1987-08-19

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Indian bands are seeking through court action recognition of their rights to their traditional lands in northern British Columbia.
The Government of Canada, as the trustee for Indian people under our Constitution, has an obligation to see that justice is done and that this case is heard in its entirety. The defendants in this case are both the province and the federal Government.
Three weeks into the trial the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs reduced its legal aid support to the bands by more than $1 million. The presiding judge, Chief Justice Allan McEachern of the B.C. Supreme Court, says it is imperative and in the public interest that this trial continue. He went on to say that anything other than that is a confession of failure on the part of all of us, and all those who support the justice system in our country.
Both the plaintiffs, that is the Indian bands, and the public must have a resolution of this vital question related to aboriginal rights. Therefore I ask that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) not try to win this case by reducing the funding for legal costs required by the Indian bands.


WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on June 29 I rose in this House to make the record clear about the Government's commendable action on war criminal legislation.
Unlike previous Governments we had the moral courage to set up a special commission chaired by Mr. Justice Jules Des-chenes to investigate the delicate issue of the possibility of war criminals living in Canada and to make recommendations concerning the prosecution of such individuals.
Our current Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) responded to the recommendations in a sensitive manner while insisting on a made-in-Canada solution. Bill C-71 provides the required legislation. Unfortunately, we were not able to pass this legislation in the last days of June due to some genuine concerns by two of my colleagues.
Since Parliament has been recalled to deal with the refugee legislation, I urge the Government and both opposition Parties to support quick passage of Bill C-71 during this emergency sitting. I spoke to the Minister of Justice this morning and he assured me that Bill C-71 is ready to be presented to the House of Commons. Let us get on with this historically important task.


SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's recent decision to provide supplementary benefits to irrigated production under the Special Canadian Grains Program appeared to be a good decision. Perhaps it was a good decision, but on the surface it now appears to be flawed. In what appears to be a hallmark of the Government, it has again clouded the issue.
For some unknown reason 80 per cent of Saskatchewan's intensively irrigated acreage is not eligible for supplementary benefits under the Special Canadian Grains Program. Irrigation farmers in Saskatchewan want to know why they are not eligible for these special payments. In Alberta only 20 per cent of intensely irrigated acreage is not eligible for these special benefits.
Why is there a discrepancy between Alberta and Saskatchewan under this program? If there is a good reason, why has the Government not bothered to tell the producers?

August 19, 1987


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in a few days, if the Liberal Senators do not change their minds about the drug legislation, Bill C-22, the authority of this House will have been questioned and the twice-given unanimous consent of the Quebec National Assembly will have been ignored.
One of the most important projects of this decade, which would represent 1,300 permanent jobs and $700 million in capital expenditures, will be lost to Montreal and Quebec as a whole.
In this issue, we have to recognize that the Liberal Leader is powerless and that the Quebec Members for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) are embarrassed and silent.
Mr. Speaker, it is now up to Montrealers to rise in protest. Mayor Dore, members of the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade, South Shore residents of Montreal, elected public representatives, businessmen, consumers and workers, you must all come to the Senate and say that you want those jobs. Come and demonstrate before the east door of Parliament, before the doors of the Senate, where the whigs are holding your jobs hostage. Quebec Senators especially should be held to account. Come and speak your mind.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in the White Paper on Tax Reform tabled on June 18 this year, the Conservative Government promised to reduce our taxes by $5 billion. It forgot to mention that since 1984, the Government has taken $22 billion from Canadian taxpayers.
Once again, the present Government is trying to throw up a smoke screen by pretending to reduce expenditures, although it is actually increasing the amount of money Canadians must spend by $17 billion.
As if that were not enough, the proposed reform includes a new federal sales tax, to be applied to goods and services. Despite representations made by the Opposition, the Government has refused to promise not to tax food. When we know that 46.8 per cent or nearly half of our senior citizens live below the poverty line, and that more than 16 per cent of their expenditures are for food, taxing this vital element of our daily lives would further aggravate the financial burden of these Canadians who spent their lives building our country. This tax is unacceptable and it is unfair. While the Government is reducing corporate taxes, it is increasing taxes for single
parent families and low-income families, in fact, it is taking the bread out of the mouths of those Canadians who are in greatest need.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation ill serves fishermen in the Northwest Territories.
It has a stranglehold over their lives and seems almost useless at its stated purpose of marketing fish.
Its monopoly, granted by previous Governments, stamps out any private marketing initiative which would lead to higher prices being paid to fishermen.
The recent decision not to open the Wool Bay receiving station on Great Slave Lake goes against any economic sense and constitutes a threat to the livelihood of fishermen. The only reason can be that the corporation is deliberately trying to cut back production because of its failure to fulfil its sales mandate.
It is time that we removed this millstone from around the necks of northern fishermen.


POVERTY
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadian men and women must be rejoicing at the Canadian Council on Social Development's recent report featuring recommendations pertaining to work and income. Canadian Council officials stress that four million Canadians live below the poverty level and they advocate the establishment of a minimum income program providing basic support payments for people who are unable to work, cannot find employment, or hold unpaid jobs like those who have to remain at home.
The income security system endorsed by the Canadian Council would make a significant contribution to families with children as well as to low- and middle-income households, and it would mark the end of the scandalous situation of poor children in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that business circles and labour leaders have welcomed this important report with unrestrained
August 19, 1987

enthusiasm, and 1 urge the federal Government to implement these recommendations at the earliest opportunity.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it is less than three years since my election. I have argued that new approaches could improve economic opportunities in my native region. Our Party promised to try, and its efforts have resulted in successes.
People are being put to work. All Canadians want an opportunity to enjoy meaningful employment.
A recent headline in a Nova Scotia daily tells the story: "Nova Scotia unemployment down. Cape Breton leads the way". In my riding we have agencies, Enterprise Cape Breton, SC IDA; we have the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit, IRDP, and the topping up assistance. We have increased local control. These are major reasons for success.
I have advocated increased support for our primary industries. The Government of Canada has responded with a special $10 million forestry program, a $14 million tourism agreement, harbour improvements, the development of a new clam fishery, and a feed freight assistance program for all of Nova Scotia. Manufacturing facilities are under construction for the first time.
The Government has a regional development record to be proud of and I am proud of what has been accomplished. We have reversed the trend. The process of building a strong and diversified economy is well under way in Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the CNR has announced the lay-off of 49 workers at the Transcona shops, with more to be expected soon. What is more disturbing is the reason for the announcement. It is that CN intends to abandon the commitments that have been made by federal Governments over the
last 20 years to the rehabilitation and upgrading of branch lines in western Canada.
This makes a mockery of the so-called commitment of the Government to western development and diversification. When the Government can abandon the vital transportation resources of the west and not hold CNR to the kinds of commitments that are essential to the movement of our basic commodities, it simply says to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that once again we have a scam in front of us.
I ask this House to demand immediately that the Minister of Transport deal with CNR and ask it to live up to its commitments and immediately make a decision to restore the branch line rehabilitation program for prairie farmers.
* % *


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, as Member for Quebec-Est 1 want to commend Reed Paper Company management for their initiative and the confidence they have shown in this Government led by the Progressive Conservative Party.
Reed Paper officials have unveiled a $146 million investment project at their Quebec City mill, a project which will protect the 1,500 existing jobs and directly or indirectly create 500 new jobs.
The climate of confidence in the Canadian economy is due mainly to the very timely and well-advised interventions of the regional Minister, the Hon. Michel Cote, who has been criss-crossing Canada to meet job-creating company officials, and to the exceptional leadership of the Right Hon. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who has managed to restore Canada's credibility the world over, shore up Canadian unity, enable Quebec to endorse the Constitutional Accord with respect and dignity, and launch productive and respectful negotiations between Canada and our neighbour, the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to this momentous event and, personally and on behalf of my constituents, thank management President Peter William and Vice-President Andre Sarazin for this contribution to the economic and social life of the beautiful region of greater Quebec City.

August 19, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the lay-off at the rail plant in Transcona shows that the Canadian National Railways is abusing the goodwill of railway workers once again as well as abusing the goodwill of the Canadian people with respect to their commitment for branch-line upgrading.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) says this makes a mockery of the Government's commitment to western Canada. It does. It also makes a fool out of the former Liberal Government which led this country to believe that if the Crow rate was changed we would have consistent upgrading of the rail lines in western Canada. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry fell for that business and he should be the last one to lecture anyone on this matter.
The railways are abusing the goodwill of railway workers. They are up to their old tricks. They are laying off while negotiations are going on. The Government should take heed of the conciliators report which shows that the railways have not been dealing in good faith with neither the workers nor the Canadian people and get the CNR and CPR to start to dealing fairly with their employees.

[ Translation]


TAX REFORM
Mr. Alphonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, in stage two of its tax reform, the Government wants to introduce a new 8 per cent sales tax that would apply to nearly all goods and services, including food. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has ignored entirely the problems this kind of tax might create for small businesses.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses very accurately described what the impact would be on these businesses. First, the new tax would be an administrative nightmare for all small businesses. Second, small businesses are not in the same position as large companies to pass the cost of the new tax on to the consumer. And third, the new tax will discourage consumption.
Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of Canadian businesses have an annual turnover of less than $250,000, which is only 5 per cent of total Canadian sales.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has proposed some reasonable improvements to the drug patents Bill, improvements that are based on the recommendations of the Eastman Report. Our proposals would guarantee jobs for Canadians, including young Quebecers, and at the same time let their grandparents pay lower prices for their medication.
I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs why he is refusing to consider changes that are so reasonable and so fair and that have the support of the Canadian people.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had been following the debate on this Bill he would have recognized, and seen the evidence, that in fact what we are proposing will be of enormous benefit to the health of Canadians by promoting a lot more health research in this country, $1.4 billion more, as well as 3000 jobs in this area. Our young people now have to go overseas if they want to work in this area.
Because of the Drug Prices Review Board looking at the prices of all drugs, including that 93 per cent that do not have generic competitors, there will be downward pressure on drug prices for the first time in Canadian history at the federal level.
Besides, as the Liberal Party quite properly concluded in 1983, with the White Paper issued by the then Minister, the Hon. Member for Papineau, and as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has himself said on many occasions when he was Chairman of the Board of Sandoz, it simply makes sense for Canada to do this.


AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY LIBERAL PARTY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it would make sense for the country to accept the Eastman report.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Those are the changes we have already supported and have always supported. The Minister said there are guarantees of investment, but the legislation which will come back before the House has no guarantee written into it. The Liberal amendments are based upon the well received Eastman report and the package of recommendations returning to this House, one of which is to establish a royalty fund which will disburse moneys against
August 19, 1987

proven research, guarantee long-term research and development. They guarantee new jobs for Canadians and they put a lid on drug prices.
In these circumstances, based upon the facts, the studies and the Eastman report, why is it that the Minister refuses to do what is best for Canadian consumers in a way that will not lessen research and development possibilities in Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the proposals of the Senate will not make things better for consumers. The proposals in Bill C-22 will.
In terms of the royalty fund, let me deal with one particular aspect of it. As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should be aware, and I am sure he is, there is in Canada today a number of new pharmaceutical research companies, biotechnology companies. In my province alone there are three or four. They are all over the country. Canadian scientists are interested in getting involved in this exciting area which promises to have tremendous benefit for the health of not just Canadians but of the entire world. We in Canada want to be a part of that technological revolution. It would be a shame-it would be immoral-to deal ourselves out.
Nothing proposed by the Senate, nothing in the royalty fund, will provide one penny to those companies. Without patent protection for their discoveries they will not be able to raise the capital. The Hon. Member should talk to John Evans who at one time was touted as a future Leader of the Liberal Party. Ask him what he thinks about this. The Hon. Member should talk to Dr. Polanyi, our Nobel Prize winner. Ask them what they think about this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COST OF DRUGS-REQUEST THAT STUDIES BE CHANGED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have talked to Dr, Eastman who has made the most thorough study of this matter in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: All the experts, all the public studies, the findings of the Eastman report itself, even the independent findings of the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament here in Ottawa, have concluded that the legislation proposed by the Government will raise drug prices dramatically.
The Minister shakes his head and denies that implicitly. He has said that he has studies to prove otherwise. Will he table those studies in the House of Commons? If he will not, will he not finally admit that the real impetus for this legislation is the pressure from the Americans to keep the free trade negotiations going?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition totally dismisses-in fact, he never talks about, and I can understand why although he ought to-the 3,000 jobs. He ought to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be invested in Montreal alone. He ought to talk about the previous Liberal Government to try to make up, in part, for all the lost jobs caused by the 1969 amendments and the funding of the Biotechnology Institute in Montreal. He ought to talk to the people who work there and ask them about this.
If the Hon. Member has been watching television over the last two days he will have noted that the U.S. has authorized human testing on a new AIDS vaccine developed by a Canadian, a Canadian here in Canada who had to move to the United States because we are not doing that research. Does he want to continue that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIEWS OF RALPH NADER
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister well knows that under the present legislation there are no guarantees for jobs. There are no guarantees with regard to research and development.
Yesterday, the consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, stated, and I quote-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: -the Canadian Government "is close to making a very serious mistake by choosing corporate wealth over the Canadian public's health". Will the Minister explain why he refuses to listen to this consumer advocate when in fact we know from officials in Washington at the Canadian Embassy that he has listened to and has acted on the best interests of multinational corporations in the United States? Why does he not at least give some consideration to the consumer advocate and the suggestions he makes?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the guarantee of jobs comes from the over $900 million of investment already committed, and the $1.4 billion that we estimate will be committed over the next three years.
Perhaps when he is returning to Cape Breton this weekend, the Hon. Member should stop in Montreal and talk with people on the island, and look at the hundreds and hundreds of jobs that he is putting in jeopardy in the high-tech area by his constant persistence with his allies in the other place.
It strikes me passing strange that the Hon. Member's Leader stands up and falsely accuses us of listening to

August 19, 1987
Oral Questions
advocates in Washington, while the Hon. Member stands up and says we should listen to advocates in Washington.
I have a detailed reply to Mr. Nader, and I would be pleased to table this letter. Mr. Nader fails to realize that this is Canada and not the United States. In Canada we have medicare, and we have social safety nets. Eighty-five per cent of the population is covered by drug plans, including virtually 100 per cent of senior citizens. No one who receives welfare goes without drugs. We have a tremendously beneficial health care system to which Bill C-22 is a positive addition.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister may choose not to give consideration to an internationally acclaimed consumer advocate. But why does the Minister refuse to listen to the United Church, the Royal Canadian Legion, six provincial Governments, and senior citizens across the country? Why does the Minister refuse to listen to those Canadians? Is this another consultation process of the Prime Minister and his Government, saying one thing and doing the opposite?


Harvie Andre: Why does the Liberal Party of Canada refuse to listen to the Liberal Legislature and the Liberal Premier of Quebec? Why do they refuse to listen to virtually everybody who is interested in the technological progress of this country, in Quebec and elsewhere?
Why does the Hon. Member not listen to his former colleague, Judy Erola? Why does he not read the White Paper put out by the previous Government, and the Hon. Member's colleague, the Member for Papineau? Why does he not talk to researchers? Why does he not talk to the students?


ADVICE OFFERED TO MINISTER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, a minute ago the Minister said that he did not want to listen to the advice of Mr. Nader who gave his opinion after experience in the United States, and after studying the impact of the proposed legislation in Canada. I have a straightforward question for the Minister.
As the Minister of Consumer Affairs in Canada, why has he persistently listened to the advice of drug company interests in the United States, but refuses to listen to the most outstanding spokesperson for consumer interests in the United States?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in an August 1 edition of the Montreal Gazette it points out that Mr. Fingerhutt, a prominent Washington consultant, sits permanently on the NDP strategy committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The Leader of the NDP falsely accuses us of acting on advice from elsewhere when we are doing this for the benefit of Canadians. Presumably, he is receiving this tactical advice from Mr. Fingerhutt, the Washington consultant who apparently advises him on how he should act in this House. Now the Leader of the NDP feels that we should do the same thing in terms of Mr. Nader.
I suggest he return to his Washington consultant and ask that consultant to read the Act, and to look at the benefits that will come to Canadians, and ask him if they should put political opportunism ahead of the interests of Canadians.


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister will answer the question. Will he confirm to the House that at the first summit that our newly elected Prime Minister had with President Reagan, the question of this legislation was brought up? Pressure was created then. It was brought up at the second summit that the Prime Minister had with President Reagan. It was brought up at that time by the Vice-President of the United States, George Bush.
Will the Consumer Affairs Minister actually acknowledge that he has yielded to very serious American pressure on this legislation, and is not acting in the interest of Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1, and every other spokesperson for the Government, have indicated that we have been under pressure from all of our partners for many years. Earlier this week in the House that was stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The British, the French, the Germans, the Swiss, and the Americans have all said to Canada, stop behaving like Taiwan and Bolivia, and respect intellectual property.
If the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is really interested in the health care of Canadians, in research and development, and in future cures for diseases which inflict mankind, I suggest that on one of his trips, perhaps on the way to Socialists International, he stop at one of our medical schools and talk to people doing the research.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the whole country knows that right after this Government was elected we saw the most massive cuts, in recent history, in research and development money of any Government, and he knows that.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER LISTEN TO CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: My last question is simply this: Will the Minister accept the suggestions made by spokespersons for U.S. consumers and pay no attention to the interests of U.S. corporations? That would be fair to Canada.
August 19, 1987


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in committee-and perhaps he could talk to some of his Members who were there-we looked at the effect Bill C-22 would have and asked the question if in 1969 we had introduced Bill C-22, with a drug prices review board, seven years for manufacturing, and 10 years for importing exclusivity, what would be the impact in 1983, which was the year Eastman concluded that there was a $211 million savings from generic competition. If Bill C-22 had been in place, there would have been between $230 million and $360 million more savings.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party, in continuing to make this false accusation of rising prices, ought to do the House a favour and, in all conscience, ought to take a look at that study-I understand that at one time he taught economics; he should be able to understand it-and he will see that this is beneficial to consumers, not detrimental to consumers.


BANKS AND BANKING
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday, in response to a question put by the Hon. Member for Algoma, the Minister made the statement that the reason the Government did what it did in the case of the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank was to bail out the farmers, not the banks. That is like saying we are feeding the sharks to help the drowning man. It is one of the most outrageous statements made in the House.
If the $1 billion bail-out for the banks suggested and required a Royal commission investigation, why does the fact that the banks are now overcharging thousands of farmers in an inequitable and unjust way not also require a proper investigation and commission of inquiry? Will the Minister, today, establish that kind of Royal commission of inquiry on behalf of the farmers of western Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, first of all, that the two banks disappeared and that the farmers and customers of those banks are very much with us.
When we speak of farmers, for example, thanks to the $1 billion Special Canadian Grains Program, thanks to the $60 million interim stabilization program, and thanks to program after program, it adds up to over $6 billion. This Government's efforts on behalf of farmers are well known.
The particular case raised by the Hon. Member, however, is not just an issue for farmers. It was a general question which
Oral Questions
was raised when he was a Minister in Government. Between 1980 and 1984, interest rates reached 22.75 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Hockin: It was when interest rates went right through the roof that caused this problem. Nothing was done by the previous Government to bring down interest rates, to speak of, or to help in this particular regard.
Six months ago a Member from our side of the aisle-


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while the Hon. Minister is talking about history, I remind him that it was the previous Government that brought down the inflation rate, which is the reason interest rates have gone down. That was the reason for it.


FARMERS' LEGAL COSTS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister another serious question, seeing that he has flunked his history lesson.
He said yesterday that the farmers must go to court to try to obtain some relief from this major transgression. Will the Minister not provide assistance to those farmers who are presently facing bankruptcy and the loss of their farms and cannot afford the legal costs? Will the Government provide them direct financial assistance to undertake those legal cases?
Will the Minister also insist that the banks begin to provide open books on those loans rather than require the $500 fee which they presently demand from those farmers? Those are in the jurisdiction of the Minister. He can take action now, and we are asking him to take it today.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer that question. I know this particular issue was raised on a television program two nights ago and then picked up by the NDP, but this was six months after the Hon. Member for Mackenzie raised this issue with me and I started to conduct inquiries.


Lloyd Axworthy: And we are still waiting for an answer.


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member, as usual, is third in line in looking into these kinds of issues. Let me tell him what the situation is.
We have not just farmers who are affected by this; we have small-businessmen, large businessmen, and individuals. Many Members of the House are concerned about variable rates.
I have satisfied myself through my inquiry that the kinds of disclosure in place now will not allow this to happen any more. As for those who have suffered, I instructed, after I watched the television program and before I came to the House-

August 19, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: -the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to meet with some representatives from Innisfail, Alberta, to find out what we can do to help them.
We want to help, but we cannot intercede in a third party issue.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, you can.


Thomas Hockin: We cannot help one side instead of the other. We will help the farmers in this particular case in any way we can, but we cannot interfere in a court case.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. A number of Canadians are concerned with the increasing frequency of near misses in American airspace. I would like to have the Government assure Canadians that it will look into the matter to ensure that Canadian lives are not a threat and that adequate safety precautions are in place in the United States.
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that that very thing is being done and has been done for many months, indeed years, in this country.
Although they are a separate sovereign nation, they also have a huge number of people operating in a much smaller space than we have in Canada, so the situation is not comparable in any way, but it is being monitored virtually daily.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN PUBLIC
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we are not comparing Canada with the United States. We want to ensure that the Canadian public is safe when it is flying over that country.
We would ask that the Government ensure that the reports, which it says are being made on an ongoing basis, are made public so that we know what the risks are.
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, again I assure the Hon. Member that everything is safe and is being done, and will continue to be done.
Indeed, I think it was just today in California that they adopted standards for visual flight rules which we have had for years and years in this country. They are moving to our system, rather than the other way.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the serious riot last night at Joyceville Penitentiary. The Minister knows that one of the causes of the riot was the behaviour of several intoxicated inmates. The Minister has known for some time now that there is a serious alcohol problem at this particular institution. In the past year there were over 60 alcohol seizures; two stills were seized at this particular institution.
Could the Minister indicate what is wrong with security at this penitentiary? How is it possible for alcohol to be manufactured and consumed in a Canadian penitentiary?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I would advise him that the security at Joyceville is excellent. I think, frankly, the Hon. Member should have commended the members of the guards at that particular institution for the commendable way in which they put down the disturbance last evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to commend prison officials while at the same time condemn the Minister for his inaction. He knows that it is a result of his inaction that Canadian penitentiaries are a powder-keg ready to explode.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OVERCROWDING AT PENITENTIARY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General knows that another cause of this particular riot last night was the overcrowding that exists at Joyceville. Over the past three years, 10 per cent to 20 per cent of its inmates have been double-bunked. Instead of addressing the problem of overcrowding in Canadian penitentiaries, the Prime Minister builds a $68 million unnecessary prison in his riding-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very serious problem in Canadian penitentiaries of overcrowding and double-bunking, what has the Solicitor General done and what does he propose to do to address this particular problem, in order to avoid the possibility of future riots in Canadian prisons?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat difficult to understand the Hon. Member when, on the one hand, he tells us there is overcrowding and, on the other hand, he chastises us for building more prisons. He cannot have it both ways.
August 19, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: It wasn't needed in his riding and you know it.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, 1 remained silent while the Hon. Member was asking his question. Perhaps he could remain silent while I try to respond to it.
I would like to point out that overcrowding is not a serious problem in our prisons. At this particular institution there are 531 cells housing 584 prisoners. That is an overbunking of approximately 10 per cent which I think is extremely reasonable.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the Government knows, last week the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees criticized Bill C-84 as falling short of Canada's duty under the United Nations to protect refugees. Yesterday our Ambassador to the United Nations said that this Bill could be made compatible with our UN obligations. Was our Ambassador speaking for the Government?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, our eminent UN Ambassador, Stephen Lewis, has apparently said that our Bill is fair and humane, our history of generosity and openness will not be compromised, and indeed our legislation will not breach our international covenants.


REQUEST THAT BILL BE AMENDED
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, really Mr. Lewis was indicating discontent with Bill C-84 when he said that it can be brought into line and made compatible with our UN obligations and then would be fair. Based on his criticism implied in that remark and the criticisms of civil rights groups and churches, will the Government do the right thing and take the necessary steps to bring Bill C-84 into line with our UN obligations to refugees who come to our shores unable to bring documents with them?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the abuse of immigration laws cannot continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The profiteering and trafficking in human flesh cannot continue. We have no sympathy for that. What we have before us is a Bill whose purpose is the following:
Oral Questions
(a) to preserve for persons in genuine need of protection access to the procedures for determining refugee claims;-*
(c)	to deter the smuggling of persons into Canada-
(d)	to respond to security concerns, including the fulfilment of Canada's obligations in respect of internationally protected persons.


COLLECTION OF PASSPORTS BY AIRLINE ATTENDANTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Contrary to the instructions of the Department of External Affairs calling upon Canadians not to forfeit or surrender their passports to anyone, is the Minister aware that he is asking the staff of all airlines, including foreign carriers, to undertake the responsibility of taking up and later on returning to passengers hundreds of passports on each and every international flight, to risk the danger of losing them or mixing them up, and to act in effect as untrained Canadian immigration officers in a foreign country under foreign laws? Is the Minister aware that that is what he is asking for?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Bill gives us certain powers. It does not say, however, that we must use them. It gives us the power to collect the documents if needed. It does not say that we must collect them all. It gives us the power to issue detention certificates. It gives us the power to turn around ships if needed, but not every ship on the horizon. It gives us the power to fine and jail if needed. We may do it if we have to and we will do it if we must, if and when a situation warrants it. However, we will deter abuse and that is what is clear to all Canadians.


HIJACKING INCIDENTS-IDENTIFICATION OF PASSENGERS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister had answered my question. However, I would like to ask him about the question of nationality in the case of a hijacking. IATA spokesmen are concerned, if carrier staff have in their possession all passports and hijackers ask them to identify particular nationalities such as Jews or Israelis, about where the crew stands. What is the role of the crew in the protection of passengers as well as their own safety with this kind of law in force?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee is now reviewing all aspects of the current legislation. We have had wonderful co-operation with the IATA people. I might say that the interception abroad is working and working well. We have continued training of airline personnel. Of 6,700 improperly documented arrivals last year, there were 1,300 interceptions made abroad. This year the figure is running even higher. New legislation will help the airlines do even better, and the collection of documents is not mandatory but could be useful when seriously in doubt.

August 19, 1987
Oral Questions


BANKS AND BANKING
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance and is regarding the rip-off of farmers by the banks and their interest rate shenanigans. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre brought this issue up six months ago. The Minister suggests that the money that has been given to farmers for the situation in the west is the Government's commitment to farmers. Meanwhile he is abandoning those same farmers to fight the powerful banks unaided. Will he put some money where his mouth is and give assistance to the farmers in fighting those powerful banks?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the financial institutions involved in this particular matter are not just banks. A whole range of trust companies and credit unions also had similar problems. 1 would like to help any groups affected in any way I can, and particularly farmers. Would the Hon. Member tell me exactly what kind of assistance he has in mind?


NATURE OF ASSISTANCE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Government bailed out the banks with $1 billion. I want to take a part of that $1 billion and give it to the farmers so that they can legally fight those banks to get justice in their interest rate problems.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member-


John Edward Broadbent: You're answering the question.


Thomas Hockin: 1 am going to answer the question. Would he like us to support financial institutions which are small, regional, and undercapitalized as well?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary.


RAILWAYS
André Ouellet: Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm whether the Minister of Transport will be in Abitibi-Temiscamingue to attend the weekend meeting of Quebec Conservative Members to defend CN management's decision to shut down their freight train service in Abitibi, thus causing the direct or indirect loss of some 9,500 jobs in that region?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can confirm that all Quebec Conservative Members will be present in Northwestern Quebec where we will review the various files concerning Quebec, including one of the most important cases involving investments of S700 million about to be made in the Montreal metropolitan area where 1,300 new jobs are being created, while a handful of Liberal Senators are thwarting this massive flow of capital towards Montreal. We intend to review the situation in light of Premier Bourassa's representations on the heels of a National Assembly unanimous motion directed against the Liberal Senators here in Ottawa. The motion is to the effect that enough is enough, let Quebec have its share of industrial expansion in the scientific field of research and development.


EXTENT OF PROTECTION OFFERED TO PHARMACEUTICAL COMPAGNIES-IM PACT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister, who is giving me an opportunity to inquire about a situation that is entirely incomprehensible to public opinion. And perhaps he could advise his Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be more conciliatory and reasonable when dealing with consumers.
What the Liberal Senators propose is not to prevent investment but to get certain conditions for such investment in Canada, without letting the drug companies make excessive profits. The four-year period proposed by the Liberal Senators is the one recommended in the Eastman Report. I therefore ask the Prime Minister why he insists on letting the drug companies make excessive profits by giving them a monopoly that is totally unacceptable, according to Professor Eastman who did the study, a 10 year monopoly that is unnecessary.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me to speak to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister has protected the interests of consumers, and I think that is clear to everyone, and 1 will certainly give him the message.
1 will also ask the Hon. Member to send a message to his leader, who is supposed to look after the interests and future of the Liberal Caucus, including non-elected Liberal Senators who are not only preventing elected Members here in the House from expressing their democratic will-this handful of Senators, who are not elected and who are very well paid, are not only undermining the democratic will of the House but also jeopardizing the creation of 1,300 highly sought-after jobs in the science and technology field as well as investments totalling $700 million for Montreal. I tell you, the Liberal Party is about to cause an industrial catastrophe in Montreal. Talk to your leader about this because Quebecers' time is running out.
August 19, 1987

|


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. He will be aware of the fact that the Saskatchewan Legal Aid Commission recently introduced user fees for legal aid services as a result of the Conservative Government slashing its Budget by 8 per cent this year. This is in clear breach of the federal-provincial memoranda of agreement on legal aid. What action is he prepared to take to ensure equal access to justice for all, not just those who can afford to pay for it?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members will know, the federal Government is fully committed to funding legal aid across Canada. We have entered into agreements and are in effect funding 50 per cent of the cost of legal aid in each province.
I have of course been in touch with my officials concerning the provisions of the agreement between Saskatchewan and the federal Government. I should point out to the Hon. Member that I understand litigation is now contemplated and will be before the courts. It seems to me under those circumstances I should not comment further on the basis that it will be sub judice.


TERMS OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, while this litigation is before the courts, it is quite clear that poor people in Saskatchewan are being turned away from legal aid-


Mr. Lewis:: Name one.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -because they cannot afford the fees. A memorandum from the acting chairman of the commission asks all directors to record the applicants who are denied services as a result of inability to pay. Does the Minister not agree that the imposition of user fees in legal aid is in clear breach of the federal-provincial agreement? If so, what action is he prepared to take to ensure that the Government of Saskatchewan stops breaking the agreement and ensures access to justice for those who cannot otherwise afford it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I cannot confirm the allegation made by the Hon. Member. All I am telling him is that the federal Government has a commitment to fund legal aid to the extent of 50 per cent. This Government has a commitment to legal aid across the country. Under our agreement, this being a matter of provincial jurisdiction we cannot fund unless there has been a contribution of equal amount by the province. If he does not understand that, he does not understand anything.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


PROJECT COST OF NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINES
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. There is a CBC story today quoting the latest edition of that well-known British military journal Jane's Fighting Ships. It says the editors suggest that the nuclear submarine acquisition program that Canada proposes to embark on will cost in the vicinity of $12 billion rather than the $7 billion cited by the Government. Has the Minister had an opportunity to review the criteria on which this article is based and, if so, how does he respond?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC story this morning was apparently based on a Canadian Press dispatch from London which was a review of the current issue of Jane's Fighting Ships. What the CBC overlooked, or failed to mention, was the fact that when Jane's referred to higher costs, that was to purchase the American Los Angeles class nuclear submarine which we are not looking at. The CP story says Jane's accepts the Canadian cost estimate of $7.5 billion Canadian if the Government buys and builds under licence the British Trafalgar class submarine.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will know that the Premier of Newfoundland, the Minister of Transport, Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, all of Newfoundland's Senators, myself, and the Hon. Member from Stephenville have all urged the Government to establish a new Atlantic Sea Cadet training facility at Stephenville, Newfoundland.
Some 60 per cent of all Atlantic Canada sea cadets come from Newfoundland. That province also has the lowest per capita defence expenditure of any province in Canada. Given that, can the Minister tell the House when the Government is going to announce that Sea Cadet facility will be placed in Stephenville, Newfoundland?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government's White Paper on Defence committed the Government to rebuilding Canada's defence capabilities after they were allowed to slide for so many years. We are currently examining a whole range of options for expansion. One of those will be Stephenville, obviously, and we welcome any input from the Hon. Member on that.

August 19, 1987
Oral Questions


REPORT PREPARED BY CONSULTING COMPANY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has had my input as well as that of almost every single Newfoundland Member of Parliament. Can he confirm that he has had in his office since June of this year a report by McFann & Rodgers, a consulting company in Halifax-copies of it are floating around-which recommends that the Sea Cadet training facility not be plated in Newfoundland, the province which provides 60 per cent of all Sea Cadets, but in the province which already has the highest per capita defence expenditure in the country?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what 1 can confirm is that the Government is committed to rebuilding Canada's defence capabilities-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Sea Cadets!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -and that there is a strong commitment as well to the Cadet movement. We are doing that after a period of decline in Canada's defences while the Trudeau Government was in power.
If the Liberal Party, instead of harping and complaining about us rebuilding Canada's defences, supported us in doing so, 1 think we would be able to make much faster progress.


SMALL BUSINESS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism or the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Applicants under the Native Economic Development Program are becoming thoroughly frustrated and discouraged by the Government's mismanagement of this program.
At one bureaucratic level they hear there is a freeze on and at another bureaucratic level they are told there is not. Will the Minister tell the House how many new programs have been funded under this program since June 1, 1987?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to such questions many times and I have said that, since June, 1987,
hundreds of projects have been approved, representing just under $200 million. I shall be happy to reply to my colleague and tell her exactly which projects the Government has approved since June for Western Canada. I can assure her that we are doing everything possible to promote regional development in the regions most especially concerned.


EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister then give his assurance to aboriginal Canadians that the $76 million allocated to this program in this fiscal year will be spent and that the full amount of $345 million will be allocated by March, 1989?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, 1 can tell the Hon. Member that, in 1983-84, the Government spent $770 million for regional development. In 1987-88, we shall be spending over $1 billion. I think that this shows the concern of this Government for regional development.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 want to advise the House that there will be a supplementary question by the Hon. Member for South-west Nova which will be followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for Levis. That will close off Question Period.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe the Minister indicated that he would be prepared to listen to representations from Members from Newfoundland and that such representation would be taken into consideration.
If the Minister will grant me the same privilege, I would like to make representations on behalf of the great riding of South West Nova in which is presently located the Sea Cadet School. I hope the Minister will accept my representations on this matter.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will indeed.
August 19, 1987


CONSUMERS AFFAIRS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and has to do with the Patents Act which would make it possible to create 1,300 jobs and invest $700 million in Montreal. This legislation is in limbo as a result of the ineffectiveness of the Liberal leader and his sidekick from Laval-des-Rapides-and both of them should indeed be listening to me. Montrealers will now have to make their representations directly to the Senate, Mr. Speaker.
1 ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to accompany me to Montreal next week to meet with the Mayor of Montreal, city councillors, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Board of Trade and tell them how they can come here and explain to Quebec Liberal Senators how we will pass this legislation and what benefits are in store for Quebec.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is vitally important to the technological advancement and future of all of Canada, but particularly to that of the west island of Montreal where a lot of our high-tech pharmaceutical biotechnology research is located.
1 cannot for the life of me understand how anyone representing Quebec could stand by and watch the other place destroy this economic opportunity for that part of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages. This report deals with the selection of votable items pertaining to the fifth draw which took place on June 23, 1987.
May I note that pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b) this fifth report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Petitions


PETITIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions in the House today. They all relate to Bills C-18 and C-19. The petitioners express their concern that the experience of airline deregulation in the United States has resulted in a reduction of safety standards and practices in that country. They call upon the House of Commons to reject Bills C-18 and C-19 so that we do not have the same deregulated and unsafe conditions in Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106, which petition was signed by constituents from my riding and visitors to the Byward market in lower town Ottawa, also in my constituency, who have had an opportunity to discuss with us this summer the Government proposal to impose a tax on food.
The petition reads as follows:
"Whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
And whereas food constitutes a vjtal element of day-to-day life and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, youths and students;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition signed by 1,325 residents of Kitchener and the Waterloo region. They are convinced, and I totally agree with them, that tough legislation is needed to deal with the ever growing problem that pornography poses to Canadian society.

August 19, 1987
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, August 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, speaking on the hoist motion, 1 had a chance to express some of the background relating to Bill C-55. I pointed out the changing situation of refugees around the world. We focused on the refugee situation in Europe and Iron Curtain countries after the Second World War. Now the focus tends to be on the Third World. There has been a growth of restrictive measures in western countries so that refugees are having a more difficult time gaining access to all countries in the western world. Instead of refugees being seen as people in need, they are being seen more and more as threats to the status quo. We are taking a very self-centred approach to people who are in the most extreme kinds of need.
I pointed to the unacceptable abuse of our own refugee determination system and the need to improve that, but at the same time we have had the failure of the Conservative Government to take timely action to deal with it. It was presented with the Plaut report. Instead of acting on that, it mandated the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment
and Immigration to study it. When the standing committee presented its report, the Government took no action.
I pointed to the latent racism that exists among Canadians, as, indeed, exists among people all over the world. It lies not too far beneath the surface in most of our lives. Racism is something that needs to be resisted, not catered to. Unfortunately, Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 are catering to a fear of other peoples, a fear of other cultures. It is a kind of xenophobia that is unacceptable for the kind of Canada we want to build in the 1980s and into the 21st century.
Racism has had its time. We should leave it behind and develop the kind of legislation that will lead to a more open society, not one that is more fearful and based on the belief that we have to put up walls in order to protect our values. If we have faith in our values we should be willing to test them in a multicultural society and world.
When the standing committee presented its report in November, 1985, it outlined four basic principles as fundamental to the approach of the committee. I want to read those four principles because I believe they are key to the whole refugee determination process:
1.	It is the Committee's strongly-held conviction that Canadians do not want people sent back to countries where they may be persecuted.
2.	Every person in Canada who wishes to claim that he or she is a Convention refugee should have an unqualified right of access to a formal process that will adjudicate the claim.
3.	All Convention refugee claimants should have their case decided at a non-adversarial oral hearing.
4.	The decision-maker in the formal process shall have the power, in addition to declaring an individual to be a Convention refugee, to recommend to the Minister that specific individuals who are not within the strict definition of Convention refugee, nevertheless should be considered for landing on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.
Those four principles have not been adhered to in Bill C-55.
The committee pointed out that it had been persuaded by Rabbi Plaut and other witnesses that the decision to provide the protection of Canada to those who have well-founded fears of returning to their own country should be undertaken by a body of people knowledgeable and sensitive to human rights issues rather than immigration issues. The determination decision is not an immigration matter, but instead a decision as to who are Convention refugees in need of Canada's protection.
Care must be taken to make sure that our international obligations to Convention refugee claimants are dealt with by a refugee determination system that is not part of our immigration system.
Those are the four principles that the standing committee set out and which, unfortunately, Bill C-55 does not adhere to. The refugee determination system does not follow the general recommendation of the committee.
Rabbi Plaut said, and the committee concurs with him, that declaring a claimant to be a refugee is not a privilege we grant
August 19, 1987

but rather a right we acknowledge. I think it is important for us to think about the meaning of that assertion. We think of citizenship in Canada as a privilege. Certainly those who come as immigrants in the normal stream, coming to Canada is a privilege. However, with respect to those who come as refugees, we say we are recognizing a right rather than granting a privilege.
We recognize this as a right because we, as a nation, have signed certain international covenants. We recognize that we have broad obligations to humanity, broad obligations to our brothers and sisters throughout the world. Where people are in need of refuge, we as a nation that prides itself on a humane tradition, a tradition of fairness and helping those in need, have an obligation to provide that refuge. It is not a privilege we extend but a right that we recognize.
The committee agreed with Rabbi Plaut that there should be no distinction between those who have entered Canada legally and those who have entered illegally when it comes to applying for refugee status. That is, there are those who come to Canada without full documentation and without going through all the procedures. However, the committee said that they should still be entitled to apply for refugee status.
The committee recommended that there should be broad grounds for appeal when refugee status has been denied, and not just on points of law as Bill C-55 provides.
The committee provided for a shorter appeal process. This really is the crux of the abuse of the system. Our appeal process is so long and drawn out that people can take advantage of it. The committee and other people such as Rabbi Plaut have proposed models that would have a much shorter appeal process but would still be fair and would give the benefit of due process to refugee claimants while not allowing them to stay in Canada for up to five years.
These kinds of recommendations would have eliminated the abuses but would also have left a fair system in place. Unfortunately, Bill C-55 is legislation that does not leave a fair system.
I want to point out some of the objections to Bill C-55 that have been raised in a submission by the Montreal Coalition for Refugees. It is a submission that I commend to all Members of Parliament for their study and thought.
The committee states:
-we see as dangerous and unacceptable a proposed system which will govern our borders and yet fails to reach basic human right standards. For instance, the bill requires that the "burden of proof' lies with the claimant. Thus the bill contains a "presumption of abuse" unless the individual, despite his likely initial confusion and distress can prove otherwise.
When people arrive as refugees I think we all recognize that they have been under a great deal of stress. I believe it is not fair to lay upon them the additional stress that they have to prove that they are not abusing the system. The Coalition points to certain moral failures in the Bill. It states:
The denial of a complete hearing is unjust. The practitioners opposing this document know from experience that it is extremely difficult for refugees having just arrived in Canada to immediately (within twenty-four hours)
Immigration Act, 1976
present their claim and expose their reasons. It is more than probable that an adjudicator preoccupied with immigration demands, will not recognize that a person is a refugee at the instant of his arrival.
Yet, such a person will not have a second chance to present his case. Furthermore, the speedy character of the pre-selection process will in practice deny the claimant of the right to counsel of his choice.
Secondly:
The list of "safe third countries" goes against Canada's humanitarian tradition. No country is safe for everyone.
Either we are creating diplomatic difficulties for Canada or we are creating a very unfair system for refugees. If we have a situation where we have to declare, for example, that the United States is an unsafe third country, as it very obviously is for Salvadorans or Guatemalan refugees, we are then creating some diplomatic difficulties between ourselves and the United States. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why do we not eliminate the possibility of a "safe third country" because there is no such thing.
The Coalition goes on to state:
The pre-selection process for refugee claimants violates international norms of protection.
It points out that Bill C-55 violates the principles of justice upheld in Canada. It states:
Bill C-55 does not in any way reflect the consensus that emerged from Government consultations with, among others, the Canadian Bar Association, Rabbi Gunther Plaut, the churches and non-governmental organizations who continuing to demand:
(i)	universal access to a simple, fair and efficient system
(ii)	an impartial decision making body formed by refugee experts and
chosen in consultation with other concerned organizations.
(iii)	an initial and full hearing
(iv)	the right to a lawyer of one's choice
(v)	a full right of appeal
(vi)	the independence of the refugee system from immigration
(vii)	equitable treatment of claims made abroad.
The Government has never formally rejected these objectives in principle but Bill C-55 denies them.
In conclusion, I would urge the Government to withdraw Bill C-55 and bring in a Bill which would eliminate the abuse, provide for a shorter appeal process, but still provide for a full and fair hearing for refugee claimants so that Canada will continue to be a country that can hold its head high when it looks at the whole refugee situation throughout our world.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-55 is important and we are now into our ninth hour of debate in the House. Therefore I am not exaggerating when I say that it is imperative to appreciate fully what is being proposed through Bill C-55 which is aimed

August 19, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
at revamping the refugee determination process and establishing mechanisms-stricter perhaps, and perhaps even more adequate-to be able to decide who is a bona fide refugee.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government has had three years to study this important question. It has done precious little during those three years. It came to the House last May 5 and introduced the Bill for first reading. We waited until June 18 to begin second reading of the Bill, a day which, as we recall, was full of other things-that was the day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made his famous statement on tax reform. And the Government used Bill C-55 as a kind of filler. Since then, the Government has not seemed too anxious to follow through on Bill C-55. And as Hon. Members are aware, many non-governmental organizations with special expertise in this field have recommended the Government give the Bill a great deal of thought. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate because even if we have only 10 minutes each, I will try to get across my personal position on Bill C-55, a Bill that, I admit, has its good points but also contains a number of weaknesses which I think should be corrected in committee. It is important to realize that when, either today or tomorrow, we finish the second reading stage here in the House, the committee that will consider the Bill will, I hope, consider the substantive amendments that are in order.
Mr. Speaker, we have had information from every possible source regarding refugee status determination in Canada. There was a major commission chaired by Rabbi Gunther Plaut and appointed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration at the time, Miss Flora MacDonald, which produced a voluminous report which, I imagine, has been thoroughly examined by Hon. Members and contains a number of recommendations.
I would like to start my comments by reading the report's conclusion which, I think, is particularly important, and I quote from page 215 of the Plaut Report:
I end this report with two observations made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the summer of 1984.
The ability to states to respond positively to refugee situations, he said, "depends very largely on a favourable climate of public opinion." He further stressed the unhappy fact that there has been
increasing evidence in recent years of confusion in the public mind between the very special situation of refugees and that of the many millions of other aliens who are endeavouring to gain entry into countries otherthan their own. This confusion has been to the detriment of refugees and has tended to impede a sympathetic approach to refugees at the official level.
I shall go on, because I think this is important. It is not that long.
We in Canada will do well to heed this caution. We need to give urgent attention to promoting a renewed understanding of the special situation of the refugee, and both governmental and non-governmental organizations will wish to co-operate in doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that since the session resumed on August 11, there has been a lot of confusion between, on the
one hand, Bill C-84, a deterrent measure that also provides for the detention of some individuals that enter this country under perhaps special conditions, and the overall immigration question on the other hand. All that has been mixed up, and confused in the minds of Canadians, sometimes by a Government that was not too clear as to its objectives, and that I must recognize, sometimes according to the perceptions and views that we have at least in my constituency of Ottawa-Vanier, wanted to spread confusion by making Canadians believe there was an emergency because of 174 Sikhs who landed in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, like many other Members I went through the experience of welcoming refugees in Ottawa when the Vietnamese, the boat people faced an emergency situation. At that time, we accepted a significant number; I am told 100,000 Vietnamese were accepted in this country. In my own city, 4,000 were. We put in place systems, mechanisms to help human beings who were going through a crisis. That was the Canadian way. That was absolutely honest and open in my view.
All of a sudden we have 174 people arriving in the middle of the night, under very unique and difficult circumstances, as I mentioned earlier. So a state of crisis is declared and public opinion is fed the idea that the refugee system is subjected to terrible abuse and that immigrants and refugees are one and the same.
I feel that the Government should clarify the situation and that is why I do not hesitate to ask my colleagues in the House to rise and speak to this issue, over which we have debated a mere nine hours, so that Canadians can be made to understand what is at stake here, which is not to make it possible or easy to abuse the system. I would think that all Hon. Members have understood this, as have all Canadians. We are against abuse, we do not want people to break the law and get away with it. But what Bill C-55 is concerned with is the determination of what the refugee status is. This is important since the public does not have a clear idea as to who is an immigrant and who is a refugee. We do not get one hundred thousand of them every year. Barely 20,000 people qualify as refugees every year. It is true that at the present time there are more applications for refugee status than our officials or the system can handle.
A ready solution comes to mind: we need only increase our capacity to handle such applications and put in place a mechanism to deal with them as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the essential merit of Bill C-55 is to allow the number of unprocessed applications for refugee status to be worked down to a manageable level by decreasing the amount of time elapsed between the initial request and its final acceptance or rejection. The idea is to speed up the process to take care of what has been termed the back-log problem.
August 19, 1987

The whole process entails a maximum of three stages: a preselection at the initial hearing stage; a hearing before two members of the Refugee Board; and, as a last resort, an appeal to the Federal Court on legal grounds only, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the present mechanism comprises at least seven stages. Their number is thus more than halved under the new procedure. Up until now, the process could stretch over five years, as we well know. It was drawn out, often costly and difficult as well.
The amendments in Bill C-55 would allow for the shortening of the first stage. As I said, that can translate into acceptance or removal.
I could speak for much more than 10 minutes on the flaws of the Bill, because there are many. Indeed, 1 raised the matter a number of times in this debate on the occasion of questions put to Hon. Members. The numerous flaws start with the preselection process, the safe third country approach, the Refugeee Board, the appeal mechanism and the precedent encouraging other countries to take similar steps while claiming they are concerned with the well-being of refugees.
Mr. Speaker, when a claimant appears before the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Board, under the preselection process, as proposed in Bill C-55, his claim unfortunately is treated according to the country of origin, which jeopardizes the protection that should be afforded to people who claim refugee status.
This is why 1 put the following question to the Conservative Member when he had the floor: How will we determine what is a safe third country? Is the United States a safe third country? They do not accept people from Guatemala. They also refuse to accept people from El Salvador, returning them back home.
So there should be an exact determination of what is a safe country to which we can return an individual, a human being in distress who comes here as a refugee.
Mr. Speaker, this in my view is the work that will have to be accomplished in committee.
I see that you are about to interrupt my comments, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude on that.
1 know the Government told us they would not return an individual to a country where that individual could be prosecuted or unfairly treated.
But the question that comes to mind is this: If we return an individual to the country of origin, whichever-Holland in the case of Tamils or the United States in the case of someone from Guatemala-Mr. Speaker, this should be determined and 1 feel the committee has an important task to accomplish. It is important in my view that the Bill be reconsidered, and if possible amended in committee. I thank hon. Members for their attention.
Immigration Act, 1976


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to participate in this debate again. I am sorry about what is happening, that the House has met in the middle of August when 1 think Members should be out in their constituencies or taking some time to prepare for the jobs that need to be done when the session gets going again in the fall.
We are here because of an emergency, because of a crisis. But, unfortunately, it seems to me that this is a crisis because of the standing of the Progressive Conservative Party in the polls much more than it is a crisis in terms of a need for instant action on an issue related to refugees on which there have been some solid and constructive proposals put forward by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, as well as in the report of Rabbi Gunther Plaut of Toronto some two years ago.
If this were a priority the Government could have acted at that time to begin to shorten the very long period of time that it takes for refugee claimants to have their cases adjudicated. Everyone agrees that that time is too long. But I want to address some comments through you, Mr. Speaker, to those citizens who will read this debate or who are perhaps watching the debate today and who are scratching their heads with respect to what has happened.
Certain members of the Conservative Party have cited opinion polls saying that Canadians want action on this particular issue. It is true that if one asks people if something should be done to prevent people trafficking in people who may be false refugees and from dumping them off our coast, most Canadians say yes. We say yes, too. I say yes as a New Democrat. I think what Canadians have to be aware of is that what we have from the Government is, in Gunther Plaut's words, an hysterical over-reaction to a situation, a situation which required change, yes, but not a situation which required the kind of change that we have right now.
I wish to cite and to deplore the comments made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) when he appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-84 yesterday. He accused the churches of having violated immigration law for the past 10 years in terms of the assistance they have given to refugees. He admitted that the Bill which we sent from this place a day or so ago, Bill C-84, does nothing to stop those immigration consultants who were instrumental in bringing in people from Portugal, Turkey and Brazil who, it would appear, were actually false claimants of refugee status and who certainly did not come from countries which have generated large numbers of refugees in the past.
Yet the Bill which the Government put forward in response to what it says is a crisis and an emergency did nothing to impose penalties on these consultants who have, I believe, in seeking to abuse our laws in the process, abused the generosity that most Canadians feel in helping people who are genuinely

August 19, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
in fear, in legitimate fear of persecution in their home countries. None of those consultants involved with the Portuguese and the other groups that came have in fact been prosecuted.
One asks, if the Minister or the Government wanted to send a signal, why has that kind of signal not been sent and why are there no proposals today to change the penalties from what existed before?
1 believe that Canadians are being given a wrong picture in terms of the refugee situation as a consequence of the landing of a group of Sikhs off the shores of Nova Scotia. Some 17,000 people have sought refugee status this year. Some 174 additional ones coming in is equivalent to an extra 1 per cent. It is a very small number. The only previous time we have had a similar incident was when the Tamils came in one year ago. I remind Canadians that at that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself welcomed that group of Tamils and said, "We will do our best to ensure that you are seriously considered for the refugee status you seek", despite the curious circumstances under which they were brought to Canada's shores.
Last year that was okay; this year it is not. I believe that the Government and members of the Government are trying to place in peoples' minds an impression that hordes-very large numbers-of dark-skinned applicants for refugee status are coming to Canada.
MO)
The Government has taken different sides in this issue, and perhaps it is seeking to exploit fears relating to internal politics in India where there are tensions between the Sikh and Hindu populations. Because Sikhs wear turbans and look different, it is being suggested that there is something wrong with Sikhs being here in Canada. Canada has 150,000 Sikhs. The vast majority, like the vast majority of immigrants from every country, make a solid and constructive contribution, regardless of the national or religious dress they choose to wear.
Every person seeking or applying for refugee status is not necessarily a legitimate refugee. That is not the question. The question is whether somebody who is seeking refugee status has a reasonable case to be there. The figures this year indicate that of the 17,000 people who have applied 4,000 came from El Salvador. That country has a history of death squads and dictatorship that has continued despite the election of the government under President Napoleon Duarte which was going to clean things up. The serious problems there are exacerbated by the meddling of the Central Intelligence Agency, and of the Americans in Central America where their shenanigans have extended beyond Nicaragua to other countries in that region.
A further 1,208 applicants came from Guatemala. The same situation prevails in that country. Hundreds of thousands of people have become displaced, stateless, or forced into refugee
status in Central America because of political disturbances, and state terrorism in those areas.
One thousand six hundred and eighty-seven applicants came from Sri Lanka. I would hope that the recent agreement between Prime Minister Ghandi and the President of Sri Lanka regarding the status of the Tamils and the decentralization of power to the northern states in Sri Lanka will lead to a settling of the grievances of the Tamil population, and of the problems which have created refugees. In the past, Canada has accepted a number of Tamils as refugees. One has to assume that a number of the people from Sri Lanka were legitimately seeking refuge because of their Tamil origins, and their legitimate fear of persecution, oppression, or death.
One thousand six hundred and fifty-two people were seeking refugee status from Iran. I need not comment on the situation in Iran, and what has been done to the people of the Baha'i religion, or those deemed to be enemies of the ruling religious regime in Iran.
One thousand two hundred and ninety people have applied from Chile where the Pinochet dictatorship continues. This weekend I read the devastating novel by Isabel Allende, the niece of the former President, Salvador Allende. In her novel she describes the events that took place there, and the degree to which the Conservative right wing in Chile were disillusioned, and deeply disturbed and distressed by the manner in which their country literally went to the dogs during the takeover by the military at the time that President Allende was murdered, and the democratically elected progressive Government was defeated. Certainly, Chileans have a legitimate case to argue that they are suffering fear of political persecution.
Of the top six refugee applicant producing countries, the only one which we might question would be Brazil. It produced 1,681 applicants. I am not qualified to judge whether or not those applicants are genuine.
We have to bear in mind that out of total immigration this year of approximately 120,000, there was a relatively small number of people seeking to have their refugee claims dealt with fairly. I believe this total should be increased. The other day in the House the Minister announced that this total will be increased because of a relaxation of the family reunification policies.
Churches, refugee aid groups, the Canadian Bar Association, and other groups, have put forward constructive proposals to accelerate the consideration of refugee status claims. At the same time, they have stated solidly that they believe that Bill C-55 is wrong. In particular, they feel that it is wrong for Canada to have a situation in place where applicants for refugee status can be turned away at the border because of an administrative determination taken within 72 hours that they have touched down on a safe country on the way to Canada.
People who have come from Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Iran, Chile, Afghanistan, and other countries generating refugee applicants can hardly help but pass through another country.
August 19, 1987

Bill C-55 effectively gives these quick tribunals at the border the authority to turn away most applicants for refugee status, without any serious look at whether their claims are valid. 1 do not believe that is in the spirit of Canadians.
Most Canadians feel it is wrong when our Minister of Employment and Immigration suggests that the churches, and other refugee groups working out of charity and generosity are breaking the law, and should continue to live under the threat that they may be prosecuted for continuing to break the law. Surely, that is wrong. That is one of the reasons why I believe that Bill C-55 should be opposed. Instead, Canada should put in place recommendations and proposals along the lines of those put forward to accelerate the process without victimizing persons who seek refugee status.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is an unhappy reality that the House of Commons is still debating Bill C-55 in principle. I had hoped that the Bill would either have been delayed for six months by the vote yesterday, or withdrawn by the Government. There has been extremely cogent and detailed criticism of the gross inadequacies in the Bill, and the serious dangers to our tradition as a humanitarian country open to immigrants and refugees. Those people have made a tremendous contribution to our country. Instead, this piece of legislation is still in front of us.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops described this proposed legislation in the following terms:
This proposed legislation and its objective go against the humanitarian traditions of the people of this country, who in great majority are descendants of immigrants and/or refugees.
Yet, the Bill is still in front of us, and the Government persists, despite the fact that there are three fundamental faults that are self-evident to anyone who has looked through the legislation with any care.
First, the procedure for refugees which is established by this Bill makes our country inaccessible to a great many people who would like to be able to claim at least the chance for a hearing. They are not claiming the right to settle here, but the right to a hearing. Instead of ensuring that everyone can have their claim heard, this Bill sets up a system which I predict will eliminate the chances of 75 to 80 per cent of those who come to our borders seeking to have their claims heard. That means that 75 per cent to 80 per cent will not even have the opportunity of a hearing.
Second, there is a basic contradiction of the notion that those who judge claims should be independent of those who are regulating the system.
Let me quote from the news release of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees:
Instead of providing an independent procedure specialized in refugee determination and related international law, this legislation relies on decisionmakers operating in an immigration control environment who have shown little understanding of standards of justice or human rights,-
Immigration Act, 1976
Finally, there is within this legislation no meaningful appeal. Instead of allowing access to a specialized independent appeal body, the legislation seeks to use the Federal Court in an inappropriate and unworkable way. It permits rights of appeal only on points of law, not on the merits of the case, which in itself is a further movement away from the traditions of justice as we have known them in Canada.
The legislation, as the Inter-Church Committee says, represents no improvement on the proposals of May 21, 1986 which were condemned at the Canadian Council for Refugees meeting that followed the announcement of that initiative. Of course the most recent Canadian Council for Refugees meeting was even more scathing in respect of the injustice and unfairness within the legislation.
If one had a choice between this and the previous legislation and nothing else-if that was the choice before us-one might well have to look at some parts of the Bill which are at least an improvement over the incredibly lengthy, unfair, and completely inadequate systems of refugee determination we presently have. However, an alternative has been presented by the Canadian Council of Churches. It is an alternative that sets out five stages through which refugee determination would take place.
The first stage would be a simple arrival stage with the refugee claimant arriving at the border and immigration officials registering the person and referring the person to a refugee board. At that point we would not have the principle of refugees being returnable, accepted by legislation, as this piece of legislation would do.
Stage two would be the stage at which the refugee himself makes an appointment with the refugee board for an oral hearing within a fixed time period after the referral has taken place.
Stage three would be the oral hearing itself at which the claimant and an independent legal counsel the claimant would be able to obtain, rather than a duty counsel, as is the case in the present legislation, would present the case to a two-person panel of competent, specialized persons on a refugee board who would decide whether or not they believe the person is a refugee.
If at that stage the answer from the refugee board is no, there would be an appeal review stage at which unsuccessful claimants could submit additional information for a paper review, as the Council of Churches puts it, by a specialized level of the independent refugee board within a fixed time of receipt of reasons for refusal in the context of a transcript being available. At that stage the appeal body could overrule a negative decision or request a rehearing. The Council of Churches suggests that this would take a maximum of about 14 weeks, which is far less than the present system.
Finally, there would be the potential for appeal to the Federal Court on points of law, because an appeal would already have taken place on substantive issues. It is suggested

August 19, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
by the Council of Churches that that would require four weeks to thirteen weeks. Therefore, the maximum amount of time we could be talking about would be 27 weeks for a full, fair, and effective review procedure.
That is the alternative which exists. That is why the approach by the Government is so unfair and so unjust and will ultimately be part of what brings the Government down when an election is finally called.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, every poll which has been taken has indicated to us as Members of Parliament that the people of Canada are very sympathetic to a policy permitting a substantial number of legitimate refugees to come to Canada. What they are opposed to is people who are not really refugees being permitted to come here. They are opposed to people who may be refugees jumping to the head of the line, as did the Tamils who came here a year ago, were welcomed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and were assured that Canada would always be generous to refugees who came here. They are also opposed to the recent entry of Sikhs into Canada by boat.
What they want is a fair and humane system. When the Government says that the people support what it is proposing, it is right, except it has not explained to ordinary Canadians what this Bill really means.
People who are interested in and supportive of helping refugees come to Canada, such as Amnesty International, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Ethno-Cultural Council, and the major churches, having looked at the legislation and thought through its implications and the power it gives to Government and to officials of various Departments, have unanimously expressed opposition to it.
Let me quote a couple of lines from a telex sent to the Prime Minister on June 1 of this year on behalf of 11 major church groups in Canada. In part it reads:
We urge you and your government to replace Bill C-55 with legislation which provides:
-access for all claimants to a full, fair and independent hearing,
-a meaningful appeal.
Then it went on to indicate:
The Bill is being promoted on the false premise that it will protect genuine refugees. It is clear that the effect of the Bill, with a preliminary hearing which is no more than an elaborate mechanical screening, and with no meaningful appeals, will be to turn away genuine refugees. In addition, the provisions of this Bill undermine rights and standards of justice in Canada for everyone.
Also Members of Parliament received a letter from the General Secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops dated June 11 of this year, in which the following was indicated:
This proposed legislation and its objective go against the humanitarian traditions of the people of this country, who in great majority are descendants of immigrants and/or refugees.
Let us look at the powers this Bill gives to the Government and the people who work for the Government. Allan Borovoy, the leading activist for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and a very prominent lawyer has said:
Almost every section violates some fundamental principle of civil liberties and democracy.
He is talking about Bill C-55.
Let us look at the analysis of this Bill of the Manitoba Bar Association, as reported by The Toronto Star. Bill C-84 would allow officials to do the following:
Detain people without documents for seven days without higher authorization.
Extend detention for another 21 days with a Minister's certificate.
Keep undocumented claimants in detention indefinitely if an adjudicator agrees the Government is making reasonable efforts to track down their identity. After the first 28 days of detention, the case will be reviewed every seven days-
Make an arbitrary decision on who is or is not a security threat, based on any evidence the Government wishes to consider.
If I can digress for a moment, one can imagine the kind of security advice on potential refugees one would receive from the Governments of Chile, El Salvador or some Communist countries.
The Bill will permit the Government to do the following:
Lock up people earmarked for deportation until a federal court hearing is set.
Bar the suspect and his lawyer from seeing the complete evidence against him if the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service or RCMP classifies it as secret.
Bar the court from seeing the complete evidence for similar reasons.
Imagine a Canadian law which would bar a judge from seeing evidence in a case with which he is dealing. That is a disgraceful proposal.
The analysis continues by indicating that the Bill would do the following:
Deny appeal to anybody judged a security risk by the court-though Canadian law grants the right of appeal to those convicted of crimes. (Lawyers say it may be possible to retain right of appeal through court procedures).
Deport those considered security risks as soon as possible.
Remove the right of those apprehended as security risks to a review of the evidence of their case by the Security and Intelligence Review Committee.
The article goes on to say:
If immigration officials or police are on the trail of illegal immigrants or a smuggling racket, Bill C-84 gives them sweeping powers to search homes, offices, property or vehicles that will supply evidence if a justice of the peace signs a certificate.
We know how quickly justices of the peace or judges will sign any certificate asked for by the police.
The article goes on:
According to the Government, the powers are needed to apprehend criminals and avoid destruction of evidence. But lawyers, including the Manitoba Bar Association, say the legislation goes farther than the powerful narcotics laws.
August 19, 1987

I for one know that the Manitoba Bar Association is not a very radical organization, to say the least.
The article continues by saying that the Bill would also allow the following:
Search of property in any part of the country, even if the original warrant is issued in another province.
Search of private homes where landlords rent space to non-Canadian tenants, if immigration officials suspect they are illegal immigrants.
Forcible search of property including smashing doors, windows, locks, floors, ceilings, walls or anything deemed necessary by immigration officers or police if they suspect evidence will be destroyed.
Search and seizure without warrant if "by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain the warrant."
Confiscation of any property officials or police think necessary.
I do not think that a Communist country like the Soviet Union would possibly give its police any more power than this Bill gives immigration officials and RCMP officers.
It is not surprising that all those groups and organizations to which I referred oppose this Bill. It is not surprising that Manitobans to whom I have spoken in the last few days including Mennonites, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and members of the United Church who have been helping refugees have told me in very clear and unequivocal terms that if the things which they have done in the past and which they continue to do in the future to help refugees settle in Canada will violate this law when it is passed, they are prepared to suffer the consequences. If they are arrested, charged, tried and sentenced by a court, they are prepared to pay the penalty.
It is a sad day for Canada when people who want to do the right thing, the humanitarian thing, are told that if they continue to do so they may indeed wind up in jail. As members of my Party, I have no intention of supporting this Bill as it is drafted at the present time. We will do everything we can to oppose the passage and implementation of this Bill.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a very long tradition of welcoming refugees fleeing from persecution. In fact, it accepted some 37,000 Hungarians in the mid-fifties, some 12,000 Czechs in the late sixties, some 7,000 Ugandans in 1972, some 700 Cypriots in 1975 and nearly 10,000 Vietnamese in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and quite recently, early in the 1980s, some 9,000 Poles.
It should be emphasized that this reputation has also made it possible for us to accept a few thousand other refugees from Iran, El Salvador, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Guatemala more recently. Altogether, when we add up all these new Canadians, we find that we have accepted some 360,000 refugees since 1950, or an average of 12,000 people a year.
In view of the size of Canada, opening our door every year to some 12,000 people who live under difficult and painful circumstances and who are sometimes persecuted in countries where freedom does not exist quite as much as here is nothing to write home about. There is certainly plenty of room for them in Canada. In fact, our country was awarded the
Immigration Act, 1976
prestigious Nansen Medal by the United Nations in recognition of our action in favour of the needy. It should be emphasized that this medal was awarded to the Canadian Government, both present and past, but above all to the Canadian people who have always very well accepted these people who are in need and difficulty. We would have felt that this Conservative Government would have been anxious to maintain this generous and welcoming attitude towards these unfortunate people in search of a new country.
In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had stated when the Tamils arrived in August, 1986, that if the scale were to tilt, it would on the side of compassion and justice. Well, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot understand the attitude of the Conservative Government which has now introduced a series of legislation that go squarely against this spirit of generosity and good will that has always characterized Canada.
To want to limit the flow of false refugee claimants to Canada is legitimate and something we can accept and support. But the measures announced by the Government go far beyond that and are aimed at closing the door on many refugee claimants who arrive in Canada, and not at changing the refugee determination process.
As the Leader of the Liberal Opposition (Mr. Turner) was saying, in order to stop the queue-jumpers, the Conservative Government has decided to close the theatre. Instead of telling these people who do not want to wait their turn to please go back and wait in line, the Conservative Government has decided to penalize everybody and shut the door. It is an unacceptable and incomprehensible attitude which we denounce.
I should like to quote from an editorial by Pierre Venat which appeared in La Presse under the heading: "A Bill that needs to be amended". "The Bill, which minister Bouchard introduced last week for the purpose of strengthening the Canadian legislation on immigration, does not deserve to be adopted unless it is thoroughly amended."
Even the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) who belongs to the Progressive Conservative Party, shares this view.
There can be no doubt that people are ill at ease when they see this flood of foreign citizens whose customs and habits are sometimes altogether different from their own-"
But a number of people simply do not know what to make of the Government's approach to this problem, and indeed it ought to be reconsidered. This is the view of Montreal's Coalition pour les refugies, the Canadian Bar, Amnesty International, and the Civil Liberties Union-they all want the Bill to be amended. As it happens, the Liberal Party of Canada has unequivocally expressed its concerns about the Bill, and I will recall them very briefly.
First, we believe that the prescreening mechanism builds a wall around the system we seek to improve. In a way the Government washes its hands of the refugee problem, leaving

August 19, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
other countries to deal with it. As we see it, this Pontius Pilate attitude is unacceptable.
Second, we believe that the prescreening procedure creates more problems than it solves. Why confuse the two issues of immigration and refugees when in fact the purpose of the whole exercise is to make a distinction between the two.
Every year, there are thousands of Canadians across this country who want to bring their relatives to Canada. These are people who emigrated to Canada from various other countries. They are happy in their new country and they want to bring their mother or brothers or a cousin over to join them in Canada and live in this beautiful country of ours.
The family reunification policy, which has always been the cornerstone of the Liberal Party's immigration policy when it was in power, is now being maliciously undermined by a Conservative Government that wants to close the door to immigration. It is using the fact that a couple of people wanted to jump the queue as an excuse to impose new immigration criteria in Canada that will destroy not only the open policy we have always had with respect to refugees but also the policy maintained vis-a-vis those who want to bring relatives over to Canada.
1 have no hesitation in saying that the Government's policy will be disastrous not only for refugees who absolutely must find a new country but also for Canada's family reunification policy which should be permanent.
Canadians of many origins have made extraordinary contributions to this country. They have enriched our culture and are now living happily and in harmony with other Canadians, and they have the right to hope that their family members will be able to join them in this country. We believe this Bill may actually diminish their chances of family reunification.
That is why we do not like this Bill and why we, the Liberal Party of Canada, intend to vote against this measure which in the circumstances, we feel, is excessive just to deal with a minor problem. To amend legislation, the Government is using a sledge hammer. To end certain abuses that are easy to control, the Government is closing our doors to many people who normally would have been able to enter Canada to join our growing Canadian labour force. We believe the Government is on the wrong track with this poorly prepared, poorly drafted and philosophically unsound legislation.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Hon. Minister is applauding the last speech or my introduction.


Mr. Mclnnes:: Both.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you.
1 am pleased to rise and speak in the debate on Bill C-55. As you know, we are considering two immigration Bills, this one and Bill C-84 which is now in committee. We were called back into emergency session because the Government decided a crisis situation existed, and the first Bill tabled was C-84. I spoke on that Bill on the first day, Tuesday, August 11, as recorded at page 7955 of Hansard.
I do not want to repeat my remarks, but I did acknowledge there was tremendous public pressure, to judge by the telephone calls and letters we received at our constituency offices, to act to change what was considered an unfair process. People were coming in as refugees and using the process to stay in Canada for two, three, four or five years. At the same time legitimate immigrants could not get into the country at all. Obviously something had to be done.
During my speech I said I thought if we could sum up the public's attitude it was to let the real refugees in, because we are bound by the UN Convention we signed, and throw the phoney ones out. We must have a fair procedure to do that. Canadians are fair people and are prepared to deal with the matter in a fair way. I thought the Government was going to do that.
I watched the CBC's Journal last night. In my speech of a few days ago I warned about an overkill, that the Government might over-react to this matter. Sure enough, on the Journal was a woman, a grandmother, who was helping legitimate refugees from Central America. She now expresses the fear that due to the Government's Bill C-84 she could be locked up for assisting these refugees. A nun came on after that and said that she too could be locked up for bringing people into Canada without papers, as she has been doing. Legitimate refugees do not have any papers. They flee for their lives and only their lives, literally, not with their papers.
The Government now has itself in a position in which it is putting grandmothers and nuns in jail. Can the Mulroney Government not do anything right? It is going to put grandmothers and nuns in prison for helping refugees? I suggest to the Minister, who is a reasonable man, that he bring in a reasoned amendment to clear up that situation. Members can read the Bill. I am a lawyer and can read the law. There are other lawyers in the House. It is quite plain that under this Bill the grandmothers and nuns would go to jail.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: You should be put in jail for talking like that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Member wants to put me in jail. He is a typical Conservative. They want to put everyone in jail to solve the problem.
I would like to deal with Bill C-55. Since I have already expressed many of my own views on the matter, in the time I have left I would like to read into the record and make comments on a letter from Amnesty International to the Prime
August 19, 1987

Minister (Mr. Mulroney) dated August 7, 1987. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International won the Nobel prize for the peaceful work it has done on behalf of people locked up in jails all over the world. Amnesty International says:
As you may be aware, Amnesty International opposes the forcible return of persons to countries where they may reasonably be expected to be arbitrarily detained for the non-violent expression of their beliefs, tortured or executed. A law which increases the likelihood of such events occurring is therefore of great concern to our organization.
Before outlining some of Amnesty International's concerns about the legislation itself, we wish to address the process of consultation which took place prior to the introduction of the Bill. Non-governmental organizations working with refugees were unanimous in recommending that a new refugee determination procedure embody the principles of universal access, an independent decision-making process, and an appeal on the merits. These principles were also reflected in the recommendations made by the Standing Committee in Labour, Employment and Immigration. Regrettably these recommendations were ignored by Cabinet in proposing this Bill.
Indeed, if the Cabinet had acted sooner and responded to the recommendations of the committee of this House, we would not have had to come back for this special session and would not have had the recent problem which we did with the boat coming in.
The letter continues:
The Bill itself is an attempt to prevent abuse of the determination procedure while at the same time ensuring that genuine refugees will not be returned to countries where their fear of persecution is well-founded. Amnesty shares these concerns.
So do we in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, and we can agree with the principles which the Government has put in this Bill.
The letter continues:
As we have stated many times in the past, abuse of the process has a detrimental effect upon legitimate claimants.
In fact, we urged your government to impose, long before any action was taken, a visa restriction on Portugal, whose citizens were clogging the system with fraudulent claims.
A lot of people have been afraid to say that in the House of Commons but it needs to be said. There were a lot of fraudulent refugee claims from people from Portugal. They should have been immigrants. If we had a decent and fair procedure for immigrants we might not have had those phoney refugee claims.
Amnesty says:
We therefore support legislation which attempts to curb abuse. However, in its zeal to prevent abuse. Cabinet has seriously undermined the very objective which should be the cornerstone of any law dealing with refugee determination-the protection of genuine refugees.
In our view, the major deficiencies of Bill C-55 lie in its restriction of access, the limited right of appeal and non-independent decision-making. The details of our concerns can be found under the following categories:
(1) Eligibility Criteria
Under Bill C-55 certain refugee claimants are considered ineligible to have a full hearing of their claims on the merits. Five classes of claimants will be excluded from the determination process at a very early stage of the inquiry. Of these, the greatest number will be found ineligible because they have come to Canada from a country which has been prescribed as a "safe third country".
Immigration Act, 1976
I do not have time to read the whole letter so I will summarize it. Amnesty goes on to say that we could get into real trouble with this. For example, if we return Guatemalan and Salvadoran claimants to the United States, a so-called safe third country, they may be sent back to their countries. The Government is then faced with a difficult dilemma. Does it say that the United States, our friend and ally, is not a safe third country? That is a very sticky wicket. I can see what Amnesty is getting at.
They talk about a credible basis test and about who should be making the determination. They talk about a limited right of appeal and the problem of not having full appeals.
We have suggested that there could be a fair appeal process in a much shorter period of time. Amnesty talks about the difficulties of appealing on the law, having an appeal on a legal point, rather than on fact, which is the real basis of determining whether someone is a legitimate refugee. Amnesty concludes by saying:
We reiterate our concern about preventing abuse of the refugee determination process. However, fundamental safeguards are necessary to ensure that genuine refugees will not be returned to face persecution. The life or liberty of one bona fide refugee lost as a result of Canada's restrictive refugee policy would be enough to render such policy a failure. We urge you and your government to amend or withdraw and replace Bill C-55 with legislation which incorporates the fundamental principles of universal access, an appeal on the merits and independent decision-making.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this country once returned a boatful of Jewish people and some of those people died as a result. That is a bad blot on our history. None of us want that to be repeated. We all want to make this a fair process. I urge the Minister to study this in committee and make the proper amendments so that there will be proper legal procedure. We will co-operate with the Government on that. However, do not over-react again and get into the position of sending grandmothers and nuns to jail through an overkill process.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister is in the House. I intend to concentrate on a couple of concerns I have with the situation in which the Government has put us, by recalling Parliament and asking us to deal with this very complicated matter in a somewhat hurried fashion.
I begin by questioning whether or not there is in fact a genuine emergency. I do not think there is an emergency with respect to Canada's refugee policy, certainly not a situation which is so much of a crisis that we could not have been permitted the ordinary parliamentary time for dealing with this very difficult matter. I suspect, without imputing motives to the Minister, who may be acting only on instructions, that there was a political emergency with respect to the Government's own popularity. This is a very cynical, and I think unsuccessful, attempt to take advantage of a great deal of popular concern, in many respects legitimate concerns of the Canadian people with respect to the abuse of Canada's open attitude toward refugees and Canada's refugee policy. Unfortunately, the legislation before us and Bill C-84 which is

August 19, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
now in committee would not deal with the most serious abuses of that system. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) pointed out on numerous occasions that the Bill would not deal with the people who arrived from Brazil, Portugal and Turkey on registered airline flights with the documentation and everything else they needed. Instead, the Bill is written in such a way that rather than dealing with such obvious abuses it may put at risk genuine refugees.
One element of almost all religious traditions, from as long ago as antiquity, is that a human community is to be judged largely by the way it treats strangers. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) is here and 1 recall saying this with his approval and the approval of other Canadian members of the delegation to the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union in East Berlin in September, 1980. 1 spoke on behalf of the Canadian delegation with respect to refugee concerns that were being debated at that time.
I noted that refugee policy was traditionally one of the moral measures by which the quality of a particular country could be judged. I say that because I want people to understand that Canada's soul is at stake in this debate. Our refugee policy will say a lot about what kind of country we are.
Let me move to two concerns which I believe the Minister can address. Obviously, the Government and the Opposition will continue to have legitimate differences about a number of provisions in this Bill. However, it seems to me that there are two improvements to the legislation that would at least meet the following concerns. Church groups and others have quite properly raised a concern that the measures the Government wants to establish will not only catch people who are deliberately abusing the system for profit but will also make lawbreakers out of those who help others who do not have documents come into the country in the genuine belief that these people are refugees.
The Minister knows that there is quite a difference between someone in Manitoba who drives to Grand Forks to pick up a person whom he believes to be a legitimate refugee from Central America and takes that person directly to an immigration officer in Emerson in the personal, conscientious belief that this person has a claim to refugee status that will stand the test of Canada's determination process even though that person does not have papers, the Minister knows that there is a significant difference between that case and the abuses that the Minister quite rightly wants to stop.
I have not heard the Government make a convincing denial to our belief that the measures the Government wants to introduce do not make any distinction between that person in Manitoba and those who can be convincingly accused of abusing the system. We have suggested some ways in which the Government can change the legislation to meet that concern. I believe that on the basis of simple political advice,
such a change would certainly overcome many of the objections that have been raised with respect to what the Government wants to implement.
Second, in no way should anything we do with respect to refugee policy, either in Bill C-55 or Bill C-84, be seen to be in breach of our international obligations. There was some foo fa raw in the House earlier today about whether our Ambassador to the United Nations was taken out of context with respect to his comments about the Bill. Leaving that debate aside, the fact is that the Ambassador spoke about the possibility of the Bill being made compatible with our international covenants. While that suggests that the Bill in its present form does not meet international covenants, it also suggests that there is a willingness on the part of the Government to attempt to find a way to make the legislation compatible. 1 believe that is very important.
When I had the opportunity to speak in an international forum on refugee policy, I was pleased to be able to get up as a Canadian, knowing that Canada had a certain credibility, not just in practical terms, but in terms of the respect it had shown for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and other concerns. I ask the Minister to consider the price we will pay for being open to the accusation of being in violation of UN and other international agreements with respect to refugees. Whether the Minister believes that to be the case or not, 1 ask him to consider the price we will pay even if we are perceived to be in violation of those agreements.
1 believe much is at stake. One of the most important roles that Canada plays, not only with respect to refugees but other issues, is our honest broker role, a country with credibility in a great many humanitarian issues. I would hate to see that credibility put at risk.
1 urge the Government to at least find a way to change these Bills with respect to refugee policy even if it insists on being consistent with its other objectives, so that Canada will not be open to those accusations.
I hope the Minister will take these two suggestions to heart because they are two areas in which 1 believe movement is possible on the part of the Government.
I will not even attempt to deal with the larger debate because 1 do not believe 1 have enough expertise. However, I have paid attention to those two issues because they struck me as two glaring weaknesses in the Government's position. I hope the Minister will carefully consider correcting the legislation, and 1 look forward to the Government actually making some changes in that direction.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-55. All Members have received letters, correspondence, and telephone calls from concerned Canadians who want to make sure that our refugee and immigration policy has integrity. I certainly do not question much of the concern that has been expressed to me by individuals who have called or written. However, the question



*

August 19, 1987

that 1 and many other Canadians are asking is whether the Government's response to this kind of problem is not too harsh or extreme.
There are other Canadians who certainly have another point of view. They arrived at their position in an equally honest manner, as individuals who are expressing concern on the other side of the question.
1 am glad to have this opportunity to advise the House that I received a letter today from a constituent. I am quite sure she would not have any objection to her name being mentioned. Her name is Jill McNall. She has written two letters to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) expressing her point of view on Canada's refugee policy and her concern that this Government is attempting to change that policy. I am sure Hon. Members in the House will be interested to hear what this constituent has to say, so 1 will read her letter as my contribution to this debate. She begins, and I quote:
Dear Prime Minister,
Further to my letter to you in February, 1987, 1 am again writing to express my grave concern about the direction of Canada's refugee policy.
As I indicated in my letter, I was most disturbed by the policies which were imposed in February, 1987, but the introduction of Bill C-55 to the Legislature has left me truly appalled. I feel we are reverting to attitudes and practices which I had hoped we had left behind forever: practices reminiscent of government-sanctioned racism and of the refoulement of Jewish refugees in the Second World War.
1 recognize and appreciate that there have been abuses of our refugee determination process in the past, however, those abuses have largely stemmed from an inappropriate process.
Numerous humane alternative procedures have been suggested in the past which would enable us to deal quickly and fairly with each refugee claimant. A quick procedure is essential to the prevention of abuse of the system. However, a quick procedure which jeopardizes genuine refugees in favour of preventing abuse is completely inappropriate and unacceptable in a country which has prided itself on its assistance to refugees. Bill C-55 will eliminate many refugee claimants in the very early stages of the process before they have even had a chance to tell their own story or to have their own claim judged on its merits.
Refugee claimants are people fleeing from persecution in their native countries, hoping to be given an opportunity to start a new life. They arrive frightened and tired, often speaking very little or no English, and usually with only a minimal idea of what life in Canada is, let alone what our immigration and refugee policy is or how it all works.
The expectation that refugee claimants can be given a fair chance in three to seven days is absurd. Many will not even know that they should indicate their desire to claim refugee status immediately, and they will certainly not have time to get independent advice or counsel.
A great area of concern is also the so-called "safe third country" to which refugee claimants can be returned. These countries will be designated by Cabinet, and I ask myself what factors will be considered? In view of our political ties to the United States for example, how likely is it that the United States could be determined to be a "safe country" for Guatemalan and El Salvadoran refugee claimants, even though virtually all refugee claims from those countries are denied in the United States. This imposition of political considerations on Canada's refugee policy would seriously undermine the integrity of the system.
The right of appeal is a cornerstone of Canadian law, even $500 claim in Small Claim's Court has the right of appeal, yet we would deny that right to people whose lives may be at stake. Bill C-55 drastically restricts the grounds of appeal basically to points of law rather than fact, yet refugee claims are based on fact and credibility. Another reason for the right of appeal is that
Immigration Act, 1976
mistakes happen in any system, and an appeal is a tool for correcting those mistakes. A meaningful right of appeal should be a cornerstone of any policy, but especially where life and liberty may hang in the balance.
Ms. McNall goes on to state:
One of the unfortunate circumstances in this issue is the lack of accurate and up-to-date information available to the general public. I am very concerned by the confusing, often biased, and frequently inaccurate media coverage of matters relating to refugees and immigrants, as the media acts as major source of information for a large number of Canadians. A lot has been said about public opinion being opposed to a so-called "open door" policy, but l believe that, with an accurate information, the majority of Canadians would recognize that refugees are not immigrants or queue-jumpers.
It is difficult for most of us to really understand the plight of refugees, because we were born here or came by choice. It is almost impossible for us to imagine living in fear of our own Government. Refugees are people seeking asylum because of persecution; people who want a chance to start a new life in freedom; people who are willing to work hard and to become contributing members of Canadian society.
In conclusion, I would like to request that Bill C-55 be discarded as an inappropriate and wholly unacceptable solution to a grave and potentially life-threatening concern. Safe, quick and humane alternatives have already been suggested in the past.
I will stop there because 1 feel that Ms. McNall has made her argument, which 1 consider to be one of the best I have heard. This is someone who I do not think has a legal background or any expertise in immigration or refugee matters. She is a person who is speaking from the heart as a decent Canadian. We have always had a decent attitude towards those in other countries who wanted to come here to live within our civilized Canadian society.
If this Government had really wanted to do something about illegal refugees, as it likes to call them, or an immigration system which plainly does not seem to be working as well as it should, why did the Government not act six months ago when it was aware of these problems rather than waiting until a perceived emergency existed? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion. The Government jumped in because it saw this as being a politically opportune time to respond to a feeling in society towards which it has contributed. If the Government had wanted to go after the smugglers rather than the people being smuggled, I do not believe anyone would have any objection. If it had gone after the individuals who exploited disadvantaged peoples like the Sikhs who came in a month ago, we would have supported it. However, rather than go after the smugglers, it has gone after the people being smuggled and I think the Government should be ashamed of itself for lending its support to that kind of attitude.
Mir. Rod Murphy (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I only intend to speak for a few minutes on this legislation at this particular stage. I have a number of concerns about Bill C-55, some of which 1 expressed yesterday in a speech I gave on the hoist motion. In that particular speech I pointed out that I do not believe the Government's intent with respect to this legislation is very honourable.
Bill C-55 is a piece of legislation which the Government sat on for three years. The Government has had the advice of the parliamentary committee in which representatives of all three

August 19, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Parties indicated they wanted reform of the refugee legislation which would ensure that we keep out those people who are not honest refugees. At the same time, we want a fair system, a system which allows for an appeal process and a system of which Canadians right across this land could be proud. That is what the standing committee of the House of Commons pushed for and that is what we believe should be the basis of the legislation before us. However, that is not the case.
In addition, after stalling for three years, the Government has introduced legislation which is unfair. It is a blight on Canada's reputation. We now have a Government which wants to rush through consideration of this legislation and is insisting that this legislation be passed in all stages prior to the adjournment of this special session of the House.
I think that does not speak well of the Government, not only in that the legislation itself is flawed but in that it is complicated. For the Government to want to rush through this legislation at this time in the middle of summer indicates that it has a political agenda as opposed to a legislative one.
When we adjourned in June, representatives of the Government told us that it would be possible for Bill C-55 to be studied in committee in the fall. That would have given an adequate opportunity for various groups who are concerned about the legislation, including expert witnesses and others, to appear before a committee of the House in order to give a thorough examination to the legislation. That was the case when the House adjourned at the end of June.
What has happened to change the Government's legislative agenda? Someone could point to the arrival of the boatload of people in Nova Scotia. Or they could point to two or three people who arrived in the Northwest Territories during the summer. If that is all it takes for the Government to change its political agenda, if that is all it takes for the Government to insist that we rush through legislation without adequate study, then obviously it is not concerned about the passage of good legislation.
To complicate matters more, we have a situation right now wherein we have a legislative committee of the House studying the so-called emergency legislation, Bill C-84. The committee is in session right now. At the present time it has expert witnesses in front of it. What the Government is trying to do by giving second reading to Bill C-55 this afternoon is to ensure that we have another committee studying Bill C-55 at the same time as we have a committee studying Bill C-84. What we will have is a situation in which two different committees of the House are studying legislation which is closely related and intertwined at the same time. This is a system which would guarantee that we end up with bad legislation. One committee will not know what the other is doing. We will be in a situation in which clauses that depend on each other will not be studied in the fashion in which they should be.
The Government is working by political impulse. The unfortunate thing is that it has a very bad reading of the political pulse of the nation. As a result, the Government is panicking. It is passing legislation which we can almost guarantee will be thrown out in the courts, just as has happened with legislation which the Government introduced before in a rush, in a so-called emergency.
It is evident from the tone of the debate that the Government and its back-benchers are trying to create fear and to build on fear across this land. You have heard, Mr. Speaker, cabinet Ministers, Prime Ministers and ordinary Members of Parliament talk about queue jumping. Your Honour has heard them talk about people arriving and abusing our system. Well, there are people abusing our system, but that is not what this legislation is about. This legislation is trying to hit those people who are helping honest refugees. This legislation will hit those people who do not have the proper documents because they come from countries where they cannot obtain those proper documents. For the Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to talk about the fact that those refugees, or those so-called refugees, are queue jumpers is ignoring the fact that legitimate refugees and legitimate immigrants have a heck of a time getting into this country because of the bureaucratic mess that the Government has instituted and because the Government has not been able to overcome the past Liberal legislation.
As a result, the examples I raised yesterday and the example I will give now are not examples of refugees, or so-called refugees, abusing the system, therefore keeping out legitimate refugees and legitimate immigrants or people who want to join their families in Canada. The problem is that the Government has not addressed the real problems of family reunification. The Government has not dealt with the real problem of ensuring that legitimate immigrants come to the country.
The example which I wish to give today involves my having written to the Minister, the previous Minister and the Minister prior to that. The case to which I refer involves a Canadian whose family is from Peru. He cannot get his mother-in-law into the country. Why? Not because of refugees landing in Nova Scotia but because the woman cannot find her marriage certificate. 1 have written to the Minister asking for special consideration in this case, but my request has been denied. This is not a matter of a refugee landing in Nova Scotia and being denied access. It is an example of the Minister and the laws he is protecting and the bureaucratic system of which he is a part denying that woman access to Canada.
It is time that the Prime Minister, cabinet Ministers and Conservative MPs were honest with Canadians. We need real legislation to keep out the abusers. But we do not need the false rhetoric of the Conservatives. We need legislation that will keep out the abusers and that will punish the real smugglers.
We do not need legislation that punishes real refugees, those who cannot get papers, those humanitarians in Canada who
August 19, 1987

are concerned about trying to help refugees. That is what we have before us in this Bill. The fact that the Government wants to rush through consideration of this legislation, the fact that it wants to have two committees studying related legislation at the same time indicates a political agenda, a very corrupt agenda.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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:
Business of the House
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Sparrow Speyer Stackhouse
Axworthy
Blaikic
Caccia
de Corneille
Dewar
Dingwall
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Harris
Heap
Hovdcbo
Thacker
Tremblay
(Qucbec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
++NAYS
Members
Jewett
Johnston
(Saint-Hcnri
Westmount)
Kaplan
Langdon
Lapicrre
MacLellan
Manly
Marchi
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Van Dc Walle
Vezina
Vincent
Weiner
White
Winegard
Wise-82
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Penncr
Pepin
Prud'homme
Robinson
Rossi
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Toupin Waddell Young-39


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find unanimous agreement to the following House order.
The Government will now call Item No. 18 on the Order Paper, consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) will speak to the motion on behalf of the Government. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) will speak next on behalf of the NDP. The House will extend today's sitting if necessary until the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill has completed his remarks.
On Thursday, August 20, we will continue consideration of Item 18, with the provision that the first speaker for the Official Opposition shall have the right to unlimited time to complete his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

August 19, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1987
[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO enact
Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the amendments which have been proposed by the Senate and to encourage Members of the House of Commons to concur in them. There has been very close consultation and the nine amendments will make a very great difference to the Bill and our constructive policy development for the nation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the development of this Bill and Bill C-19, an Act respecting the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, has involved one of the most extensive consultation processes ever engaged in by a government in preparation of legislation. Release of Freedom to Move report in July, 1985, was followed by two sets of hearings by the House of Commons standing committee, one on Freedom to Move as a whole and one focused specifically on the North. Both of these involved hearings in various regions of the country.
I would once again like to thank the members of the standing committee from all Parties under the able leadership of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) who spent virtually thousands of hours on this legislation. They would not have had to spend that time. It is possible to sit as a Member of Parliament and not do much, but these ladies and gentlemen did a lot of work for the public policy of this nation. I think they should be commended once again for the personal sacrifice that they made.
Following tabling and second reading of the Bills in the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Transport held another set of hearings across the country. Hundreds of witnesses appeared and hundreds of briefs were received and reviewed. More recently the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has had the opportunity to review Bills C-18 and C-19 and has held hearings to receive firsthand, the views of 75 additional witnesses.
1 cannot stress too much that these Bills will help our producers and manufacturers. As a result of their improved competitive position they will be better able to maintain and create jobs in every region of the country.
The Government has undertaken to implement Bills C-18 and C-19 on January 1, 1988. Everyone affected is busy making plans to take advantage of the new opportunities as of that date.
Nine Senate amendments to Bill C-18 are now awaiting our approval. Seven of these are for the purpose of clarifying the wording of the French text, while another amendment corrects
a spelling error. The major amendment involves a stipulation that members of the new agency must be either Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada, which is surely a reasonable and indeed desirable qualification. There is no doubt that they would have been such in any event, but to have it enshrined in the statute is not a disagreeable proposition.
Allow me once again to elaborate on the benefits I anticipate once this Bill and its companion, Bill C-19, become law. These Bills will remove obstacles to innovation in both services offered and prices charged in the air, rail and trucking sectors. As a result, shippers will be more competitive and will be able to maintain existing jobs and create new ones in every region of the country.
A fundamental principle of these Bills is that transportation exists to serve the needs of shippers and travellers. Many of our producers, especially our resource producers, have faced severe difficulties in recent years and see these reforms as a necessary step in maintaining and improving their competitive position.
Bill C-18 provides workable remedies for captive rail shippers who have few practical recourses under the present law. It also provides many, for the first time, with competitive alternatives. For manufacturers, innovative service and freight packages in both the rail and trucking sectors will allow them to meet the demands of today's economy. Passage of the Bills will also give us better service and price packages from air carriers, which will benefit both leisure and business travellers.
Turning for a moment to safety, the first and overriding principle in the legislation is that the transportation system must be safe. Government's commitment to this principle will never waver. My colleagues will elaborate further tomorrow on just what that means. Section 3 of the new National Transportation Act enshrines this commitment in legislation for the first time.
I think Members should note that for the first time we actually have enshrined in legislation that safety is the highest priority. We have operated all these many years without that as the highest priority. It is now the highest priority, and I am sure all Members will find that to be a worthy principle.
I said at the outset that Bills C-18 and C-19 are based on extensive consultation. I would like to mention just a few examples of how the Government has listened and made changes. First, Bill C-18, as tabled in the House last November, recognized the principle that transportation is a key to regional economic development. Many witnesses and members of the Standing Committee on Transport felt that this should be strengthened. The Government listened and agreed.
Now the Bill states that the commercial viability of transportation links should be balanced with regional development objectives so that the economic strengths in each region can be realized. This principle will be part of the definition of public interest to be applied by the new agency in its decisions. We have operated all these many years without that as a
August 19, 1987

principle of the law. It is now a principle of the law. An efficient, effective and competitive transportation system is a prerequisite for lasting economic development in all regions. Bill C-18 will give us just such a system.
The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that disabled persons have access to the transportation system. This commitment is reflected in the policy statement in Section 3 of the Bill. While it was the original intent of the Government to fulfil its pledge through human rights legislation, we were convinced otherwise by the sincere representations made before the House standing committee. Accordingly, the Bill was amended to give the new agency the power to enforce accessibility standards for the disabled. Again, for the first time in our entire legislative history disabled people are recognized statutorily for the purpose of transportation.
In all, there were approximately 50 amendments made to Bill C-18 by the House of Commons, and now an additional nine by the Senate. Throughout the development of these Bills, the need to have a balanced package, especially with respect to the interests of shippers and carriers, has been held firmly in mind. The need to make Canadian products more competitive in domestic and international markets where the costs of transportation are a vital element has also been a primary consideration.
I believe that Bill C-18 is a balanced package. It is not simply deregulation; it removes unnecessary regulations and it protects the public interest where that is really necessary, for example, in the special regime for northern air services. Thus, Bill C-18 is truly a made-in-Canada policy.
I therefore encourage my hon. colleagues to support the Senate amendments to Bill C-18. It is clear that we need these amendments. The benefits are also clear. Now is the time to finish the job of making these reforms a reality.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues across the way for agreeing to permit me to speak this evening to the matter now before the House. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of transport deregulation, particularly as it affects deregulation in the rail sector, has been a matter of pressing concern to me coming as I do from a riding in which life is so bound up in the transportation sector. 1 have the CNR main back shops, Transcona shops in my riding and Symington yard very near.
In Winnipeg in general the question of the future of rail transportation and the future of Winnipeg within the broader framework of rail transportation is a matter of ongoing concern and debate, as Hon. Members will know from the many occasions on which I have asked the Government questions in the House about the various aspects of Winnipeg's future as it pertains to transportation deregulation.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could appeal to the Hon. Members. I am having a hard time hearing myself over the conversation.
National Transportation Act, 1987
First, we are debating amendments which have come back to us from the Senate. It is my understanding that those amendments are not particularly offensive but, rather, ones that were agreed upon in the Senate between government and opposition Members. For instance, they include an amendment to require Canadian citizenship of members on the National Transportation Agency. There are various amendments which bring the French and English text into line. They are not a matter of controversy.
However, we should not let that obscure the fact that the whole deregulation package itself is deeply controversial. There is, particularly between the Progressive Conservative Government and the New Democratic Party, a very serious division of opinion about how our transportation system ought to be ordered in this country.
1 notice that, unlike the situation with respect to Bill C-22, despite the great deal of Liberal rhetoric in the House of Commons about the current Government's plans for deregulation, the Liberals in the Senate did not move any significant amendments to the transportation deregulation. After all was said and done, there was no real battle waged in the Senate over deregulation. The Liberals and Conservatives were basically able to agree on deregulation.
I believe that Canadians who are against the current deregulation package should take keen note of the fact that deregulation had its roots in Liberal government policy preceding the election of 1984. There is a great deal of overlap and consensus between the Liberal and Conservative Parties with respect to deregulation.
The only real opponent in the House of Commons to what the Government is trying to do to our transportation sector is the New Democratic Party. Today is a very timely day to be considering the matter of deregulation in one of the final stages before Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 become law.
At this very time we are seeing one of the fruits of the anticipation of deregulation in the whole matter of negotiations going on between the railway unions and Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways.
It was once said of deregulation in the United States that deregulation turned out to be the biggest piece of anti-labour legislation that was ever passed in that country. In as far as the initial arguments of the railways for a 5 per cent wage rollback and a reduced initial wage were based on the anticipation of deregulation, the very same thing is beginning to happen here in Canada. Deregulation will become the grounds on which a great many working Canadians who are now well paid will become less well paid as the years roll by and the effects of deregulation and the irrational competition it brings into being in Canada come to be experienced.
I want to offer the empirical proof of the very arguments that the railways are now using with respect to the competition they expect to receive from American railways as a result of

August 19, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987
the provision in Bill C-18 for competitive line rates. This would allow American railways to compete for Canadian traffic directly.
I was interested to hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) say that transportation was to be the key to regional economic development and that this was one of the mainstays of the Government's belief with respect to deregulation. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary comes from western Canada. Canadian railways will be put into a position whereby goods that they normally carry may well be carried to the border points south of Alberta in Montana, and transported across the northern United States either to destinations in the northeastern United States or in eastern Canada. How does that serve the regional economic development of western Canada, when all the jobs in between, both railway associated jobs and the spin-off economic potential, will be put at risk by that particular measure?
This issue becomes a matter of national integrity for me. This legislation would let American railways compete in this manner with our two railways. It will put our two railways, CN and CP, at each other's throats by competing with each other and for the traffic now carried by trucks. As a result, there will be more pressure on the railways to abandon trackage. That will mean more pressure on provincial Governments as that trackage is abandoned and more trucks are used on the roads.
Furthermore, that transportation will not necessarily be by Canadian trucks. It may well be that Canadian trucking firms will be put in severe jeopardy as a result of the entry of American trucking firms into the Canadian market. There are many people involved in trucking in Winnipeg who are concerned about that possibility.
Let us consider the cumulative impact on the region of western Canada, because the Minister cited regional economic development as one of the elements of the Government's objectives when it decided to deregulate. There will be more rail line abandonment and heavier use of roads, the cost of which will be picked up by provincial Governments that are already experiencing a great deal of fiscal pressure from the Government in terms of costs that were not previously passed on and various cut-backs that have taken place.
The community infrastructure of many smaller communities in western Canada will be put at risk as the elevators and other operations shut down. As people move out of these communities, there will be pressure on the remaining citizens to fund the schools and other community services. These effects will not take place overnight, but during a longer period.
The Conservative Government says that it is the values and lifestyle of small communities that are the backbone of this country, where we find the very best of what it means to be Canadian. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills has heard me argue many times that I Find it ironic that a Conservative Government says it cannot fight that battle and must get on board and follow that trend by deregulating and
taking other steps so the process will come to a conclusion as quickly as possible. I would think that it would want to resist that trend and try to find ways of structuring our economy so that these types of communities could continue to exist in a healthy and lively atmosphere.
We believe that is possible, but it means having a critical rather than an accommodating attitude toward the trends in the market-place. That is what clearly defines the difference between the Conservatives and the New Democrats. Our approach is to think critically about what is happening in the market-place, globally, nationally, and locally, and to address how we can resist those trends in the market-place that negatively affect the quality of human life and so structure our economic life that those negative impacts will not occur. Having said that, I believe the difference between us and the Conservatives is that they know these trends are taking place. They say: "That is the invisible hand of Adam Smith. That is the market-place working itself out in the universe". They say there is nothing they can do about it, that all they can do is try to accommodate those trends in such a way as to make maximum economic advantage of it for those people who are already well placed in the market-place. That is the great divide between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. The relative complacency with which the Liberal Party has regarded this whole debate on deregulation shows that, really, when it comes to these kinds of issues-and 1 admit there are perhaps a couple of issues about which there are fundamental differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives-there is really no difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative party.
I go back to a matter raised in the House earlier today when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) rose and had the nerve to chastise the Government for not living up to its commitments to western Canada vis-a-vis rail line upgrading. He cited the lay-off in Winnipeg at the Butt Weld in Transcona, a place where I used to work, as evidence of the lack of willingness of the CNR to live up to its promises. It was both the Liberals and the Conservatives who not so long ago in this place argued for a change in the Crow rate on the basis that if it were to be changed there would be a new era for rail transportation in western Canada. They said this would mean massive investment in double tracking, tunnels and in a great many other ways. The people in the shops in Winnipeg were led to believe that if we just changed the Crow rate there would be the dawning of a new era with respect to rail transportation. The very opposite has happened in many respects.
Since the change in the Crow rate, we have seen still more reductions in the number of employees at both major railways. We have seen the shut-down of major shops. I am thinking of Moncton in particular with respect to CN. We have seen rationalization, so called, going on in both railways, which has
August 19, 1987

not had the beneficial effect which was promised during the Crow-rate debate.
So what we have before us is the beginning of the end of an entire way of life in Canada and, in particular, in western Canada. 1 admit, as someone younger than the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, that I took it all for granted. I thought this was the way Canada was and that there would be no debate on that. I never really took seriously-although I now wish I had-the possibility that we could some day elect a government that would so directly attack the very economic infrastructure of Canada, and particularly western Canada, through transportation deregulation. Yet that is what is happening.
We will come to see that that is what Bill C-18 represents. To be fair, I tend to concentrate too much on matters having to do with rail transportation. I think it would be in order for a moment to speak about airline deregulation. Some questions have been asked in the House in recent days. I certainly do not intend to hang anything I have to say on any particular accident or anything like that, but the fact is that there is growing concern about the effects on safety of deregulation in the United States. The Parliamentary Secretary, when asked about this is quick to point out that Canada is in a very different situation. We have a lot fewer flights, we have less density of population and so on, and we are really not to be compared. It is a point well taken to a degree. However, the fact is that we are learning from the American experience that deregulation does put unhealthy pressures on airlines to cut corners, to push equipment a little harder and a little longer than it should be, and to have fewer employees than they should have because they are competing with someone else. An airline decides to cut staff in order to be competitive and keep its prices down. We know this happens. It really has nothing to do with whether or not the Government is genuinely committed to safety as its highest priority. It is nice that it is in the legislation. No one argues with that. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed that out. But having a preamble or whatever in the legislation is not enough. It has to be backed up with a
National Transportation Act, 1987
system that actually lends itself to safety, or a government that is committed, having created a situation which does not lend itself to safety, to having the necessary staff around to do the kinds of inspection, enforcement and investigative work that will actually create the kind of commitment to safety about which the Parliamentary Secretary speaks. We do not believe that is being done.
No one is saying the Government is out to create an unsafe system. We just think its faith-and it is really taking a leap of faith in this respect-is unjustified.
I just want to reiterate the complete and total opposition of the New Democratic Party to the deregulation legislation which has previously been before this House and which is now before the House in the form of amendments sent back to this House from the Senate. In my eight years and some months in this House, I cannot think of anything that will have a more negative impact on the economic and social well-being in the long run of the people in my constituency.


Mr. Jourdenais:: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Jourdenais) on a point of order.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, earlier, when the House voted on Bill C-55, I abstained from voting. I wonder if my abstention will be officially recorded in Hansard, because I want the people of my riding to know I was present in the House for the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With his intervention, the Hon. Member has just achieved that result.
It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.09 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, August 20, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers