardize a good policy. We did win the national humanitarian award. There is integrity in the system.
There are convention refugees who cannot come into Canada because of jumping the queue. It is not the Conservative Government that does not want more refugees and it is not the Liberal Party nor the NDP. It has nothing to do with partisanship. It bothers me when there is this twisting of the facts.
We have increased the number of refugees and, I would think, we will increase it again. That is natural in the Canadian context. Hon. Members may put forward their partisan views but I would hope that they would at least put them forward with a factual point of view rather than to score political points based simply on information that is not factual.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Minister but I must ask him to get in touch with some of the people he knows in the Mennonite Church and ask them about their position on the Government's current policies. It is not just members of the misguided Opposition who are saying what I have said. I refer to the comments of Rabbi Plaut. He said that we have signalled the return to a former practice which made Canada all too often inaccessible to those most in need of succour. Does the Minister think that Rabbi Plaut is also misguided?
I would point out that I did mention the initiative begun by the Government which was led by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. That initiative was based on a much sounder moral ground than the one of the current Government. The policy as it related to Indo-Chinese refugees was very humanitarian and was carried through by our Government.
The Hon. Member spoke of refugees that we select at our visa offices abroad. I would point out that we did not fill the number of positions available for those selected abroad last year. Does the Minister think that that kind of procedure is appropriate for all refugees? Does he think that refugees should put their lives in danger in many cases by openly presenting themselves at Canadian offices abroad and indicating that they want to leave their country permanently? Does he think that this is an acceptable risk for many refugees to take?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions are coming from the Hon. Member who made the speech and the Minister is answering. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to make a comment and to allow the Hon. Member to make a final reply?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the Hon. Member. In Mennonite communities, there is the same kind of division of opinion as that expressed by the Hon. Member. My father who is a member of the Mennonite
Central Committee was a refugee who came through that system. Always there was respect for the manner in which one had to address the issues, laws and regulations of the country.
Many people do not understand immigration. Immigration has been good for Canada. However, we cannot leave the impression that those who come here through conventions or by being sponsored by voluntary organizations are not coming here under the laws of Canada. The Hon. Member has asked if people should put their lives in jeopardy. At present, Canada does take people who are not convention refugees and cannot have a hearing. The regulations are quite clear on that.
Let us take a look at the number of refugees. In 1981, the total number of refugees, both convention and otherwise, was 14,996. In 1982, it was 16,908, in 1983 it was 13,643, in 1984 it was 15,400, in 1985 it was 16,550 and in 1986 it was 18,625. The Minister of Immigration has indicated that he is looking at an increase in that number. However, it must be done in a way that does not put immigration as a whole in jeopardy. That is the point we are making, and I think many Canadians agree with that point. That has always been the bottom line for immigration in Canada.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister, as I have throughout my comments, that under the guise of stemming abuse, the Government has slammed the doors of Canada shut. The Minister talks about the need to respect and address the laws of the country. I suggest that our country has an obligation under international refugee conventions and our Government is not respecting the spirit and the letter of those obligations.
Refugees who would run great risks in presenting themselves at our visa offices abroad will be shut out from any recourse by the policies the Government implemented last February 20. I would ask the Minister to think about the situation in which some people find themselves. There are those who do not have the time to present themselves at a Canadian Embassy abroad and there are those to whom no such embassies are accessible. Some embassies have been closed down by the Government because of the financial straits in which it finds itself from time to time.
Refugees from Lebanon often find that their home towns are bombed flat in the middle of a war. They do not always have the time to line up at a visa office abroad.
Again, I would suggest that under the guise of stemming abuse, the Government's policy has slammed the doors shut on many refugees who really counted on Canada as being one of the last countries in the world to present an open door and a humanitarian attitude. If the Minister is really sincere about wanting to address the problem of refugees, I would suggest that he encourage his colleagues to implement as quickly as possible the recommendations of the Plaut report and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Immigration. The standing committee recommended that a new refugee determination process be instituted, a process which would be independent, impartial, quick and fair to refugees. Refugees



should be treated in that manner rather than with the kind of cavalier attitude that we have seen from the Government since last February 20.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for .Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn).


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, we have reached an exciting and significant moment in the history of Canada's refugee policy, and it is my privilege to speak to that part of the motion that is more specifically concerned with refugee issues. I am looking forward to seeing the development of a progressive policy in this area and to following the progression of that policy very closely with the Members of this House.
The Government's measures with respect to refugees continue to reflect a commitment to humanitarian principles. Canadians can be proud of what this country has achieved in the area of assistance to people who reach our borders after having been victims of oppression and persecution. I am looking forward to a debate on this policy by the Members of this House. Too often, such debates only take place when there is a crisis, and are then quickly forgotten.
The motion before the House today urges the Government to adopt a fair, humane and efficient refugee policy which would reinforce Canada's past proud tradition and honour Canada's international obligations under the Geneva Convention signed in 1951.
As far as our immigration policy is concerned, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to point out that the Nansen Medal was awarded to Canada on November 13 last year in recognition of its tireless commitment to refugees from countries around the world. It is the highest honour awarded by the United National High Commission for Refugees to those involved in assistance to this group.
Mr. Speaker, awarding a prestigious medal to an entire nation is a rare event. That tribute was paid to us as a result of the co-operation and dedication of a great many individuals and organizations. We have every intention of remaining faithful to the commitment for which we, among all other nations, were found worthy of such regognition, and of maintaining our efforts on behalf of immigrants and refugees.
In 1987, for example, Canada will welcome more than
20,000	people under refugee and other humanitarian programs.
This is the kind of generosity which characterizes measures taken by Canada on behalf of refugees and which singled out our country as the deserving recipient of such a great honour.
More measures will be taken with respect to refugees. For instance, participation in the activities of international agencies abroad; settlement assistance for refugees; signing sponsorship contracts; intervention of action groups.
Supply
We agree, Mr. Speaker, the Government does have a role to play but it cannot act alone. Religious groups and nongovernmental organizations can participate actively by helping refugees and immigrants. Sponsorship and initiatives in settlement cases are so important that they are covered under the Immigration Act. Indeed, the whole process began in 1979 at the suggestion of a Conservative.
For all practical purposes, it was the official aim of new cooperation which included consultation, policy drafting and participation in resolving settlement problems, determining required services, and setting immigration levels.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a few words about sponsorship. The refugee program is a model, particularly because of strong sponsorship on the part of private groups. The best example is the Nansen Medal which was awarded to us last November. We now have in excess of 50 sponsorship agreements, proof positive that the Government and private agencies are working together to relieve suffering people.
In 1979-80, 32,000 people came to Canada under the sponsorship of about 7,000 groups encouraged, once again, by the dynamism and initiative of the Conservative Government. Over the past five years, more than 18,000 refugees were sponsored by private groups which helped them get settled in this country. Hon. Members of this House cannot but applaud such worthy efforts.
Let me say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about starting costs. Despite the increasing cost of dealing with the flow of refugees and the costs involved in the adaptation assistance program, we have in no way reduced funding in that area, quite the opposite. Three years ago, $30 million were used as income support for 10,000 Government-sponsored refugees. In 1987, because we are aiming at 12,000 refugees, that amount should go up to $50 million. Those monies have already been earmarked for that purpose.
In addition, this Government does not intend to reduce the amount of assistance offered. We will seek by all means to achieve a better control over adaptation assistance program funds.
Let me now refer to agency funding. We recognize the value of services offered to newcomers by private agencies. We are committed to supporting them. The funds allotted to the immigrant settlement and adaptation program for the coming fiscal year have been increased to $4.9 million.
As far as language training is concerned, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has launched a pilot project, the newcomers language training program. Immigrant women outside the labour force are an important target group. This is another example of this Government's innovation. We have recognized the need to implement a federal program to meet special language training needs.
Mr. Speaker, the project allows women to get out of language ghettoes and to assume better their rightful place in Canadian society. During the coming months, the Canada


Supply
Employment and Immigration Commission and the Department of the Secretary of State will review their language training programs, with a view to strengthening the Canadian Government's role, and more importantly, to establishing a program that will meet the various needs of people who have just entered Canada.
What about legislative measures for acknowledging refugee status, Mr. Speaker? Our commitment to refugees is as steadfast as ever. It will be strengthened when legislative measures for the recognition of the status of refugee are tabled in the coming weeks. The draft proposals are in their final stages, Mr. Speaker. This is an extremely important and complex matter which requires our undivided attention.
The growing number of claims, which went from 8,400 in 1985 to 18,000 in 1986, should reach 50,000 this year. Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians should realize this constant increase. I repeat that the figures-8,400 in 1985;
18,000	in 1986; and probably over 50,000 this year-have forced us to take temporary control measures in order to set up a new process without having to face an overwhelming number of claims.
However, Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that we have a fair and adequate system.
Our legislation will emphasize certain elements. It will make it possible for us to protect refugees while preserving our reputation all over the world as a compassionate country. The legislation will reflect also our moral, legal and international commitments.
The new legislation will reflect the contributions of many groups, including the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, and that of Mr. Plaut.
Particular attention has been paid to the opinions of sponsoring groups and ethnic organizations.
Here are some of the highlights of the proposals announced last May: First, the setting up of a commission of immigrants and refugees independent of Canada Employment and Immigration Board. Second, hearings by an independent tribunal which would give claimants the benefit of the doubt. Third, an impartial climate during the hearings. Fourth, an appeal authorization before the Federal Court of Canada and, fifth, an access which would not jeopardize the integrity of our immigration program.
These elements had to be reassessed in the light of the new events which have occurred since last May, but, as a whole, the characteristics of the new process combining justice and effectiveness, will be maintained.
The new refugee determination process will discourage the abuses which have prevented the process from being effective these last few years, and the Hon. Members know what I mean by that. For instance, we found out that Turkish nationals who
wanted to come to Canada were abusing the process. These abuses were eliminated. We have slowed down the rapidly increasing number of people crossing our borders, without however exposing a single one of them to being sent back to his country of origin. However, Canada will always ensure that genuine refugees have the best protection possible.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegate to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said the following on February 25: Canada was unfortunately the victim of such abuses, and it has unfortunately had to take a number of measures to protect itself. But even so, explained our representative to the High Commissioner for Refugees, the methods used by Canada are much less drastic than those applied by certain other countries to stop an excessive inflow of refugees.
We have to keep up our tradition.
At the international level, Canada has sponsored initiatives to organize to some extent the procedures used by various countries to face the refugee problem and prevent those who already benefit from a certain protection from bypassing the process at the expense of people who really need this assistance, that is people who really need our help. Various international organizations as well as the High Commissioner for Refugees have supported such initiatives, which will very soon have positive results.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that Canada was built by immigrants and refugees. They met their challenges with pride, integrity and success. We shall continue to be proud of their achievements because they are for us all the guarantee of a brighter future. Indeed, we believe immigration to be increasingly important for the future development of Canada for a variety of reasons. First, there are economic reasons, because we believe that immigrants create more jobs than they take away from the Canadian economy. They take part in the economic growth and development of this country by contributing to the creation of capital, by increasing the demand for Canadian goods and services, by providing needed skills and dynamism to our labour force and by contributing to the tax revenue of all levels of Government.
Also, socially and demographically, I might add that my Government is convinced that immigration is a major force which contributes to the economic and social prosperity of Canada and which has allowed our country to take the lead when international solutions have been needed to solve the problem of refugees and immigrants whose cases involve humanitarian considerations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 82(10), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the Supply proceedings now before the House.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C)
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Supplementary Estimates (C), 1986-87, laid upon the Table Wednesday, March 11,1987, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 77)
++YEAS
Mantha	Supply Plourde	TaylorMarin	Porter	TowersMartin	Ravis	TremblayMazankowski	Redway	(Quebec-Est)McCuish	Reid	TurnerMcDermid	Reimer	(Ottawa-Carleton)Mclnnes	Ricard	Van De WalleMcKinnon	St. Germain	VankoughnetMcKnight	Schellenberg	VezinaMerrithew	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	WarnerNicholson	Scott	Wenman(Niagara Falls)	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WilsonNickerson	Scott	(Swift Current-Nowlan	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Maple Creek)O'Neil	Scowen	Winegard-122Oostrom	Siddon	Pennock	Stackhouse	Peterson	Stevens	Plamondon	Stewart	Althouse	NAYS Members Gray	MitchellAngus	(Windsor West)	MurphyAxworthy	Grondin	NunziataBenjamin	Guilbault	NystromBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	OuelletBlaikic	Heap	ParryBoudria	Henderson	PennerCaccia	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommede Jong	Isabelle	RompkeyDingwall	Jewett	RossiEpp	Keeper	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Killens	TardifNipigon)	Langdon	(Richmond-Wolfe)Finestone	Lapierre	TurnerFoster	Manly	(Vancouver Quadra)Frith	Marchi	WaddellFulton	McCurdy	Young -51Gagliano	McDonald	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Greenwood)	Members	Andre	Dantzer	HardeyBeatty	Daubney	HarveyBertrand	de Cotret	HeesBinns	Desjardins	HicksBissonnette	Domm	HoltmannBlackburn	Dorin	Jacques(Jonquiere)	Duguay	JamesBlais	Duplessis	JardineBlenkarn	Edwards	JelinekBlouin	Ellis	JepsonBosley	Epp	JoncasBrightwell	(Provencher)	JourdenaisBrisco	Fennell	KilgourCadieux	Ferland	KindyChampagne	Fontaine	King(Champlain)	Forrestall	LadouceurClark	Fraleigh	Lanthier(Brandon-Souris)	Fretz	LawrenceClifford	Gerin	LeblancCochrane	Girard	LesickCollins	Gormley	LewisComeau	Gottselig	LopezCooper	Gray	MacDonaldCorbett	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	(Kingston andCossitt	la-Madeleine)	the Islands)Crofton	Gustafson	MacDougallCrosbie	Halliday	(Timiskaming)(St. John's West)	Hamelin	MacKayCrouse	Hamilton	Mailly


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-47, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1987, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-47, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1987, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Your Honour were to seek unanimous consent I believe you would find that there is a disposition on all sides of the House to apply the vote on the previous motion to second reading of this Bill, with the usual adjustments for those who did not make it on the first vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the proposal of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) agreeable to the House?
Lesick	Nickerson	SiddonLewis	Nowlan	StackhouseLopez	O'Neil	StevensMacDonald	Oostrom	Stewart(Kingston and	Pennock	Taylorthe Islands)	Peterson	TowersMacDougall	Plamondon	Tremblay(Timiskaming)	Plourde	(Quebec-Est)MacKay	Porter	TurnerMailly	Ravis	(Ottawa-CarlMantha	Redway	Van De WalleMarin	Reid	VankoughnetMartin	Reimer	VezinaMazankowski	Ricard	WarnerMcCuish	St. Germain	WenmanMcDermid	Schellenberg	WilsonMclnnes	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	(Swift Current-McKinnon	Scott	Maple Creek)McKnight	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Winegard-123Merrilhew	Scott	Nicholson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Niagara Falls)	Scowen	
++NAYS


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This has not happened in years, Mr. Speaker.
I was one of those who did not make it on the first vote and would like to be counted with the Government in the subsequent votes.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 78)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Gray	MitchellAngus	(Windsor West)	MurphyAxworthy	Grondin	NunziataBenjamin	Guilbault	NystromBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	OuelletBlaikie	Heap	ParryBoudria	Henderson	PennerCaccia	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommede Jong	Isabelle	RompkeyDingwall	Jewett	RossiEpp	Keeper	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Killens	TardifNipigon)	Langdon	(Richmond-Wolfe)Finestone	Lapierre	TurnerFoster	Manly	(Vancouver Quadra)Frith	Marchi	WaddellFulton	McCurdy	Young -51Gagliano	McDonald	Gauthier	(Broadview-	
Greenwood)
	Members	
Andre	Crofton	GrayBeatty	Crosbie	(Bonaventure-lles-de-Bertrand	(St. John's West)	la-Madeleine)Binns	Crouse	GustafsonBissonnette	Dantzer	HallidayBlackburn	Daubney	Hamelin(Jonquiere)	de Cotret	HamiltonBlais	Desjardins	HardeyBlenkarn	Domm	HarveyBlouin	Dorin	HeesBosley	Duguay	HicksBrightwell	Duplessis	HoltmannBrisco	Edwards	JacquesCadieux	Ellis	JamesChampagne	Epp	Jardine(Champlain)	(Provencher)	JelinekClark	Fennell	Jepson(Yellowhead)	Ferland	JoncasClark	Fontaine	Jourdenais(Brandon-Souris)	Forrestall	KilgourClifford	Fraleigh	KindyCochrane	Fretz	KingCollins	Gerin	LadouceurComeau	Girard	LanthierCooper	Gormley	LawrenceCorbett	Gottselig	LeblancCossitt


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Clause agreed to.
Supply
looked around the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, you would find that there is unanimous consent to proceed with this vote in a similar manner to the one which preceded it with all those who did not make it for the first, second or third vote counted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Clause agreed to.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which was agreed to on the following division:


Marcel Danis: Shall the Schedule carry?
(Division No. 79)


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
++YEAS


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Members
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I make the same request as I did previously. I believe if you
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Brightwell
Brisco
Cadieux
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crofton Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Dantzer Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gerin
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Gustafson Halliday Hamelin Hamilton Hardey Harvey Hees Hicks Holtmann Jacques James Jardine Jelinek Jepson Joncas Jourdenais Kilgour Kindy King
Ladouceur Lanthier Lawrence Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Mantha Marin Martin Mazankowski McCuish McDermid Mclnnes McKinnon McKnight
++NAYS
Merrithew Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nowlan O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Plamondon Plourde Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Taylor Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Warner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Winegard-123
Members
Althouse	Benjamin	BlaikieAngus	Berger	Boudria
Axworthy


Supply
Caccia	Henderson	OuelletCopps	Hopkins	Parryde Jong	Hovdebo	PennerDingwall	Isabelle	PepinEpp	Jewett	Prud'homme(Thunder Bay-	Keeper	RompkeyNipigon)	Killens	RossiFinestone	Langdon	SkellyFoster	Lapierre	TardifFrith	Manly	(Richmond-Fulton	Marchi	TurnerGagliano	McCurdy	(VancouverGauthier	McDonald	WaddellGray	(Broadview-	Young -51(Windsor West)	Greenwood)	Grondin	Mitchell	Guilbault	Murphy	(Saint-Jacques)	Nunziata	Heap	Nystrom	
Bill read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY
Robert René de Cotret: That a sum not exceeding
$10,458,957,258.08 being composed of:
(1)	three-twelfths ($7,830,304,719.75) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, which were laid upon the Table Monday, March 2, 1987, except those items below:
(2)	eleventh-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Item 60, Transport Items 15 and 20 and Treasury Board Item 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $193,214,083.33.
(3)	nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Treasury Board Item 5 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $270,000,000.00.
(4)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Energy, Mines and Resources Item 35 and Public Works Item 20 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $61,409,833.33.
(5)	six-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Regional Industrial Expansion Item 15 and Transport Item 30 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $2,099,000.00.
(6)	five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Communications Item 80 and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Item 15 and National Health and Welfare Item 55 and Transport Item 35 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $701,948,625.00.
(7)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Communications Items 30 and 70, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Items 1 and 25, Environment Item 1, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Items 10, 35, 40 and 45, Labour Item 1, National Health and Welfare Item 10, Regional Industrial Expansion Item 40, Science and Technology Item 1, Supply and Services Item 1, Transport Item 1, Treasury Board Item 30 and Veterans Affairs Items 5 and 25 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates, $1,399,980,996.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In this case, once again, if Your Honour were to seek unanimous consent of the House I believe you would find that we could proceed with this vote by applying the same results as we had previously, except for those Hon. Members who missed it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which			
was agreed to on	the following division:		
	(Division No. 80)		
	YEAS		
	Members		
Andre	Epp	MacDonald	IBeatty	(Provencher)	(Kingston and	Bertrand	Fennell	the Islands)	Binns	Ferland	MacDougall	Bissonnette	Fontaine	(Timiskaming)	1Blackburn	Forrestall	MacKay	(Jonquiere)	Fraleigh	Mailly	Blais	Fretz	Mantha	Blenkarn	Gerin	Marin	Blouin	Girard	Martin	Bosley	Gormley	Mazankowski	Brightwell	Gottselig	McCuish	Brisco	Gray	McDermid	Cadieux	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	Mclnnes	Champagne	la-Madeleine)	McKinnon	(Champlain)	Gustafson	McKnight	Clark	Halliday	Merrithew	(Yellowhead)	Hamelin	Nicholson	Clark	Hamilton	(Niagara Falls)	(Brandon-Souris)	Hardey	Nickerson	Clifford	Harvey	Nowlan	' 1Cochrane	Hees	O'Neil	Collins	Hicks	Oostrom	Comeau	Holtmann	Pennock	Cooper	Jacques	Peterson	Corbett	James	Plamondon	Cossitt	Jardine	Plourde	Crofton	Jelinek	Porter	[DOT] ;Crosbie	Jepson	Ravis	(St. John's West)	Joncas	Redway	Crouse	Jourdenais	Reid	Dantzer	Kilgour	Reimer	Daubney	Kindy	Ricard	de Cotret	King	St. Germain	Desjardins	Ladouceur	Schellenberg	Domm	Lanthier	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Dorin	Lawrence	Scott	Duguay	Leblanc	(Victoria Haliburton)	Duplessis	Lesick	Scott	Edwards	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Ellis	Lopez	Scowen	Siddon	
Supply
Stackhouse	Turner	WilsonStevens	(Ottawa-Carleton)	(Swift Current-Stewart	Van De Walle	Maple Creek)Taylor	Vankoughnet	Winegard-123Towers	Vezina	Tremblay	Warner	(Quebec-Est)	Wenman	NAYS	Members


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, once more, to save time, I would like to ask that the results of the previous vote apply also to this one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which was agreed to on the following division:
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Benjamin
Berger
Blaikie
Boudria
Caccia
Copps
de Jong
Dingwall
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Frith
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Grondin Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap
Henderson Hopkins Hovdebo Isabelle Jewett Keeper Killens Langdon Lapierre Manly Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Nunziata
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Rompkey
Rossi
Skelly
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Turner
(Vancouver Quadra) Waddell Young -51


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Robert René de Cotret: that Bill C-48, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Robert René de Cotret: that Bill C-48, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988 be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
(Division No. 81)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Brightwell
Brisco
Cadieux
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crofton Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Dantzer Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gerin
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Harvey
Hees
Hicks
Holtmann
Jacques
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Jepson
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Ladouceur Lanthier Lawrence Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Mantha Marin Martin Mazankowski McCuish McDermid Mclnnes McKinnon McKnight
Merrithew Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nowlan O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Plamondon Plourde Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Taylor Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Warner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Winegard-123


Supply
++NAYS
Members
Althouse	Gray	MitchellAngus	(Windsor West)	MurphyAxworthy	Grondin	NunziataBenjamin	Guilbault	NystromBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	OuelletBlaikie	Heap	ParryBoudria	Henderson	PennerCaccia	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommede Jong	Isabelle	RompkeyDingwall	Jewett	RossiEpp	Keeper	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Killens	TardifNipigon)	Langdon	(Richmond-Fines tone	Lapierre	TurnerFoster	Manly	(VancouverFrith	Marchi	WaddellFulton	McCurdy	Young -51Gagliano	McDonald	Gauthier	(Broadview-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule D carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule E carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule F carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall the preamble carry?
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Preamble agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Marcel Danis: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Clause agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Clause agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Clause agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Clause agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule C carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule agreed to.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, here again, if you would seek unanimous consent to apply the result to this vote as we did to


previous votes with those who did not make it, I think you would find it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the proposal of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) acceptable?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 82)
++YEAS
Members
Supply
Epp	Hopkins	Nunziata(Thunder Bay-	Hovdebo	NystromNipigon)	Isabelle	OuelletFinestone	Jewett	ParryFoster	Keeper	PennerFrith	Killens	PepinFulton	Langdon	Prud'hommeGagliano	Lapierre	RompkeyGauthier	Manly	RossiGray	Marchi	Skelly(Windsor West)	McCurdy	TardifGrondin	McDonald	(Richmond-Guilbault	(Broadview-	Turner(Saint-Jacques)	Greenwood)	(VancouverHeap	Mitchell	WaddellHenderson	Murphy	Young -51


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
Andre	Gerin	MerrithewBeatty	Girard	NicholsonBertrand	Gormley	(Niagara Falls)Binns	Gottselig	NickersonBissonnette	Gray	NowlanBlackburn	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	O'Neil(Jonquiere)	la-Madeleine)	OostromBlais	Gustafson	PennockBlenkarn	Halliday	PetersonBlouin	Hamelin	PlamondonBosley	Hamilton	PlourdeBrightwell	Hardey	PorterBrisco	Harvey	RavisCadieux	Hees	RedwayChampagne	Hicks	Reid(Champlain)	Holtmann	ReimerClark	Jacques	Ricard(Yellowhead)	James	St. GermainClark	Jardine	Schellenberg(Brandon-Souris)	Jelinek	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clifford	Jepson	ScottCochrane	Joncas	(Victoria-Haliburton)Collins	Jourdenais	ScottComeau	Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cooper	Kindy	ScowenCorbett	King	SiddonCossitt	Ladouceur	StackhouseCrofton	Lanthier	StevensCrosbie	Lawrence	Stewart(St. John's West)	Leblanc	TaylorCrouse	Lesick	TowersDantzer	Lewis	TremblayDaubney	Lopez	(Quebec-Est)de Cotret	MacDonald	TurnerDesjardins	(Kingston and	(Ottawa-Carleton)Domm	the Islands)	Van De WalleDorin	MacDougall	VankoughnetDuguay	(Timiskaming)	VezinaDuplessis	MacKay	WarnerEdwards	Mailly	WenmanEllis	Mantha	WilsonEpp	Marin	(Swift Current-(Provencher)	Martin	Maple Creek)Fennell	Mazankowski	Winegard-123Ferland	McCuish	Fontaine	McDermid	Forrestall	Mclnnes	Fraleigh	McKinnon	Fretz	McKnight
NAYS Members	Althouse	Berger	CoppsAngus	Blaikie	de JongAxworthy	Boudria	DingwallBenjamin	Caccia


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
Robert René de Cotret: That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988,
laid upon the Table, Monday, March 2, 1987, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-49, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-49, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Supply
Marcel Danis: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1)


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

Wednesday, March 25, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers