1987-09-02

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this week a Gallup poll reports that 95 per cent of Canadians support more government funding for the protection of wilderness. Yet wilderness areas are coming under attack, not only from logging, mining and development, but from the air as well compliments of the Government of Canada.
Fighter planes already roar across Labrador at tree-top level. If the Department of National Defence gets its way and Goose Bay becomes a NATO training base, the number of overflights will increase substantially.
This year approval was given for B-52 and B-1B bombers to fly at less than 100 metres above ground over Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Wilderness Park near Temagami in northern Ontario. The latest proposal is for bombers and fighter jets to practise over the skies of British Columbia starting in December.
The Government should respect Canadian passion for the wilderness and stop low-level military flights instead of permitting the militarization of Canadian wilderness.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked, depressed and infuriated when I read in a book issued by the Department of the Secretary of State that there would be a new Oath of Allegiance for new citizens. I was horrified by the two options suggested: one, delegating the monarchy to
second place in the oath; and two, leaving the monarchy out altogether.
Why such an idea even appeared in a government booklet is incomprehensible. Surely when we take an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty, The Queen, we are pledging allegiance to Canada itself.
If the intention was to accommodate persons who want to become citizens of Canada and who object to taking our present Oath of Allegiance, they should go back to where they came from.
The monarchy stands for the highest and best principles of life and indeed binds our country with all other countries that form the great Commonwealth of Nations.
Every individual who takes our Oath of Allegiance by saying: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" is following in the footsteps of thousands of Canadian soldiers, airmen and sailors who died for Canada in honouring that oath.
I commend the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) for saying yesterday in this Chamber: "It is not the Government's intention to withdraw Her Majesty from the Oath of Allegiance". Long live our Queen!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians got good news and bad news about Canada Post today. First, the good news. The Canadian Labour Relations Board decided unanimously that people working at postal franchise outlets must receive benefits and wages equal to those paid postal workers. This is a great victory for working Canadians and for Canada Post customers.
It is a victory for men and women in need of a living wage. It also means an end to cheap labour at franchise locations.
This is also a victory for the Canadian consumer. People in my riding, and Canadians from across the country, have been telling me that they want the Conservative Government to rethink the way it operates the Post Office. They want equality and uniformity of service for all Canadians whether they live in Thunder Bay, South Gillies, or Atikokan.
86%

September 2, 1987
Now for the bad news. Canada Post has finally decided that the mail is slow, something that Canadians have known for years, and only now does it want to find out why. The real rub is that it is going to take Canada Post three years to find out why the mail is slow.
This study already has proven why the mail is slow; incompetent management led by an incompetent Conservative Government.
There is a real solution to this problem and it starts with getting rid of the Conservative Government.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, another inmate is again being charged with at least one murder and perhaps more after being released on a temporary pass by the National Parole Board, for his birthday, believe it or not. Surely a birthday is insufficient reason for permitting a convicted killer to mingle with innocent Canadians at a mall, who err simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As we have recently, in a democratic, parliamentary vote, rejected the return of capital punishment, surely we as legislators must accept full responsibility for bringing in tougher parole laws to ensure a greater degree of safety for Canadians. I, for one, have no intention of reneging on my responsibility in this area. We continually hear of the rights of the accused and the guilty, but as I have stated many times in this House, I believe it is high time we concentrate on the collective rights and the protection of society as a whole.
When we reflect on the Sweeney case in which a convicted murderer was released on parole to kill viciously again, and then this recent case in Edmonton, is this not a clear message that it must not happen again? We must toughen the system and protect innocent Canadians.


FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Lucie pepin (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, a good many men and women from Quebec and other Canadian communities are attending today's official opening of the Francophone Summit in the Quebec capital. This summit is a gathering of 40-odd state leaders and government heads whose common tie is the use of the French language.
Several themes are on the agenda. The participants will attempt to emphasize international policy and the world economic situation. Special consideration will be given to the poorer countries of the francophone community. Linked though they may be by the French language, these countries still carry a heavy burden.
As Governor General Sauve put it, what we are about to write is the history of francophones of the year 2000. Not only is it a matter of ensuring the continuity of the French language, but we must also promote dialogue among francophone countries. This is a major concern, and therefore political and economic co-operation has to be a foremost objective.
People of many countries have their eyes riveted on Quebec and Canada, and they closely follow the summit leaders to whom we extend our best wishes of success. Unfortunate though it may be, many of us Members of Parliament cannot attend the various events, but our hearts and minds are with the participants. We can only applaud and wish them good luck, hoping that this summit is a harbinger of many more such gatherings.

Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a piece of electioneering and fund raising propaganda which I think is worth the attention of the House, if only because of the irresponsible nature of its handling.
I wish to quote from the letter which is addressed by a gentleman who, the last time we looked, was President of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Michel Robert. He says in part:
The best way to get this great country of ours back on track with caring, responsible government is by electing more Liberals to Parliament.
Please accept the enclosed Sustaining Supporter card and make your donation today to help ensure a safer, more prosperous tomorrow.
The rest of the story is that this envelope was sent with a transparent window to a constituent of mine who is anything but a supporter of the Liberal Party. His name is on the card. Furthermore, this card was sent to his place of employment, which has caused him no shortage of embarrassment in a province such as Alberta.
I call upon the Leader of the Liberal Party to offer my constituent an apology for the invasion of his privacy.
September 2, 1987



fcOMMONS DEBATES


Mr. Simon  de Jdtig@Regina East: Mr. Speaker, in early August the Saskatchewan Legal Aid Commission introduced shameful user fees for legal aid services. The charges range from $60 to a whopping $400. The impact of the user fees is already being felt throughout the province. There has been a sharp increase in the number of people appearing in court without a lawyer simply because they cannot afford the fee. As well, people are pleading guilty to serious charges rather than paying the new user fees. Clearly the user fees are a deterrent to the very people the system was designed to protect, the poor.
Despite this disturbing situation, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will do nothing to prevent the gutting of Saskatchewan's legal aid system. He knows the introduction of user fees violates long-standing federal-provincial cost sharing agreements, but he prefers to say and do nothing to ensure that equality before the law does not become just equality for those whd can afford it.
By His inaction the Minister has given the green light to othef pfovinces which are seriously considering introducing their dWfi user fee schemes. It is apparent that this Minister is content tb sit idly by while the legal did system in Canada begins to crumble.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1988 MODEL AUTOMOBILES-NEW EMISSION CONTROL STANDARDS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this month automobile manufacturers will be unveiling their 1988 models. These models will be required for the first time to comply with new emission standards aimed at significantly reducing the allowable emissions of nitrogen oxides from automobiles. These new emission standards, which came into effect yesterday, are another important step in the Government's fight against acid rain.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in March, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a national program to reduce acid rain to 50 per cent of its 1980 levels by 1994. That program included $150 million for emission controls at smelters, $25 million for technology development, $70 million for cleaner use of coal, $18 million per year for research and monitoring, efforts to increase the use of low sulphur western Canadian coal, and new automobile emission standards to go into effect September 1, 1987, for 1988 car models.
While half of our acid rain emissions comes from the United States, the other half originates in our own country. These new
automdbile emission standards will help us to get our own house in order.



HISTORIC EVENTS

[Stage Direction]
CEREMONIES COfdMRMdRATING DIEPPE RAID
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, recently a small group of Members from the House of Commons and the Senate accompahied the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) and approximately 50 Dieppe veterans and officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the forty-fifth anniversary ceremonies commemorating the Dieppe Raid. We had many cenotaph remembrance events at cemeteries and battle sites during the course of the week.
I want to compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the effective manner in which he conducted himself during the course of his official duties and for the sense of decency and the rapport with which he treated all of us in the delegation. The officials in the Department of Vetefflns Affairs deserve a big vote of congratulations on their organisation.
The number of Canadian graves that we visited in Britaih and in the Dieppe area of France tell the story of a terrible mission. Many other Canadian soldiers had to spend the war in captivity and, indeed, in a wounded state as a result of the raid. Our soldiers Were given an impossible mission on that dreadful morning of August 19, 1942. But there is no dispute whatsoever about the fact that the Canadians involved in the Dieppe Raid could not have done more.
One has only to attend remembrance ceremonies at the many cenotaphs in Europe to realize fully what a wealth of Canadian leadership is resting in the well-kept military cemeteries of Europe. One reads the names and the ages: 19 years old; 21 years old; 30 years old; 24 years old; and 18 years old. These young people never really had a chance to participate in the life of their own beloved nation, Canada.
In the Act of Remembrance we state that: "We will remember them". But do we really remember them? Do we in this House of Commons fully realize that we are here because of them? Every day must be a remembrance day for such gallant Canadians and, indeed, for us. We have had the torch of freedom and responsibility passed to us to handle difficult problems in this country and in the world at large. How well we handle these challenges will be a reflection of how well we will remember them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 2, 1987



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of Parliament the recently published report of the Advisory Group on Hydrogen Opportunities chaired by Professor David Scott of the University of Toronto. The report is entitled Hydrogen-National Mission for Canada. The establishment of such a mission is its principal recommendation.
In the future it is likely that electricity and hydrogen, readily interchangeable, will be the forms or sources of energy in most common use. We are fortunate that these are largely non-polluting.
With its resources of natural gas for steam reforming and hydroelectricity for electrolysis, plus our brain power in industry and in universities, Canada stands poised to reap the opportunities in this new and exciting field. The positive reception of this report by the Government augurs well for the future of hydrogen technology in Canada.



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, British Columbians and British Columbia firms for many years have been anxious and keen to do business with the Canadian International Development Agency. British Columbians have the interest, the expertise, the skills and the experience to offer their services, goods and equipment to CIDA for Canadian overseas development projects. However, British Columbians have been and still are shut out of doing CIDA work.
While the Liberals were in office although British Columbia had 35 per cent of Ontario's population it received only 14 per cent of the number of contracts received by Ontario. However, under the Tories the situation has actually worsened with B.C. now receiving only 12 per cent of the number of contracts received by Ontario, and worth only 11 per cent of the value.
1 urge the Progressive Conservative Government to have more faith in British Columbians and in British Columbia, to show an interest and to take initiatives to recognize British Columbian talent, expertise, experience and ability when it comes to filling CIDA contracts.
British Columbians ask not for any extraordinary consideration-only that they receive their fair share of CIDA service contracts, goods and equipment contracts and industrial cooperation contracts. British Columbians do not expect special treatment, only justice and fairness.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians heard an amazing admission from the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). He told us that he is closer to the people of Central and South America than to many other Canadians. He referred to countries in that region of the world as sister countries. He singled out Nova Scotians as a group to which he is not close. He did not call Nova Scotia a sister province. What must Nova Scotia do to become a sister province-elect a socialist government?
For whom does the Hon. Member speak? Is he representing the views of British Columbians when he says that they have a closer relationship to Central America than to Atlantic Canada? I do not think so. I am sure that my sister and my brother living in B.C. do not agree. I can assure Hon. Members that he is not speaking for Nova Scotians.
The Hon. Member's admission reflects his personal emotions. When he says that Central America has a closer relationship to B.C. than Nova Scotia he represents only the world as he sees it. It is a shameful comment on his Party's feelings for Atlantic Canadians and for our country-the greatest country in the world.
I ask the Hon. Member to stand in his place and apologize to his constituents for this gross misrepresentation of their loyalties, and for this slight to all Nova Scotians that he purports to offer on their behalf.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-MILK COMMITTEE'S CONCERN

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Russell County Milk Committee wrote a letter to the excellent Premier of Ontario, Mr. David Peterson. In the letter they state:
The Russell County Milk Committee is quite concerned about the "free trade" and the impact it could do to the dairy industry.
Everybody knows we have the best supply management in the world and it should not be traded away in whole or in part. There is no doubt it cannot be compared with the American system. It costs a lot less for the taxpayers to support a system like ours than what they have in the States, plus the fact that our financial stability is entirely due to our system.
The letter concludes by stating:
September 2, 1987

We have had a lot of pressure from concerned dairymen in the last months over the free trade issue, and we hope that your Government will keep an eye on our federal counterparts concerning this matter.
Yours truly,
Leo Brisson,
Russell County Milk Committee.
It is obvious that the Russell County Milk Committee is very concerned about the fact that the Government in Ottawa could trade away supply management, and it is counting on the excellent Liberal Government of Ontario to defend it, as does the excellent Liberal Party in Ottawa.



PETRO-CANADA PRIVATIZATION URGED

Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to urge the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) to privatize Petro-Canada. But I wish it to be done in a unique, innovative manner, and not let it slip into foreign hands. I want to give Petro-Canada to the 25 million citizens of Canada.
My plan is deceptively simple. Every man, woman, and child would be given a proportionate share of the common shares owned by the federal Government. Canadians would be given first rights to future share issues.
1 believe the Government has an obligation to ensure security of supply of oil and gas resources by ensuring that they are developed on a timely basis. I do not believe this means being in the retail gasoline station business.
Governments should only intrude in the market-place if it serves a public policy objective. In my wildest imagination, I cannot imagine how government ownership of retail gasoline pumps meets a public policy objective.
Let us give the shares of this corporation to the people of Canada. In a sense they already own it because Governments have poured hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars into this organization, and provided it with enormous tax concessions. Petro-Canada has been quick to raise prices at the pump when crude oil prices rise, but it is not so quick to drop prices when crude oil prices decline.
Who knows, we may even create a healthier, more competitive market-place with Canadians in charge, and keep control in this country.
Oral Questions



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, after nearly three years in office this Conservative Government-ever mindful of its unbelievably stupid blunders concerning elderly Canadians, such as de-indexation of old age security pensions, unemployment insurance discrimination towards older workers, cut-backs of about $5 million in the New Horizons program-this Government, as 1 said, has decided to buy off elderly Canadians by appointing a Minister of State for Senior Citizens.
Mr. Speaker, a better man could not have been chosen for this job, but we want to be sure that the Government considers the well-being of senior citizens as something more than a smokescreen and window-dressing. Therefore I would urge the Minister responsible for Senior Citizens to eliminate discrimination with respect to the spouse's allowance, single, separated or divorced women, to cancel the New Horizons $5 million cut-back, and to correct the situation concerning the unfair treatment meted out to older workers seeking unemployment insurance benefits. Then people will have faith in this Government.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In a reply to my question yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said: "The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows there is nothing in the tax reform proposals which specifically outlines a tax on food. He should not try to mislead the House in suggesting that". Those were the words of the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the House on August 24 the Prime Minister said that any such suggestion of a tax on food was "absolutely false".
My question is based on the Minister's own document entitled Sales Tax Reform dated June 18, 1987, which specifically states that a tax on food is being considered. It appropriately uses a number of "pie" charts to set forth what a tax on food would do to household incomes.
Has the Minister of Finance been overruled, to his knowledge, by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister? Or does he confirm what he produced in the House of Commons on budget night? Will he categorically say to the House whether there will be a tax on food, yes or no?

September 2, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister qf Finance):: 
Mr. Broadbent:: Tell the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Shields:: Try and listen for a minute, Ed. You might learn something.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The document says: "These issues are important in deciding what goods should be included in the sales tax base. Before reaching any conclusions it is important to consider the factors that should be considered." What follows is an illustration of how the refundable sales tax credit would work and how it might relate to people with low incomes and those with higher incomes. I encourage the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to read the document before he jumps to conclusions.


WHITE PAPER DOCUMENT
John Napier Turner: It is
because I have read the document, and millions of other Canadians read it through reports in the media, that I do jump to a conclusion. The document says: "The prevailing view among Canadians has long been that exempting food from tax is required to help shield low-income families from a disproportionate burden of the sales tax. An important question, however, is whether or not an exemption is the best means to achieve this result." Then come the pie charts.
The Minister admitted again this afternoon that the food tax option is still open. He has not taken the opportunity to deny it and say the tax will not be imposed on Canadian families. He has in effect rejected the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday and of his own Prime Minister on August 24.
Do we rely on this document as an option? By the way, the Minister made an interesting comment. He said he made a decision to move to the multi-stage tax. Has he abandoned the option of the value added tax and the consumption tax, or was that an inadvertent slip of what he is now thinking?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am puzzled by that last question, Mr. Speaker. A multi-stage sales tax is a consumptigp tax. It is a value added tax. They are all part of that same generic term, multi-stage consumption tax. I am surprised that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as a former Minister of Finance did not-


John Napier Turner: Three options.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There are three mechanisms to achieve a multi-stage tax. They are all described as consumption taxes, which the right hon. gentleman believes is the right way to go.
Let me make it absolutely clear. There is no proposal in this document or any other document in Canada to tax food. That is a fact.


INSURANCE POLICY TAX QUERY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the House can judge for itself that the Minister lias not rejected the options to tax food, and his document supports that.
Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister might shout, let me see whether I can pursue another avenue under tax reform. As the Minister knows, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association has testified before the standing committee studying the Minister's proposals regarding a tax on insurance policies. I am not talking about a tax on the insurance companies. The Association has testified to the effect that that proposed tax on insurance policies will raise insurance premiums by about 20 per cent and will reduce survivor benefits. It points out that the tax will hit middle and lower-income families disproportionately, reducing the amount of benefit available to widows and widowers of lower and middle-income class families at a time when they need it the most.
In the Minister's study of these proposals, and in light of the testimony that he is receiving before that committee, will he withdraw the tax on insurance policies which will raise insurance premiums and reduce survivor benefits?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking a pretty fundamental question. We have a process under way in the Finance Committee of this House to review the White Paper on Tax Reform, specifically at this point income tax changes of which the insurance proposals would form a part.
Is the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition saying that this House should state today that certain parts just are not to be discussed? Or is the Leader of the Opposition saying let the democratic process continue that the duly appointed-duly elected, I guess it is-
September 2, 1987


John Napier Turner: You are appointed, we are elected.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -committee of this House of Commons is carrying out? Or should it have its work pulled away from it by this House through questions in the Question Period? Or should it be allowed to look at the tax reform package to see whether the different elements are fair and to see whether the balance between the impact on different sectors is fair? This is what the question is basically directed to, and I believe that process should continue because the life insurance industry has not been paying much tax.


John Napier Turner: I am not talking about the tax on the companies, I am talking about the tax on the policy holders.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is very clear that that tax is a tax at the company level.


UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN POTASH-PRODUCTION CONTROLS PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. Just over a week ago when the United States imposed perhaps the most punitive set of tariff and trade actions on this country the federal Government went into its habitual genuflective crouch, which means it did nothing about the matter, thereby forcing the Government of Saskatchewan to take very serious and drastic measures that will have major implications upon jobs in that province, upon the pricing of resources and, indeed, upon the whole free trade negotiations.


Mr. Crosbie:: Speech? Question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is the Government now prepared to break its vow of silence and tell us what the Government of Canada's position is on this very important matter? Does it support the action taken by the Government of Saskatchewan in imposing production controls on this very important resource? Has the Government of Canada counselled the Government of Saskatchewan that that is a proper course of action in light of its free trade negotiations? In other words, what position can we expect the Government of Canada to take on this important matter or, when we ask the question who speaks for Canada, do we have to get the answer from the Premier of Saskatchewan?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the Hon. Member that the position of the Government of Canada is that we support the Constitution of Canada. Under that Constitution, provinces have the exclusive authority under Section 92(a) to make laws
Oral Questions
in relation to development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources. We encouraged Saskatchewan to exercise its constitutional rights over a provincial resource. That is what we have been doing.


CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister for International Trade has just announced a very important constitutional precedent which basically is saying that in the jurisdiction of the federal Government, which has responsibility for international trade where it affects a natural resource, we will now abdicate totally responsibility to make decisions to the provinces of Canada. That is an incredible retreat and surrender of a basic federal right and power.
I want the Minister to reflect upon that answer and tell us whether she is saying that at anytime when there is a trade action against this country that affects natural resources the Government of Canada will abdicate its responsibility and leave it to the provinces to respond.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, what I find incredible, what I think the House will find incredible and I know what Canadians will find incredible is the position of the Liberal Party which is against provincial control of their resources. What Saskatchewan did was to bring in production measures. That is what it did in its own field and within its constitutional right. I think it is shocking that the Hon. Member cannot accept the Canadian Constitution.


TAX REFORM
[Stage Direction]
FOqp TAX ISSUE-CONTENT OF WHITE PAPER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday when I was attempting to get him to commit the Government not to levy a tax on food, he accused me of trying to confuse the issue and went on to say-and it is quite a serious matter:
-the NDP wants to come clean ... There is no mention of a tax on food in the tax reform white paper.
I went back and checked, Mr. Speaker, because I recalled not once but many times that it is mentioned. Since it says in the White Paper:
Even though food is taxed in many other countries and some foods are now taxed in Canada, taxing food is understandably an emotional and controversial issue.
The paper goes on talking about the implications of a tax on food. In the interest of truth and clarification, will the Deputy Prime Minister now withdraw his statement made yesterday and acknowledge that there is a discussion about taxing food in the White Paper?

September 2, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Yesterday, I said in response to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, which was confirmed here today by the Minister of Finance, that there is no proposal to tax food in the White Paper.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not what I quoted.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I said that there is nothing in the tax reform proposals which specifically outline a tax on food. That is consistent with what the Prime Minister said in the House on August 24, 1987, in response to the Member for Ottawa Centre, which was:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just, no doubt, inadvertently, misled the House with the direct statement that the Government is considering a sales tax on food. That is false.
The Government put out, as it ought to in a democracy, a White Paper dealing with a very complex issue. We set out some options for consideration and debate by parliamentarians and all Canadians. They are to be addressed, but not to be distorted and deformed as my hon. friend has just done.
I do not see anything inconsistent between that and what 1 said yesterday in response to questions.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 used to have full respect for the Minister and I hope that will continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I gave him a quote, not what he said to someone else in the House, but in reply to a question in which he accused me of misleading. The Minister said, and I quote again:
There is no mention of a tax on food in the tax reform white paper.
That is from the Minister himself as reported at page 8659 of Hansard.
Does the Minister stand by that or will he have the honesty and integrity to withdraw that statement right now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I simply challenge the Leader of the New Democratic Party to give in very specific terms where it outlines in a specific way a proposal to tax food?


John Edward Broadbent: I just did it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not in the paper and the Member should know that.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try a third time, and then there is a more serious recourse.
The Minister has asked me to cite the source and I will
quote the White Paper for the Minister:
Even though food is taxed in many other countries and some foods are now taxed in Canada, taxing food is understandably an emotional and controversial issue.
Then it goes on, not only on that page but on the previous page. There is a discussion, there is a mention of a tax on food. The Minister said-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is a discussion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that those words that I read with care to the Minister are in the White Paper but the Minister said in the House yesterday that there is no mention of a tax on food in the tax reform White Paper, will the Minister now admit, willingly or otherwise, that he was misleading the House of Commons and trying to mislead the people of Canada about what the Government is doing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know that the Minister and the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party are trying as best they can to deal with what seems to be a divergence of views on a document. Hon. Members will know that in Question Period when we get into a protracted disagreement over what is meant to be said or what appears in a document, it does create some difficulty for the Chair. I know the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would not want to leave the impression that the Minister is intentionally misleading anyone or-


John Edward Broadbent: No, he has a chance to clear it.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party in his comments is clearly putting forward his disagreement with what the Hon. Minister has said or with the Hon. Minister's interpretation, but I would not want the impression left, and I know the Hon. Member will assist the Chair in this, that there is any desire on the part of the Minister to deliberately mislead the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in my initial question I did not want to leave the impression that the Minister was deliberately misleading the House, nor do I want to do that. However, 1 read his words and I then quoted from the White Paper. It seems to me to be the case that there is a discussion or a mention of a tax on food in the White Paper. The Minister said flatly in an accusation of me that I was misleading. I gave him the opportunity as a respected Member of the House to withdraw what he said yesterday and to clarify the record; that is all.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had indicated
on a number of occasions yesterday that there were no specific
proposals contained in the White Paper with respect to taxing
September 2, 1987

food. 1 have challenged the Hon. Member to outline in a clear, succinct way the details of any proposal to tax food. He has failed to do so. He failed to do so yesterday and he has failed to do so today.


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members might consider that when these kinds of disputes are before the Chamber in Question Period, if they are to be pursued further there is of course another place to do it. I would ask Hon. Members to keep that in mind, including Members on the opposition side and Hon. Ministers.


TAX ON FOOD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance or to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The matter is important, it is a question of intellectual honesty and truth. First I should like to recall that elderly Canadians did not forget the written trickery of the Prime Minister who once stated that he would restore the full indexation of old age security pensions.
In another document the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that allowance cut-backs would not be used to reduce the deficit.
We remember what the Minister of Finance-
And everybody knows that the Government, in its White Paper on page ... in connection with the tax reform it says that one of the Government's option is to tax food. In other words, a tax on bread, milk and butter. On the same page they indicate how: an 8 per cent tax .. . People could be exempted.
My question to the Minister of Finance is quite simple: Can you be frank, honest and sincere, reassure Canadians, and tell us now whether you maintain your option to tax food?

Will you maintain the option to tax food, yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the booklet is very clear. There is no proposal to tax food. That is very clear.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister that the House has been misled twice in these matters. But just to be sure, just so Canadians get the message-the Conservative caucus is against it, the Minister says there is no option to tax food- does he mean that Canadians can now be sure that, as the Liberals have been saying, there is nothing about taxing food in the tax reform? So if the Minister is sincere we can tear up this page and tell people: All Parties agree, there is no option to tax food. Yes or no?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have responded very clearly to this question. We have a process-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Perhaps the Hon. Member would care to listen to the answer to the question. A process is under way right now which is called the Finance Committee of the House of Commons. The committee is listening to the views of Canadians on the subject of whether or not we should go ahead with this or that form of income tax change.
In some cases there have been comments on some of the proposals for the reform of the sales tax system. In some cases there have been views stated as to whether or not there should be a tax on food. Some have declared themselves in favour of it. We want to listen to Canadians so that they can give us their views. I think the role of parliamentarians is to listen to the views of all Canadians. This is a tax reform package-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Where do you stand?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


REFUNDABLE SALES TAX CREDIT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are in a difficult situation because of the Government's refusal to state clearly whether or not it intends to tax food. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the lengthy discussion in his White Paper on whether or not food should be taxed. I would draw his attention to the argument made in the White Paper that it is better to tax food and provide a low-income tax credit than not to, and to this particular passage in the White Paper:
A better way to make a sales tax fair is to offset the effects of the total tax
paid by lower-income families with a refundable sales tax credit.
In other words, the White Paper argues that it is better to tax food and have a refundable sales tax credit than not to tax food. Is that the position of the Minister of Finance now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would take the time to read it carefully, he would see that the White Paper takes no position on this. It is neutral on it. It does not make a proposal one way or the other. It sets out both sides of the option and the Hon. Member has just set out one side. The other side is not to tax food and to give everyone an exemption of the value of the tax they would pay if food were taxed. That would obviously benefit those with upper incomes to a greater extent than those with lower incomes and that is the question we want Canadians to consider. Which is fairer, which would they like to do?
We want to listen. We feel that that process should run its course. That is the role of the Finance Committee. The Hon.

September 2, 1987
Oral Questions
Member is a member of that committee. He is listening to the views of Canadians. 1 would have thought that he would have liked to listen a bit more to make sure that when he makes his decision as a member of the committee it is a decision that is the right one.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has now admitted that a sales tax on food is an option being considered by the Government. He has also acknowledged that his White Paper leans toward having a sales tax on food despite the opinion of Canadians.
Can he give us a bottom-line assurance that he will now reject his leanings of a month and a half ago and that the Government will not impose a sales tax on food?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was not leaning one way or the other a month and a half ago and I am not leaning one way or the other today. I believe it is the duty of Members of this House to make an objective and dispassionate judgment on which is the right way to go on this issue.
The Hon. Member says that he has made up his mind.


John Edward Broadbent: So has the Quebec caucus of your Party.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to drop off the Finance Committee and give his place to someone else who would want to listen and make a more objective judgment.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. At Saint-Leonard, Canada Post management have transferred some of the essential services to a drug store located two miles away and people who live in the vicinity of the post office are furious about this decision. Why transfer essential services instead of providing them in the post office which has the staff required to dispense them? Why deprive people of these services?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about a service to allow people to pick up registered letters and parcels if they are not home when delivery is attempted. Transferring registered mail to sub-post offices which are generally open
until nine or ten o'clock at night and have parking spaces available is an improvement in service to customers. It is in an effort to improve the services that these changes are being made across the country. The response of people across the country has been very good.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ORDER CORPORATION TO DROP FRANCHISE PLAN
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister checks his facts will he order Canada Post to drop its plan to franchise post offices now that the Labour Board has ruled that franchise owners must honour postal union contracts? Will he order the President of Canada Post to negotiate in good faith and stop announcing a strike as the Minister did last night? Is the Minister responsible for the Post Office or is he irresponsible?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is another clear position from the Liberal Party. The Member for Papineau says that the Government should cut the umbilical cord of Canada Post, and the Hon. Member who just asked the question suggests that we should dictate to the Post Office how it should manage its affairs.
It is my understanding that the corporation disagrees with the decision of the Canadian Labour Relations Board. An appeal has been filed. I understand further that the decision affects only one outlet, Shoppers Drug Mart in Willowdale. It is my sincere hope that this will not affect the plan to improve service to Canadians through franchising.


REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF PRIVATIZATION PLANS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. The Canadian Labour Relations Board decision undercuts the Post Office's plans for privatization. Will the Minister not take advantage of the decision and reexamine the plan for privatizing the Post Office through retail outlets, in order to maintain service at the Post Office and to prevent a postal strike in the future?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I have just said in response to a previous question, I think that franchising to shopping centres which are open in the evening, have better parking and so on, is essential to improved service for Canadians which I and the Government are in favour of.
This issue is at the table and is being discussed now. I would think a member of the New Democratic Party would not be counselling the Government to involve itself in issues which are presently being discussed at the table.


IMPENDING POSTAL STRIKE
Cyril Keeper: now. Is he just going to sit on his hands and wait for this postal strike to happen, or is he going to do something to prevent it? Why does he not take advantage of this Labour Relations Board decision to re-examine his plans for privatization?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that the leader of CUPW, Mr. Parrot, has said that there definitely will be a strike and estimated when that might happen. I said I hoped there would not be a strike, but Mr. Parrot apparently insists there will be one. The final decision is up to the union.
If the Hon. Member does not think there should be a strike, which would be in agreement with the Government's position, I suggest that he talk to his friends in that union and suggest that they not go on strike.


BEN JOHNSON-CANADIAN UNIFORM QUERY
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. When I say "Big Ben" to you, Mr. Speaker, you might think of a clock with 9.83 seconds on it. "Big Ben" is, of course, Ben Johnson, the fastest man alive today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Barry Turner: He ran the greatest race of his life in a Canadian team uniform. However, when he went to the podium to receive his gold medal in front of the world he was wearing an old dirty jersey. Why was he not wearing our proud Canadian colours?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to do publicly what the Prime Minister and I have already done privately, that is, congratulate Ben Johnson for his tremendous and historic achievement in Rome last weekend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: With that attempt, Mr. Speaker, Ben brought pride, not only to himself, his family and his community but, judging by the reaction from around the world, tremendous pride and integrity to Canada and all Canadians. For that we are very thankful.
With regard to the question, Ben Johnson did run in a Canadian uniform. I was somewhat surprised that he did not put the rest of his uniform on when receiving his gold medal. The rest of the world did not seem to care. However, my surprise was due to the fact that I knew that all of our international athletes have received full uniforms under a contract with Adidas Canada. Nevertheless, I have asked the
Oral Questions
Canadian Track and Field Association to find out why Ben did not put that uniform on, and to report to me in due course.
In the meantime, I hope we have not put a cloud over Ben's achievement on behalf of all Canadians.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is also the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Lubicon Indian Band in northern Alberta is back in the news again and, as usual, it is very bad news. This time it is a serious tuberculosis epidemic. The Minister knows that this disease is directly linked to poor housing, lack of sanitation, unclean water, and overcrowding.
Why is the Government not getting on with the important task of settling the outstanding claim of the Lubicon Indian Band, especially when there is a workable set of recommendations at hand which were developed by no less a person than the Hon. E. Davie Fulton?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the health matter of the tuberculosis cases at Lubicon the Member is correct. We have medical staff on site at Lubicon giving professional medical assistance as well as studying outbreak causation and providing any other services which can be provided.
With regard to the question about land for the Lubicon Band not having yet been so designated, I think the Hon. Member knows as well as I that that point has been taken up actively not only by the present Minister but also by his predecessor. 1 think it would be only appropriate for the present Minister to make a full response, and I will advise him of this.


BAND'S CLAIM TO RESERVATION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who is a distinguished Member from the Province of Alberta where the Lubicon Band is suffering at the present time. Is he aware that the United Nations Committee on Human Rights has criticized the Government for the way it has handled the problem at Lubicon, and has called for immediate action? Why does the Government continue and persist in rejecting the obvious route to solving this problem? The band wants, and Davie Fulton has offered to act as a mediator. Why are the services of this distinguished gentleman being rejected?

September 2, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Manly


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think Members on both sides of the House recognize the Hon. Member as being very responsible in these matters relating to Indian Affairs. He is aware of them fully, as I am to some degree. However, I think my colleague, the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, recognizes the complexity of this issue and I am not saying that in terms of delay or a desire for delay. I think the Hon. Member recognizes those complexities.
In view of those complexities, I think it is only proper that the Minister be given the opportunity to make any announcement respecting Lubicon or any settlement. I believe all of us would very much like to see a settlement to this very difficult, long-standing problem. I think that is the way to proceed with this issue.


ESTABLISHMENT OF RESERVE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Berger Report on Indian health that was commissioned by a previous Conservative Government established very clearly that Indian health is not simply a matter of pills, nurses and doctors, but is related to their total well-being.
Will the Minister acknowledge now that the outbreak of tuberculosis amongst the Lubicon Lake people is directly related to the frustrating fight they have had with the Government and previous Governments to establish a reserve for that band? That fight goes back 50 years. Will he acknowledge that fact and urge his cabinet colleagues to ensure that the situation is resolved with justice for the Lubicon people?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I believe all Members who know this issue crave justice and a solution to the issue relating to the Lubicon and reserve status.
Some very strong advances have been made with respect to Indian health, as he and most people who studied the issue should recognize. We have very professional people within the Medical Services Branch.
As a Minister I cannot stand up in the House and give that type of diagnosis which falls very much into a medical field and to which he wants me to give blanket coverage. Obviously, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, I have responsibility with respect to causes of disease and how we can ensure that it does not happen in the future. That is why my professionals and others are there right now.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired.


POINT OF ORDER
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in Private Members' Hour on Friday, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) had a motion before the House. In speaking to that motion, I said, as reported at page 8583 of Hansard:
-it was pointed out to me that last year when the Committee on Human Rights was holding hearings on the issue of human rights in South Africa the Hon. Member was the only one who voted against sanctions against South Africa. That, too, is a kind of silence which speaks very eloquently of support for the perpetrators of human rights violations in South Africa.
At that point, the Member for Parkdale-High Park rose on a point of order and said:
If the Hon. Member will check the record he will see that the statement which he has just made about the way I voted in a committee is inaccurate. I am sure he would want to correct his statement.
I have checked the record and I understand that the Hon. Member did not vote against the motion, rather he abstained. I apologize for any misunderstanding that has resulted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for bringing this to the attention of the Chamber. I commend him, of course, for conduct which is in the best tradition of this place.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Hon. Donald Frank Mazankowski and the Hon. Douglas Grinslade Lewis have been appointed by the Governor in Council as members of the Board of Internal Economy for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled "An Act to Amend the House of Commons Act".



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who are concerned that there are troubles in many parts of the world and people are seeking safety from persecution by coming to Canada. They believe that Canada has

September 2, 1987

established standards for refugee status determination, but our existing procedures have obviously broken down under the unexpected strains.
The standing committee of the House has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force. This proposal has the support of all Parties in Parliament, as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and many other groups and individuals.
Considering that procedures recently adopted that turn away refugee status claimants from ports of entry before their claims are examined put real refugees at serious risk, the petitioners are asking Parliament to ensure that the Government enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make these claims.
Again, a number of Canadians are asking the Government and, in a sense, Parliament to consider this recommendation seriously.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition from a number of Canadians concerned about changes to Canada's refugee policy.
They point out that increasing numbers of people from trouble spots throughout the world want to come to Canada to seek safety from persecution, that in the past we have had standards for refugee status determination but these have broken down under stress, and that the Government has introduced measures that take away from our tradition of being open to refugees.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament bring in legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission. There should be universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have here about 350 petitions from a number of residents of many parts of Canada who are concerned about Bill C-55 and the other refugee legislation which is before us.
The petitioners point out that because of troubles in many parts of the world people are coming to seek safety in Canada, and that the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration produced a report a year and a half ago with
Motions for Papers
recommendations for dealing with this more quickly and fairly than before. The report has widespread public support from church, labour, the Bar Association and other groups.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board that is independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim. Wherefore the petitioners will ever pray.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly registered petition from people of Edmonton, Alberta.
Whereas the standing committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force, and that the proposal had the support of all Parties in Parliament as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada and make this claim.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate this opportunity to thank the Members of the legislative committee on Bill C-84 who, I think, worked long hours on this legislative measure. I would also like to thank the people, groups or individuals, who commented on this Bill.

As we all know, Canada's refugee determination system is under siege against a daily onslaught of illegal migrants arriving in Canada and making false claims to gain entrance. The number of claims in 1987 is expected to be some 30,000. Refugee determination is a complex and often emotional issue. The question of abuse and how to eliminate it is crucial to preserving Canada's humanitarian reputation and our tradition for law and order. That is why the Parliament of Canada was recalled in the middle of August. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that was more than useful in order to take immediate, decisive action to put an end to the growing, flagrant abuse of our laws and generosity.

Over the past few weeks, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the views of a number of interest groups and individuals on the best way to correct the flaws they thought they had spotted in the Bill. I listened closely to their suggestions and concerns, and I take this opportunity to comment briefly on the amendments proposed by the legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker, I think it bears repeating that from the outset I gave Canadians and committee Members the assurance that I would consider the possibility of amending the Bill, on the condition that this would not weaken it in any way. I feel that the amendments endorsed by the House are useful and necessary explanations, and I support them unreservedly.
The Bill is aimed at severely cracking down on the operations of unscrupulous counsellors, smugglers who take advantage of the plight of illegal migrants, and carriers who fail to ensure, as they should, that their passengers carry the required documents. It is also aimed at curbing abuses on the part of economic migrants who try to jump ahead of refugees and immigrants who abide by the established procedure.
Mr. Speaker, proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 are the key provisions of these legislative measures, enabling us as they will to put a stop to the activities of those who bring many illegal migrants into Canada.

There has been much discussion about amending these articles. We have insisted that lawyers and legal drafters consider different phrases. We have considered terms such as religious group, profit, reward, fraud and clandestine entry, but each option creates loopholes and reduces our capacity to prosecute the unscrupulous. The bottom line of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot permit these individuals to escape sanction by creating insurmountable problems of proof.
I reject the argument that proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 open doors to prosecution which were not open before. The current Act had this general offence but it did not serve as a deterrent to Captain Nygren. Through proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2, we bring it forward as a clearly marked and highlighted offence with higher penalties.
There has been a great deal of talk about how this Bill would affect church groups. I would like to respond to these concerns. It has been said that because we have two new proposed Sections, we have opened up the door to the prosecution of church and humanitarian groups if they assist refugees. I reject this. Since 1976 there have been penalties in the Act for any person who brings undocumented people into Canada. Therefore, church groups have been liable to prosecution for the past 10 years. There have been no complaints before and, to my knowledge, no prosecutions. The reason is that the administration of this Act has always recognized and will continue to recognize the humanitarian nature of these activities.
What was true before is true now under the current legislation and under the new Bill. Bill C-84 does not create some new ground of prosecution for what church and humanitarian groups have been doing for years, presenting refugee claimants for examination, sponsoring refugees from abroad and providing settlement assistance.
Proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 address both the enormity and the immediacy of the situation. They send strong signals that Canada will no longer tolerate abuse of our borders and our laws. The message is clear and the audience is specific. Those who seek to ignore or circumvent our laws will be prosecuted. It is as simple as that.

In connection with Clause 8, Mr. Speaker, I should like to stress that proposed Section 103.1 of the Bill empowers the Minister either to order a ship captain to sail into port or to send him back. This amendment, proposed by the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon), confirms the assurance I gave the High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Hocke, that the Government has every intention of exercising its power to send ships back, but without endangering human lives nor breaching the Geneva Convention.
September 2, 1987

I am sure the House will agree that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) to add a new proposed section, 95.4, will make it easier for us to take legal action against unscrupulous counsellors who urge refugee status claimants to make false statements. This amendment provides for stiffer penalties for this kind of infraction.
The House has accepted two other technical amendments which clarify the Bill.

To conclude, this Bill is designed to meet an urgent situation. It has been drafted to hit hard at a new type of criminal activity, namely, large scale smuggling. It also strengthens our ability to quickly remove criminal and security risks. It will allow us as well to slow down, and perhaps put an end to the increasing flood of people arriving in Canada without travel documents.
This legislation, together with Bill C-55, will provide a comprehensive, long-term solution to the difficulties and abuses currently surrounding the refugee determination process. It will enable us to concentrate on helping those refugees truly in need of our protection. It will enable us to continue our strategy of controlled growth in immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this legislation is essential if we are to respect our humanitarian commitment towards refugees in the world and to prevent possible frauds against Canadians or Canadian laws. Bill C-84 will enable this country to do that.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party 1 am pleased to respond as the lead-off speaker in the final phase, in the House of Commons at any rate, of this Bill, namely third reading. The Bill received interesting treatment at second reading when Hon. Members actively participated. We have just come from very active deliberations in the legislative committee.
I regret that the attitude of the Minister is the same. It is the same inflexible position that was the position of the Government at second reading. It is the same inflexible position that was displayed during the study of Bill C-84 in legislative committee. It is the same inflexible position that was reflected in the clause-by-clause study of the Bill. Witness after witness came to Ottawa on short notice and prepared to help the Parliament of Canada in its deliberations to try to ensure a better, more fair and more effective Bill. Despite that the inflexibility persists. In the short 10 to 15 minutes that the Minister took in his speech on third reading the same inflexibility persisted. It rang out loud and clear. That is unfortunate because the issue is so sensitive.
In saying that I do not mean to suggest that any issue with which we deal in the House of Commons takes priority or second place to other issues. But certainly when we talk about
Immigration Act, 1976
immigration we must recognize the sensitivity and, beyond that, I believe the emotions that are attached to immigration policy.
I have spent only three years in this.Chamber. Like every other Member of Parliament, when I go back to my riding I keep constituency appointments with people who live in my riding. Their problems range from trying to find employment, to trying to find a summer job, to an individual who cannot pay his tuition, to an individual who wants to collect Canada Pension Plan disability benefits because of an injury received on a construction site. All those issues are important. They mean the world to the individuals who bring them forward. However, with respect to immigration-related problems there is no doubt that the emotional level attached to them poses the most serious dilemma and problems for us as Members of Parliament.
When we talk about immigration outside of the refugee flow and the refugee program we are talking about people in Canada, Canadians who wish their families to join them, who want visitors to visit them, who want their cousins to attend the University of Toronto to obtain an education on a visitor's visa. We have all sorts of requests. It is emotionally difficult for persons to understand why their mothers, their grandmothers, their aunts, their cousins, their nephews or their friends were refused by the Department, by the bureaucracy. It becomes difficult because we are talking about human feelings and about human beings. That is why I thought that there could have been some movement, some sensitivity displayed by the Government of Canada in terms of responding to those, at many times, emotional pleas from a wide range of groups.
We heard from the Inter-Church Committee, from the clergy, from the Canadian Bar Association which gave a legal perspective, and from civil libertarians. We heard from Canadians who came on short notice to give a bit of themselves to the input and the drafting of this legislation. I am left to ask myself this question. Are we any richer for it as a Parliament if we continue, as the Government does, simply to play the charade, to pass the legislation in a vacuum, to explain it to one's caucus on a Wednesday morning as if nothing else mattered outside that room or on the drafting board in the Minister's office? We cannot continue to draft legislation in that sense.
While the purpose and objective of this legislation is certainly noble for everyone in the House, it is the process that has to be paid some respect and some regard since it is the process that has a way of affecting the substance. In this case there was little process. There was no respect given to the witnesses or to the testimony given during the process. As a result we have a piece of legislation which I believe is made poorer as a result of that indifference and intransigence. That is why at the eleventh hour of third reading there was still a trickle of hope that the Minister could have moved a number of amendments on a number of grounds.

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
On behalf of my Party I moved close to 20 amendments, not in an attempt to scuttle Bill C-84 or to suggest that the Liberal Party does not wish to clamp down on abuse. All Members in all Parties wish to clamp down on abuse. It was a way of achieving that without sacrificing many of the principles that I will be deliberating and outlining for the House.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), on behalf of his Party, presented a large number of amendments to improve and precisely target the objectives of Bill C-84. At different times, Members of the Minister's Government made various remarks or suggestions which reflected that perhaps there could be some movement. Yet, we are at third reading, and the Minister has articulated the same position today as he did at first and second readings.
If that was the intention of the Government, and it knew what it would say at third reading today, then I think it could have avoided putting Canadians, Members, research staff, and everyone else through the hoop; through a process that, in the end, counted for absolutely nothing.
The substance of the Bill is worrisome, but also the process taken by the Government is equally alarming. Today it is Bill C-84, tomorrow perhaps it will be Bill C-55 which may be treated in the same manner, and other Bills down the line. Therefore, we move away from participatory democracy because there is no public participation or involvement, and no accommodation of the input from the public. There is no respect for the opinion of anyone other than the Minister.
That is not the openness and the accessible Government preached by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in 1983 or 1984 when he was campaigning, visiting various towns and hamlets, and visiting the church basements which I do not think he will dare to step in after Bill C-84.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: The Prime Minister suggested that he would introduce an open Government, an accessible Government, a Government that will participate with Canadians and give Canadians what they deserve. Canadians deserve something better than Bill C-84. Canadians should not continuously be talked to and dictated to; they should participate with the Government in improving its legislation in order that the laws created and administered, if not agreed with, will be respected by Canadians.
The committee heard testimony from many people who suggested that they have no respect for the legislation, especially in the literal sense, in terms of those individuals who would now be liable to fines or imprisonment for assisting refugees who may not have visas. Those individuals have said that they will continue to pursue their legitimate work in assisting refugees.
Therefore, I ask the Minister, what is the purpose of drafting legislation which is not rooted and grounded with
some degree of moral respectability from citizens? The process has been alarming and discouraging.
We talk about parliamentary reform and suggest that committees will have more political power and greater input; committees will be allowed to question the Minister on the laws, provide a check and balance, and make a Member of Parliament feel like a somebody. That is not evident in Bill C-84. Thus far it is not evident in Bill C-55. Four witnesses were jammed into a morning session which lasted two hours. What committee deals with four different witnesses, assuming that there will be two rounds of questioning from Members at the table? If we allow other legislation to be properly scrutinized, why should immigration Bills be the exception? Why should Bills C-84 and C-55 set a wrong and dangerous precedent? These questions of process impact in a very real manner on the substance that we are debating.
In terms of dealing with the substance, I would like to begin with a short quote from Rabbi Gunther Plaut. I do not suggest that his testimony was any better than any other witness, but it was an inspirational speech that he delivered to the legislative committee. He even impressed and touched Members on the government side, judging from the attention, the questions, and the duration of his speech, and from the compliments of the government chairman. Rabbi Plaut touched a nerve that day, and one would have thought his testimony would have moved the Government to realize that amendments in certain clauses were correct and necessary if we were to maintain the sense of justice that has prevailed in Canada.
At the beginning of his testimony to the legislative committee he stated:
You can render the Canadian people and the refugee community of the
world and causes of humanity in general a true service if you manage to
eliminate from this Bill clauses that treat such people worse than the worst of
criminals.
Rabbi Plaut further stated:
Treat the stranger fairly; you should extend your love and friendship to him.
Remember that you too were strangers once.
That last line which addresses the stranger among us left a five-second interval of silence at the committee. In fact, the stranger among us represents the history and the roots of this country.
We can engage in a numbers game as to how many people were born here, how many people immigrated here, how many are the sons and daughters of immigrants but born here; the numbers can be debated, but perhaps no agreement will be reached as to how many individuals constitute second, and third generations of Canadians of immigrant families.
Over-all it cannot be denied that in large measure this country was built by the impressive flows of immigrants to our shores. In a real and conscious way, Canada opened its doors to the world, invited and welcomed people to begin a new life, take a new lease on life and start anew in Canada. In the process of offering those individuals a new opportunity and a new life, we were breathing life into Canada and building a
September 2, 1987

new, bigger, and better country. That is the role that immigration has played in this country. It is a national building block. It has been in the past, it continues to be in the present, and it will be so in the future.
It is important to have that perspective when dealing with this emergency legislation, and to give some thought as to what are the future implications for our immigration program overall, specifically with respect to refugees.
I think everybody would agree and recognize the reality that immigration played a tremendously large and significant role, particularly in the post-Second World War era. We also must recognize that immigration will play the same type of role in the future. We only need to look at the statistics and the realities of our country in 1987. There is a dwindling birth rate, and families are having fewer children compared to 15 or 20 years ago. That will have a very serious impact on population trends, as well as social and economic implications.
At the same time we have an aging population. As a percentage of our population we have many more older Canadians than 10 or 15 years ago. It is not difficult to see the economic and social implications for Canada as a result of those two trends.
As well, every single year 50,000 more people leave our country than return. That has been the trend. Combine all those facts with the physical size of this country and I think the results are very clear.
Then we have our economic needs. Obviously immigration has to be matched with the country's ability to absorb immigrants; that is, to employ people and produce the goods and services so that everyone can enjoy their share. Those economic needs are continually changing, yet our education system does not necessarily adapt to those changes. We have to ensure that we have people with the skills necessary to meet Canada's requirements.
One of the best examples I can give is one close to home. My father is a tool and die maker with a small shop. He produces the tools and dies that go into punch presses which in turn produce all sorts of goods. Yet when my father requires tool and die makers he cannot find them. We have to go to Great Britain to obtain people with expertise in tool and die making. I ask myself why. Immigration offers an answer.
Immigration can help build this country and bring about greater economic prosperity. If that is true, and I happen to believe it is, then you would think this House, together with Canadians, could have a mature and rational debate on the process we are talking about today. What role does immigration play? What kind of immigration do we want to initiate? How many people can we absorb? What kind of trades do we need which our education system lags behind in producing? What are the goals we wish to set for ourselves?
Immigration Act, 1976
You get the impression from the Government that immigration is something that you somehow have to tolerate. I think that is the wrong approach. It should be a pro-active, positive approach which utilizes immigration as a tool-not over the short term, as we are doing now, but articulating a vision of things to come-a vision which is consistent, progressive, and tells the world we know what we want in the way of immigration policy. We should be able to say that for the next 10, 15 or 20 years this is our agenda. It would be subject to some changes, of course, here and there, but we would not be opening the doors today, closing them tomorrow, and opening them a bit the next day. That does not work to the benefit of Canada.
Defining immigration policy is not easy. It is a very complex part of government policy. It is a large and very sensitive program. Do Canadians want to open up family class reunification? That has been a cornerstone of immigration policy for a good many years. Do we wish to assist the brothers and sisters of Canadians, for example, in immigrating by providing them with a higher priority? Do we wish to offer more points to those with family in this country? I think most Canadians would agree that the family has a role to play.
The arguments of the detractors of immigration would perhaps be blunted if we suggest that if they are worried that the state is going to spend too much on immigrants, do not worry because we are encouraging more family related immigration and the family will take care of the immigrant, thank you very much, and do a much better job.
How many visitors do we want in Canada? Should we have visitors' visas? Should we have a limit on the number of people who can come to Canada, the length of time they can stay, and where they come from? Should we allow more student visas? Should we allow more foreign students to come to Canada? Some people ask, if we allow too many foreign students what happens to our students? People may be worried that students from some corner of the world will do better than their little Johnny. Is that fair? Does their little Johnny lose a place at university if we have too many foreign students?
Other people suggest that once these students obtain their degrees and go back to their own countries they become goodwill ambassadors for Canada. If a student from Hong Kong studies at the University of Toronto for four years, goes back and works for an international computer company, do you not think that he will have a good understanding of this country? It could be that that individual will make a trip here in his capacity as marketing manager for the Hong Kong computer company. How many jobs would that create? How much wealth will that bring in to Canada?
Do we allow more immigrants to come in on temporary work permits? A construction firm in my riding went to the employment centre and asked for some bricklayers and carpenters. A couple of months went by and no one could fill the bill. Then he went to Immigration Canada. He said since the employment centre did not send him any workers he

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
wanted to have people come in on work permits so he could fulfil his 15 contracts over the next seven months. Immigration Canada said, "No, you cannot do that. You have to advertise throughout the country and make sure there is a Canadian able to do that rather than bringing someone from abroad." The short answer to the whole story is that that individual did not get enough workers, and he told me that he had to cancel some of his contracts. Is there any need for that in 1987, Mr. Speaker? I think not.
But there is merit in intellectual stimulation, in trying to use practical examples to create practical policies that work for Canadians. Do we want to encourage more independent immigrants, people who do not have family here but who have good professions? Do we penalize independents too harshly if they do not have family? Do we encourage more entrepreneurs, more business immigration? This Government has doubled the number of business immigrants. Some people say that is bad and other people say that is positive. Others say that business immigrants bring wealth into the country, they create jobs, build new shops and factories, while others say this approach is that of buying your way into the country. This country was also built by individuals who came here with very little in their financial pockets, but a lot upstairs, with will and determination.
What is the absorption rate of entrepreneurs? What is the philosophical argument about whether a person with $200,000 can get into Canada without perhaps showing the right guarantees that a factory will be built or that he will create the number of jobs purported? Should we perhaps base our policy more on accepting individuals who wish to come here and give of themselves, stay permanently, and so on?
What about domestic work? What numbers of domestic helpers should we have? We have a program just to deal with domestic help. From where should they come and how many? Should we perhaps try to encourage domestic help in Canada before going abroad to get people? Once those people are here, what kind of opportunities or rights do they have? Why can't they stay a little longer if they manage to have a family in Canada and want to put roots down here? What is the implication of the program?
Then we have refugees. How many refugees shall we allow into Canada and from where? How do we select them? Should we go only in the refugee camps? Should we have a system in place that allows a person who comes to our borders due process, so that he or she can be accepted? Do we not have the obligation to follow a number of refugees through the system to see where they end up five or ten years hence?
It is troubling, but we seem to be hearing from different quarters that the word refugee has become a dirty word all of a sudden, that refugees are queue-jumpers and abusers. Those are the sort of reactionary comments we hear. We have to
define what is the true story of the refugee phenomenon in this country.
What about the Gunther Plaut who came to our committee? Gunther Plaut was a refugee himself, a lawyer and a rabbi. He is intelligent, moving and forceful. He sat on the committee with all of the other Members of Parliament who were not refugees. Not only did he hold his own, he went far beyond what the Members could in that room.
What is the reality and what is it that frightens us? Is that fear legitimate or is it perception? If it is a perception, how do we dispel the perception? That is what I mean when I say we have to define a vision of things to come. We have to do it maturely, in a vigorous and positive way. That is a responsibility of Government, but not exclusively. It is the responsibility of the communities, the churches and the non-profit organizations to be concerned and to reach out. By and large the ultimate decision must be that of the Government elected by Canadians.
In terms of performance; in educating, leading, inspiring, eliciting confidence, putting trust in an immigration policy that works, the Government's report card shows failure. 1 do not say that because I sit on this side of the House and the Government is on that side. I do not recall, but I urge Government Members to think of a time when a government of Canada, regardless of its political stripes, Conservative or Liberal, mismanaged the immigration policy as badly as we have seen in the last three years. This Government's policy has wreaked confusion in the minds of individuals. We have seen a policy under which family class reunification has lower priority while business class immigration has a higher one. There is confusion about the lack of clarity in our refugee policy. 1 think of those individuals in this country who have no business being here at all, and about the individuals with criminal backgrounds who have been getting special permits, compared to other individuals who were being left out. I have never seen, in three years, such a lack of confidence in an immigration policy. If you can ask you will find that most Canadians are confused about the direction the Government wants to set for itself in immigration policy. Beyond that confusion, there has been confusion purposely allowed to fester between what is an immigrant and what is a refugee. That is the second type of confusion. The first one is over-all, the second is very precise.
For the last three years this House, the Standing Committee on Employment, Labour and Immigration, and non-governmental organizations have said one thing very clearly. If we are going to make strides in refugee policy we have to delineate between who is a refugee and who is an immigrant. But that has not been done, Mr. Speaker. What have we had is the Prime Minister saying all of a sudden, when this boatload arrived, as reported in a Canadian Press article of July 31, 1987:
These people by and large are illegal aliens. They are people jumping the queue and taking the place of other immigrants.
September 2, 1987

That is false. The Minister knows that is false. The Members who serve on the committee with me know that is false. An individual refugee does not take the place of an immigrant. If my cousin from Country x cannot come in, it is not because we have accepted two or 200 refugees but because the targets have either been met or the individual does not, for a wide range of reasons, come within the immigration class, but he is not refused because of any refugee being accepted or refused. That confusion is being manipulated.
One of the greatest frustrations Canadians experience is the sponsoring of family and friends. People cannot understand why a relative, who would be given room and board and a job, with financial responsibility for his or her shortcomings, cannot come to Canada. The Government has allowed to fester and has manipulated that frustration. We hear that persons cannot enter because we have so many refugees queue jumping. That was the word used by the Prime Minister. That is not fair. It is not right because there are two streams, one for immigrants and one for legitimate refugees.
Legitimate immigration applicants apply at embassies abroad, state their reasons for applying, get medical and security checks and an answer is provided. That answer is yes, no or conditional. The reality is that a true, legitimate refugee who is facing persecution, torture, imprisonment, loss of liberty or probable death does not have the luxury to line up for a visa or to get proper documentation. The only luxury that person has is the luxury of some time to remove himself and his family from his country.
We are all proud of our birthplaces. Given the opportunity and the choice, no one in his right mind would want to be an immigrant. Immigration is motivated by either poverty, war, lack of a job, lack of a future or a revolution. Under those circumstances people pack their bags and move. However, given the choice, they would rather enjoy the fruits of their efforts in their own countries. When they cannot, they move for the betterment of their families and themselves. They adopt a new country to which they are loyal and patriotic. That is the reality of immigration. Given a choice, my family would have preferred to remain in northeastern Italy but there was nothing there for them at that time. Times have changed, but my parents are now Canadians. They would not trade Canada for any other including their homeland, as much as they still feel emotions for it. As much as they feel a tingle when they get off the airplane in their homeland, they feel a tingle on the return trip to Canada as well.
Given an ideal world, there would be no immigrants. However, we do not live in that ideal world. In addition, true refugees do not even have the option of trying to weather the storms in their countries. They have to leave; some of them come to Canada, some go to the United States and others go to Europe.
Immigration Act, 1976
We must admit to ourselves that it is intellectually dishonest to confuse immigrants with refugees and to suggest that refugees block other immigrants. They do not. We do not even reach our immigration targets. The Minister has said that there is a target of 115,000 for landed immigrants but the Department always falls short by 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000. There are not enough people working in our embassies abroad to process these immigrants. Targets go up but the number of workers in visa offices stay the same. Unless those people work 24 hours a day, they will not process any more. One cannot draw blood from a stone. Therefore, it is very dishonest to base policies on those kinds of manipulations.
When I say that this is the worst performance I have ever seen, I do not mean to say that other Conservative Governments have the same record. I say that this Conservative administration, whether intentionally, whether because there has been a series of different Ministers with different goals or whether it is the Prime Minister, has given one of the worst performances I have seen.
Compare its performance, for instance, to that of the Government of 1979 led by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), followed after nine months by the Trudeau Government. The best example I can offer to show the dichotomy between the two administrations is the example of the boat people.
Within a three-year period, Canada accepted 106,000 Vietnamese boat people. Approximately half of these were sponsored by the Government and half sponsored by communities, Members of this Chamber, parish priests, local community groups and local ratepayers who found families who would take in a number of young Vietnamese children. The acceptance of that 106,000 in three years was begun by the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, and finished by Mr. Trudeau's Government. That is leadership.
How was that accomplished? It was not accomplished through irrational thought. It was not accomplished by wondering what we would do with the boatloads of people who were coming. No, the Government clearly articulated for the nation the need to help these individuals. Other places in the world did the same. There was education. There was integration and acceptance by Canadians. Canadians demonstrated confidence that the Government would accomplish it in an orderly way. Canadians felt that these people really were refugees and we could absorb them into the community without there being an over-indulgence in the social welfare system if the Government would pay all the costs. All those barriers were taken into account and what was the result? The result was that Canadians moved progressively, sensibly and calmly. That is but one example of many in history.
There have been special refugee movements of people numbering in the thousands. After the Czechoslovakian revolution, there were 37,000 refugees. Again, through education, integration and a sense of balance, purpose and

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
confidence in the Government, the system worked. If Canadians do not have confidence in policy, Governments are paralysed. If Canadians do not give the green light, the Government cannot move. Therefore, there must be a partnership. In the end, the Government can only go as far as the people want it to go. The process was a noble one.
Studies done by the Government in the 1980s attempted to track individual refugees after they had come to Canada. Those studies show that those refugees from Vietnam, who are loyal and proud Canadians today, have done very well. Many of them have opened up their own businesses and shops. Others are happy working, making a dollar. Their kids have done very well in the educational system. They are producing and contributing citizens, just like you and I, Mr. Speaker. If we see them walking down the street-we cannot call them refugees, given the stigma we have allowed the word "refugee" to take on in the last couple of months.
The Canadians who accepted the Vietnamese boat people in the late 1970s and early 1980s are the same Canadians who live here today. It is not a different population. It is not as if the Canadians who were here in the late 1970s and the early 1980s all left and were replaced with another set of Canadians who all of a sudden have a different vision of immigration. They are the same people. Canada is the same country. It is only four years after the fact. If the people are the same, why-then are we getting such a drastically different reaction from the Government? Why is it an emergency when 300 people arrive in two boats over two summers? That is 300 compared to 106,000 in one special refugee flow. It is not acceptable for the Government to react in the way it did to those 300. We have a much prouder history than that.
I am not suggesting that we should not have orderly systems or should reward abuse. The checks and balances must be in place. If there are people who are illegitimately here and persist in circumventing the laws they should be deported instantly. I support that as do all Canadians.
We are here discussing an approach, evolving with the times and taking a humanitarian and responsible role. I find it unacceptable, with our history, that the Government, its Ministers and the Prime Minister should react in the fashion in which they have reacted.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council, an organization representing national ethnic groups across the country, presented a very thoughtful brief entitled, "Reason over Hysteria, Please". That title captures the essence of this very well. We have always been guided by moderation, reason, thoughtfulness and a sense of progressivity.
Ministers of the Crown and Members of Parliament are suggesting that Canada is the only country to which refugees are coming, that somehow Canada is a sucker for refugees. I do not mean to use that word impolitely, but that is what I hear on the streets. It is the responsibility of the Government
to say that that is not true. The refugee movement is a world phenomenon.
Refugees are produced by uprisings, revolutions, dictatorships and war. When we listen to the national news in the evening and read the papers in the morning we learn about refugee uprisings, protests for peace and democracy, people put in prison, people killed and people tortured. We are bombarded with that. The world is in turmoil and is producing refugees as we speak.
The existence of refugees presents a world-wide problem which needs a world-wide solution. A domestic solution within Canada will do nothing to help the problem in the world. West Germany, Canada, Switzerland, the United States, Brazil and other countries must come together in a mood of co-operation to try and resolve the problem collectively. That is why we signed the Geneva Convention in the 1950s.
What is the Geneva Convention? When you strip away the technical and fancy words which Canadians may not understand, the Geneva Convention is a fancy way of saying that we are all besieged with the problem and in order to solve it we must all act in unison. That is why we signed the pact.
The agreement says, first, that we must be proactive, meaning that we have a responsibility to go to the various refugee camps in the world. I have had the opportunity of visiting some of them. It is not a pleasant sight to see a refugee camp surrounded by barbed wire. People live within those camps for five or six years, have children there, and are not able to leave. Countries within the pact send visa officers to refugee camps to select refugees to bring to their countries in hopes of diminishing the numbers of people in the camps.
In addition to being proactive we agreed to be reactive. We agreed not to send people back to their homeland who, upon their return, will face persecution, torture or death. Those are the two things to which we as a country agreed under the Geneva Convention. That is what the Government should be explaining. The Government should be honouring that agreement rather than breaking it.
The Government should be explaining the transition in the plight of refugees. There are a number of Members and Ministers who say that this is the fault of the Liberal Government, that we are in a mess in 1987 because of the policies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau or the inaction of the previous administration. I do not say this because I sit on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, but that is incorrect. The previous Government recognized that a transition was taking place. No longer were the majority of people waiting in the refugee camps. They were trying to get away from the camps, reach other countries, and ask for status. We did not have a system in place to handle such a large number of applicants coming to our shores.
When the previous administration saw the trickle of people arriving in Canada it tried to put in place a new structure. That is why it commissioned Rabbi Gunther Plaut to do a study and recommend a new system by which we could handle
September 2, 1987

fairly and quickly the applicants coming to our shores. The report of Gunther Plaut was on the desk of the Government for close to three years before Rabbi Plaut was given the time of day.
In addition to the Plaut report the Liberal Party made specific recommendations in committee in a minority report. We suggested a liberal configuration. The New Democratic Party did the same thing. The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration submitted a number of reports on overhauling and reforming the refugee determination system. The non-governmental organizations made recommendations as did the churches. The media played a role by indicating that the Government must make it a priority to move on the fundamental changes required in our system.
The Conservative Member of Parliament for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and the Chairman of the Conservative immigration caucus committee, made recommendations. He wrote a letter to his colleagues on July 22. He said in that letter, "I am writing to you today to ask you not to leave indelible marks on Canadian society by adopting Bill C-84 without safeguards and without amendments that will benefit our Party in the future. I have looked at the Bill carefully and I can only recommend that you examine its clauses objectively in the interest of Canada and without emotion or without exaggeration". He went on to say, "Immigration officials must not be given abusive powers, the church groups must be protected, refugees without documents must not be penalized and the control of terrorists should be left to the proper officials".
That was written by a government Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Conservative immigration caucus committee.
All of these people, from Plaut to the Member of Parliament for La Prairie, and everyone between, have been largely ignored for close to three years. The refugee determination system and reform was not made a priority issue on the agenda of the Government. Rather than put in place an orderly, fair, and quick processing system, we are now paying the price for that inaction.
A new system is the only long-term viable solution, not only in terms of processing but in terms of being the best deterrent that any system could offer. It will be a deterrent because I do not believe many, if any, fraudulent refugees would be moved to spend up to $15,000 to be dropped on our coast if they knew that they could only stay here for a period of three to six months under a new system. I am sure someone would rather go to another country, where they could stay longer, than spend their life savings to travel 4,000 miles and stay here for only six months. Presently, individuals can stay here for years before their status is determined, whether or not they are bona
Immigration Act, 1976
fide refugees. The signal being sent by the present system is wrong.
The Government seems to be promoting its policy on the basis of curbing abuse. While the Government may suggest that it has a monopoly on the stand against abuse, I believe that no one in the House welcomes abuse, encourages it, or wishes to reward those who manipulate and circumvent our laws by smuggling, trafficking and trading in human lives.
Unfortunately, abuse exists in other areas of government responsibility. There are people who abuse unemployment insurance, the pension system, and the worker's compensation claims system. No one likes abuse, but, as in every other society, abuse sometimes permeates the very best system that a country and government can offer. The Government should be vigilant in attempting to stamp out abuse, as we have done in the Opposition. We did not sit quietly during the schemes and scams from Portugal, Turkey and Brazil, where individuals were selling visas and passports, counselling people to come here and make fraudulent claims based on religious persecutions that did not exist.
Why has the Government not acted? Why have people not been charged as a result of RCMP investigations? We were told, in answer to our questions on the floor of the House of Commons, not to worry, that we should have confidence that the Government will clamp down on those people and bring them to justice. What justice has there been in coming to grips with the abuse? The fact is that it is business as usual.
Those sleazy consultants, who make huge immoral profits from people like those we have met in our constituency offices who have paid thousands of dollars for nothing, are still in business. Even though they were raided by the RCMP they do not have to appear in court or face penalties.
These operators moved their tricks of the trade from Portugal to Turkey after we put a visa on Portugal, and moved to Brazil after we put a visa on Turkey. Now they have gone elsewhere. The people in communities in Toronto know who they are. Members of the same community provided evidence to government Members and the Minister at the Committee.
The Government knows the identity of those operators but there has been no action. If the Government is genuinely interested in stamping out abuse, why has not one person been fined or jailed in the last three years in light of the numerous schemes and scams in this country? Why has it not declared war on those white-collar criminals who live off the proceeds of human desperation? The Government must answer those questions because its policy is predicated on stamping out abuse.
We are asked to trust the Government, yet it has failed to come to grips with the situation. I challenge the Government to show me proof that it is serious about clamping down on abuse. If the Government is serious about stamping out abuse, why is it that not one person who has gone through the determination process and been refused a claim been removed

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
from Canada? While the present system is faulty and must be improved, there are people who had the opportunity to go through the four or five stages of the process but were refused their claim. Why are they still here, just like those who were accepted? The message being sent is that it does not matter whether or not one is a refugee, one can stay in Canada. Why has the Government not curbed that abuse?
If the Government is serious about protecting legitimate refugees, why has it not acted to remove fraudulent claimants? If it does not want individuals to wait in line behind fraudulent claimants, why does it not remove them and give the message that Canada is open but it wishes to accept those who legitimately need our protection. So there were opportunities to show how serious the Government was in terms of curbing abuse, if there was the political will and if there was the intellectual honesty in what the Government was preaching to the Canadian public. However, in terms of morality and honesty, the Government is bankrupt. It says one thing and does another.
We had a boatload of refugee claimants in 1986. What was the response of the Government? The then Minister gave them ministerial permits which allowed them to stay in Canada. We had a fairly quick processing. We had a Prime Minister who welcomed them. Our Prime Minister declared very proudly, and 1 was happy to hear him, in terms of the Tamil refugee claimants: "If we err, we will always err on the side of justice and on the side of compassion". We all remember those words. That was the summer of 1986.
In the summer of 1987, the same Prime Minister, probably before he even talked to his Minister of Immigration-he has not even seen one of these individuals, he has not even participated in debate and he called the emergency-said: "These people by and large are illegal aliens". He also said: "I am not going to be pushed around or kicked around by these people". That was the summer of 1987. The summer of 1986 was radically different.
No one is suggesting that this Government be pushed around. No one in this Parliament would subscribe to that. We are all proud of protecting our shores, our sovereignty and our independence. However, that does not mean the Government has to prove its macho image. It does not have to prove how strong it is after giving up to the United States on lumber and free trade. It does not have to prove how strong it is by pushing around a boatload of people looking for a home.
The real dichotomy I wanted to address is the confusion of the electorate who are asking what our policy is. In 1986, in a very ad hoc way, the Government accepts. In 1987 it rejects, fabricating a crisis and bringing Parliament back, giving the whole situation an unreal and very fictitious air.
Which is real, the Prime Minister declaring the aliens illegal back in June, or his speeches at the various ethno-cultural picnics this past summer where he talked about tolerance and
opening the door to immigration? Canadians want to know, and this Parliament should know, which is the policy of this Government and of this country. This is the confusion we have to address and eradicate. The Government has to be confident its policies are secure, that they have clarity and purpose, otherwise confidence will be undermined and mistrust will be the order of the day.
The first response of the Canadians to the boatload of 174 migrants just a few short months ago was not to call the police. It was not to call the immigration officer, nor to call the Coast Guard to remove these individuals. The very first act was of a Nova Scotian woman who offered the migrants on her lawn tea and cookies. That was the first Canadian response. The first natural reaction was to offer these people tea and cookies and, I believe, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Think of it, Mr. Speaker for a moment. We have gone from that natural and beautiful knee-jerk reaction of a Canadian woman, to Bill C-84, and we know what happened in between.
In terms of Bill C-84, we have to ask ourselves two questions, what and why. What is in Bill C-84, and why are those clauses drafted the way they are? Again, I preface my remarks by suggesting that if the objective of the exercise is to curb abuse, that is fair. If we wish to say that our country is open to asylum seekers and we wish to honour our obligations and responsibilities to legitimate refugees, but not to others, that is fair, legitimate and expected and no arguments will be offered from any quarter of this House. But does Bill C-84 do that? Who are the targets? That is why the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and I, who attended those committees, moved the amendments. We tried to clarify the objectives with the reality, with the law. We tried to move amendments so that the Bill would actually do what the Government purports it will do.
I would like to take a moment to go over a number of the major clauses in the Bill. One clause heralded by the Government is that it gives new power to turn boats back. The Government wants to tell Canadians it is going to be tough, that it is going to put into its legislation the power to enable us to turn boats back. It expects applause for that bravado. But let us analyse what that will mean. What will that do to the process of our refugee system? How will you and I, Mr. Speaker, ever know who was on that boat? If that boat contained 100 passengers, how many were true refugees, 59, 73, 100 or none? How many had passports and proper visas, 6, 12, 14? What were their circumstances? Where were they coming from? What were they fleeing from? What were their circumstances in terms of the actual persecution they faced?
The answer, of course, is that we would not know. They would not be provided due process. There would be no hearing where they could go into details of their persecution. There would be total disrespect in this regard for any processing of that unknown passenger, and we may be participating in sending 100 persons, 15 or one person back to the country of origin to be tortured, to face imprisonment or to face death. 1
September 2, 1987

do not think Canadians really feel comfortable about that possibility.
The second aspect we have to analyse is that if the Government really wants to deter, is this the proper way to do it? Is it proper to simply say: "We are going to turn the boat around and that will end it"? Or do we need something else? I believe the latter. If I were a captain who was prepared to set sail from Europe, what would I be thinking if I knew the policy of Canada was simply to turn the boats around? I would do the following. Perhaps I would have room for 100 individuals. I would charge them each $10,000. I would pocket the money and 1 would say, "There is a 50 per cent chance that I am going to get in in the middle of the night, dump the passengers, return and perhaps fill up the boat again and go somewhere else or return to Canada. Or there is a 50 per cent chance that even if the Coast Guard finds me, the only thing that they will do, or the Minister will do, is simply to turn my boat around". Perhaps the captain of the boat will dump the passengers beyond the 12-mile limit. Perhaps he will dump them off in another country or bring them back to their country of origin. We must not forget that he has the money and the boat. He has made a profit. Thus the captain wins. He wins in all situations, whether or not he is turned back.
In an amendment we suggested that if there is a boat approaching our country that we board it and escort it into port, which will allow us to do two things. First, it will allow us to determine who the passengers are, whether or not they are refugees. If so, they will be determined as such, and if not, after processing, they will be asked to leave. Second, we will have the captain's boat. We can impound it or sell it. We can charge the captain or fine him. We can imprison the captain. In answer to those who suggest that it is not the captain who is the real organizer but someone else in another country, let me say that we can use the evidence that we obtain from the captain and the crew to try to track down that operator, smuggler number one, and use any powers that we have to extradite him or, through the use of pacts with other countries, ensure that we bring to justice those who are smuggling.
If one really wanted to deter the captain of a boat from leaving that European harbour, would it not make sense to try to approach it and escort it into port rather than turning it around, remaining ignorant of who is on board, who did the organizing and where these people come from? Ignorance and political darkness do not help us define what we are trying to stop. That is why we moved an amendment which would provide for escorting a boat into port rather than turning it around at sea. That would not discourage any captain or smuggler. It does not offer process. So we lose and we come up with a fat zero in terms of processing and in terms of dissuading people from smuggling.
The other factor, of course, is that it would create two types of refugee claimants. It would allow the person who comes in other than on a boat to have a processing system while those
Immigration Act, 1976
who arrive by boat may not have one. For example, if my family were fleeing a country facing political persecution and I left by boat and my brother left by plane, my brother would arrive through Pearson International Airport, declare his refugee status and would have a hearing. He would be processed and he could stay. Since I came by boat I could be turned away and I would not be able to tell my story. There is one policy which creates two classes of refugees.
As a policy we cannot suggest that it is the mode of transportation which will dictate the decision-making process. One cannot say, "If you take a bus, we will process you this way. If you take a plane, we will do it this way. If you take a boat, we will do it another way". There has to be one system for each refugee claimant. A person is either a refugee or not. Either the country provides processing or it does not. If we create two different types of refugees and a person wants to come here and abuse the system, do Hon. Members not think that those people will now take a plane rather than a boat until we deal with all transportation vehicles in the same way if we wish to curb abuse? I think it would be logical. Again, an amendment by my Party to achieve that end was defeated.
The third aspect of this point is this. What about the Geneva Convention and our international obligations? At the outset of my remarks I mentioned the two responsibilities that we enjoy as a country under the United Nations Convention. There is the policy of non-refoulement which is a very classy technical word which simply means that we will not send people back to a place unless we can guarantee or be certain that it will not be problematic, hazardous or fatal for that person. That is clear. The policy of turning back a boat will not guarantee the process of non-refoulement. So we would be violating very seriously that responsibility.
We asked the Government, "If you no longer believe in the conventions of the United Nations, if you do not believe in the agreement we signed in 1951, then tell Canadians that you want to break that agreement and that you want another configuration, that you do not believe in it any more, that you are going to go your own way". At least the Government should have the courage of its convictions to tell Canadians clearly and to allow Canadians to judge for themselves whether or not they would like to pull out of this United Nations pact. The Government should not do that in a backhanded way by trying to insert a clause in a piece of legislation which will do that very thing.
With respect to turning back boats, we moved amendments that would in fact curb real abuse while protecting the rights of claimants to tell their stories. That was rejected.
Another proposal in the Bill suggests that travel companies have to play the role of immigration officers. It is suggested that travel companies in Canada must confiscate all travel documents, all visas and all passports from incoming passengers. The representatives of companies who testified before the committee said that this proposal is unworkable. They said

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
that they do not have the ability legally to confiscate documents belonging not only to a person but to the country of that person's origin. They argued with respect to liability, for example, if passports or visas are stolen, lost or misplaced. Whose responsibility would that be? Would it be the responsibility of the Canadian Government or of air transportation companies such as Air Canada or Air France?
They talked about the possibility of terrorist activities. They said that if there were a terrorist on board who wished to terrorize an individual of a certain denomination, sect or religion, it would be easy for such an individual to get a stewardess and go through all the documents in order to identify by picture the individuals belonging to that creed or denomination. They did not want to elicit or encourage terrorists by making life easier for those individuals who want to bring harm to passengers on board an airplane. They also talked about the inconvenience of collecting and then redistributing at the end of flights passports and other travel documents. The other message was that all passengers would run the risk of losing their documents for a period of time, including Canadians coming back to this country, unless there was an exception, and there was not.
Therefore, Canadians must ask themselves what kind of regulation would require the confiscation of all documents on airlines coming into Canada. Not even the Soviet Union or Iron Curtain countries ask that of their national airlines. Canadians and witnesses asked us as members of the committee, "Do you want to legislate that type of legislation which would place us in a very unique class all our own? Or do you want to set a standard of which we can be proud and try to work to curb abuse without infringing upon our values, our temperament, our way of doing things in this country?" The Government refused. It persisted and said, "No, all passengers, Canadians and non-Canadians, will have their passports confiscated. Airlines will be fined". The airlines are not paying fines now. I doubt that even Air Canada will pay fines, and it is the national airline owned by the Government which would actually fine its own airline, which probably would not pay. Is that a logical, workable policy? Are we to be proud of that policy? I think not.
Another area is the powers to detain individuals. My colleagues and I do not argue with the fact that if a person comes to Canada without identification, without proper documentation, does not co-operate, and perhaps there is information that that person is possibly a threat to this country, of course all Canadians would want the country to protect itself and assure its citizens that there is due regard for that potential threat. That is why in the present system there are automatic detainment powers for 48 hours. A Minister or officials can detain a person for 48 hours. After that time there can be an application to an adjudicator who, based on further evidence and information, can allow a further detainment of seven days which would follow for every seven-day period.
That was passed by a former Parliament, and approved by the government Members who were then in opposition. It also met with the approval of Canadians who felt it was a good compromise to allow for the detainment powers and for the adjudicator to make the decision on whether there is proper evidence, not only suspicion, to detain a person. We are not only talking about the infringement of rights of potential new arrivals, but of the possible infringement of the rights of other Canadians and the manner in which the courts interpret them.
The Charter clearly specifies that no Canadian will be detained unreasonably without proper grounds and without a process where an adjudicator makes the determination. If the Government provides the adjudicator with well-founded reasons, evidence, and documentation, the adjudicator says, yes, we will detain. If the Government has a hunch or a suspicion that that person is an undesirable, that hunch or suspicion is not good enough in this country. No one would want to be locked up on a hunch or a suspicion.
Therefore, we suggested that the current law was adequate. It was doing the job. There were no problems. If there was evidence, there was a detainment. The Government proposes in Bill C-84 an automatic detainment of seven days, rather than the 48 hour detainment. After seven days, there can be an additional 21 day detainment without the adjudicator being in a position to say yes or no. The adjudicator would merely stamp the approval, because there is no flexibility in the Bill. There is no discretion that the adjudicator may not grant the detainment. The legislation clearly states that the adjudicator "shall" offer his or her approval. We must underline the word "shall". The adjudicator is a rubber stamp. In that case, I do not know why there would be an adjudicator. It gives excessive powers that the Government on a whim, a hunch, or a suspicion can detain a person for 28 days with no questions asked, no representation, no legal remedies, nothing.
1 am suggesting that this is an infringement on those rights, and it is an infringement of the Charter. It is an infringement on Canadians' sense of justice and fair play. If detainment is needed, it can be granted, but it cannot be granted on a hunch or a suspicion. It will be a sad day if we allow this proposal to go through unchallenged. It will end up in the courts. Legal experts and witnesses have suggested that it will be challenged in the courts because it contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, if this clause is challenged together with other clauses, the Bill will be dragged through the courts. It will die a slow and agonizing death. Perhaps in a year or two we will have a policy that is paralysed. Then what will the Government tell Canadians? Will it say, "We were in a rush. We thought we could have done it. We now find out that the Supreme Court has said no. We have to return to the drawing board"? Is that the manner in which the Government should proceed?
If there is a hunch or a suspicion that a person may be an undesirable, there is the possibility of making a determination that that person should not enter the refugee process. That is very dangerous. What information will be relied upon? If
September 2, 1987

Nelson Mandela arrived here, and the Government had information that he is considered an undesirable in South Africa, or was in prison in South Africa, which would therefore make him a criminal under South African law, and he is accused of the crime of standing up for human rights and democracy, does that mean that that information will be used against an individual? There is not one international code of law. That is the reason people flee and become refugees. A person standing up for democracy in Chile may be thrown in prison. A person standing up for democracy in Canada may be elected as a Member of Parliament. That information, and that recognition of our law compared to other laws has to be taken into account. The Government would rely on information provided by the government of a country from which that person is fleeing in order to fabricate an undesirable clause.
I am suggesting that this is not the manner in which to proceed. If there is information provided by that government or country, the refugee body should be allowed to make a determination. The commissioners can decide that the information is faulty and in fact that it proves that the person is a political refugee, or the refugee commissioner can say that the information is legitimate and it should be used against the person. We must allow the person the discretion to defend himself from information from a country or a government which states that he or she is guilty of a crime, which crime may have been to stand up for democracy, or to throw a rock through someone's office window.
We received enlightened testimony with respect to those excessive over-kill powers in this clause. Mr. Borovoy, the Chairman of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, stated:
It is a violation of democratic principle to create a power of jailing people- on the basis of a unilateral, essentially unreviewable decision of a politician . . . consider the incongruity this creates with our criminal law.
He went on to say:
The powers created by this Bill are excessive, repressive, and needless. No less gratuitous is the rush to get it enacted yesterday.
If the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is suggesting that this measure is repressive, why is the Government moving ahead? If the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Bar Association say that this will be challenged in the courts, why is the Government moving ahead? If the Government wishes to respect the reality of people who are fleeing and who are charged with so-called crimes because they wish to be free and have human dignity, why is this reason for detainment or refusal into the system? Is that not the reason that we have a refugee process? Are refugees not extradicted from their country because they cannot be free, they do not have freedom of choice, speech, assembly, all the things that we have in our Constitution? That is the very same Constitution that we patriated only a few short years ago. We brought it home and created a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is the envy of the world.
We made amendments to clarify, refine, target, and bring it in line with our justice system. A right infringed upon today
Immigration Act, 1976
with respect to the 174 migrants is a right that infringes upon all of us. That is the manner in which to look at human rights.
The fourth area of concern is the powers given to immigration officers for the first time. On a whim or a suspicion they can kick down the doors or jump through the windows of any organization and seize any document without a warrant. They do not even need a tele-warrant, which is used when the officer concerned cannot get to a judge and so makes the request by telephone. These officers do not need to do even that. No warrants at all are required. We are going to have immigration officers playing Rambo on suspicion.
We in this Party said that at the very least the Government must accept the need for a mandatory warrant. The only exception would be when someone's life is in danger. Other than that, should we allow immigration officers to break down doors at whim? Will Canadians accept that? Or do Canadians accept that there should be checks and balances so that a warrant is required? That is what Canadians voted for in the past. That is why we have a Charter of Rights. We are protected from search and seizure without a warrant. Why should immigration officers be given the power to ransack a place because they have a hunch that a particular person is not a refugee? As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, it goes far beyond what is needed.
The Canadian Bar Association and professors of constitutional law have said that if this legislation is passed, it will be challenged in the courts. It will be eaten up by the courts. It will render our policy unworkable. Therefore, why do it? Requiring a search warrant is reasonable, moderate, in keeping with Canada's sense of justice, yet the Government turned it down.
The fifth area of great concern is that of proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2. Those sections epitomize the over-kill this Bill represents. According to those sections, any Canadian, whether a priest, a nun, a student or a farmer, who assists a refugee who may not have a document in his pocket showing he is a legitimate refugee, is liable to a fine or imprisonment. Imagine that. We are passing a law that would allow a priest to be imprisoned or fined for helping a refugee. What is the role of churches and non-governmental organizations? What has their role been in the food banks of this country? I do not think there is anything more embarrassing and undignifying for a human being than having to line up to ask for food. Imagine your feelings if you were in that position. What has been the reaction of the churches to the poor, those who do not have clothing, the homeless, those who are addicted to drugs or who are involved in prostitution? The reaction has been to try to complement government action in a humanitarian and compassionate way. We accept that. What would be the price if we did not have that network of volunteers? Yet now, all of a sudden, the church or individual who helps a refugee is liable to a fine or imprisonment. That is repugnant.

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Is that the kind of law we want? Is it the kind of law we should be proud of? Or should we recognize that the action of a priest in helping a refugee is different from the action of a smuggler, a manipulator, or a consultant who trafficks in human beings for profit? Are we suggesting that the two actions are the same? Of course not. Canadians do not want that. The churches do not want that.
I am not suggesting that churches or any other group should be above the law. I am suggesting that the law is wrong and immoral and the target should not be those who aid refugees. The target should be those who circumvent our laws for profit. The churches came before the committee and said they have never, ever counselled fraudulent claims. They never tried to suggest to claimants that they rip up their documents. They never suggested that claimants arrive in the middle of the night. The Ministers responsible have said for two weeks now, "Do not worry, Member of Parliament for York West, we made the law such that it will get the real smugglers. Do not worry, our intentions are not to imprison or fine a priest or the organization involved".
If those are their intentions, why are their intentions not reflected in the law? If those are the speeches, why are they not the law of the country? You cannot say that the intention is not to fine a priest while at the same time you provide a law that allows a priest to be fined. It is either one or the other, Mr. Speaker. This country is not governed by speeches or intentions, it is governed by law. This law will create a new offence which is not there now. In 1987 or in any other year we cannot be proud of finding in our legislation a Bill that can fine and imprison individual Canadians who legitimately help refugees. What kind of a country do we want to become? Do we want to be like the United States where priests have to hide refugees in basements? Do we want to make the actions of a priest acts of civil disobedience? Are we suggesting that a priest who helps a refugee is a potential criminal, as that sort of law would imply if he were caught and charged? I do not think Canadians want that. They did not want it this summer, they did not want it 10 summers ago, and they will not want it in 10 years to come.
We tried to move an amendment to suggest that it should not be a crime for a priest to help a refugee but that it should be a crime to counsel fraudulent claims, to suggest tearing up documents, to smuggle people for profit and dump them in the seas. Let us fine people and put them in prison if we have to, but let us not create a law that suggests that we make the net so large and so encompassing that we can catch everybody potentially under the law. Again, intentions are one thing and laws are different. Intentions are useless when the law allows you to prosecute individual innocent Canadians.
With respect to the clause, we had a very moving brief presented by the Inter-Church Committee on Refugees. I would like to select what two individuals said. First, George Cram said:
In our opinion Bill C-84 does not help the process.
I do not want to be guilty of committing an offence for doing humanitarian work. 1 do not want to feel inside myself that what I am doing is illegal, and 1 do not want to be liable for prosecution. The offence is what you are creating, not the prosecution.
With him was Nancy Pocock, a member of the same InterChurch Committee, who said:
If my Government tells me it is a crime to help these people, I will have to say I am obeying a higher law and I am going to continue to help them when they need me.
Why are we making it an act of civil disobedience for the George Crams and Nancy Pococks of this country to do what they have been doing legitimately for years? We tried to suggest to the Government that there are words and clauses that one can use in the legislation under the law to distinguish very clearly between the act of a consultant or a smuggler and the Nancy Pococks and George Crams of Canada. We suggested the words "non-profit", "voluntary", "humanitarian", which have been used 38 different times in our federal statutes. What about the definition of churches? This was not only to make the intention known but to allow these individual Canadians not to have their legal rights infringed upon and not to lose their civil liberties for assisting people they had been assisting for years. Those phrases were all possible. We have the best legal minds in the Justice Department, I would think, or at least access to the best legal minds, and yet we were unable to get from the Government agreement to amend proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 to state clearly that it is not the law in Canada to allow for prosecution of individuals who aid, abet or assist a refugee without a visa.
Government members were stubborn and inflexible, and the Minister, in his final address to the committee, has stubbornly refused to heed all the witnesses who had cited proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2. They said, "For goodness' sake, clean it up. Amend it. Make it clear in law that we are not your targets". Those sections are on the record, on the books, and they are about to become law. That type of drafting is irresponsible and unnecessary.
The international community passed judgment on this refugee Bill. We had not only witnesses from within Canada but representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who said very clearly that they were concerned with the direction of Canada's policy in Bill C-84. A letter was sent to the Government two days after the emergency was called. The concerns were outlined very clearly. In a letter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Jean-Pierre Hocke, to the Government of Canada we find the following stated:
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-
As you are no doubt aware the situations now being faced are 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 asylum throughout the world.
September 2, 1987

What the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was saying was, do not set a bad precedent, a bad example, which other countries will equal. If Canada has been a leader in the international community, as it has, this will allow the Great Britains, the Switzerland and the United States of the world to say that if Canada can do it, we can do it. If everybody does it, what happens to the international solution to the problem? What happens to the 15 million people who are searching for a home who obviously cannot all come to Canada? If we have an international solution, it will allow Canada to breathe a little easier. If we have an international corridor of locked doors, Canada will be the worse for it because the desperation and the attempts to come in through our back door will be all the more aggressive. The human spirit never dies. If the human spirit has to select between torture, imprisonment, death and a bold attempt to get away at any cost, what will it be? Which one would you pick, Mr. Speaker, if you were in the same position? The answer is a very clear one.
We even have Stephen Lewis, the Ambassador to the United Nations, who was unable categorically to support Bill C-84. He refused, on the steps of the House of Commons when scrummed by the nation's media, to say very clearly, "I support the Bill and I will defend it and promote it at the United Nations, if I have to". Instead, he couched his language. He said, "Well, 1 hope the Bill will be amenable, be in keeping and made to be in keeping with our international obligations". He was suggesting very clearly between the lines that amendments were needed to make it acceptable, that it would be embarrassing for the United Nations Ambassador to go to the United Nations and be proud of Bill C-84 when Canada is thought to be a leader. Why follow the worst examples? Why not set the best examples?
If the Ambassador to the United Nations cannot sell this policy at the United Nations, I am not sure that it will work. What can Canadians conclude if one day the Minister says it is a great policy and the very next day the Ambassador to the United Nations refuses to give it a categorical and clear vote of confidence?
We must look at the responsibilities of parliamentarians, and there are many, as there are in any other job. What are the two most important responsibilities with which we in this Chamber are entrusted? The first is to ensure that Canadians' tax dollars are spent wisely and prudently. We try to do that through the checks and balances that exist and through accountability sessions with the Cabinet. The second responsibility is to draft the laws of the country, to create laws that will govern and administer the citizens of the land.
We have been told, and it has been clearly seen, that it is irresponsible to pass legislation that is poorly drafted and clearly subject to court challenges as soon as it is pronounced law. In this case, the Canadian Bar Association has said that every junior lawyer could take a shot at this Bill. The Civil
Immigration Act, 1976
Liberties Association has said that there will be challenges based on the liberties of Canadians. The Canadian Jewish Congress and the Inter-Church Committee on Refugees have said that they will challenge proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 in the court, and if they do not, others will take up the battle cry because the law tries to suggest that people who help legitimate refugees should be fined or thrown into jail.
We have heard that there will be challenges. However, what was the response of the Government? We asked the Government to make public the legal argument provided by the Department of Justice indicating that this legislation was in conformity with the Charter, but it did not. This legislation was drafted by officials of the Justice Department, but the Justice Department has refused to provide a legal rationale that would clarify the confusion surrounding the Bill and whether or not it is in keeping with the Charter.
One must ask oneself if the Department of Justice is in favour of this Bill. There have been reports that the Department of Justice was overruled by the Department of Immigration. Perhaps we will never know if that is so. However, I think part of it was given away when Justice officials were the only ones who refused the committee's invitation to appear before it.
I raised the matter on the floor of the House of Commons during Question Period by asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) why he would not allow his officials to testify before the committee in order to defend the Bill. I asked that question on Friday, and on Monday Justice officials arrived at the committee, but they were not prepared to say whether they agreed or disagreed with the drafting of the Bill or whether or not they had a legal opinion on it.
I am not confident that the Bill is legally foolproof. I am not confident that the Department of Justice is confident that this rambling legislation will make it through the courts.
Since the Government did not want to make public the legal opinion, we asked it to refer the legislation to the Supreme Court for a judicial review as soon as it is proclaimed. That has been done in the past and the objective of that is to have the Supreme Court of Canada give us a constitutional review on it rather than allow it to be challenged step by step through the various courts. At such a review, the Government could argue its case and the court would say whether it finds the legislation in keeping with the Charter or in violation of the Charter. If the Supreme Court decided that it violates the Charter, it would be sent back to the House and we would correct it. That would be better than having this piece of legislation challenged bit by bit in the courts, thus paralysing the policy, making it unworkable and putting the Government in the position of trying to explain to Canadians why it is in a mess again.
If I were at home watching the Government, I would hope that the Government would finally get it right. I would hope that the Government would have the courage to stop the delays and give us a refugee determination system that works, one in

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
which we can have confidence. I would tell the Government that it has my confidence and that it should do what it has to do under the law to ensure that real refugees are protected and that fraudulent ones are kept out. I would think that that would be the reaction of any Canadian.
What would be the reaction of the average Canadian in two years' time when he reads in the paper that the policy which was approved by the Government is now paralysing the courts and we cannot do a darn thing about refugees because the court has ruled the legislation to be unconstitutional? Canadians will ask what happened two years ago. Parliament was called together in an emergency session. There was a debate. Canadians trusted the Government to move properly, but it abused that trust. It did not fulfil one of its more urgent responsibilities, which is to enact laws that are in keeping with the Constitution.
Canadians would have to ask themselves why the Government moved in an unconstitutional way. A judgment can only be made by the Canadian people. In addition to making judgments on elections or by-elections, judgments which are trivial in the larger scope, Canadians will react to a more progressive immigration policy. Would Canadians be confident in the Government's immigration policy? Would they want it to be progressive? Would their patience have run out? Would their frustration and anger not turn from the Government to the policy itself? I think there is a possibility that that may happen.
Many of my constituents are hoping that we finally come up with a system that works, but they do not want to see a policy that does not work two years down the road. What will we do then; call back Parliament again for another summer? Two summers in a row we have been here for emergencies. Every summer there is an emergency. If it is really an emergency, we should do it right.
There is an onus on the Government and on Members of Parliament to deal swiftly with abuse, to ensure that we target the real abusers. However, we should not pass into law the clauses for which I have concern and then allow those clauses to be subjected to the courts. The courts will say: "What kind of legislation is this? Why did you create a Charter of Rights in 1981 if you wanted to abuse it in 1987?"
It is very discouraging and disheartening that the Government has not listened, that it has not allowed the input of Members, churches, legal experts, civil libertarian groups and members of the Canadian Bar Associations who want to work with the Government to ensure that this is a good piece of legislation. Civil liberties groups do not have vested interests in putting down a policy for the sake of putting it down. They do not want to threaten or suggest that if a policy is not successful they will be heroes. These groups are interested in legislation which will work. Canadians have those interests as well, but they have not been listened to or heard.
Canada is a very privileged country. It is a great nation by all estimations. It is a tolerant and compassionate country. I do not think any Canadian would trade his or her place with anyone in any other country. Although the United States of America is our friend and ally and is more powerful and perhaps richer in certain respects, I do not think we would trade places with an American on any day of the week.
As my Leader has suggested quite articulately on many occasions, there is a price to be paid for being a Canadian, but it is a price worth paying. We do not mind paying that price for being a Canadian, enjoying the fruits of this country, and ensuring a certain type of life for our families and others who wish to come here.
I think we all aspire to make our country bigger and better. We should not rest on our laurels or those of former Governments which did noble things or enacted progressive legislation. We should always strive, whether in government or other spheres, to improve and to enjoy a lifestyle and reputation which is the envy of the world.
Canadians want to take our place in the international community in a forceful way. We believe that we have the dynamism, youth and vigour that goes with a youthful nation and the independence and ability to strive for an influential place in the world. We could be a moderating force on the international stage. Canada is not isolated from the world in a vacuum. When Canada speaks, we want other countries to have respect for our country, our Prime Minister and our institutions. That is the third characteristic of being a citizen of this country.
We have had that role with regard to the refugee policy which we are discussing. We have been a leader on the international stage. The people of Canada received the Nansen Medal. It was the first time that the Nansen Medal for assistance to refugees was awarded to a people rather than a person. That is international leadership and international respect. That is salesmanship of our country abroad.
We live in a global community. We interact, communicate and influence each other with every act and every word. The Nansen Medal speaks for our country. We are proud when we go abroad-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague and have for some time. I am always quite prepared to listen to my hon. friend at any time. However, to facilitate the business of the House, it was my understanding that there was an undertaking by the Hon. Member to speak for some time. Would he do us the courtesy of indicating whether he intends to wrap up his comments before six o'clock or to continue indefinitely? I ask this only to make life easier and more businesslike for his colleagues in the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think there should be negotiations in the House. Perhaps the Hon.
September 2, 1987

Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) will be concluding his remarks very soon. I would have to let him answer that.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 would like to point out that witnesses have been waiting to be heard in committee for some time during this time. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for adjusting his schedule in the House to go to the committee and spend time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 am sorry, that is not a point of order. Under Standing Order 55(1) the Hon. Member has unlimited time. The Hon. Member has the floor. If there are to be negotiations, they should take place behind the curtains or in the lobby.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to reinforce what you said, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has unlimited time under Standing Order 55(1). I do not see why Members would object to him taking advantage of his time. He has worth-while remarks to make. If Members want to learn something they may wish to be patient and listen to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have heard enough points of order. This is not a point of order but a point of debate. If there are to be negotiations with regard to the Hon. Member's time, they can take place among House Leaders behind the curtains. The Hon. Member has unlimited time under Standing Order 55(1). The Hon. Member for York West has the floor.


Sergio Marchi: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the House Leader of the NDP deserves an answer because that was an improper question. The Parliamentary Secretary is following the hypocritical tendencies of the Government which tries to deal with two Bills at the same time. He will pay the price and not Canadians. I had wanted to complete my remarks before six o'clock and I hope, notwithstanding the interventions of the NDP and the Parliamentary Secretary, that I will. If I do not, I do not.
I was speaking about the three characteristics of our citizenship and perhaps nationhood. The first one was with regard to the greatness of our country, the second was with regard to the desire to build it bigger and better and to improve it, and the third was with regard to our desire for a role of influence and respect in the international community. The fourth point is that we are a society which bases itself on orderly systems of procedure and the premise that our rules and laws should be respected.
I believe that while it is legitimate to cut out abuse and keep from our borders those who wish to smuggle in other human beings, that desire is not incompatible with the four characteristics which should clothe our citizenship. Helping refugees and attaining the other three characteristics does not detract from each other.
Immigration Act, 1976
The only real solution to this problem is for the Government to get moving on a new refugee system which would recognize the transition of which I spoke earlier in my remarks. That is the only solution. We have had three years of inaction by the Government which has ignored the requests, pleas, suggestions, reports, commissions, studies, media, facts and figures. It is time that the Government made it a priority. That is what Canadians are demanding and that is what we, as the Opposition, are trying to ensure.
While we may lose every vote and every amendment, I do not think our arguments will be lost on the country. The debate we are trying to encourage throughout the country concerns the value of our amendments and our words.
While the Parliamentary Secretary and others on the government side may be smug in knowing that they have the numbers, the more important question concerns the attitude and the vision of this country. Canadians will not pay attention to whether Motion No. 4 lost or Motion No. 8 won; they will be looking at who speaks for them and for the type of country to which they want to belong. Is it the person who advocates making it illegal for a priest to help a refugee, or the person and the Party who supports that action as a noble one which has been part of our society for years? Will they support the Member who wants to turn away the boat without due process for the passengers, sending them back to probable death or persecution, or will their support go to the Member who would escort the boat back to port and allow the passengers to disembark so that we may know the stranger, look him in the eyes and make a determination while, at the same time, find the captain who dumped 174 people in the ocean at two in the morning and put him in prison if necessary? Which Member will Canadians listen to?
Is it the Member who suggests that immigration officers should play Rambo and break into church organizations without warrants, or the Member and Party that advocates that if there is reason to search and seize and there is a warrant, we should do so. If human life or safety is in danger, then it is not necessary to have a warrant. If it is not possible to get a typewritten warrant, then use the tele-warrant.
Which Member and Party will Canadians listen to? Is it the Party that advocates that all documents be confiscated on the airlines, putting us in a class not even equalled by the Soviet Union, or the Party that believes airlines should not confiscate all passports and documents? It is not right to remove the documents of a Canadian who returns from Florida after the winter. There must be another way.
Will Canadians listen to the Party that suggests people should be locked up for 28 days on a hunch, with no questions, or the Party that believes that if there is a substantial basis, proper documentation, and the adjudicator has numerous reasons for detainment, then there should be detainment?

September 2, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
The issue is not a question of Motion No. 4 versus Motion No. 8 and the fact that Liberals lost the amendments. It may warm the hearts of government Members that the Liberals presented 20 amendments and not one of them passed. Liberal Members may say they are depressed that they lost all 20 amendments. Neither reaction presents the real story. The real story is the vision of Canada that those amendments embodied. The real story is how legislation approved in this Chamber affects Canada, our people and our society.
Whether the legislation involves refugees, budgets, tax reforms, senior citizens or the Meech Lake Accord, the question is: how does it affect the lives of Canadians in our ridings and those wishing to come to our shores?
Is there not a responsibility for immigrants who are now Canadian citizens not to close the door after coming to Canada? Would 1 be responsible in suggesting that now that I am in Canada and enjoy the privileges of my society we should close the doors out of some fear?
We are not talking about abuse, because abuse should be eliminated in a very forceful way. However, under the laws and provisions of our Constitution, do those of us who are immigrants really want to close the doors behind us? Rather, as a privileged society in the world, should we not say that we cannot close the door? It was open when 1 came, there were regulations that 1 met, why cannot those same regulations apply to strangers wishing to come to our shore?
Is there not a price worth paying to be Canadian? Would you not rather live in a country that understood a refugee as a person who goes through disorder? There is a concept that the system would work better as a neat, tidy little package in which crystal-clear decisions can be made within two or three weeks. But what is the world of a refugee? It is one of disorder, disunity and cloudiness. They have no home or orientation. A refugee's world is one of fear and apprehension.
While we must have a system that curbs abuse and accepts legitimate refugees, we cannot believe that the system will be foolproof, tight, and inflexible. Perhaps that is a price we pay as Canadians.
Perhaps those of us who were born here and have the privilege and rights of citizenship in this country should imagine that we were born in another time or another place in the middle of a war or during strife. What would we do to come to this country?
Who are refugees? Do we make it a crime if someone does not have a document when he arrives? Should we not allow that person to explain why he or she fled without a document? Is it a crime for a priest to help a refugee who does not have a document? According to the Civil Liberties Association, someone who kills, rapes and steals in broad daylight has more rights than those afforded to a claimant under Bill C-84. Is that balanced and proper? Is that acceptable? I do not think it is.
The intention of the law should be to discourage those who wish to abuse the system and allow a fair processing for those who wish to enter and apply for refugee status.
I began my speech by quoting Gunther Plaut who suggested that we should not forget about these strangers because at one time we were all strangers. Perhaps that is the way I will close the remarks at third reading.
To be a Canadian means many things to many people. To be a new Canadian means to have been a stranger, to have come from the old to the new, to have left the familiar for the unfamiliar. Those of us, particularly we legislators, who deny the stranger also deny Canada and its future.
I would like simply to close my remarks with the hope that the Government will change its mind at the eleventh hour and modify some of the clauses in Bill C-84, or at the very least accept a sunset clause. If this legislation is an emergency, let us treat it as an emergency. Emergency by its very definition does not last forever. Emergencies are temporary. They are short term. Why should we have emergency legislation become permanent legislation? Why not have this emergency legislation specific and fixed, but when we deal with Bill C-55 and the real solution, Bill C-84 should become redundant, null and void. At the very least, I appeal to the definition of "emergency", temporary, short term and short lived. There is no reason we should have these legislative scars on the books of our laws. They should be stricken from the laws of a progressive Canadian society in 1987.
Perhaps the challenge is that we look at it in terms of the year 2000. What do we think now of the actions of a former Government which, in 1939, turned away the boat called the St. Louis carrying 900 Jews who were escaping the horrors which faced them in their countries? How does the Government's actions in 1939 stack up against this Government's actions in 1987? I think the first reaction must be to ask, why? Why would a government turn away a boatload of 900 Jews, most of whom never saw the light of day after they touched the shores from whence they came?
These 900 people could have made their homes in Canada. Some of them might have become Members of Parliament. Others could have been teachers, judges or scholars. They were denied that opportunity. We can make up for the actions of the Government in 1939 and live up to the expectations of those who will replace us here in the year 2000, so that they can be proud of the compassion demonstrated by the Government and the Parliament during the summer of 1987.
Let us not be the Government which is the architect of a piece of legislation about which in the year 2000 and beyond, the then Member for York West will rise and ask how the Government in 1987 ever passed Bill C-84? Let us find a better place for ourselves and for our country in the annals of history.
September 2, 1987

1 simply want to conclude with the following comments of Rabbi Gunther Plaut to the committee:
I think that Draconian and emergency legislation gives the wrong signal, not only to the world but it gives the wrong word to our own people in Canada.
I think the Bill was drawn in undue haste. This is why I think we need just a little more leisure to write legislation that makes sense.
He then pleaded with the committee saying:
I ask you to look carefully at some of the amendments suggested. Do not follow the worst instincts of people, follow the best instincts.
If we follow the best instincts of Canadians, their aspirations, feelings and their desire for our nation, we will not go wrong and the world will not get the wrong message. If we follow the worst instincts, we will pay a bigger price and that price will bring us shame.
Immigration Act, 1976 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among the Parties. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That on Thursday, September 3, 1987, the hours of sitting and business of the House shall be as set out in Standing Orders in relation to a Friday sitting day;
And that when the House adjourns Thursday, September 3, 1987, it shall stand adjourned until two o'clock p.m. Wednesday, September 9, 1987.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the motion of the Hon. Minister of State. Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to the special order just adopted.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, September 3, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers