1987-08-14

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, August 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me and for giving me this opportunity to express my views on second reading of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker, this debate on second reading is important for all Canadians and for all Members of this House, since the way we approach this debate is an expression, as it were, of our political philosophy and goes to the very heart of what we want to be as a nation and as a society: that is, open and generous to all people throughout the world who face torture and are deprived of their freedom and who are seeking a country of refuge and a safe haven.
Our position on Bill C-84 arises from our concept of the kind of society we want to live in and the role that society can and must play on the international scene.
Today we are not just analysing Bill C-84, we are examining our own conscience. When our children and grandchildren look at this period in our history and see how Canadian men and women, and especially parliamentarians, reacted when a boat with some 100 refugees approached the shores of Nova-Scotia, they will judge us; and today, we should ask ourselves whether our children and grandchildren will be proud of what we as parliamentarians have done. Will they be able to say they are proud of their parliamentary ancestors? Will they be able to say that we acted firmly but also with compassion? Will they say that we acted fairly and humanely? I will leave this question for the time being, but I would like to get back to it later on.
Mr. Speaker, I realize, as I said before, that this is an important problem, but I do not think that today, August 14,
1987, this legislation is as urgently needed as the Government keeps saying. In fact, would you not agree that the emergency is a direct result of this Government's incompetence, a Government that failed to recognize the warning signs of the crisis with which it is faced today and whose extent it has grossly exaggerated? Mr. Speaker, the phony refugee problem has been with us for some time, and as the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) said yesterday or the day before in his speech on second reading, and I quote: "Not only did the Government wait three years to introduce a solution to a problem that was discovered many years ago but it took 10 days from the time it declared an emergency to tell Canadians and parliamentarians when we would be coming back."
Mr. Speaker, the Government's record is appalling. First of all, in April, 1985, if I am not mistaken, we had the Plaut report. This was an impressive document, several hundred pages long, that was prepared by a group of experts and recommended the approach the Government should take to the refugee question. Although the document has been in the Government's possession since the spring of 1985, the Government has failed to follow through on any of the Plaut Commission's recommendations.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in late 1985 a parliamentary three-Party committee of the House tabled a report, a copy of which I have here. The committee examined the Plaut Commission recommendations and came up with unanimous recommendations of its own. In this document the three Parties-the Government Party and the two opposition Parties-made recommendations to the Government concerning the best way to settle the issue of illegal refugees crossing our borders and gaining entry into this country. Having already turned thumbs down on the Plaut recommendations, the Government again dismissed the recommendations advocated by a committee of this House.
Mr. Speaker, we were told this is an emergency, yet about a year ago a group of Tamils landed on the shores of Nova Scotia. A whole year went by without the Government, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) or anybody else doing anything about it. Now, all of a sudden, we are faced with this makeshift emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the only sentence or the only point which the Government singled out of the Plaut Commission report is the comment which appears as a conclusion on page 215. Here are the words of Rabbi Plaut: "I conclude this report by recalling the remarks made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the Summer of 1984. To a
\

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
large extent the ability of states to react positively in situations involving refugees depends on the frame of mind of the public."
He also stressed the fact that, unfortunately, there is irrefutable evidence that in recent years public opinion has failed to make the distinction between the very special plight of refugees and the situation of many millions of other foreigners who have attempted to cross borders into countries other than their own. Such confusion led to prejudice towards refugees and dampened the sympathetic attitudes in official circles towards them. We Canadians would be well advised to heed this word of warning.
Mr. Speaker, the Government did heed the warning all right, but it gave a completely different interpretation to the action advocated by Rabbi Plaut, especially so with respect to his caveat. The arrival of a boatload of Sikhs on the shores of Nova Scotia was seen by the Government as an opportunity to rouse public opinion, not to prepare it to react generously to real refugees. Government officials used the incidents which occurred in Nova Scotia to stir public opinion just so they would have an excuse to introduce a stiff measure likely to appease the most conservative wing of the Party in office. Talk about emergency, 10 whole days elapsed before the House was recalled to consider Bill C-84! Had the matter been really urgent, had the Government known what it was doing when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pushed the panic button, it seems to me we would not have been kept waiting for so long before coming back to the House to debate the bill before us.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) told the House about the true reason for recalling Parliament, namely to solve the problem of Bill C-22 on pharmaceutical products. Yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration attacked the Liberal position on this issue. Our position is quite clear. As we have maintained in the House for weeks and months, we are opposed to Bill C-22. The Liberal Senators are not alone in their opposition as all Liberal Members of this House have vigorously objected against Bill C-22 in its original form. Today, Government Members are doing their best to create a division between the Liberal Senators and the Liberal Members of this House. We have worked together. We are against the Bill as introduced. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Roberval, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, that the Quebec Liberal caucus is against the original Bill, and tell him that the real reason for recalling Parliament is to try to make us swallow Bill C-22, which goes against the interests of most Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 will be coming back to the House and we have made our position clear. The previous Liberal Government created the Eastman Commission and our position is that the Government should follow the recommendations of the Eastman Commission to the effect that copyrights on new pharmaceutical products should be protected not for 10 years, but for four to five years. We shall continue to defend this position and the Government will have to accept it
because we believe that the legislation it has introduced goes against the interests of the Canadian people.
Let us now come back to Bill C-84, Mr. Speaker. When we look at the basic issues, we have to say clearly that no Liberal Member can approve the abuses resulting from fraudulent claims, cheating and, in some cases, a real racket in human lives. We object to such abuses and we are willing to legislate to provide more appropriate controls and penalties for the offenders. However, this does certainly not mean that we approve Bill C-84 as introduced. This Bill is reactionary and excessive. It exploits unreasonably the present climate of legitimate frustration in Canada caused by the mismanagement of this Government as it attempts to use a difficult situation to try to increase the Government Party's popularity in the polls. Bill C-84 attacks the basic freedoms of Canadians. In other words, Bill C-84 tries to kill a gnat with a canon.
Mr. Speaker, no one questions the fact that the abuses must be eliminated and the system improved. However, does this mean that the legislation should go against our Charter of Rights, our traditions of national development and our traditional immigration policy which is at the very root of the history of this country?
Canada has always welcomed immigrants. The abuses must indeed be corrected. However, it is unacceptable to exploit this situation for partisan purposes, Mr. Speaker.
1 would now like to deal more in detail with a few items. Under proposed Section 95.1 in Bill C-84, any individual, any Canadian, any church, any priest, any nun who works in a country where there is no freedom and who is in contact with his or her order here in Canada, all those people helping refugees come to Canada are liable to the same penalties as the so-called immigration consultants whose only motive is to get rich on the backs of the weak and people deprived of any freedom.
Would Canadians accept that a social worker, a priest or a nun be put in prison as a common crook? The Minister says the act must be the same for everybody. But that act is being passed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, by this Government that treats church people, social workers and charitable institutions that were set up to help people in need as if they were common crooks and smugglers.
Yesterday, I raised the matter of the Stastny brothers. In his answer the Minister claimed I was exaggerating.
Mr. Speaker, 1 read Section 95.1 again. Can they suggest for instance that the Czech hockey players who left their country on the occasion of a hockey tournament in Vienna to come to Canada and play with the Nordiques were in fact people who wanted to get out of their country? Is it possible to suggest they had their passports with them, knowing what is going on in those totalitarian countries? They jumped into the Nordiques' car and there was a wild chase through Vienna, followed by Czechoslovakia's secret police. Well now, if Marcel Aubut and his assistant were not in breach of Section 95.1 as now proposed, Mr. Speaker, I don't know who can be!
August 14, 1987

The Minister stated yesterday the section would be interpreted generously. But he will not interpret the act-the courts will, and his immigration officers. How could he say that yesterday from his seat?
Mr. Speaker, as the proposal now stands, Marcel Aubut and Gilles Leger would have been liable to imprisonment for five years. What would have happened to Mr. Peterson, the brother of Ontario's current Premier, who helped the Russian dancer Baryshnikov enter Canada to get out of the Soviet Union- when he brought him in his car from a hotel from which he had escaped to some cottage, in order to protect him while waiting for the Canadian Goverment's answers? Was that not a person, a Canadian helping a political refugee? Can they claim that Baryshnikov had his passport or his visa in his pocket? The fact he did not would have made Mr. Peterson liable to five years' imprisonment.
Does that make sense? Is that the goal pursued by the Government? This is beyond me. And when I hear Hon. Members and the Minister suggest this is a wrong interpretation-please, read that section again. Read that clause again taking into account that it is not necessarily the present or future minister that will have to interpret the Act, but the courts which have to make decisions based on the statute as it stands.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, those who take advantage of the credulity of the destitute, raking off thousands of dollars per person, deserve to be punished and this is why we oppose the Bill as it stands. I ask the government to be more specific and not to put in the same boat social workers, charitable organizations and gangster trafficking in human lives.
Section 103.02(5) provides that an immigration officer may without any warrant collect evidence that an individual is violating the Immigration Act.
However, should we, Mr. Speaker, in order to be fair and firm, trample the rights of citizens, churches and organizations advocating human rights? If a warrant is required to make a search at the place of alleged members of organized crime, why should we allow a search among charitable organizations helping refugees to survive? They are bunched together with traffickers in human lives. Immigration officers are given the right to make a search without a warrant, a right denied to police officers fighting against organized crime. I find such a clause unacceptable and it is repugnant to all liberal minds. Those steps are worthy of a totalitarian regime and not of a great democratic nation.
The Bill provides also for special detention certificates. The Government would like to extend arbitrarily from 48 hours to seven days the detention period, with a possibility for the Minister to add three additional weeks without the so-called refugee having the right to meet an adjudicator. Mr. Speaker, this flies in the face of basic human rights. Again, I feel these are excessive means to reach a goal which is altogether honourable, that of preventing abuse, discovering frauds and punishing profiteers.
Immigration Act, 1976
Finally, I should like to call the attention of the House on a comment made yesterday by my colleague from York West: If this Bill is adopted as is, it will give rise to a whole series of appeals and recourse before our courts under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What will be their impact on our system? What will happen, six or 12 months from now, when appeals are made everywhere on the basis of the Charter thus leading to an eventual bog down of the process? Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to the House what may possibly happen. Our system could become even more chaotic and put even more to the test the patience and confidence of Canadians. Let us draft a Bill which will be sheltered as much as possible from appeals to the courts and accusations of human rights violations, failing which we might be faced with the same problems 12 months from now. And 1 ask the Minister this: What would you do if two other boats arrived tomorrow morning, filled with real refugees? Now, Mr. Speaker, we must be realistic and Canada has a role to play. 1 am not saying that we should accept all those men and women who claim to be refugees. That has never been our position on this side of the House. But we believe in universal access, as defined in the international agreements we have signed and, as a Government or a country, we cannot choose arbitrarily those who have the right to submit applications. I was here yesterday when the Hon. Member and Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) indicated that he was against this notion of universal access. I do not know whether the Minister realizes that he is going against the International Conventions which we have signed, because Canada has adhered to this notion of universal access, which does not mean allowing all migrants entry to this country in whatever number whenever they please, but the possibility for a potential refugee seeking refugee status to have access to due process to determine whether he is a true refugee. After that, a country may decide to accept his application or not.
Mr. Speaker, by taking such stringent measures, the Government could weaken its position and become powerless when faced with the false refugee problem. It reminds me of a decision of the Quebec Minister of Finance a few years ago. At the time, drivers using some restricted highways had to pay a 25-cent toll. In an effort to increase considerably his revenues, the Minister of Finance doubled the tolls paid in Quebec on these limited access highway. The negative reaction was such that politically it became indefensible, so that now we have a system where drivers no longer pay tolls on these highways. 1 say that this Bill goes in the same direction. The Government is using such excessive means that it may end up with an even more difficult situation.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude and say that I am against any abuse of the system and I condemn all those who try to benefit from the miseries of others. But I also object to a bill which was drafted on the spur of the moment, which does not take into account the realities of the situation and our historic and

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
world-wide reputation as a haven, which ignores the Plaut Commission recommendations as well as the unanimous recommendations of the parliamentary committee which studied the question. I agree with the Government that we must put a stop to abuses, but I simply cannot endorse any of the methods which may very well compromise the rights of genuine refugees and of those who try to help them. 1 also condemn a Government which has failed to anticipate a problem which had long since been in the making and about which the former administration had given a mandate to the Plaut Commission. The Conservatives did not act on the 1985 recommendations. Today, panic-striken and inspired by opportunism, they are urging the House to adopt a piece of legislation which, far from solving the problem, will make an already deplorable situation even worse and tarnish Canada's international reputation.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) considers our country's rights and sovereignty as a pesty fly which prevents him and his colleagues from acting as they see fit and destroying our national values. But Canadian rights are not like a fly in the estimation of this Government, they are the very foundation of this country. Hogwash is what we are getting from him, as usual. Listening to him is always a disappointment. He had a leader who was wont to resort to this method of talking nonsense to make a point, but at least there was an element of truth in what his leader Pierre Trudeau would say. But the Hon. Member knows full well that, among other things, for 10 years already we have had a statute which forbids these people to take such illegal steps. What he recommends we let priests and ministers do is already illegal. He also knows very well that we have a very special program for refugees from eastern countries. He knows there are all kinds of programs and services for people like Baryshnikov and all the other Russians and Czechs and other people who want to come to this country. There are special programs. However, that is not the issue here. My question for the Hon. Member is the following. In 1986, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) said it was entirely unacceptable to have an immigrant reception system that penalized bona fide immigrants and a refugee system that penalized bona fide refugees, and that the people who should be punished were those who were trafficking in human misery. Why is the Hon. Member rising in the House today to tell us this unlikely story, a reflection of his Party's contradictory stance? It is entirely beside the point, and he knows that. He is getting political mileage out of people's lives. Today, these smugglers bring people to our shores who are exhausted, sick and ill-fed and maybe even have lice. Are we supposed to wait until people are brought in half-dead? Is the Hon. Member waiting for people to die, for what happened to the Mexicans who were locked up in a boxcar and were dead on arrival? Is that what he wants to happen before we pass legislation to prevent these traffickers from operating?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it is of course difficult to engage in debate with the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).
One is never sure what she said after she has said it. That being the case, 1 would like to repeat what I said, and I hope that this time, she will understand. We have said time and time again since the very beginning that we have no objection and, in fact, are prepared to support legislation that would genuinely be aimed at traffickers and smugglers, the people who traffick in human lives. However, we want this legislation to differentiate between those people and people who are working for humanitarian causes.
Mr. Speaker, as 1 said earlier, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver all said yesterday that everyone must be equal before the law, with which I fully agree, but the fact is that we are now making the law. We are the ones who will group together under Bill C-84 the racketeers in human lives and the religious, social and humanitarian groups that work to help refugees to find a haven and new freedom in Canada. When we put in the same category the activities of racketeers and those of these other people, we have to remember that it was not Church groups who put these peoples on the train to die, as we heard the Hon. Member say.
I would like to come back to Section 95.1 since the Hon. Member referred to it. This section is new. It says, for instance:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both
Mr. Speaker, this section is quite clear. What choice would a judge have in hearing the case of Marcel Aubut, to whom 1 have referred, or of the brother of Premier Peterson, or others who provided assistance to people like Baryshnikov or the Stasny brothers? In such cases, is is not absolutely clear that these individuals have knowingly induced, aided or abetted the coming into Canada of other people? This is what the section states and there would be no choice.
This is why I invite the Hon. Member for Gatineau to listen to these views instead of being always so negative, to recognize that they are founded and to make the appropriate adjustments to avoid putting in the same category racketeers and people who work for humanitarian causes.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), whom I wish to thank for his very clear comments.
August 14, 1987

We have as a nation endorsed Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration provides that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This article does not allow a right to refugees to be granted asylum, but it does underline that they have a right to seek asylum. This is called universal access.
Yesterday, the Government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), revealed its intention of breaking this United Nations Convention when, on page 8043 of Hansard, the Minister said:
1 do not believe that universal access is the manner through which Canada
should take the number of refugees which we have said we will.
Would the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides comment on the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks a moment ago 1 had an opportunity to comment on that in French. I am very pleased to do so in English as well.
The statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) yesterday was unbelievable. He said, at page 8043 of Hansard:
I do not believe that universal access is the manner through which Canada
should take the number of refugees which we have said we will.
1 do not know if the Minister was speaking on behalf of the Government, but that statement is in direct contradiction to our commitment under the United Nations agreement. One can see in the Plaut report all the documentation that Canada had signed as a member of the United Nations agreement.
Universal access means that any refugee can claim to come to Canada. It does not mean that he will be accepted, but universal access means that his refusal or acceptance should be determined through the due process of law. What the Minister stated yesterday is in direct contradiction. He does not want to accept the idea of the due process of law to separate the type of person that Canada can accept. In saying this, he is in direct contradiction with this country's obligation in terms of its commitment within the United Nations.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate this morning on Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act. It deals primarily with deterrence and the detention of illegal immigrants. We have come back to Parliament this week to deal with this particular legislation along with Bill C-55, to respond to the real concern of Canadians that we are not in control of our borders.
This legislation does not concern legitimate immigration or genuine refugees or human rights of those living under repressive regimes. It deals with the protection of our own constituents, from Capilano to Newfoundland, against abusers, exploiters, and criminals; scofflaws who would have contempt
Immigration Act, 1976
for the laws of Canada. These kinds of people consider us easy marks for their schemes of fraud, piracy, and murder. This legislation is carefully aimed at a small minority, the smugglers and the conspirators who, unfortunately, have existed since the dawn of time.
Many Members who have already spoken in the debate have talked about the problem we are facing in Canada with the increasing numbers of persons who are seeking access to our country by our shores and through our airports by pretending to be refugees, but who obviously are not. That is the group we are trying to address by having tougher laws.
Canadians honestly feel, given the instances we have had in the past year, that Canada is becoming a patsy, an easy mark internationally. They are angry mad about it and do not want to be treated that way. It is a feeling of violation. For example, if one has a party in one's home, one invites guests and prepares for the hospitality. When there is a bunch of gatecrashers, one is very unhappy and wants to make sure they are removed. There is also the law to deal with them if they harm one's property.
Similarly, Canadians feel that there are gatecrashers at our borders who are trying to come in illegally but we do not have the tools under our present laws to deal with them effectively. Canadians want laws established that will deter such people. Such a mechanism is obviously the best remedy. Rather than having people arrive and go through all the processes, we should make sure there are already tough laws so that they are not induced to come here.
One obvious way to achieve this goal is by ensuring that those who are trying to organize that kind of illegal immigration to Canada, and those aiding and abetting it, are subject to very heavy penalties. Another method is by establishing a measure, such as the one in this Bill, requiring transportation companies to take much greater care in who they allow on their airlines or ships coming to Canada so that we are not faced with people arriving here without documentation and claiming refugee status. The fact is that in most cases such people are not genuine refugees.
We know that over the past year about 70 per cent of those who were claiming refugee status were not genuine refugees and are clogging access for real refugees. In fact, the number has risen this year so that about 90 per cent of those trying to get into this country as refugees are really not convention refugees about whom we are all concerned. It is that abuse that has brought us back here today.
Canadians are demanding that we as parliamentarians do something about it because they do not want to be used. That is why I am pleased to be debating Bill C-84 today and to have had the opportunity to debate Bill C-55 earlier. They have to be considered as a package to deal with the total problem.

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
The main element of Bill C-84 is to provide deterrence. It provides for increased fines for smugglers and particularly for those who would organize groups of 10 or more because those are the kinds of incidents with which we have been faced over the past year. It requires transportation carriers to have documents of all those travelling in such carriers.
Yesterday in Question Period, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), 1 believe, talked about what a terrible thing it would be if the airlines collected people's documents, that that would make us the same as the Soviet Union. That is nonsense. What we are asking airlines to do is to ensure that people, first, have valid travel documents, that is passports or visas, and, second, that they do not get torn up on the way or given to someone else before the person actually gets on the plane.
I think what is interesting is that Air Canada, our own airline, already has that system in place. It is a very practical system. When one checks in with Air Canada, depending on where you are coming from, you provide a passport or visa. Air Canada makes a record of it on its computers so it has the number of one's passport or visa. As we know, when one checks in one has access to various shops. Unfortunately, some of the other airlines do not do a further check, so what happens is that people give their travel documents to someone else in the airport and those travel documents just circulate around. Air Canada has overcome that problem. Now just before one gets on a plane the documentation is again checked so they know one has documentation when one boards the plane. Because Air Canada already has the passport numbers, and because the documentation was checked before boarding, one would assume the documentation would be with the individual as he leaves the plane, although I suppose it could be flushed down the toilet. But if an individual presents himself on arrival without any travel documents, Air Canada will have the numbers by which those documents can be traced, and that to me is a very sensible way of doing things.
It would seem that if other airlines used such care and diligence we would not have the kinds of problems we are having at the present time. Although I believe the boat incident has received the greatest publicity, we know that the greatest number of illegal aliens are coming in through our airports. That is really where the problem needs to be tackled.
A lot of airlines have said they do not want to bother about checking these passports. They know they are supposed to do it but they do not. However, they are going to have to bother now or they are going to be fined. It will not be worth their while not to do it. 1 believe that if this particular provision of the legislation is enforced, it will prove very successful in cutting down and deterring these people from even trying to board an airplane in this manner. The same thing, of course, would apply to ships.
Another aspect of the legislation deals with detention. I believe Canadians feel justifiably frustrated that someone can
land on our shores without documentation. We do not know who they are or anything about them, but they can be released into society. We do not know if they have a criminal record or if they are potential terrorists. We do not have the tools at present to correct that situation.
With respect to the Halifax situation, we could keep the immigrants for seven days. There were hearings. It was very difficult to detain these people until we had appropriate information about them so that we could be confident we would not have a security risk. Under this legislation we will be able to detain people until their identity is known. As well, for those who have a criminal record, the Minister will have the power to send them right back and not give them access to the refugee determination system. That is something for which Canadians have been asking.
Earlier in the week I spoke on Bill C-55. 1 talked about Canadians wanting us to do these things. I had the feeling that people were sort of scoffing at these feelings of ordinary Canadians; like what do they know about these things and what rights do they have. In my own view of democracy, I feel we are here as legislators, as the vassals of Canadians. We are not above them. We are not elitists. The Government is not above and separate from the rest of Canadians. We are here as their representatives. We are not always right. We do not pretend to be. However, we do the best job we can to ensure that the deeply held concerns of Canadians are represented and that we deal with them effectively.
The other day I read some letters from some of my constituents on this issue. I would like to share with you a few more, because I think it puts into focus the reason we are here and the deep-felt concerns my constituents in Capilano have on this issue. One letter in part states:
Having people enter the country in this manner and allowing them to stay is setting a potentially catastrophic precedent; it serves no one's interest and certainly does not serve common sense.
I agree.
Another letter states, and I quote:
... greater punishment must be handed down to those who knowingly break our laws as the captain, et cetera, did in this case and who now according to the news is getting off with a very light fine. Our laws are a joke to many of these people for they know the fine will be light compared to our hefty handouts.
We are increasing the fines to a half million dollars and 10 years in jail, so we are certainly responding to that kind of concern.
I read from a third letter:
In the future the immediate impounding and subsequent sale of the mode of transport; heavy fines and long prison terms should be given to the principals responsible for organizing these groups.
Again, we are responding to each of those requests. We have a provision in this Bill whereby the Government can seize the vessel, boat or plane and put it up for sale. There are heavy fines and long prison terms for those persons responsible for organizing these groups. That is in Clause 95.
August 14, 1987

Finally, 1 would like to share a letter from a constituent of mine. It was written to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), but I received a copy. 1 feel he might be interested in what the people in Vancouver are saying. The writer states:
Firstly I am very disappointed with the approach of your Liberal caucus, whereby you have been attempting to delay progress on the new Bill C-55 which would finally bring some semblance of fairness to a terrible Immigration Act put forward by your predecessor in 1976.
I say "hear, hear" to that.
The letter continues:
There should be no doubt in the minds of any Government M.P. in the Government or in the Official Opposition that the solution of this problem should take the highest priority,-
In our view, it is taking the highest priority but, unfortunately, in the mind of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), especially when he spoke the other day in Parliament, it does not seem to be the highest priority. He asked why we even bothered to recall Parliament. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I am having great difficulty in understanding the position of the opposition Party. The 174 persons arrived on the shores of Nova Scotia earlier in July. On July 17 the Leader of the Liberal Party said:
That boat might well have been apprehended and could have been turned back because this is not a legitimate refugee process.
This was said on CBC, the National. The reporter asked: "Do we know that now?", and the Right Hon. Leader replied:
Well, we know that the boat apparently comes from Europe and 1 don't know of any country in Europe that's persecuting people. I mean, this is not a boat that came from a country of origin.
1 agree with him on that. However, two days later on July 19 on CBC Radio, Cross Country Checkup, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was asked:
But, Mr. Turner, how do we know that some of these people wouldn't qualify under the Canadian system?
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition replied:
Well, they're not-if they came from Europe they were not fleeing a situation where they were facing prosecution or imprisonment or death.
He went on to say:
Well, I think the burden of proof-in situations where you've got a commercial enterprise and obviously a fraudulent effort to manipulate and bypass our regular refugee or our immigration policy-is on the boat.
His colleague, the Hon. Member for York West, the Liberal critic for immigration, said the following day, I suppose after hearing those comments:
I have some difficulty in appreciating that position, in its entirety, because our position has been for the last two years, and one that he's advocated as, is that there needs to be a processing.
A week later the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party said:
The people on board could have been examined given some due processing, either at sea, or at port.
Immigration Act, 1976
My heavens, Mr. Speaker, quite honestly I think the first instincts of the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party were right. I think he felt as outraged as we all did, but then all of the members of his caucus got together and said, no, we cannot say that. Now they are back here saying, good heavens, we cannot do any of these things. We are contravening all our international obligations. We have the wringing of hands as they talk about the church groups and so on.
1 do not know the position of the Liberal Party, but this has been typical in some other instances as well. When debating Bill C-55 this week the Leader of the Liberal Party had the temerity to say that public opinion on the refugee issue has been manipulated by the Government. That is nonsense. Has my colleague here, or my colleagues over there, somehow been manipulating Canadians? Canadians are outraged. They came to us and requested some action. That is what we are here to do.
The other point I wish to make is that during the debate we had a great discussion about proposed Section 95, and how terrible it is that the church groups will not be able to help refugees come across the border. 1 hope that my hon. colleagues are aware that the present Immigration Act provides for an offence. Section 95 states:
Every person who . . .
(m) knowingly induces, aids or abets or attempts to induce, aid or abet any person to contravene any provision of this Act or the regulations,
is guilty of an offence ...
In the regulations under the Immigration Act there is a requirement that every immigrant shall be in possession of a valid and subsisting passport issued to that immigrant, or a valid and subsisting identity or travel document. In other words, under the Immigration Act a passport, a visa, or a travel document is required. Anyone who aids or abets someone to enter Canada in contravention of that is presently contravening the law.
What has been added in proposed Section 95.1 is not new. It presently is an offence to aid or abet someone to enter Canada without an appropriate travel document. What has been done is increase the penalty for that particular offence. It is the people who are organizing the illegal immigrants that we wish to stop. We have the offence on the books. Has it been a problem for the church groups? No. The church groups are dealing with legitimate convention refugees.
Under the regulations it states that Subsection (1) does not apply to a convention refugee who is in possession of a valid subsisting immigrant visa where, in the opinion of the visa officer who issued the immigrant visa, it would be impractical to require that person to obtain a passport, or an identity or travel document. The provision is presently in the Immigration Act to deal with the convention refugee.
The other thing many of the opposition Members have missed is what now happens with the church groups, or should

August 14, 1987
happen according to the law; that is, they bring these persons to the border. Usually this is to the Canada-U.S. border. They have these persons present themselves to an immigration officer. That is legal. What is illegal is if they are brought into Canada and do not go through that process. That is what we are trying to stop. The fears of the members of the opposition Party are phoney and false. That will be discussed in the committee.
I have looked at the legislation, and it seems to me to be totally fair. In my view, and in the view of my colleagues, anyone who breaks the law should be treated in the same way. The ministers in my riding would not counsel their parishioners to break the law. The churches should not say that they are above the law. There are ways within the law whereby they can help the genuine convention refugees.
I would hope that we could move quickly on the passage of Bill C-84 and respond to the concerns of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Mr. Heap:: I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), particularly when she was speaking on the matter of the amendments in proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2. 1 wish to ask the Hon. Member to confirm that it is not illegal to assist a person to come from the United States to the Canadian border to a Canadian immigration office. It is not illegal to do that, regardless of the person's possession of papers or travel documents?
In Section 95 of the present Canadian legislation which takes precedence over regulations it states:
Every person who
(a) comes into Canada at any place other than a port of entry and fails to report to an immigration officer for examination as required by subsection 12(1),
is guilty of an offence .. .
In Section 95(f) it states;
Every person who . . .
(f) eludes examination or inquiry under this Act. . .
It goes on to detail the different ways in which a person may elude, cut short, or escape examination.
In other words, it focuses on a duty to immediately come to an immigration office for examination in accordance with the Act. Under Section 95 only in the case of a person who eludes or fails to report, or in the case of a person who aids or abets someone in alluding or failing to report is it an offence.
Therefore, 1 am asking the Hon. Member if she considers that we should maintain Section 95 as it is, and that the proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 ought to be brought into line with that Section? Whether the person is doing it for profit, or whether it is a church person, as an Anglican priest I agree with her 100 per cent, that there should be no special privilege for church persons, clergy, or lay of any denomination
whatsoever. That has gone with the middle ages. Does the Hon. Member agree that any person who brings in a refugee claimant, or what might be thought to be a refugee claimant, and who brings that person immediately to the immigration office, is acting legally according to our present law and should not be made illegal in the amended law?


Mary Collins: It is my understanding that it is not an offence to counsel a person to present himself to an officer to tell the truth. It would be an offence to counsel a person to present false documents, or in some way not to tell the truth. It is not an offence to transport a person to Canada for the purpose of presenting that person to an immigration officer. In my understanding, this section does not change that. This section has stiffer penalties for those who would organize or abet people to attempt to enter Canada without proper documentation, or false documentation. If they are convention refugees, as the regulations now allow for, they would not necessarily have to have that documentation to begin with.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it eleven o'clock, I advise the Hon. Member that she will have five minutes left for questions and comments after Question Period.
It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 21.
OO)



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Stein Valley, as you probably know, is the largest undeveloped watershed in southwestern British Columbia. Wildlife and recreation are great here because there are no roads.
The Stein River supports salmon and sports fisheries. The valleys of the Stein and its tributaries are covered with forests. The Stein's lower reaches are important to native cultural traditions. Archaeological sites and outstanding Indian pictographs give the Stein a cultural significance of exceptional value.
The Lillooet Tribal Council and the Lytton Indian Band are making a strong case to preserve the Stein. Between August 1 and August 4 they hosted the third Voices for the Wilderness Festival in the headwaters of the Stein. It was attended by 1,500 people, including David Suzuki.
The federal Government should play an active role in resolving the conflict over the future of the Stein Valley. I urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
August 14, 1987

(Mr. McKnight) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to impress upon the British Columbia Government the value of the Stein and to find a solution which will respect native rights and preserve this great wilderness resource for future generations.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the trade talks with the United States are important to all Canadians. Having guaranteed access to the world's largest market can be of enormous benefit to Canadian industry. Most Canadians look forward to the draft agreement in October.
Of vital importance to our negotiators in that agreement is the protection of Canadian agriculture. No agreement could be acceptable without recognition of that vital sector of the Canadian economy.
An essential element of any protection for agriculture must include protection for the tender fruit industry. We cannot have our fruit farmers exposed to a completely open border or to the threat of American dumping.
Closely related to the tender fruit industry is, as well, our wine industry. Some 16,000 jobs are directly or indirectly dependent upon the Canadian wine industry. It must have the support of our negotiators and, indeed, all Canadians. Our trade negotiators must ensure that any agreement with the United States recognizes the vital importance of the wine industry to Ontario and to all of Canada.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed the Province of British Columbia has one of the worst welfare systems and is now introducing even more regressive policies.
Recently the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the social service system discriminates against young people under the age of 26 who receive a lower rate of social assistance. Did the B.C. Government immediately raise rates by at least $25 to equalize payments regardless of age? No. Instead, it decided to give a token increase to youth and to have those over 26 years of age pay for this with reduced welfare rates, forcing all recipients to sleep in slums and to eat at food banks.
This kind of anti-human, punitive policy should not be subsidized by the federal Government which pays 50 per cent
of welfare costs. I call upon the federal Government to review and reform the Canada Assistance Plan to ensure that welfare rates across Canada are at least equal to the poverty line.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the community of Bloomfield Station in my riding has joined with numerous other rural communities across Canada to express its opposition to Canada Post's renovation of rural postal service.
I have had meetings in Bloomfield with residents and community leaders. I had meetings with Canada Post officials, and Canada Post has met with the community. The residents of Bloomfield were not satisfied with the answers Canada Post gave them.
Post Office officials were totally unprepared to answer the questions. In fact, many key questions such as those referring to the total cost of implementing this new system, the cost difference between the old and the new service, and the location of group boxes being installed were among some of the important questions left unanswered.
In the past 1 have supported changes to postal service in my constituency, but Bloomfield Station, in the words of its residents "is not a sleepy little town that can be whitewashed" by Canada Post.
I strongly support the people of Bloomfield in their opposition to Canada Post's disruption of the traditional service to which this community is accustomed. It is unlikely that the savings gained by changing to this new system will amount to anything significant, certainly not worth the disruption to the traditional life of the community.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, when the Nielsen Task Force Report on Agriculture came out last winter it recommended that the Government force accrual accounting on farmers instead of the cash basis that has always been available to them. The report said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) could extract $1 billion more in income tax from farmers if the Minister switched to the accrual method.
Sure enough, when the Minister of Finance tabled his White Paper on Tax Reform there was a provision to force farmers to use the accrual accounting method where farmers are claiming

August 14, 1987
losses from other income. He is obviously determined to get the $1 billion in income taxes that the Nielsen Task Force report recommended.
At its semi-annual meeting in Frederiction, New Brunswick, last month the Canadian Federation of Agriculture unanimously passed a resolution calling for the retention of cash accounting for farm filers who wish to use it, and for the retention of the income-averaging provisions.
1 call upon the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to back off and stop this new tax grab on farmers, many of whom face an already desperate financial situation and who are struggling to survive without more income taxes and a more complicated accounting system.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of weeks the Leader of the Liberal Opposition and Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) as well as the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) have been attempting by every means to put fear into the minds of people in the Abitibi concerning regional development, suggesting the Abitibi region and Quebec have been abandoned. This Government has been showing leadership since 1984, and thanks to our business people and workers in the Abitibi, our area ranks first in Quebec for the decline in unemployment.
Opposition Parties should look at the situation of Abitibi now and I challege them to compare the years 1985-1986-1987 to 1982-1983-1984.
This Conservative Government has been meeting its obligation in Abitibi. Hon. opposition Members should review the regional projects completed to date and travel to that great remote area-they will be astonished at our performance.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected to defend my area, and you may rest assured that Abitibi will not be penalized by the change in DRIEs direction. And together with business people, chambers of commerce, city counsellors and the local population, we will remain vigilant.



FARM C REDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am concerned about the future of the Farm Credit Corporation. Future prospects for the organization are going down as its interest rates are going up. That is certainly not a positive move for beginning or expanding farmers.
I would like to give the House an example of some of the increases. The five-year fixed interest loan is now 11.5 per cent, a jump of 1.5 percentage points. A new farmer seeking a loan of over 15 years' term will have to pay 12 per cent.
FCC has been criticized by farm groups as lacking in policy direction. It is time that the Government decided what role FCC is to play in the farm credit field. The organization is supposed to aid producers seeking capital for mortgages or expansion, but with these recent increases it will drive customers away.
Last year the lending agency introduced commodity-based loans. However, if commodity prices increased substantially then so would the principal of the loans. Acceptance of the program has therefore been very slow.
For the last few years the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has successfully offered farmers the option of buying down their interest rates to an affordable 8 per cent. Why could the Government here not direct FCC to follow this lead?

[ Translation]



TAX REFORM


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this Government imposed 25 new taxes or tax increases since they were elected in 1984, thereby reducing the purchasing power in the lowest income brackets. With its tax reform proposals, tabled in this House on June 18, 1987, the Government is increasing the burden of Canadians by levying this time a general tax on goods and services, including food.
Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity this last month to consult people in my constituency and to urge Canadians to strongly oppose that provision. I have a number of petitions, as you know, bearing the signatures of people who strongly oppose that and urge the Government not to proceed with a tax on food, to set aside a measure that is absolutely regressive and unfair to people in my constituency.
August 14, 1987



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Jonquiere, Becancour, Kitimat, although off the beaten path, these centres of the Canadian aluminum smelting industry play an important role in the Canadian economy. Our aluminum producers, with some government assistance, have used a period of low prices and poor demand to modernize their plants so that they number amongst the most productive in the world.
With increasing demand and improving prices the industry now stands poised to reap the benefits. These benefits will be enhanced, not only for primary producers but also for downstream manufacturers of aluminum products once we successfully complete the free trade negotiations with the United States thereby opening up huge new markets for the Canadian aluminum industry.



WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are very skeptical about what the Canadian Government is going to do with the western diversification plan so far as it affects native people. The federal Government has so far refused to sign the Northern Development Agreement extension.
Native people are waiting for funding under the Native Economic Development Fund which has been frozen as part of the DR1E freeze since June and no new projects have been approved since that time. As a result, native people in northern Manitoba are waiting and waiting and waiting for projects to be approved.
So far the province has picked up on a short-term basis a lot of the shared cost programs. This should not be necessary. Get off your rumps and do something for the native people of northern Manitoba.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I guess to start off 1 must say that 1 see the wolf in sheep's clothing this morning. 1 got a letter from Bruno Gerussi in which he is looking for contributions for the NDP and its
Oral Questions
Leader. I remember when the NDP used to be against what they called income tax breaks for small businesses.
It says in this letter that the contributor will receive a generous income tax deduction for the contribution, 75 per cent of a $100 contribution or 50 per cent on $550.
1 really wonder what is going on with the NDP. First their literature was fluorescent orange and now it is down to blue and green.
1 remember between 1980 and 1984 interest rates were at their highest, there were bankruptcies across the country, and unemployment was at its highest. I really wish the NDP would come clean with Canadians. Are they with Bob White or John Bulloch? Let Canadians know where you stand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health said in this House that the Conservative Government does not recognize that any individual has the right to claim refugee status in Canada and be entitled to a fair hearing. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that statement flies in the face of the UN Convention on Refugees which has been supported by Canada since 1951.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister support the statement of his colleague and can he say whether the Prime Minister has informed the UN that we have changed Canada's traditional policy, one which is accepted by every progressive nation in the world?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, we will not violate our international obligations. We need be given no lesson on our commitment to Geneva and what we signed there in concert with other nations. Neither will we violate our commitment to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that is clear.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said yesterday that "we", meaning the Government of Canada, have already stated our varying points on universal access. He said he does not believe that universal access works and went on to deny what the Minister has just said.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Canada for decades has been recognizing the right of refugees to non-removal under the Geneva Convention. But I am putting once more the question to the Deputy Prime Minister who can speak on behalf of the Government of

August 14, 1987
Oral Questions
Canada: Is the Prime Minister in agreement with the comments made by his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Does he not agree that in so doing, the Minister of National Health and Welfare puts us in the category of the most oppressive countries in the world?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have before the House for debate a new refugee determination process. The current process is absurd. It has not functioned, it is unfair and chaotic. What we have before us is a fair and expeditious method of identifying and welcoming real refugees. Not everyone in the world requires our protection. Five billion people should not be allowed to make a claim here.
There are people with manifestly unfounded claims. There are people who have refugee status elsewhere. There are individuals who have lived a sufficient length of time in another country and can be returned to that country or seek protection of that country. Bill C-55 will make sure that in three to seven days those individuals can go back to where they came from and start the process, if indeed they would like to immigrate to this country, under the fair and just criteria that everyone else has to meet.


AMENDING LEGISLATION-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not responded to the question. Everyone in this House recognizes that Canada needs a credible refugee policy. However, does he not recognize that in the proposed legislation, in Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, his Government has come up with the most paranoid piece of legislation ever brought forward in this country and places us in a class equalled only by the Soviet Union?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Does he recognize that he is placing us in that position?


Mr. Mazankowski:: That is absolutely false and you know it.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are saying no to illegal aliens and yes to real refugees.
Queue jumping is intolerable. It is unfair that an individual who is not a legitimate refugee can jump to the head of the line. That undermines a legitimate immigration policy. It incites further abuse.
We can understand the frustration of a lot of Canadians who have waited desperately to bring in their families. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated this week, we will allow more families to come to this country because we will open up the family class and hopefully be allowed to increase immigration levels when Cabinet allows that decision to come forward in the fall.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF NEW LEGISLATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Prime Minister dramatically recalled Parliament for a so-called emergency but he has not had one minute to participate in the debate and render his opinion on this new legislation.
Given that the Minister prides himself as a tolerant man and protector of civil liberties and minority rights, does he not believe that Bill C-84, under which Jim Peterson, the brother of the Premier of Ontario, could have been fined or imprisoned for assisting Mikhail Baryshnikov in escaping the Soviet Union to come to this country, is repugnant to the Canadian sense of justice and, if left unamended, would bring court challenges that would paralyse his new policy and render it even more chaotic than it is today?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong. He does not understand the current immigration law. For 10 years there has been a process under Section 95(m) of the Immigration Act which I would ask that Member to reread. It says that anyone who aids and abets can be prosecuted. However, I ask the Hon. Member how many church people have we prosecuted in 10 years?
On the other side, we have taken that general law and made it more specific in Clause 95(1). In doing so we will get to those who are organizing the clandestine movements of people, those who traffic in human misery. That process must stop.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just admitted that this law will have the potential to convict clergy, civil libertarian groups and any other Canadians. He must learn that the end never, ever justifies the means.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ADOPT POSITION OF MEMBER FOR LA PRAIRIE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the same Minister.
If the Minister will not accept the reasons put forward by the Opposition, is he at least planning to follow the advice of one of his own colleagues, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), who is not only Chairman of the Standing Committee on Immigration, but also Chairman of the Committee on Immigration within the Conservative caucus, and who asked yesterday the Government to bring major amendments to this Bill, in order not to violate the Canadian Charter and break our commitments to the United Nations?
Does he feel also that the opinions of his Conservative colleagues are both illegitimate and irresponsible too?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Hon. Member for York West
August 14, 1987

is indeed speaking for the whole of his caucus on this issue. Certainly others of his Party have indicated clearly how pleased they are with the deterrent and detention aspects of the new Bill we brought forward.
Why does he not listen to what the Hon. Member for Spadina said which is that anyone and everyone who is guilty of a violation should indeed be convicted? This new Bill is a deterrence to all those who want to traffic in and mass-market human misery. There will be convictions, with fines of up to $500,000 and 10 years in jail.
On undocumented arrivals, we will not arbitrarily detain but will have the right to hold those people until we know who they are and where they come from. If those people are brought to Canada, we will charge the transportation companies $5,000 per person. Indeed, we are authorizing them to collect documents and have them available to us when they arrive.


BILL C-84-APPLICATION OF CLAUSE 95(1)
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister of State for Immigration, in reply to the most recent three questions, said two things. First, he said that the Government was only interested in getting at clandestine entries into Canada and, second, that he favoured the principle that everyone obey the law. We favour both those points, but my question-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We will see if the Conservatives will be clapping after I ask my question which is directed to the Minister. Will he answer the question he refused to answer yesterday? According to Clause 95(1) of the proposed law, a priest who accompanies a genuine refugee claimant who has no documents or passport to the Canadian border will be committing an offence. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is the case? If it is true, will he accept an amendment so that such a priest will not be violating the law?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. I will repeat, for the Leader's sake:

Finally there is an opinion on immigration on the NDP side. We have not heard one word from you, Sir, for one month on immigration. We have not heard one word for one month on this issue and today, suddenly, you get up.
I said yesterday that it is not an offence to counsel a person to present himself to an officer and tell the truth. I said yesterday that it is not an offence to transport an illegal alien to Canada for the purpose of presenting that person to an officer. It is an offence to aid persons to evade legitimate immigration controls either at the port of entry or in Canada. I think that is very clear.
Oral Questions MINISTER S POSITION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister had been in the House two days ago he would have heard me making a speech condemning his Bill. If he had been around a month ago when the shipload of people arrived off the coast of Nova Scotia, he would have heard me say publicly that we had a moral obligation to accept those people into the country. I cannot account for the Minister's ignorance. That is his responsibility.
Since the Minister just refused to refer to the appropriate clause in the appropriate Bill, will he now acknowledge that Clause 95(1) of Bill C-84 would in fact make susceptible to the full force of the law a priest who accompanies an honest refugee, who does not have documentation or a passport, to a Canadian border? Will he honestly admit that the law his officials have given him and he has presented to the House would make a priest guilty of a criminal offence under those circumstances? Will he admit that and will he change it?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Shields:: You should have asked the question Shirley Carr gave you.


John Edward Broadbent: You will stay at the level you are in the polls if you keep that up.


Jack Wendele Shields: Shirley Carr writes better questions, Ed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Let the Minister waffle.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said earlier, the law is very clear, and the legislation has been in existence for 10 years. For 10 years, the law has said that people who violate the Immigration Act may be prosecuted. This has not changed, and in the past 10 years, none of the volunteer groups, church groups or other organizations have been prosecuted under the Act, and the purpose of the Act is quite clear. I said this again yesterday and earlier today, that anyone who brings people before Immigration Officers who are the only people with the authority to judge whether a person is a refugee or not-only people employed for this purpose by the Department of Immigration have that right. All these people who are brought before Immigration Officers, and I say this for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the officers who have to decide whether they are refugees or not, these people will not be prosecuted under the Act. They are not breaking the law in this case.


UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows it is up to the courts to interpret the law as it is written. The proposed law the Minister has put before us

August 14, 1987
Oral Questions
would make criminals of all kinds of Canadians who, under present law, are not made criminals. That is the reality.
I would like to turn to another clause since the Minister has refused to deal with that one. Will he now inform the people of Canada that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees has in fact informed the Canadian Government that the proposed law the Government is introducing contravenes a Convention of the United Nations which up to this point Canada has had the proud record of supporting?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have read the letter from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and we are keeping in touch with him. We intend to provide an appropriate response. However, the Bill is entirely in line with the commitment we made as a result of signing the United Nations Convention on Refugees, and we have all the explanations we need. Once again, I am not going to let someone else teach me how to-

1 just want to recall something. The last time you had something to say other than your speech yesterday, Sir, on immigration, was in Vancouver. You said that we also are in the process of tightening up the law so that if we find out that refugees are not bona fide, we kick them out of the country. That is what we put forward, Sir.


John Edward Broadbent: That's right. That's perfectly right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You ought to go back to high school. That's pathetic, just pathetic.


Mr. Crosbie:: You're talking out of both sides of your mouth as usual.


Mr. Masse:: You're on the spot now, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: We're on the spot?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can be of some assistance. I recognize that when issues are strongly felt, memories regarding the proper rules of procedure become short. The use of the word "you" has been creeping back into the Chamber and Hon. Members will know that, strictly speaking, the Chair should interrupt when that form of address is used. Of course the Chair does not want to interrupt when important matters are being discussed, but I think there has been too much of it and 1 will be interrupting from now on.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has justified changes to the Patent Act which will substantially raise the price of drugs for Canadians by saying that there will be an increase in research and development.
A study commissioned by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion says quite conclusively that under a free trade agreement there will be little possibility of increased investment in research and development. That study was commissioned by officials in his own Government. We know at the same time when the Minister reintroduced the Bill last June he dropped whatever guarantees there were in the original legislation that would require that investment.
Given the conclusions reached by federal officials that under free trade there would not be further investment, is it not prudent and proper that, as the legislation comes back to this House, the Government as a first step should introduce a clause that would clearly guarantee the jobs, research and development and investment that he consistently promises? Should we not have that clause in the Bill?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are so many errors in the Hon. Member's preamble that I do not have the time to correct them. Prices will not rise as he stated.
The justification for the Bill is fairness and to get research and development here and make sure Canada participates in the very important biotechnological revolution. We must be there.
It is immoral for any responsible politician to suggest that we should let other countries do the research and we will simply buy what they have later on, presumably by selling our natural resources. That is unfair to Canadian scientists and student scientists who want to work in this area.
There is already a public commitment of $900 million. I have a note in my hand from the Hon. Member for Burlington saying that a company in his riding wants to make an investment of $30 million. That is not part of the $900 million. They want to know what to do because they cannot justify it if Bill C-22 is not passed.
We have built into the legislation a policy review by Government in four years and Parliament in 10 years. We will have annual monitoring of the research performance of these companies reported to this House. It contains all the safety mechanisms needed to ensure that we get these benefits. We will get them if the Liberal Party will co-operate.
August 14, 1987


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Minister absolutely refused to deal with the question and the fact that there are reports from officials in his own Government which clearly contradict all those statements.
If analyses are available that the investment will not take place under free trade, regardless of the commitments we have received from groups like Principal Investors and others that he knows well, we want to know why the Government is submitting primarily to pressure from the U.S. administration to get this legislation through and refusing to listen to and acknowledge the kinds of arguments put forward by senior citizens, church groups and others who represent all Canadians. They are saying do not raise drug prices simply to give in to your American masters.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member keeps saying drug prices will rise and he knows that is false. If he chooses not to accept the public statements by numerous drug companies, if he chooses not to listen to the academic community across the country, our research scientists and Canadian owners of the new biotechnology which are depending upon this legislation for their future, let him talk to his former colleague, Judy Erola. She can go through it item by item and verify every dollar of that $900 million I have been talking about. If he does not believe me, does he accept the word of his former cabinet colleague?


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Globe and Mail reports today that U.S. immigration law exempts a person from prosecution if he or she brings a would-be refugee across the border and takes him directly to immigration authorities. In light of the statement that the Minister made yesterday, which is not law but which he repeated today, will he agree that Bill C-84 ought to follow that same reasonable principle and amend his proposed Clauses 95.1 and 95.2 in accordance with that principle?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the House has specific procedures for this sort of thing which specify when and where amendment proposals may be made. I have always said I was prepared to consider amendments. And when I do, I will see what can be done. I am not saying we will accept or reject them, but I think there is a specific procedure. The Hon. Member for Spadina is asking whether I am willing
Oral Questions
to propose amendments. I imagine he intends to make a proposal in the legislative committee, and we will see what happens.


CONFORMITY WITH EXISTING LAW
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter about which the public is extremely concerned as you can see from the media and the representations we have received. If the Minister will not bring it into line with American law will he at least put to rest a possible public misunderstanding by saying that he is willing to bring Clause 95.1 and Clause 95.2 into line with the existing Canadian law which means that it is not an offence to bring a person across the border to immigration officers?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, for the third time since yesterday, I repeat that it is not an offence to counsel or transport an illegal alien in Canada for the purpose of presenting that person to an officer. I think that is very clear. It is not an offence. That is already in the Bill.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and is with regard to the serious situation throughout Canada involving the Principal Group of companies and their associates.
Can the Minister inform the House when he became aware that the Principal Group Ltd. gave the depositors in First Investors and Associated Investors bank books with the Principal Group logo on which bank books were depicted "Principal Savings and Trust"-regulated, by the way, by the federal Government-and also saying, "Member Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation"? Does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs now believe that that was a deceptive practice in which Principal Savings and Trust was a major participant?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in my view the question posed by the Hon. Member is posed in the wrong capital city, in the wrong legislature, and to the wrong Government. As I have said to the Hon. Member before, there are 30 different companies in the Principal Group. They are all provincially regulated. None of them are federally regulated. One of them is insured by the CDIC.
All communications of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with its member companies are confidential as

August 14, 1987
Oral Questions
was affirmed in the last piece of legislation, Bill C-42, which was passed in June. Therefore, I am not privy to the documents to which the Hon. Member is referring. The CDIC may be privy to them, but 1 am not.
The Member has made reference to other communications saying that 1 have apparently received them. 1 have not received them and, therefore, ask him to withdraw that allegation.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say with great respect that the Minister is acting irresponsibly in carrying out his responsibilities to the taxpayers of Canada, particularly those depositors who were insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. He is now saying that they can participate in a fraud against the Canadian people.


PRINCIPAL SAVINGS AND TRUST-CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister admitted yesterday on the floor of the House of Commons that he was aware of the capitalization problems of Principal Savings and Trust in May. What test did he use to satisfy himself that there were no deceptive practices and no false statements and that no fraudulent practices were being carried out by Principal Savings and Trust? Will he now live up to his responsibility, or is he going to pass it on to the Alberta authorities?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it would be totally unacceptable to the fabric of the country for the federal Government to invade the complete jurisdiction of the provinces over financial institutions which they regulate. The CDIC is an insurer, not a regulator. It is like an automobile insurer. Automobile insurers do not set the traffic laws of a province.
1 made contact today with the Alberta Treasurer and hope to speak to him later today to make it clear to him that I encourage the Alberta Government to take all possible actions to protect investors, help these people, and ensure that Alberta continues to be a province with a good reputation as a place to invest.


AGRICULTURE
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister is aware that the potato farmers of New Brunswick have been waiting since 1985 for a stabilization payment. Despite the best efforts of the New Brunswick Minister of Agriculture, Hazen Myers, and despite a statement by the Prime Minister in the fall of 1986 that the matter would be
dealt with expeditiously, the farmers of New Brunswick have not received a nickel.
Will the Minister tell the potato producers of New Brunswick that, just as he found in excess of $1 billion for the prairie grain producers, he will not forget them and will get those badly needed dollars to them right away?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the continuing representations made by my colleague, the Member for Fundy Royal, on behalf of the potato farmers and indeed all people in the agricultural community. I must remind him though that the grain and oil seeds farmers in his province of New Brunswick were recipients of their portion of the Special Canadian Grains Program.
I appreciate as well the representations that are being made to me by my provincial counterpart in New Brunswick, the Hon. Hazen Myers. I want to inform both the Hon. Member and my provincial counterpart that we are actively considering this matter. 1 hope to be in a position to make a positive announcement in the near future. 1 want them to rest assured because the record will show that we deliver on all of our promises.


THE CONSTITUTION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. Constitutional experts from the National Association of Women and the Law, LEAF, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Constitution, and also from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, after intensive study have all concluded that equality rights may not be protected under the proposed Constitutional Accord.
In view of this and the new information raised at the committee which appears to substantiate this view, will the Government take another look at the Accord and, if there is any risk at all, amend the legislation to ensure that equality rights will be fully protected?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government is, of course, quite concerned about these issues. The Minister of Justice addressed himself to this question yesterday. There are always experts who are able to support any side of an issue. There is more than one way to interpret any constitutional document. However, the constitutional experts whom we have consulted and rely upon assure us that in their opinion there is no danger to equality rights for women or for anyone else in the amendments which were agreed to at Meech Lake.
With regard to the Government reviewing the situation, a most capable parliamentary committee is now receiving
August 14, 1987

submissions. We have great confidence in it and will, of course, look at the recommendations in its report when it has concluded its deliberations.


REQUEST FOR MEETING ON ISSUE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 will address my supplementary question to the Minister who responded. Women across Canada watching the proceedings of First Ministers' Conferences on TV realized that there was not one woman present in all the deliberations and policy decisionmaking which was going on.
Remembering the Government's commitment to equality and to involving women in equal roles, will the Government show its commitment by undertaking a meeting with relevant women's groups to hear their expert legal opinions with regard to a possible threat to equality rights? I can tell you that they have some very competent lawyers.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 know that the Hon. Member has an important question. I am sure that the Minister will respond. 1 have indicated that it is not appropriate in this Chamber to use the personal "you". I know the Hon. Member would want to co-operate. The Hon. Member will complete her question.
The Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think I have the gist of the question, Mr. Speaker. It was the 11 First Ministers who agreed upon the so-called Meech Lake amendments. It is not the fault of the Government that none of those 11 First Ministers happened to be women. Doubtless, it is most desirable that in the future some of the First Ministers, if not all of them, be women. We would applaud that if it occurred.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: in fact, I would volunteer my wife as a perfectly suitable candidate. She is my First Minister already, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: She would be a lot better in here.


John Carnell Crosbie: In response to the Hon. Member's request, we now have a joint parliamentary committee meeting and considering these very questions. We will have to wait to see what it reports.
With respect to the Hon. Leader of the NDP, it is good to see that he is still able to mutter after the trimming he got earlier in the Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of DR1E.
For a number of days I have been warning the Minister that his Department is about to collapse and its incompetence is making Quebec entrepreneurs suffer.
Today, we heard that 400 Quebec companies were waiting for replies from his Department. The President of the Association of Industrial Commissioners has confirmed that the situation is the same across the province.
My question to the Minister is this: When is he going to stop misleading the House and misleading the Canadian public? When will he stop bragging about a Department that is on the brink of bankruptcy?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State Responsible for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statements this morning are patently false.
I told him this week, and I want to repeat it today, Mr. Speaker: Under the Liberals, the Department spent a little over $700 million, of which about $250 or $260 million went to Quebec.
Under the Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker, and I am referring to this year, we are going to spend over $850 million, including more than $350 million for Quebec, which means $100 million more for Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
The second point I want to make, and in fact, I made it earlier this week, is that the situation at the Department is being monitored. We are receiving more applications because of the improved economy and the popularity of our programs.
Since June 1987, Mr. Speaker, we approved over 28 projects worth $42 million in Quebec alone, and we did so over a period of only six weeks. I don't want to hear anyone telling me this Department is bankrupt.


SITUATION OF DEPARTMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: What I am asking the Minister is this, and I ask him to have the honesty to tell the truth to the House as his officials have already admitted the facts of the situation.
There are unprocessed applications everywhere in his Department. The Minsiter has no money to keep future commitments and this is why these applications are not being processed. It takes longer and longer to complete the evaluations, from what the industrial commisioners in Val-d'Or, Drummondville and Saint-Hyacinthe are saying. All these people cannot be lying, but someone is not telling the truth. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to be honest enough to

August 14, 1987
Oral Questions
recognize that his Department is having problems, that it is unable to deliver the goods and that it should stop misleading manufacturers.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a comment contained in the very article to which the Hon. Member referred, where we can read: "Contacted in Sherbrooke, the Regional Executive Manager for the Department, Mr. Begin, recognized that the waiting periods are now a bit longer than usual, but pointed out that all previous financial commitments are being met." It is obvious that we are receiving a greater number of applications because our programs are popular, because we have an economic recovery and because this Government is sensitive to the needs of the population. These are the reasons.
Mr. Speaker, instead of stating obvious facts which only show the level of commitment of this Government, my colleague would do better to direct his energy towards convincing his colleagues to support Bill C-22, which would bring hundreds of millions of dollars of investments to Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-TARIFF ON FROZEN DINNER PRODUCTS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Minister for International Trade or the Minister of Agriculture. In the House motion on bilateral trade talks, we protected agricultural marketing systems. Yet rumours abound that that protection did not continue to include products such as chicken and turkey in frozen TV dinners which now have a tariff of 17.5 per cent. Is that tariff on the table, even though erasing it would have the negative impact of reducing production of those products in this country by as much as 15 per cent?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should take some satisfaction in knowing that the positions we expressed in the March 16 debate, I believe, and in other statements subsequently both by myself and my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, have not changed.


POULTRY PRODUCT TARIFFS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it was never clear in those statements whether the tariffs on poultry products outside the actual marketing systems would
be protected. Will the Minister assure the House that if these tariffs are lifted, some 1,800 families affected in the case of chicken and turkeys will have some protection for their jobs or some reimbursement as their jobs and product are being replaced by U.S. product?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member of the terminology I used on March 16 and have used subsequently. I have indicated that the supply management system in Canada would remain. 1 have also indicated that the underpinnings that would be required would have to remain.
W'e recognize that if that is the case, then it could cause some difficulty with the food industry, Canada's largest manufacturing industry and the largest single employer. Therefore, some complementary measures must remain in place if we are not going to put in jeopardy the financial viability of Canada's food industry. Those details are quite rightly being worked out with the Department and those people who represent that industry on the SAGIT.


EINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Thousands of Edmontonians, Albertans, and indeed Canadians, face serious financial loss through the bankruptcy of the Principal Group. When I return to Edmonton this week-end, may I ask the Minister what I can tell those of my constituents who demand to know what the Government of Canada has done, is doing, and what it proposes to do, and when?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend asked that question so that he can return to his constituents this week-end with the appropriate information. First, with regard to the CD1C insured institution, I can inform him that the CDIC will be in touch with all those depositors and reimbursement will be flowing hopefully within three weeks.
Second, as regards allegations of misrepresentations, it is very important to realize that there is now a judicial inquiry in Alberta. They can direct their allegations to that judicial inquiry but, as in all matters of this sort, be it provincial or federal, they can also direct their allegations to the Marketing Practices Branch of Consumer and Corporate Affairs federally-
Finally with regard to protecting investors, helping these people, and insuring that Alberta remains a good place to invest, they should contact the Treasurer of Alberta, just as I am doing today.
August 14, 1987

Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I am very pleased that he agreed to meet with me this morning, some several weeks after 1 requested a meeting. 1 am also most pleased that after I raised in the House the fact that there was no document signed between Firestone and the Government to protect the $13.5 million grant, the document has finally been signed by the Minister.
However, 1 want to ask him why, in finally putting his signature to an agreement with Firestone that will permit it to begin moving equipment out of the company next week, he did not include a clause that would guarantee repayment of every single penny to the federal Government if a new purchaser is not found?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows, because I told her this morning, that this money has been put in escrow in a trust account so that in the meantime we can try to find an alternative purchaser. We can keep all our options open so that we can provide assistance for the new buyer in order to make sure that the workers in her region are taken care of. That is our responsibility.


REQUEST FOR REPAYMENT GUARANTEE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not seem to understand my question. I understand that money has been put in trust and will be made available to a new buyer. My question is clear and simple. If no new buyer is found, why did the Minister not include as a condition in this document that all moneys must be repaid to the federal Government? Why is he giving Firestone carte blanche to start moving equipment out next week without even getting a guarantee in this document that it will repay that $13.5 million grant if no new buyer is found?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, first, I must make a correction. The equipment we have allowed the company to move is simply surplus equipment which is not being used for current production. We have ensured that all the equipment which might be needed by a future buyer will remain in place. As for the amount, $13.5 million have been placed in trust until February, 1988, by which time we shall have had all the time necessary and every opportunity to take legal action if we so desire. All options are open to the Government.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the entry of 174 East Asians into Canada. Members of the Opposition are apparently not aware that Mr. Rolph Nygren is spending one year in the Halifax County Correctional Centre for the simple offence of aiding and abetting that illegal entry into Canada.
Is the Minister prepared to prosecute any other persons who aided their illegal entry into Canada? And in the presence of obvious evidence of avoiding entry at a proper port of entry and destroying documents of identification, why were some of the East Asians themselves not prosecuted for illegally entering Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that Bill C-84 addresses these issues. In my opinion, the fines and prison terms that are provided to deter people from abusing the system are much harsher and much clearer than before, and I shall have no hesitation in taking legal action against anyone who attempts to use illegal means to bring people into Canada, exactly as we have done for captain Nygren, but this will depend on the fines imposed in each case.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that as the time for Question Period has nearly elapsed, there will be two single questions from the New Democratic Party. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I will then recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I want to congratulate him, by the way, for being chosen by Chatelaine magazine as being one of Canada's 10 sexiest men. I am tempted to ask him how he does it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Before he preens too much, the magazine also chose Michael Duffy of the CBC.
My question is a serious one, however, and it involves the merchant seamens' pensions and the task of trying to get them

August 14, 1987
Tabling of Documents
a fair deal. The Minister is aware that under the regulations they had to serve 180 days. They had to make one voyage through dangerous waters. I have received lots of letters and calls from people who are 17 days short, who cannot prove the fact they were there for 180 days because of the records and because they were minors at the time.
Will the Minister undertake to have another look at this law with the possibility of amending it or rendering decisions which are more favourable to these veterans?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for a very constructive question. As always, the Department of Veterans Affairs is willing to look over any legislation which comes under our jurisdiction to see if it can be improved in order to give veterans a fairer break. If the Hon. Member, or any other Hon. Member, knows of cases where they think an applicant is not receiving a square deal, please bring it to my attention and 1 will give it my own personal attention. Thank you very much.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I have a problem. The Minister of Labour has disappeared on me so I cannot ask my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The last question, then.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On two occasions this week, two different Parliamentary Secretaries in this House have given assurance that plutonium will not be flown from Europe to Japan over Canada without Canadian permission. That is not clear and not good enough. The assurance Canadians want is that Canada will under no circumstances allow the overflight of plutonium. Therefore, can the Minister give the assurance today in this House that plutonium overflights will not be allowed this year, next year, or ever?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member does not want to understand the situation then, of course, there is nothing we can do to persuade him otherwise. Canada has several options. The question is premature at the moment. There is no agreement signed as yet. There are no dates or routes for such flights yet established. Both Japanese and U.S. officials confirm that we will be consulted as is required under the international agreements.
We will have two options when this does become a relevant issue and a decision must be made. We can request that prenotification be given and that we give approval prior to any overflights being undertaken, if we wish to do that. Or we have a second option, if we are not satisfied with the safety of the procedures, that is to deny any overflight by filing a state variance with the International Civil Aviation Organization.
When we know exactly what is being proposed and how it is proposed to be done, then we have all the necessary powers to make a decision as to what is best for Canada in accordance with our international obligations. The hon. gentleman can relax and be assured that Canadians will be well protected.


Charles L. Caccia: Supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret, but the time for Question Period has elapsed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the six following petitions: Nos. 332-2678, 332-2696, 332-2720 and 332-2734 to 332-2736 inclusive.



HISTORIC EVENTS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on August 19 we will mark the 45th Anniversary of the Dieppe raid, the most grievous day of the Second World War for Canada. On that day, together with representatives of this House and the Senate, I will have the honour of accompanying back to Dieppe some of those who were part of that controversial and costly day.
Nearly 5,000 men of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division sailed from England for Dieppe. Only 2,200 came back. There were 900 Canadian fatalities. For nearly 2,000 others, Dieppe meant that the rest of the war would be spent in prisoner of war camps.
Dieppe saw all three of our services in battle together for the first time. They represented our country nobly. The number of Canadian graves we will be visiting tell of a terrible mission.
Next Wednesday we will be paying tribute on behalf of Canada to those whose efforts made possible the gaining of
August 14, 1987

vitally important information which was invaluable to the success of the all-out invasion of Europe two years later.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, as critic of the Official Opposition I want to echo the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) and pay tribute to those who took part in the Dieppe raid.
As the Minister reminded us, next Wednesday, August 19, will be the 45th Anniversary of the Dieppe raid which is considered to have been Canada's most costly World War II fight: 913 Canadians killed and 1,946 made prisoners, more prisoners than during the 1944-45 11-month campaign of northwestern Europe.
But this cruel sacrifice was not in vain because the experience gained as a result of this feat of arms at Dieppe made it possible for the allies to launch with tactical perfection history's most important landing on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, the beginning of the great victory of the allies against Nazi oppression.
Mr. Speaker, on a monument standing in the City of Dieppe one can read: "On August nineteenth, nineteen forty-two, on the beach of Dieppe, our Canadian cousins marked out with their blood the way towards our final liberation, thus predicting the victorious return of September first, nineteen forty-four.".
All these heroes fell and gave their lives for freedom, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that all generations of Canadians will forever remember what they did for them.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to say a few words about Dieppe. I congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) on his statement. 1 am sure that next week's pilgrimage will do much to remind Canadians of a very significant day in our military history.
The Minister and my friend from the Official Opposition have described the landing and the terrible losses that ensued. I want to speak briefly about what happened when the shooting stopped and the battle was lost.
There, in Dieppe, were nearly 2,000 young Canadian soldiers in shackles. They were shackled because the enemy misinterpreted an order found on a Canadian officer. For these Canadians, the Second World War was a few hours of hell and many months of confinement, not knowing who was winning the war or whether they would even live to see the end of it.
Let us remember also that a number of our Dieppe veterans were part of the death marches near the end of the war, when
Motions
the enemy tried to keep prisoners of war away from the advancing allies.
1 give credit to the Minister for introducing legislation last year that increased the level of compensation for the basic disability pension from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. 1 am sure that the Minister will continue to enjoy the support of Members on all sides of the House in his efforts to have those pensions increased in the near future.
As we near the 45th Anniversary of Dieppe let us remember the widows and dependents of those men we regard as heroes. Let us remember also the survivors who spent some of the best years of their lives behind barbed wire. Surely, they have earned not just our gratitude but our utmost generosity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]



STRIKING


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



IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 CONCLUSION OF SECOND READING STAGE OF BILL C-84

['Agreed.']
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all Parties regarding an agreement which states:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, when the House resumes Government Orders this day, it shall proceed with consideration of the motion for the second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof;
That the hour for Private Members' Business shall be suspended and the item scheduled for today in the name of the Hon. Member for Bow River shall be dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper; and
That, not later than 2:55 o'clock p.m., if necessary, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the Bill, and any recorded division, if requested, shall be deferred until 6 p.m. Monday, August 17, 1987, and upon completion of the said proceedings today the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


Mr. Speaker:: The question I am obliged to put to the House at this time is the following one. Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

August 14, 1987
Petitions


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, our intention is to provide our consent to proceed in this way. However, I would like to ask a question of the mover of the motion. We are doing this based on the assumption that the legislation will be referred to a legislative committee and that that committee will have the opportunity to carry out full and complete hearings, receive an adequate list of witnesses to appropriately scrutinize the Bill. Can the Parliamentary Secretary provide us with that assurance? 1 ask the question so that there is a clear understanding of what the procedure will be.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to advise that the normal procedures will ensue. The committee will be struck as soon as possible. The Chairman will meet with the representatives of all three Parties and the normal list of witnesses required to fully air the problems that either side may see in the Bill will be called. One would hope that the witnesses on their behalf, on their side of the story one might say, will make every effort to meet the committee's wishes so that we can move quickly with the committee stage of this matter and return the Bill to the House for third reading.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A clarification, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago we concurred in the report of the Committee appointing members to the legislative committee on Bill C-84. I presume that after the vote held on Monday at six o'clock the committee will be able to meet on Tuesday if it so wishes.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I have a few petitions which I would like to table today. Constituents of the area and visitors to the Ottawa Byward Market this summer were invited to sign these petitions.
The petitions state that, whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25
new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical, dental supplies, snack foods, candies and soft drinks; and 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 vital element of day-to-day life; and whereas the 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, youth, et cetera, the 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. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, the duty and the great pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by more than 2,500 Canadians calling for the speedy passage of Bill C-55. The petitioners ask that Members of the House implement measures to prevent abuse of our immigration system.
1 urge all Members to respond to the will of Canadians and to pass Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 without delay.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 142, 146 and 160.


Mr. Parry: For (a) 1977 (6) 1987 to date, how many aboriginal people did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development employ, directly and on a full time basis, nationally and regionally, and what percentage of the total employees of the Department did this constitute?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) In July, 1977, there were 122 native people employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development out of a total of 11,656 employees. The figure for total number of employees included Parks Canada personnel, who were later transferred to the Department of the Environment.
The number of native employees may not be totally accurate, as only those who identified themselves as such, are included. Natives were not accurately identified in the Department's information banks until 1980.
August 14, 1987

(b) The information on present native representation rates is as follows:
Region	No. of Employees	No. of nativesAlberta	527	117Atlantic	176	26British Columbia	417	61Manitoba	628	191National Capital Region	1440	109N.W.T.	195	34Ontario	778	230Quebec	397	86Saskatchewan	494	114Yukon	325	48Total	5377	1016
Over-all per cent - 18.9 per cent.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Employment and Immigration make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, nongovernmental organizations and governments within metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Benoît Bouchard: Yes.
Immigration Act, 1976


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 158 could be made an Order for Return, the Return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 158 be made an Order for Return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of the Environment make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
Grants
Loans
Amount


[Stage Direction]
Purpose
Employment Creation Program. This program was one of several measures announced to reduce unemployment and provide support for areas that had been seriously affected by the economic recession and by high interest rates. Loans issued to Immigrants to pay for the transportation and accompanying costs to their final destination in Canada. Also, Recoverable Adjustment Assistance Loans were issued to Immigrants for their basic needs.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Marin: Was any cost incurred by the taxpayers for the investigation by the RCMP into the electoral expenses of the Hon. Member for Gaspe, including lawyer and legal fees and, if so, what is a breakdown of the amounts?


Philip Derek Lewis: In the performance of his mandate, the Chief Electoral Officer reports directly to Parliament and not through a Minister. Questions can be put directly to the Chief Electoral Officer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) had five minutes left on questions and comments. Are there any further questions or comments?


Charles L. Caccia: Does the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) wish to comment on the fact that one year ago the Tamil boat arrived in Newfoundland, and it has taken one year for her Government to introduce this type of legislation?


Mary Collins: I am not sure what the Hon. Member's question is.

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
In February of this year the Minister introduced new regulations with respect to visa requirements. Those regulations have been very effective in dealing with people from certain countries coming into Canada. Because they are required to have visas, that has stopped the flow from certain areas.
In looking at both Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, I am sure that my hon. colleague will agree that it was not an easy task to develop those pieces of legislation. It required a great deal of consultation with interest groups, and review, to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and our international obligations. Therefore, it has taken some time to draft Bill C-55. It was introduced in May. 1 am sure that the Hon. Member will also recall that when Bill C-55 was introduced one of his colleagues from the Liberal Party immediately moved a motion for a six-month hoist. It was evident that the opposition Party was not interested in getting on with the legislation. Now we have returned and we are proceeding with both Bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we have been recalled in the middle of the summer recess in hysteria and panic to debate a Bill which we believe is flawed and dangerous. It is a Bill that was produced in haste by the Government to cover up its own inefficiency and inability to reform the refugee processing system in Canada. This system needs reform, but it needs to be done in a sensible, systematic and a fair manner.
There is no question, reform is long overdue. Reform is needed to deal with a backlog of refugee claimants. The procedure has become so complex that sometimes people have been waiting longer than three years for a decision as to whether or not they will be accepted as legitimate refugees and allowed to remain in Canada, or whether they will be deported to their homeland.
Over the last year, and even prior to that, the Government had the opportunity to improve the backlog of refugee claimants, and to improve the system. During the Liberal regime we received an excellent report from Rabbi Plaut. These proposals have never been considered. During the past year we also received excellent proposals from the all-Party Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. These proposals were very practical, well thought out, and agreed upon by all Parties. These proposals suggested procedures to speed up dealing with refugee claimants, and yet make sure that it is a fair procedure.
Recently, we heard criticisms of the Bills before us from the present Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. His views are very much opposite to those of the Government. Suggestions continue to come from church groups who are expert in this field, and immigration organizations and NGOs across the country.
All those proposals would have reformed our refugee processing system. They would have reformed the system by speeding up the procedure so that it would be no longer than three months, yet provide fair hearings with a review or an appeal.
However, this summer the boat people came to the shores of Nova Scotia. Although this has not changed the position of the Government, because it had already decided not to act on the recommendations of parliamentary committees, it has changed the impetus and the hysteria with which the Government has decided to deal with this issue.
We all have our own views, and we can talk about motives, but that does not take us very far. The fact is that both the Government and its spokespeople, and I must say certain back-benchers and even the media, have inflamed this whole situation of 174 people who came unannounced to the shores of Nova Scotia. Every night with the news broadcasts there were dramatic pictures, 1 suggest because there was little other news during the summer doldrums, and there is no question that Canadians became very concerned. We have all received hundreds of angry phone calls to our offices. People were and still are concerned. I am sure we all agree that they have legitimate concerns.
However, the fact that the 174 newcomers wore turbans and ceremonial knives, had dark faces, and came from a strange religion, unfortunately inflamed racism in many people. I am very, very sad that many calls to my office reflected this. In their hysteria, 1 am sure that few people stopped to question whether or not some Sikhs from Pakistan who came via Europe still may be legitimate refugees. We do not know that. That is why we need to have hearings.
The reaction of the Government and back-benchers escalated the hysteria, called for a special session of Parliament, and encouraged these feelings and prejudices. I will not accept the racism that I heard in the voices of many people who called my riding office.
However, 1 do understand and sympathize with the many frustrations and anger felt by many people because they believed people were taking advantage of Canada's humanitarian policies and were entering Canada under false pretences. The Government encouraged this conclusion. We did not know the facts, so people were being judged as guilty. We still do not know the facts and the full circumstances of these people.
Why did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) make judgments in advance of obtaining the facts? Did he know whether or not there were legitimate refugee claimants present when he classified the boat people who came recently as "illegal aliens"? He repeatedly used this term in a generalized, negative, and derogatory fashion. Why did he reverse his views? Once again, what does this say about our Prime Minister? Last summer, when referring to the Tamils, he stated in very strong terms that we should never turn our backs on refugees, and we would never turn them away from our
August 14, 1987

shores. He was right. We should not turn refugees away from our shores.
The Government has added greatly to the confusion. It has created misunderstanding in the public. It was the Government's obligation and responsibility to try to give facts and support Canada's humanitarian approach to refugees. I believe that the Government and the two Ministers were probably feeling very insecure and frustrated about their inability to cope with the refugee problem which had been building and building, a problem which certainly requires reform.
1 would like my constituents to know that the New Democratic Party is as concerned as they are that there should not be abuses of our immigration policies. When abuses are proven, and I stress the word "proven", of course they must be dealt with.
We have laws that provide that people who are not legitimate refugees as defined by the UN Conventions do not have the right to stay in Canada and therefore will be asked to leave or, if necessary, will be deported. However, we must also be very concerned, and I know my constituents and members of my Party are as well, about the many desperate people in the world.
Many desperate people are indeed taking advantage of our system, trying to come into Canada as refugee claimants, because they know how difficult it is to come as landed immigrants. There are real problems in that regard, and a tremendous backlog as well. 1 am sure there are ways to deal with that. For example, it would be very helpful to have more than one immigration office in India.
We are concerned about the long delays Canadians experience when having relatives join them from other countries as landed immigrants or assisted relatives. However, I think it is very important that the Government make clear to people that refugee claimants fall under an entirely different category than landed immigrants.
I must say that the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) just added to the confusion and prejudices people have been expressing when he implied the other day that alleged refugees are jumping the queue. Alleged refugees do not affect the people who are lined up to come in as assisted relatives, nor do they have anything to do with the people who enter Canada under the entrepreneurial class or other classes of regular landed immigrants.
We want a fair, efficient immigration policy, a policy that is consistent with UN objectives. We want a policy that is able to respond generously to the pressing needs of an over-populated world. We in Canada are so lucky and we must look beyond our borders, particularly to those from regions experiencing extreme violence, war, poverty and infringements of human rights.
Immigration Act, 1976
We want refugee claims to be processed quickly but we want refugees to have full hearings, legal counsel and opportunity for appeal. We want procedures for doing this that conform to our Charter of Rights and to UN requirements.
Just as we cannot support Bill C-55, we also cannot support Bill C-84. Bill C-84 really does not deal with the concerns 1 have mentioned. It is a hastily drafted piece of emergency legislation designed to deal with refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without documents by means of so-called smugglers.
We of course believe that unscrupulous agents who exploit people for profit, and there are many, and those who advise alleged refugees to give misleading information, should be punished and should probably be punished with increased penalties. However, proposed Section 95.1 in the Bill would also penalize well-meaning church people and humanitarian agents who voluntarily take it upon themselves to assist very desperate people who seek sanctuary in Canada. As was pointed out in Question Period today, we are concerned because many people would be subject to very serious penalties for breaking the law of Canada, people who are working to assist legitimate refugees.
Many refugees who are fleeing violence or persecution in their homelands do not have documents. 1 worked in refugee camps in Vienna, Austria, which were flooded with Hungarian refugees in 1956. None of those refugees had papers. 1 know very well that people coming by boat from Indo-China would not have adequate documentation to prove their identities. Refugees leave under very difficult circumstances. We must have a clause in this Bill that covers that sort of thing and does not says, simply and flatly, that if a refugee does not have papers we will not even talk to him but will ship him away from our shores.
1 know that many Latin American people who do not speak English come to the British Columbia border. These people are under considerable stress. They are very worried about their families and about what may happen to them at the hands of their home Governments if they are sent back. They would find it very difficult to present their cases at the border and that is why we are so concerned about Bill C-55 and the limitations it puts on people who appear at the border requiring advocates, lawyers or interpreters. Many of these people will not have time to present their cases.
Bill C-84 provides for indefinite detention of newcomers who have no identification and has no provision for competent legal counsel. Of course, we agree, as would any reasonable person, that there must be security checks, and any person who may represent a threat to Canadians or who does not pass valid security tests should not be allowed to remain in Canada. However, we feel that this testing should be done by qualified security officers who are trained to do this. It should not be dealt with by a judge, and I believe, as some of my colleagues said the other day, the judges would be the first to agree with

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
that. Of course, proven criminals, and again I stress the word "proven", must be deported.
We are also concerned about the policing role this Bill will impose on airline ticket agents who, under this Bill, will be expected to decide whether or not a person is eligible to come to Canada. It is not up to ticket agents in other countries to be policemen for Canada. This is another part of the Bill that needs serious reconsideration and amendment.
The flaws in this Bill are many. We have heard from many immigration experts here in the House about those flaws in detail and we will be looking at them from the point of view of making amendments. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill to committee so it can be worked on carefully.
The new Bill will allow the Minister to order a ship bearing potential refugees out of Canadian waters without any determination of status. This might make the Minister look tough, but is it sound? Of course not. This would allow for the potential repeat of the past injustices in history for which we all must be very ashamed.
The House will recall that in 1913, Canada turned away a shipload of Sikhs from the Port of Vancouver, Sikhs who were fleeing from religious prosecution in their homeland. We forced them out to sea without adequate food and water and many of them died as a result. In 1939, Canada turned away a boatload of Jews who were sent back to the gas chambers.
Just recently, refugees from El Salvador who came to the United States were sent back by that country to their homes, and this legislation would repeat that. Of those people who were sent back, 50 of them were traced and most of those are dead. Is this the kind of thing we as Canadians want to happen because we have impulsive, punitive and poorly thought out legislation?
Most Canadians think it cannot happen. The Minister obviously thinks that. This proposed new law, administered by a very nervous Government, could allow things to occur which deny our obligation to accept legitimate refugees and to have a fair hearing for all those who come to our shores. The Bill is an over-reaction prompted by the Government's desire to project a tough new image. My colleagues, particularly our immigration critic, have pointed to proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 which must be amended.
I want to use my remaining time to appeal to the House and Canadians to not allow one incident to turn us away from our humanitarian traditions regarding refugees and immigrants. We have so much to share compared to other regions in the world. We are far away and protected by the oceans that surround us. We are rarely flooded with the masses of refugees, as happened in Austria in 1958, ASEAN countries in 1949, and African countries today. Very poor countries accept everyone without selection because they have no choice. They cannot be as selective as Canada in picking only the people
who are healthy or those we think can adjust, or those with relatives or sponsors to assist them.
We cannot let one incident, which may have involved legitimate refugees-we do not know yet-close our doors to Latin Americans and Asians who are living under considerable hardship and who may fear for their safety. We must uphold our principle of fair hearings with appeals while we form a refugee determination policy to speed up the process and deal with abuses as well as dealing effectively with more immigrants.
Bill C-84 would impose abuses of our own and we cannot agree with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, one of the rewarding things in this debate is that 1 have heard so much concern for the churches in the last few days. It is cheering and heartening for me to think that there is such an increased interest, particularly on the part of opposition Members, in the welfare of our churches. I hope all of them will be there next Sunday and all of them will give generously when the offering plate comes around. I hope they match their protestations here with their behaviour on Sunday.
1 want to highlight a couple of things that the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) pointed out. She said, despite coming from Europe many of these people may still be refugees. I agree. However, she will understand that if these people are fleeing persecution or other similar circumstances, it is their obligation to claim refugee status in the first safe country they come to. If they are already in Europe, 1 am assuming western Europe, she would agree that those countries are generally considered safe countries in which to apply for refugee status. Therefore, it is their obligation to claim refugee status there.
She said we need a system that will deal quickly with the backlog, with a full hearing and counsel, as well as an appeal procedure that meets UN requirements. The Bill does all of those things. 1 almost came to believe that she was supporting the Bill when she listed these requirements because it meets them.
She also said the Bill would penalize church people because they might help people come in without documents. I think she will agree that there are two basic reasons why people might not have documents. One is that they have destroyed them. The second is that they are coming from a safe country where they have entered illegally, otherwise they would have documents. I think she would have to agree with that.
Finally, she said we cannot take the system away from our qualified security services and turn it over to the courts. She is repeating the distortion presented by her leader the other day.
I remind her that proposed Section 41(1) in the Bill states:
August 14, 1987

Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where the Minister and the Solicitor General are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, that a person, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person described in paragraph 19(l)(d), (e), (f) or (g) or 27(2)(c), they may sign and file a certificate to that effect with an immigration officer, a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator.
That is not turning the security system over to the courts. We have an investigation by qualified security officers supplying their reports to the Solicitor General or the Minister. They have to submit a document to the courts and the person in question can make an appeal to the courts, which is exactly what we are obligated to do under the Charter. I hope that the Member will in all honesty and fairness accept the fact that the Bill provides exactly the kind of security she is looking for and therefore will support it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly will not respond to the very patronizing initial remarks of the Hon. Member which do not do him any credit.


Benno Friesen: Oh, of course not. You will be in church Sunday.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 1 certainly would not disagree that it is desirable for the people to have proper documents and to register in the first country they arrive in. No one would disagree with that. The fact is that not everyone comes under those circumstances.
The other fact that the Member does not deal with and which underlines again his attitude and the philosophy of this legislation is that we are so willing to prejudge everything. We want to keep those ships away from our shores before we even know who is on board. We are not willing to give a fair hearing to them and 1 think this whole question of prejudgment is very undemocratic. We object to it.
I gave my arguments earlier on the other points he raised and I think I will leave it at that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further questions or comments, debate.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am going to begin my remarks with a few thoughts on the subject of definitions. 1 believe that is a good place to begin because when we get down to the nitty-gritty we are attempting to bring a greater definition to the policy we follow with those coming to Canada from abroad. Differences and distinctions are very important in this discussion, the differences between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. The distinction needs to be made and must be made between genuine refugees and those who only pretend to be refugees.
There is no need for haziness or vagueness about the word "refugee". The Geneva Convention of 1952 gives us a very precise definition. A refugee is a person who cannot return to his or her country because of a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, national social group or political opinion.
Immigration Act, 1976
There is no lack of people who match that description. The world has known more than its fair share of oppression, bigotry and senseless hatred. There is certainly no lack in Canada of a desire and indeed determination to hold out a helping hand to those in trouble. We have a good record in this respect.
A river of refugee immigration, fed by many streams, flows into this country and will continue to do so. Since World War II half a million refugees have joined us in this country. Each year we accept thousands more-genuine refugees, people who match the Geneva Convention definition, people living in refugee camps or in actual flight from danger.
In 1986 and 1987 the Government of Canada will sponsor and resettle 12,000 refugees, some from camps, some actually rescued at sea, some whose immigration interviews actually took place in jails. In addition to this, there are thousands of refugees rescued by private Canadian sponsors.
There is in fact no limit whatsoever on the number of people who can come to Canada this way. Indeed, when emergencies have arisen the limit has been ignored. One example we can all remember is Canada's response to the plight of the boat people from Vietnam and Cambodia. There are people in my own riding who escaped persecution in Vietnam. In that short period of time we accepted 60,000 Indo-Chinese refugees. There are other programs, other streams of refugee immigration reaching our shores.
Canada's policy is sane, compassionate and flexible. It expresses the generosity and empathy of a nation of immigrants. It is the right policy for Canada. The integrity of that policy is a matter of tremendous concern to genuine refugees throughout the world.
That, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the purpose, the raison d'etre, for Bill C-84. We are here today not only to protect legitimate Canadian interests but, more basically, to protect the interests of genuine refugees throughout the world. Let us be clear on this point. We are confronting a veritable flood of counterfeit refugees, not just the highly publicized boat landings of a few hundred, but tens of thousands arriving by more conventional means. The pressure of this illegal flood impairs our ability to help genuine refugees. We cannot and will not stand by and see a policy which is so important to so many frustrated and made untenable by unscrupulous opportunists. That is what would happen if we allowed the systematic violations of the past few years to continue unabated and probably to grow.
Let us attach a few numbers to that problem. Only six years ago the number of people arriving in Canada and claiming refugee status was about 1,600. By 1981 the figure was up to 3,450. Last year the figure was 18,000, and for 1987, judging by present trends, we expect it to grow to 30,000.
Canadians would not begrudge even one of the 30,000 if indeed they were refugees, people in fact in danger. However,

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
the truth is that many of these claims are not genuine. Last year, for example, seven out of ten people claiming refugee status were found not to be refugees at all. They were people who claimed that status in order to move ahead of others who were willing to abide by our laws and follow the legal procedures. They were, in effect, queue jumpers.
We have all stood in line with others waiting to see a movie or to be served at the bank. We know how we feel when someone jumps the line. It is absolutely frustrating and damages the whole line. This is what is happening.
In addition to that 70 per cent there were people who, although they had been refugees from their native land at an earlier time, had in fact found safe haven in third country. One must ask oneself about the motivation which drives people, not refugees fleeing for their lives, but people who have found safe haven in one country, to embark on an illegal expedition to Canada. The answer, I am afraid, is that Canada has become a country where loopholes are so large that they can get away with it. We are seen as a soft touch. With each well publicized violation that impression becomes stronger.
We know, for instance, that following the boat incident of last year there was a dramatic increase in the number of illegal aliens entering Canada. The Government, as you know, responded by introducing Bill C-55. We began the process of putting in place a determination system which would be both fair and effective. This Bill is needed to provide immediate protection from abuse of the system.
This legislation has been called tough. Yes, it is tough. Once we comprehend what is at stake we understand that it has to be tough. It is tough because of the interests it protects. As 1 said, these include the interests of genuine refugees. It is tough because the people at whom it is aimed are in a dirty but lucrative business. A slap on the hand will not deter them at all. It is tough because lives are at stake. We have seen in the U.S.-Mexico border boxcar incident how this traffic in human misery can lead to tragedy. We do not want it to happen in Canada.
For those who may not have visited the East Coast of Canada, Mr. Speaker, foundering in a dory in the middle of the night with fog, bad winds and so on, is an extremely dangerous affair. There are some very powerful fishing vessels plying those waters. One shudders to think what may happen to vessels full of men, women and sometimes children, if we were to continue to condone this type of thing. This Bill is designed to stop this kind of nonsense.
The penalties for the middle man in illegal immigration are tougher. Anyone who considers getting into that line of work will now have to consider the possibility of facing 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $.5 million. If they are thinking of disembarking people illegally in Canadian waters, an act as irresponsible in human as in legal terms, that act, too, will carry its own severe penalties.
As I have said, the vast majority of those who arrived in Canada improperly documented did not float ashore but arrived on scheduled transportation carriers. It is not supposed to be able to happen that way. It has been the responsibility of the companies selling the tickets to check the travel documents. Some transportation companies have been dodging that responsibility.
It is not hard to guess at plausible reasons for this. One reason is the difficulty that the carrier encounters in making these checks. Another is a sort of built-in encouragement to look the other way. Without stiff penalties, if people go through undocumented, nothing much is lost.
This Bill addresses both problems. It imposes fines on transportation companies which bring people into Canada who do not have the required documents. There will be a fine of $5,000 for each such case. At the same time, steps are being taken to make it more feasible for the carriers to meet their responsibilities. Under this Act they would be empowered to actually collect and hold documents for careful examination and to return them to their owners upon arrival in Canada. I would like to repeat that under this Act they would be empowered to collect and hold documents. It does not say that they have to do it, but it empowers them to do it. These are common sense precautions and requirements which can easily be fulfilled by legitimate immigrants.
Another important feature is improved ability to identify people applying for refugee status. Knowing who you are dealing with is the crux of the problem. One obvious reason is that we need to be able to differentiate between those who genuinely need haven and those who are faking it.
Another reason is security. There are millions of genuine refugees in this unhappy world, Mr. Speaker, people who need our help. There are also a few extremely dangerous people, including some terrorists. We may not be able to prevent the illegal entry of every last one of them, but we should not make it any easier for them by being careless or hasty about identification. This Act provides some reasonable periods of detention until identification is made.
The other great need which this Bill addresses is the need to speed up decisions. As matters stand now, it takes up to five years to decide on the validity of a claim for refugee status. This feature by itself invites abuse. Accurately or inaccurately, it encourages the illegal entrant to get in and then play it by ear for half a decade. The Bill before us will move the process forward faster. However, it is equipped with many safeguards to protect the legitimate claimant. The procedure for making the decision conforms with the Charter of Rights. Individuals have the right to counsel. There is provision for an appeal by leave to the Federal Court on questions of law.
No one can be removed from Canada without the concurrence of the refugee board member. The board itself will be an
August 14, 1987

independent and expert body equipped with up-to-date information on the situation in other countries.
I support this legislation because it protects the interests of a community, Canadian and worldwide, which really does need protection. It protects the interest of the potential immigrant waiting in another country who has gone through the drill of interviews and collection of documents, who has patiently waited and has followed the laws that we in this House have passed. I support this legislation because it protects the interests of the legitimate refugee. I urge my fellow Members to support this Bill and to protect this country's ability to minister to the needs of those who are in real need and real danger. 1 invite my colleagues in the Opposition to be adult once and for all and to support this Bill.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Hon. Member referred to Bill C-55 and the provision of a refugee board member at the initial screening of refugee claimants. I heard him say that no refugee claimant will be removed from the country without the approval of the refugee board member.
I want to suggest to the Hon. Member that he has not read the law carefully. The law provides indeed that there will be a refugee board member plus an adjudicator as the two decisionmakers in the initial screening. It is true that it takes a unanimous decision of that pair to remove the person, and that either person, acting within his jurisdiction, could have the authority to send the claimant on to the refugee board. So far so good.
However, I wish the Hon. Member would read Clause 48 of the Bill very carefully. Clause 48 limits the powers of those two decision-makers, whether it be the adjudicator or the refugee board member, in determining whether the person is eligible. The first matter they can examine is only the question of eligibility, and not the merit or validity of his claim.
One of the major bars to eligibility will be the question of safe country. The Government has never defined safe country. It has never announced any agreement with any country to accept these people on terms that the Hon. Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) said would be required, namely that they would give the claimant full protection against being returned to the country he fled. Nevertheless, there is the provision that if the person comes from a country listed by the Cabinet as a safe country, the refugee board member does not have the power to send that person on to the refugee board. He may want to and may think he should, but that law does not give him that power. This seriously qualifies the generous statement that the Hon. Member made in his remarks.
The second test will be concerning what country he comes from and whether that is considered a refugee-producing country. If he comes from a country that is not considered to be refugee-producing he will not even be heard. Will the Member undertake to read Clause 48 and consider whether, in fact, it supports the statement he made?
Immigration Act, 1976


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I began my speech by going into definitions. I will continue in somewhat the same line by defining a safe third country. This might help the Hon. Member.
The Governor in Council will be empowered to establish a list of countries which are safe for persons claiming convention refugee status. When an individual appears at a port of entry seeking Canada's protection pursuant to the Convention, the adjudicant and/or the member of the refugee division cannot review the Cabinet decision that a country is safe.
The adjudicator and members will be required to determine whether, if removed from Canada, the claimant will be allowed to return to that safe country or would have the right to have that claim determined there.
This decision will be made on the basis of evidence presented regarding the individual's status and duration of stay in the safe country and regarding any bilateral or multilateral agreements to which Canada and that country are parties governing the return of individuals including refugee claimants who are not admissible to Canada.
I believe this is the kind of definition the Hon. Member is seeking.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: No, it is not. It does not meet the point at all.


Gerald J. Comeau: 1 think I have answered the Member's question.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, in his concluding remarks, I understood the Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) to urge Members of the House to be adult and support this Bill. Does this mean, according to the set of values and principles to which he adheres, breaking away and disregarding the protocols and UN conventions to which Canada has adhered?


Gerald J. Comeau: I believe if the Member were to check with the Geneva Convention to which he refers he would find that this Bill actually adheres to the Convention quite well. It follows all the conventions. I am not sure to what the Hon. Member is referring.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware of the fact that two days ago the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees wrote a letter to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) drawing to his attention that this Bill, if adopted as it is proposed, will break the protocols in the conventions to which we have adhered?


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister addressed that question today. The Minister will be writing a letter to the Commissioner stating that his interpretation is wrong.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, 1 respect the Hon. Member for his sincerity and attempt to grapple with legislation seriously. The Hon. Member referred to the tremendous increase in refugees trying to establish their status here in Canada. The

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
implication and perhaps the explicit point which the Hon. Member made was that this was somehow reflective of attempts to fool Canadians and make us victims of fraud.
Is there not another explanation, that throughout the world there has been a tremendous acceleration in refugee movement? Whether one considers Africa or Latin America, especially Central America, one finds an incredible movement of people. It is not because of economic causes but because of persecution, vicious Governments, because of exactly the kind of incredible control and domination over people the Conservative Party is supposed to stand against.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Steven W. Langdon: I will finish up very quickly. Would the Hon. Member give me and the House his understanding of why he feels there has been such a great increase in refugee movements throughout the world? Why should we not expect that Canada is going to experience that also?


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I am starting to understand from the opposition Parties that they have absolutely no clue at all as to what Bill C-84 is all about. This Bill is about 174 people arriving in the middle of the night on the shores of Nova Scotia and about 175 people arriving in Newfoundland in the middle of the night in small dories in fog and bad weather, placing their lives in danger as well as the lives of other people, Canadian citizens, who were fishing in those waters. The present system as it exists encourages this to happen. This is what this Bill is all about. Opposition Members have absolutely no clue at all about what we are trying to do.
If these things are allowed to continue it will only encourage more illegal immigrants and the problem will increase. We must put a stop to it. There are ways to come to Canada, not surreptitiously, coming to Canada's shores in the middle of the night.
I urge Members opposite to look at what the Bill is trying to accomplish. I ask them to come and speak to the people of my riding and find out how my constituents feel about 174 people arriving in the middle of the night when they themselves have been fishing in those same waters all night. How do you think they felt after having fished all night to find in the morning that they could have run into a boat carrying 175 people? They say: "Oh, my God, I could have hit those people".
If one is a genuine refugee there are ways to come to Canada. I think I have explained what this Bill is all about. Please try to understand that this is to put a stop to the abuse of the system. It is to put a stop to the encouragement that the status quo gives to these people to continue this abuse.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we have had three days of debate with some high points and some low
points. I would like to start by congratulating the Progressive Conservative Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, who spoke yesterday. He made a number of interesting points, three of which stick in my mind.
First, he said that the changes in the refugee determination process which are proposed in this Bill are such that it would be practically impossible for a great number of legitimate refugees to apply for refugee status. How about that statement, 1 ask Members opposite and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard)?
Second, the Hon. Member for La Prairie made the point that there are other rational and appropriate solutions to these problems which would not have us break our international agreement on refugees and could not be challenged in court on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was pointed out by a colleague of the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau), who denied there is any substance to this particular very serious flaw in this piece of legislation.
Third, the Hon. Member for La Prairie made the interesting point that the best way to put the smugglers out of business is to dry up the demand for their services. The best way to stop the queue jumping is to shorten the queue. In other words, if we want more orderly borders, we need more liberal borders. I am sure the Hon. Member for La Prairie was not speaking politically when he used the words "liberal". He meant it in the small "1" manner. However, he definitely made an interesting point. The Hon. Member for La Prairie is a member of the Party in power and he had the courage to rise in this Chamber yesterday and make these points, which fly in the face of all the statements made during Question Period today and yesterday by the two Ministers for Immigration.
That was the high point of the debate so far. Let me now deal with the low points. Yesterday afternoon we were lectured by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). In order to understand the import of what he said, let me give Hon. Members some background because it is very important. We as the nation of Canada have adhered to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as have many other nations. In that declaration we have agreed that we should allow the right to seek asylum in Canada to anyone who wants to seek asylum in Canada. We signed that declaration as well as a protocol to that effect. This concept or principle is called, in the language which has unfortunately developed on the Hill, universal access. Universal access was dealt a major blow yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he rose in the House and said, as reported at page 8043 of Hansard:
I do not believe that universal access is the manner through which Canada should take the number of refugees which we have said we will.
That is what the Minister said. What a shame! What a disaster! A Minister of the Crown comes to this House and virtually announces that we are abandoning the cornerstone of
August 14, 1987

our international commitment to allow individuals who could be legitimate refugees to apply within the country. It is in a way a revelation that we would break our commitment to the United Nations.
We would not mind if the Government had the honesty and decency to come to the House and tell us it intends to abandon its commitment to the United Nations, including Article 14. At least it would be going through the front door. It should announce that to us, to the media and to the Canadian public and we will fight it on those grounds. However, to come here and to do it in a sneaky manner in some camouflaged language through this Bill is really the last thing we would have expected from the Ministers of Immigration and from the Government as a whole. What a shame! What a disgrace! That was the lowest point in the debate so far.
1 bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons; first, because it was a Minister of the Crown who made that statement in the House and, second, because we have just been informed that the High Commissioner for Refugees at the United Nations wrote a letter two days ago on August 12 from Geneva to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He wrote the letter to the Minister drawing to his attention the fact that the Bill seriously impacts on our commitment.
We all know how careful international diplomatic language is. We can, 1 am sure, read between the lines with respect to what the United Nations High Commissioner really means when he says in his letter; "Certain provisions of the proposed legislation, however, give rise to serious concern inasmuch as lack of procedural safeguards could risk exposing bona fide asylum seekers and refugees to forcible return to territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened". This is careful but clear language. It says that Bill C-84 puts us in a corner with very strange company. As Canadians we do not want to be put into that situation. I am sure that the UN High Commissioner would not have written such a letter on the same day that the Bill was introduced in the House had he not been advised about the gravity of the situation. To be more precise, it was really the day after since the Government asked members of the Opposition to agree to forgo the usual 24-hour waiting period between first and second reading.
The United Nations High Commissioner, Mr. Jean-Pierre Hocke, makes his point at length in his letter. Time will not permit me to go into all of it. However, 1 can assure Hon. Members that very consistently in six paragraphs he reinforces his preoccupation and seeks from the Government of Canada a reply that will reassure him that we are not going to pass this Bill in the form in which it is now written. So much for the claims of a number of Conservative Members who have stated that we have not read the legislation or that we are introducing a false notion as to the interpretation of the clauses. This is a source that cannot be attributed to be in the Official Opposition. It is from 5,000 kilometres across the Atlantic Ocean.
Immigration Act, 1976
The letter comes from Geneva from a reputable, objective and independent source.
Another low point in this debate was raised in Question Period on two consecutive days. 1 refer to the stonewalling by the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has a bad habit of double-talk. He said in reply to our questions: "Well, actually, what I am doing here in terms of penalties on groups, individuals, organizations and the like already exists in the legislation". If it exists already in the legislation, then why did the Government not apply the law as it is already written? If this legislation exists, then why the need to introduce new clauses in the Bill before us? The Government cannot have it both ways. It leaves us asking why the Government has not applied the legislation as it is now written if it permits the Minister to say in Question Period that what we are doing exists already in the legislation. There exists a contradiction here, and we have seen a great many contradictions.
The Minister has also come under fire with respect to Clause 95(1). It has been said on both sides that Clause 95(1) must be amended since it contains the word "aid". It contains a word which would impact on the civil liberties of Canadians who would undertake to help potential refugees. This theme has also been picked up in other correspondence.
Another point which has emerged in the debate, a point which was very eloquently expressed and expanded upon by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), is with respect to the double standard in the treatment of those who arrive here in that this legislation, if approved, would apply to those who knock at our doors coming by way of air and land versus those who come by water. Here is a piece of legislation that focuses entirely on those coming by water. In essence, this legislation will put Canada in the position of applying two different types of treatment to people depending upon the means of transportation they use to come into Canada. In other words, a person who arrives by plane, bus or train will have an opportunity to apply on Canadian soil. However, if one happens to come by boat and if one is suspect, then that boat can be turned around before it reaches Canadian territorial waters, or even within Canadian territorial waters. We are really puzzled by this double treatment that is being applied. If, tomorrow, Nelson Mandela would escape prison and come to Canada by way of boat he could be among those who could be turned back since he would be coming by water and not by air or by land. We certainly do not want that type of situation to occur. There are certainly a great many Nelson Mandelas in the world today.
Another point so eloquently raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West, is with respect to the question that the Bill will ask transport companies to do a certain job of screening travellers. In essence what it boils down to is that the ticket agent of an airline will be asked to do the job of our immigration officials-


Mr. Layton:: He is supposed to do it now.

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Charles L. Caccia: He is not supposed to do it now at all. He does not have the time, the training or the inclination to perform that type of work at the point of departure on behalf of the Canadian Government. Nor does he have the authority. In this case the Canadian Government is relinquishing a responsibility that is purely the responsibility of our immigration officials in Canada. They are qualified people. They are trained to perform their jobs. They are the ones who ought to do this type of screening, not some unknown ticket agent who has a long line of people with luggage and the like to be processed when their plane is departing in, for example, 59 minutes. It shows just what poor thinking there exists on the part of the Government with respect to this measure.
Today at noon we heard the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) speak. She waxed eloquent on the theme that this is a law to catch just a few. That theme was echoed as well by the Hon. Member for South West Nova. Both of them are wrong. Anyone who claims that is wrong. There are very important principles at stake here in this legislation which some think is intended to catch a few. The civil rights of Canadians are being infringed upon.
If the legislation is not amended in committee it will break covenants and protocols of the United Nations to which Canada has given its signature over the decades, not just over the last few years, and which have also earned Canada, as Hon. Members probably heard in the debate yesterday, the Nansen award. As 1 expounded a moment ago, it treats people who arrive by water and are seeking asylum differently from those who arrive by land and air.
Since the arrival of the Tamil boat one year ago, the Government has had a lot of time to prepare a decent piece of legislation. Even without wanting to use the Tamil boat as a benchmark, the Government has had a lot of input since September, 1984 on this particular matter. In August, 1987 it is pathetic to see the Government creating a sense of panic which gives the population a sense of fear, and rushing in with a piece of legislation that is badly thought out. In other words, the Government had lots of time. The Ministers who spoke in this debate ought to be chastised for confusing the public by mixing refugees with immigrants at large. In other words, they are not keeping separate in the public mind the fact that refugees are one stream, immigrants are another, and that it is not true that by admitting refugees, the number of immigrants is reduced. These are two independent flows.
The other day when introducing the Bill, the Minister of Employment and Immigration could not resist the temptation to sweeten the pill by announcing a measure for family reunification just to show, after all, that the Government has a sensitivity and is so inspired by family reunification that, in order to bring in this badly thought out legislation, it would coat it with sugar. That is bad practice, and it does not fool Canadians.
We will fight in committee to turn this bad Bill into passable legislation, if we can. 1 am sure a lot of effort will be made. Because it is presently in a poor, pathetic condition which breaks principles and protocols, and denies certain civil rights to Canadians who are interested in this issue, we will vote against it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) has the floor.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised at the aggressive stance taken by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) this afternoon. Usually he is quite calm, so I suppose it was just his Latin temperament surfacing, or maybe he was upset because he had to cut short his golfing season to consider these very important issues.
He said earlier that the Minister's answers were an example of double-talk. 1 do not think that is true. I think that, during Question Period, the Minister was quite clear and specific in his comments on a Bill that is very important for Canada and Canadians in general. In fact, this is probably one of the issues that is attracting most of the attention of my constituents, because they have the impression that Canada has become ridiculously easy to enter. 1 was asked why since the war, a Canadian has never needed a visa to go to France. I was also asked why we Canadians now must have a visa to gain entry into France.
Last night on the CBC news someone said: Well, there might be people from Canada who would go to India and make trouble. Canadian men and women have never been trouble makers anywhere in the world. But to get back to the very purpose of this Bill, 1 should like to remind my colleague from Davenport that, from 1978 to 1986, 6,376 of the 60,000 individuals who claimed refugee status have been recognized as such pursuant to the provisions of the Convention.
Mr. Speaker, the way things are going and if my memory-serves me right, there were 1,600 refugee applications in 1980, up to 18,000 in 1986, and this year we should just about reach the 30,000 mark. 1 wish my colleague from Davenport would tell me whether or not he thinks that profiteers are now abusing. 1 suggest that the Bill is aimed at people who seek to profit from the misfortunes of other people on earth. So 1 would like to know how he would go about pulling out some of the teeth of this legislation, because where I come from people tell me we need a law with sharp teeth precisely to prevent some people from taking advantage of others who suffer on this planet.


Charles L. Caccia: 1 wish to thank the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) for his questions. The Hon. Member and 1 have two characteristics in common. We both have a Latin temperament, and we both have a passion to stop acid rain.
August 14, 1987

As the Hon. Member usually does, he has raised a number of thoughtful questions which I will attempt to answer. There is no doubt that Canadians want to see a stop to the trafficking in human misery. The Hon. Member put it very well. Canadians also want to see a stop to abusers.
I am sure that the Hon. Member will agree with me that his Government has had a lot of time to prepare itself for this change in trends that he stated by virtue of the statistics he quoted. The Government has had a lot of time, and a lot of advice. It was only one year ago that his own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) welcomed the Tamil boat. Somehow, this heralded a change in the pattern of arrivals of people. 1 am seeking the Hon. Member's support in doing this in a manner that does not contravene our international obligations. This is one of the serious flaws in this Bill. It should be done in a manner that does not penalize individual groups or organizations of Canadians who take an interest in helping refugees.
It should be done in a manner that will maintain Canada's reputation in the world and honour its signature to the protocol whereby, as many other nations, we recognize the rights of a potential refugee to seek asylum on Canadian territory, and be processed according to due process.
Finally, 1 would invite the Hon. Member for Portneuf, for whom i have the greatest respect, to glance over the speech made by his colleague, the Hon. Member for La Prairie. It is a very educational one.


Sergio Marchi: 1 listened carefully to the very compassionate speech of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). In his speech, he pointed out a number of the high points and the low points of this debate. He also brought to the attention of the House of Commons a very important letter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The High Commissioner is very concerned with the direction in which the Government proposes to take Canada. The Hon. Member for Davenport quoted a number of comments from the High Commissioner. I wish to draw to his attention a further paragraph written by the High Commissioner to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in which he stated:
As you are no doubt aware the situations now being faced arc not unique to
Canada. Institution of the procedural safeguards referred to above would serve
as an important example to the international community and help preserve the
principle of asy lum throughout the world.
The United Nations High Commissioner is essentially asking Canada not to encourage an exodus that would render the pact signed under the United Nations Protocol of 1969 simply powerless. That is one of the messages the Commissioner is sending to Canada, a country that has traditionally been a leader in the international community, a country that lost that leadership but intends to encourage others to go in the same direction.
I wonder if the Hon. Member for Davenport could share with the House some concerns about the message this would
Immigration Act, 1976
send out to the international community which might look to Canada and enact the same legislation, thereby rendering powerless what was and continues to be a very significant international pact.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York West is correct in putting on record that paragraph of the letter of the United Nations High Commissioner who quite rightly draws to the attention of the Government of Canada the fact that the situation we are facing is not unique to Canada. He asks what the international repercussions would be if we were to deny, reject or break our commitment under Article 14 of the Human Rights Proclamation.
It is true that the situation that has evolved over the last two years is quite different from the one which existed in the past. There is a phenomenal movement of refugees. There may be as many as 15 million people of official or unofficial refugee status around the globe. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said yesterday, this offers the Government of Canada an opportunity to take an international initiative and to call together all the interested parties to develop a new set of approaches designed to face a new type of problem rather than to run away from it. In that sense, there is an implicit message in the letter of the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canadians are not angels but, at the same time, our people have shown a tremendous readiness to pour out their hearts and their resources to people throughout the world when grave problems are brought to their attention. Canada has never let an emergency or a disaster go by without responding to it as a nation and as individuals when asked. There have been earthquakes in Turkey and Italy, floods in Bangladesh and starvation in Ethiopia in recent years and Canadians have very quickly and readily responded to them.
The same is also true of the reaction of Canadians to refugees who are fleeing from tragic situations such as those who fled from Czechoslovakia during the Russian takeover, those who fled from Hungary at the time they were unable to bring about a democratic regime and their lives were in danger, those Ugandans who fled from the terror of Idi Amin or those who fled on boats from Vietnam. As the list goes on, we recall the ready response of Canadians to welcome to our country those refugees with warmth and enthusiasm.
Canada has shown great compassion, and that is certainly one of the reasons why we as a country deserved to be awarded the Nansen Medal for outstanding treatment of refugees. At the same time, I can report to the House, as can probably every Member of Parliament, that when a boatload of people came ashore in the fog and the dark not long ago and claimed refugee status, there was an outburst of protest, frustration and even anger unequal to anything I have experienced since 1 was elected a Member of Parliament. My constituents felt that this arrival was illegal, dangerous and unfair to other refugees and to Canadians.

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
There are some who say that this reaction was caused by racist attitudes and bigotry. To say that is to lay a bum rap on Canadians. 1 headed a human rights organization on a national basis here in Canada and I have devoted a large part of my ministry to fighting stereotyping, bigotry and racism through human rights legislation, through education and through spiritual values. I think 1 can recognize a prejudiced attitude and reaction when 1 see one.
Of course there are some racists and bigots in our midst as there are in every society, but the race or religion of the recent boat people was not the issue. What was the issue was that Canadians saw this as a dramatic example of what had been wrong for a long time and they blew the whistle.
1 think it is wrong to say that Canadians overreacted to this situation. It is wrong to say that they were unfair and bigoted. I believe they were concerned, and rightly so, about what has been wrong for a long time.
Canadians are fair and will tolerate a lot patiently. They give people the benefit of the doubt, as they should. However, Canadians felt that something was wrong and had been wrong and they wanted something done.
First, Canadians felt that what was wrong was that an organized effort was made to bring people into Canada illegally by people who were making a profit on dealing in human flesh and misery. They felt it was wrong that the people who came ashore were subjected to danger in the water and in the dark. They felt it was wrong that people were making a profit on the project. They felt it was wrong and on the basis of media reports, Canadians were told that these people who did not come to a legal port of entry were thus evading not only immigration authorities and processes but a health check and a security check; and that these people came from countries where, it was alleged by the media, they already had safe haven and were allegedly denying this and had in fact destroyed documentation that might have proven it.
We do not know if the media reports were entirely true, but we do know that there has been a growing problem of this kind. Some people have been misusing the category of refugee status to actually effectuate immigration to Canada without having to go through the proper applications and processes through which everyone else has to go. That is what was bothering Canadians. They want to help real refugees and immigrants who take the proper steps.
Hundreds and hundreds of my constituents have been unsuccessful in bringing to Canada their relatives, friends or people whom they wanted to employ and whom they were prepared to sponsore and guarantee. They have been refused over and over again, but Canadians are not amused with a system which has loopholes which allows people to circumvent the system eventually and stay in Canada. We are told that somewhere around 90 per cent of those claiming to be refugees have their claims rejected in the end.
The first thing that must be said is that we have known that this problem has existed for a long time. We have known this for years. We know that something ought to have been done about it a long time ago. In fact, the refugee situation in the world is deteriorating. The way people try to gain access is through more and more circumvention, and that is why the last Government assigned the Plaut Royal Commission to recommend ways to change the rules so that a better, faster and fairer system would be set up to determine refugee status and to ensure that people are not able to take advantage of and misuse the system that was designed to help poor people fleeing for their lives from torture, persecution and hatred. The system should try to ensure that real refugees are brought through safely and quickly but that those who are not refugees are not able to misuse it. We would streamline the system. That is why the Plaut Commission was set up and it reported on how to streamline the system. The Government knew something had to be done when it first came to power. It knew the Plaut Commission had been set up to effectuate a change in the system because of new circumstances.
While I was attending a UN meeting on human rights in Geneva in February of this year, I took the opportunity to go to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and discussed the problems. They agreed that Canada had a special problem. We had to take steps to deal with these new developments. If the UN High Commission was discussing this with me in February and the Plaut Commission had dealt with this and reported several years ago, the Government knew there was a problem. The people of Canada expected the Government to do something about it, yet it was not until May of this year that it brought in Bill C-55. We all know that very little time or priority was given to that Bill. Now we find that because of the incidents off the shores of Nova Scotia, we are told an emergency exists. That emergency, if that is what it is, has existed for years. It is not fair that it has been allowed to go on for years because the rules have been misused and taken advantage of. At the same time real refugees are not being given the assistance they should have.
The basis for any proper refugee policy should be threefold. Refugees should be able to come to Canada and ask for refuge. That is basic to the whole idea of a refugee policy. There has to be a hearing under an independent process with the right to counsel. Third, there has to be the right to appeal. The Plaut Commission provided recommendations on just how to go about this with the least delay and the greatest fairness and protection of the rights of a refugee. The Government set that aside and did nothing with it for years while these wrongs continued.
The Government has now introduced these two Bills. I have to say that in its rush to do so, it has produced disasters. Why? Because they are not the basis for an even half-decent refugee policy. They violate those three principles I mentioned. In their present form they violate the human rights not only of non-
August 14, 1987

Canadians but even those of Canadians who want to help refugees.
Why did the Government put forward such dreadful legislation when it had such a clear consensus with all parties on the basis of the Plaut Commission report? Why did the Government come up with such Draconian, excessive and ruthless rules in these two Bills? It is either because of stupidity, and I hope that is not the case, or because it is a desperate political ploy to assuage the anger of Canadians by dramatizing its belated attention to this problem and the fact that it is finally doing something. In their political strategy meetings perhaps the Tories decided that if they submitted something that was outrageous enough there would be an outcry from the Opposition and various groups across the country and the Canadian people would see what a macho group the Tories are. "Look, they must be doing something tough because everyone is screaming at how tough it is". That may be the political reason for such amazingly unfortunate legislation as has been presented to us, especially Bill C-84. Maybe that kind of political tactic will work, but 1 hope Canadians will remember that the stonewalling of these problems over the years is what caused this problem to get out of hand. 1 hope they reject Bill C-84 in particular.
While exploiting refugee status is mean, unfair and in some cases illegal, it is of the greatest importance to Canadians that our refugee policy and rules be fair and humane. Many Canadians came to Canada, or at least their parents did, to escape persecution. Our country is made up of people who are especially sympathetic to those who flee persecution. I gave examples of this today. Our religious traditions reflect this as we remember how Moses sought refuge in the Promised Land and how Jesus and his family fled for refuge to Egypt in his infancy. We know of the importance of the right of people to flee from persecution. It is a part not only of our religious tradition but of our history. Canada is a haven to which people have fled for safety or to find a better life. We do not criticize that. We praise it and encourage it. Why play on the wrong emotions? The Government should come up with a Bill which is fair and genuine because it is a sacred trust to us. The opportunity for refugees to flee to Canada to save their lives and escape persecution is a sacred trust.
Therefore, these Bills must be treated with a sense of sacredness. We must do it carefully and thoughtfully so we will not end up with a situation where an innocent refugee should be for any reason ejected from the shores of Canada when we could have saved him or her. Canadians have shown that this is how they feel in their care of other refugees. Yet Canadians do not want the unfairness caused by those who exploit and misuse the system.
The Government should come up with a Bill that is fair to genuine refugees, one that speeds up the process of determining who should stay and who should not. In that way we can be firm. If you feel your policy is fair, you can be firm. You know that your policy gives all the necessary protection to those who are genuinely qualified for refugee status. You can be fair
Immigration Act, 1976
when you know your legislation is fair. Yet these Bills are so unfair that they will not only encourage circumvention, they will be appealed at every possible level.
Bill C-84 does not allow complete accessibility to Canada. Aside from that, it makes the carrier involved responsible for holding travel documents. That is silly. Clause 14 of Bill C-84 authorizes those companies to hold the visas, passports or travel documents of those persons in order to ensure that those documents are available for examination by an immigration officer at the port of entry. When the travel industry understands the full ramifications of this Bill they will regard it with consternation. Can you imagine them, with the thousands of passengers that use their facilities, being responsible for deciding who looks like a refugee and have some steward or stewardess hold the travel documents? I cannot imagine anything as half-witted, inane and impractical as that requirement. It is incredible. While it is true that they might check them out, I suggest that that alone requires the Government to add new amendments and make this Bill more sane.
Many Polish Canadians and others from behind the Iron Curtain jumped ship without travel documents or any identification. Many of them even evaded our security forces in order to find sanctuary because they were afraid that their captors would catch up with them. They hid themselves in Canada because of their fear. Canadians must realize that we cannot afford to have laws which are as severe and restrictive as those suggested in Bill C-84.
The Government should redraft Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 to conform more with the recommendations of the Plaut report which has almost universal consensus. When it does that it can count on swift passage from the Liberal Party, and I am sure from the NDP as well. The well-being of all Canadians and all genuine refugees will thereby be looked after. It will also discourage the insincere and the dishonest. If the Government's PR exercise can now be over, we look forward to its changing these Bills so that they will be humane.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put some points to the Hon. Member and see whether he would care to comment on them. Yesterday we heard from a number of speakers from the Conservative Party, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Gurbin), who said that they were opposed to universal access to the refugee determination system because five billion people would come to Canada.


Philip Derek Lewis: That's nonsense. You misconstrued it.


David Berger: Never have members of the Tory Party so surpassed themselves in demagoguery, manipulation and sheer silliness.
However, there may be some people who are misled by the Conservatives' demagoguery and believe that being in favour

August 14, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
of universal access means being in favour of accepting all refugees who come to Canada. That, of course, is not what universal access means at all. It does not mean that we have to accept everyone who comes to Canada, but simply that we have to give those persons who manage to get to Canada and claim to be refugees a full hearing. Again, we do not have to accept them but have to give them a hearing to determine whether they are refugees. That is what universal access means.
In violation of the principle of universal access which was supported by Rabbi Plaut and the all-Party parliamentary committee and is based on a consensus within knowledgeable circles around the country, the Conservative Government proposes to establish a screening process which would exclude persons from the refugee determination system on the basis of very arbitrary criteria.
On the point of the numbers, the Conservatives were brandishing the spectre of millions if not billions of people coming to Canada. The Member knows that we have very effective methods for controlling the number of people who come to Canada, including transit visas which apply to most refugee-producing countries. Would the Member care to comment on that or add anything more to try to dispel the false propositions, innuendo and demagoguery which has been spread by the Conservatives in this debate?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, if there are people under the impression that instituting the recommendations of the Rabbi Plaut Commission and the all-Party committee of the House of Commons will result in an inundation of refugees, we should try to dispel that impression. If people are dealt with swiftly, false applicants will realize that they are wasting their time and money by coming to Canada when they find that they will only stay a brief time and be rejected. They will lose their time and money. That has been a sufficient deterrent in the past to dissuade people from coming, provided the system works effectively, efficiently and quickly.
We will not, therefore, be inundated by millions or even hundreds of thousands of people. We will find that some who are borderline cases may still come to try out their applications, but by and large a sound system, such as that recommended by Rabbi Plaut, would discourage the bogus applicants for refugee status while, at the same time, giving
universal access to everyone who believes that his or her life or well-being are in danger and comes to Canada as a refugee.
1 am glad my colleague brought this point up. 1 think he would acknowledge that this is a worldwide problem. Canada has to solve the problem of the many refugees from various parts of the world with other nations. Working with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and through the United Nations we may be able to find ways to take our fair share. We would not be inundated with refugees if we were able to bring about a co-operative policy with other countries. I hope this will be undertaken by the Government in the near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty to put all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, August 17, 1987.
It being 2.10 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, August 17, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers