1987-08-12

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question I directed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) yesterday concerning the equality of women and minorities in this country with respect to the Constitution and the Meech Lake Accord, the Minister of Justice responded by urging me to consider my position and added that, according to Government legal advisors, the rights of women are not in any way diminished by the Meech Lake Accord provisions. Allow me to differ, and L am not the only one because a number of constitutional lawyers share my view.
Again I want to ask the Government to bring in an amendment to clarify this text. Naturally I am somewhat surprised that the Government would not take appropriate action because one must remember the saying: Where there is a will, there is a way. 1 think this is a very important question about which the Government should do something.
I would simply point out that if women are left to take this matter into their own hands the Government might very well have a surprise, as was the case in 1981.


WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Government will be courageous and just and use due parliamentary procedure to send Bill C-71 to a legislative committee after second reading, and at the same time follow the recommendations of the Deschenes Commission.
Our majority Government should show Canadians that we are not only interested in dealing with past war crimes from
the Second World War but also with those current ones being committed in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Cambodia, and Central America, as well as crimes against humanity which might occur in the future.
Twenty years from today we would not want hindsight to show Canadians that our motives for bringing in this legislation were wrong.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in a remarkable achievement the Presidents of the five Central American republics have agreed to a broad peace plan for their tragically troubled region. This plan, introduced by the President of Costa Rica and within the context of Contadora, should be enthusiastically endorsed by Canada.
Canada has long supported Contadora and Latin American solutions to the crisis in Central America. Canada should offer verification resources, funding, and other support for the implementation of the plan and any cease-fire and military disengagement.
Canada should offer to observe any cease-fire, as well as any future elections, if invited to do so. Canada could also offer to host the urgently needed resumption of bilateral talks between the United States and Nicaragua. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has clearly stated that Canada opposes the supply of arms to any faction in the region. Canada should continue to make this clear, and in particular should object to any renewed U.S. funding for the Contras.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, although for many people August is traditionally a holiday time when public issues are often ignored, I sincerely trust that Canadians will pause for a moment to remember that August 19, 1987,

August 12, 1987
marks the forty-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Dieppe, an event that should never be forgotten.
Although as a young historian I stood on the beaches of Dieppe, we who were not there at the time will never be able to fully appreciate what was asked of those 5,000 members of the 2nd Canadian Division who went ashore despite the fact that all of the advantages were enjoyed by the enemy.
While military historians continue to argue about the merits of the Dieppe raid, the harsh fact remains that only 2,200, including 600 wounded, of the 5,000 returned to England. Over 900 were dead, the rest were prisoners of war.
Therefore, Canadians of all generations should remember and acknowledge those who, 45 years ago, were prepared to sacrifice all so that we today could enjoy the many privileges and freedoms which we all too often take for granted.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today, this country lost four of its dedicated public servants.
1 am referring to Franqois Gascon, Robert Paradis, Richard Lemay and Jennifer Morden, all employees of the National Capital Commission, who lost their lives in a tragic accident on a highway in New York State while working on a campaign to promote this country.
Sadly, we are powerless to soften the impact of this painful loss on the fathers, mothers, husbands and wives, children, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues of those who died. On behalf of all my colleagues and of the entire country, I can do no more than extend our sincere condolences and express our feelings of deepest sympathy.
As for Anne-Marie Leclerc, who was seriously hurt, we hope that the prayers of her family will give her the strength needed for a prompt recovery. And of course 1 must not forget Nathalie Charron, who, although she was physically unharmed, will always carry the memory of this tragic accident that stunned people across Canada.
1 want to invite the people of Ottawa-Vanier and Ottawa-Carleton to attend the funeral service at Ottawa's Notre-Dame Cathedral, to honour the memory of these upstanding public servants.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, unless they can be persuaded to change their minds, the appointed members of the Senate will refuse to pass Bill C-22, the legislation on drug patents.
The Senate's attitude is due to the firm grasp on that body exercised by an influential Liberal, a former member of the Liberal Cabinet and one of the prominent party members who are challenging the leadership of their present Leader.
May 1 suggest that if their party is to survive, Liberal Senators should have the political sense to respect the mandate of the elected Members of this House. Otherwise, in the next election, Canadians will eliminate what Liberals there are left.
And if the Liberal Senators insist on committing political suicide, the unfortunate result would be that the Socialists would form the Official Opposition in this House, unless the old Liberal clique decides to lean to the left as well.
Great Britain buried its Liberals. 1 don't think Canadians should do that.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government's long awaited response to the Special Committee on Child Care was due. It is an innocuous two-page document which was not even tabled, and it states nothing of substance. It alludes to a national strategy on child care, but it gives no clue to what this strategy will be. There is no statement of federal objectives for a national child care program which is essential for negotiations with the provinces.
Surely, after two years of unnecessary delay, the Minister by now could have at least established national objectives for a child care program that is accessible in all regions of Canada and to families of all incomes, that is comprehensive, with a range of flexible child care services, and provides guidelines so that federal funding will go only to licensed, quality child care services.
Another broken promise from a Government that cannot be trusted.
August 12, 1987


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are angry. Canadian sovereignty has been abused and the Canadian nation literally raped by foreigners arriving in our land, unannounced, and immediately demanding the rights accorded to Canadian citizens.
The laws and treaties that permit this abuse do not represent the thinking of the vast majority of Canadians. If any of these are genuine refugees, they should know enough to seek proper admittance, and not sneak into the country. The so-called refugees who destroy their documents and lie about their status and pay large sums of money to smugglers should be shipped back to whence they came. To give them any consideration at all is an affront to Canadians and to the people who seek entry legally.
I commend the Hon. Ministers of Immigration for introducing Bill C-84, for it reflects the thinking of the vast majority of Canadians. The bleeding hearts may howl, but the vast majority of Canadian people will applaud. "Bravo", I say. "Now we are seeing democracy at work."



Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to overestimate the amount of frustration that exists in my riding of Niagara Falls, and I believe across Canada, on the subject of Canada's refugee determination laws.
Canadians have felt abused and frustrated that people are systematically taking advantage of Canada. Therefore, 1 strongly support Bill C-84, a Bill which will bring some common sense and reasonableness back into the system.
The new measures, combined with Bill C-55, send a clear message to the world that Canada will not be taken advantage of.
At the same time I am disappointed and dismayed to see once again that the opposition Parties will be opposing the Government in its attempt to move this quickly through the legislative process. That is unfortunate for them, because all Canada is watching this debate.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES-DEMAND THAT AGRICULTURAL QUOTA SYSTEM BE RETAINED
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: On
August 4, 1987, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers sent a letter to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) in which they stated:
Milk producers the world over are extremely concerned about the deteriorating situation of worldwide trade in dairy products. World supply exceeds demand.
Further I read:
World leaders in the dairy production sector advocate that production cutting mechanisms be maintained and strengthened, including quotas, early retirement programs as well as herd buy-back and price adjustment programs, so that world market prices may again become profitable.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore important that the Minister for International Trade should clearly indicate to the House that the existing quota system will not be put on the block in the trade negotiations with the United States of America. Canadian dairy producers need that assurance now, Mr. Speaker.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the Government's policy on reducing access to computer readable products from Statistics Canada.
The cost of 1986 computer readable census products which are still available has increased between 1,567 per cent and 9,900 per cent in three years. Canadian census products at some small area levels will cost $2,500 per file; comparable U.S. census data costs $175.
The cost of doing business in Canada will be severely affected by this increased cost of vital information. However, probably even more important, academic research and teaching will no longer be able to afford to use current Canadian data for the study of Canadian society but will be forced to use old data or U.S. data. It will be impossible to subject government studies to peer review for lack of affordable data.
The principle of government collected information as a public good is explicitly stated in federal legislation and policy statements. Even the Nielsen task force did not go this far in cost recovery. The Government has gone too far in restricting this information.

August 12, 1987
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS


POSSIBLE RAILWAY STRIKE-EFFECT ON EDMONTON
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that Canadians, especially Edmontonians, do not need it is a strike by railway workers. Edmonton is experiencing high unemployment. A very large financial institution has declared bankruptcy, affecting some 100,000 or more Albertans with a potential loss of their savings. A tornado that went through Edmonton caused loss of life, loss of approximately 1,000 jobs and almost a quarter billion dollars in damages. A railway strike will seriously and adversely affect Edmonton's many businesses and their employees.
Surely there is a better method of dealing with labour disputes than strikes or lock-outs. In the past, all railway strikes have always been settled so why not settle the dispute before a strike? It makes common sense to Edmontonians and to Canadians to settle now.
On behalf of Edmontonians and the people of Canada, I urge Canada's two major railways and the affected unions to arrange a settlement immediately and peacefully.


ROAD SAFETY
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Safety Council met in Toronto in late June for its 19th annual conference. The following motion was adopted:
That the Canada Safety Council urge Transport Canada to make adjustable lap-shoulder belt systems in rear outboard seating positions available as standard equipment in passenger vehicles by no later than model year 1990.
The Safety Council is also asking the Government to require car makers to produce lap-shoulder kits to install in older cars.
These recommendations demonstrate once again the need for better protection for car passengers and reinforce the Government's mandate to see that all Canadians, be they front-seat or rear-seat passengers, benefit from maximum protection.
The Canadian Safety Council is to be commended for its foresight in this security matter.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, after 27 months of Liberal-NDP rule in the Province of Ontario, we can see firsthand the havoc northern Ontarians have suffered. The communities of Temagami, Latchford, Elk Lake and River Valley have had their fill of the Premier's politics.
Recent decisions by Queen's Park to limit new wood supplies in the southern Timiskaming region are irresponsible to the businesses and the people of the area. They are about to cause great hardship, especially the decision to halt the construction of the Red Squirrel access road extension.
Almost 15,000 direct and indirect jobs are in jeopardy due to the insensitivity to northern Ontarian concerns of the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources. In fact, next month 180 workers at Temagami's William Milne and Sons sawmill could be on the unemployment lines. This is not acceptable. I call on the Premier to respond to the needs of the southern Timiskaming residents and to listen to the people whose livelihoods he is playing with.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, last week the NDP asked for some secret, private, cosy briefing from the Minister for International Trade on free trade and the Minister has leaped at that opportunity and has now given that offer back to the NDP. However, we understand that that corner of the House has some trouble in making up its mind.
I believe that all Canadians have a right to know what is on the Government's mind. All Canadians have a right to know what is at stake in these free trade negotiations, including brewery workers whose jobs are on the line, farmers who feel threatened by these negotiations, and yes, automobile workers who get a different answer every time the Minister speaks. In light of this, when will the Minister for International Trade release those secret studies that indicate which industries will be harmed by these negotiations?
When will the Minister for International Trade set out in detail what exactly are the priorities of the Government in its negotiations with the United States?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member points out that I did write to
August 12, 1987

the Leaders of both opposition Parties to offer them a briefing as we enter the crucial last stage of the negotiations. They are both Privy Councillors. We have offered similar briefings to the Premiers and to the 300 members of our sectoral advisory groups. They have always respected the confidentiality of those briefings. We expect no less from the Leaders of the opposition Parties. The Right Hon. Member has rejected that, and it is under consideration by the Hon. Member for Oshawa.
As to the agenda of the talks, 1 again refer the Hon. Member to the debate we held in this House on Monday, March 16, 1987, when 1 and other members of this Government set out in great detail the agenda of the talks and the Canadian objectives. I recommend he go back and read the Hansard report of that debate.


John Napier Turner: I reread the Minister's speech and there is nothing in there to guide Members of this House or the Canadian people generally.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government and the NDP may believe they can participate in a conspiracy of silence but we believe all Canadians have a right to know what is happening in these negotiations. We admit we know some things. We know the Government has given in to the Americans on foreign investment, lumber, pharmaceutical patents, and book publishing. What we would like to know from the Minister is when we are going to get something in return and what we are going to get?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, since the Right Hon. Member is not taking advantage of my offer for private briefings, I suggest he should wait until October 5 to find out the answers to his questions.
May I point out that in my speech of March 16 1 said, to quote Hansard, "Let me deal with the agenda of the trade talks". I then dealt with it and referred to tariffs. 1 said nontariff barriers are on the table, as well as Customs matters, subsidy-related measures, dispute settlement mechanisms, intellectual property and trade-related investment. 1 spelled it all out. I again suggest the Right Hon. Member read the Debates before he continues this frivolous line that we have not debated and discussed in public what we are dealing with in the free trade talks.


GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Minister was not clear at all in her speech, and I read it twice. At least the American Government was open and honest about its claims. It submitted in writing a list of what it expected of the Canadian Government. It was published in an official document that is before the U.S.
Oral Questions
Cabinet. It wants to see our breweries, the Canadian Wheat Board and our drug legislation disappear, it wants changes in the Bank Act, in our procurement policies, our postal rates and our social policies, to name only a few. The Americans are not afraid to reveal their priorities to their people. Why should our Government be different? Why isn't the Canadian Government open and honest with Canadians during these talks?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Right Hon. Member go back and consider the motion we presented in this House and which we voted in favour of. That motion said:
That this House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States, as part of the government's multilateral trade policy, while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry, and our unique cultural identity.
We distributed copies of Hansard to the Hon. Member. Why does he not read the material presented to him?


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration. For some two and a half years now our Party has been calling on the Government to stop the abusive and profitable scams of smugglers and consultants who continue to traffic in human beings.
Under the new refugee legislation just tabled the Government would have the power to fine or put in prison any individual Canadian, group, or church leader who simply assists refugees. How can the Minister justify making the actions of a priest, nun or layman who genuinely helps individuals in need, an act of civil disobedience? Will he not agree that he has gone far beyond what was required? Will he agree to amend the legislation so that it can target the real abusers and exploiters, not those who give of themselves for the betterment of their fellow human beings?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time the Hon. Member has spoken to the subject in the House of Commons.


An Hon. Member:: Not true!


Benoît Bouchard: I am going to refer to what he said today, but if I look at the statements he has made for the last three weeks with the Leader of the Opposition, I think we are in for some surprises, because there are four, five or six different versions. However, I am not going to quote the Hon. Member but I want to ask him, before all Canadians, exactly where the

August 12, 1987
Oral Questions
Liberal Party stands on the refugee question. No fence sitting, no statements about putting them out of the country, no statements about... 1 now ask publicly, in the presence of all Canadians that the Liberal Party tell us whether it is for or against the legislation aimed at returning phony refugees.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day. I think Canadians are ashamed of having a response to a serious question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West has the floor. I know he will be given the courtesy of having his question heard.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should ask for the response of the Right Hon. Prime Minister who has prejudiced the matter by calling these people illegal aliens before due process. The Minister should get his own responses before arrogantly asking the responses of others who have clearly put their position on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUNITIVE MEASURES
Sergio Marchi: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I will return to the Minister. Does the Minister not realize that the legislation provides that a priest helping a group of ten refugees out of charity and compassion could be liable to the same $500,000 fine and the same ten-year prison term as would be applied to a consultant who charges $10,000 a head and dumps the people on our shores?
How can he possibly make these two radically different actions, one for immoral profit and one based on human compassion, the very same under the letter of his law introduced yesterday?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will let Canadians answer my friend. On July 13, 1987, my friend said:
We have to deal stringently with those culprits who are responsible. That's
the frustration-a lot of Canadians had in terms of people like-who takes
advantage of the system and gets away scot-free.


Some Hon. Members:: Exactly.


Sergio Marchi: That's our position.


Benoît Bouchard: I want to tell my friend today that he will have-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have another wonderful quote from my friend himself. He said:
What about the most recent smugglers in Halifax who were sentenced to the
maximum fine and a year in jail for bringing in the Sikhs? What if they are
deemed legitimate refugees at a hearing ? Should we have punished the captain
who saved their lives by bringing them here?
That is what you are quoted as saying in The Globe and Mail. Where do you stand, please?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor. I know that there are strong views on both sides of this issue, but I am sure that all Hon. Members will want to give each other a proper opportunity to ask questions and give a proper opportunity as well for Ministers to reply. 1 am sure that after Question Period those Members who wish to carry on a separate discussion with each other can take advantage of the appropriate rooms and places for that. The Hon. Member.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns the Western Diversification Fund recently announced by the Government. As the Prime Minister is aware, many western Canadians are suspicious that this might be a second curtain call of the empty Liberal Western Development Fund of Allan MacEachen in the early 1980s.
Some $79 million has been taken out of the fund for the South Moresby National Park and another $54 million for the Salmonid Enhancement Program. Western Canadians want to know what other previously announced or existing government programs, projects, or initiatives will be paid for out of the Western Diversification Fund? Just how much of that fund has already been committed to previous government programs and how much money will be left for small business and new projects?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member now takes the opportunity to criticize the Liberal initiative which he supported at the time it was announced. The initiative that was announced by the Right Hon. Prime Minister is different in several ways. First, the initiative has the support of a Prime Minister who cares about western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
August 12, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Second, it has the support of ten Cabinet Ministers from western Canada as well as the western caucus.
1 would also point out to the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville that it was endorsed by four Premiers representing three political Parties in western Canada. The establishment of the initiative in western Canada, with a well respected Deputy Prime Minister to put forward the views of western Canadians, to be responsible for the diversification and the strengthening of the western economy, is something that I thought the Hon. Member would have supported.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just like Allan MacEachen, he is dodging the question.


SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR PROJECTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, western Canadians want an answer. On CTV's Question Period on Sunday, the Minister said: "If the program and the project would fit within an existing government department or existing government program, then they will be guided to that particular program". In light of that, will the Minister explain now to western Canadians why the money for the Salmonid Enhancement Program did not come from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and why the money for a national park did not come from the social policy reserve fund? Why did the money for both these projects come from the Western Diversification Fund?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct. The $1.2 billion is new money. That means that for expenditures on the A basis, the budgets of those existing Departments, would be used first, naturally. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the $1.2 billion should substitute for the billions of dollars that already go to western Canada in energy, transportation, and CEIC? Is that the stand of the New Democratic Party?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are asking for new money, not money that has been previously committed from other government Departments. The Minister knows that and is afraid to answer the question.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PROVINCES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. The Minister said recently that the money would not be allocated on a per capita basis in western Canada. How much money will be allocated to the Province of Manitoba, how much money will be allocated to Saskatchewan, how much money to the Province of Alberta and how much money to British Columbia? Western Canadians want to know.
Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, but maybe the Hon. Member would like it by municipality, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: My colleague comes from the same province as I. He must recognize that there are initiatives that can be taken in Manitoba that strengthen Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. There are initiatives taken in British Columbia that can strengthen the other three provinces.
To devide the fund and make it on a per capita basis goes against what the region of western Canada expressed through its Premiers. The Premiers wish to have the opportunity to build on the strengths of their provinces. The men and women wish to have that opportunity.
The Member criticized the Salmonid Enhancement Program.


An Hon. Member:: Rubbish. That is not true.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: That is not what the critic for his Party said. He encouraged my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to provide more money. Naturally, that will build on the strengths of the fishery industry in British Columbia and we intend to continue to do that.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. As a result of First Investors and Associated Investors going bankrupt, and now the difficulty with Principal Savings and Trust, and the effects those companies have on some 60,000 Canadians, there are major questions concerning the integrity and incompetence of the management and directors of those companies, as well as the role that Governments have played or have failed to play in this entire exercise.
When did CDIC first become aware of the difficulties in which Principal Savings and Trust is now involved? What was the extent of the investigation that was subsequently launched? What does he intend to do with those individuals who may have been in breach of the law? Finally, will the Minister not now table for the benefit of all Canadians the report that he has in his possession from officials of CDIC regarding this most important financial matter?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the Hon. Member has been a little more careful than yesterday in asking his questions. The effect of what he was asking yesterday was really to mislead the Canadian people. Essentially, he said that the Canada Deposit

August 12, 1987
Oral Questions
Insurance Corporation was not applying a stamp indicating that these investment contracts were not insured. In fact, those stamps were on those contracts. The Hon. Member should know that and not give an impression otherwise.
In response to today's question, the Principal Group is made up of 30 companies. One of them is federally insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. There were two investment contract companies which began to bring the whole group down when they fell into trouble.
Beginning in 1983, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation closely monitored the one institution for which it was responsible, the trust company. It did so to such an extent that the assets of that company were forced to be in a very liquid position. As a result, that particular company will find that CDIC will be able to cover almost all of the losses, and the liquidity of that particular trust company can be traced back directly to the close monitoring of the CDIC month by month.


REPORTED TRANSFER OF FUNDS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday and what I say again today is there are obvious and apparent linkages between the four companies which have been named in the House of Commons. With regard to Principal Savings and Trust, is the Minister aware it has transferred funds to First Investors Corp. Ltd. which, by the way, had no business address, no letterhead of its own until 1986, operating under the auspices of Principal Savings and Trust? Was he aware of that? And would the Minister not admit he was informed of that information by registered mail on July 16, 1987, to officials of CDIC?
1 ask the Minister, for the confidence of those investors and all those Canadians, will he not now tell us the full extent of the investigation? And will he not now make it public so we can all see whether integrity and competence are with the management and directors of those companies involved? Or are you going to continue to mislead Canadians in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member feels very strongly that this matter should receive the attention of the Minister and the Minister should respond fully, but I ask all Hon. Members to be careful of how they express those wishes in a preamble.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the communications of the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation with its member institutions are, of course, confidential. They are like medical records. The whole system of insurance would not work in any other way. The Hon. Member knows that.
In terms of the future, I direct the Hon. Member once again to the policy of December 18 which will put in place a new corporate governance scheme, independent directors, and new committees which will monitor these events, preventing in large measure the very problem we are talking about today. In
addition to corporate governance, we have a policy of prudential investment rules which will prevent the kinds of investments which I think largely contributed to the problems this group faced.


PRINCIPAL GROUP-INVESTIGATION QUERY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance. In early July I attended a meeting of well over 1,000 angry Principal Group investors in Regina. Many of them believed they had invested with Principal Trust but later discovered the money had in fact been channelled into the two other uninsured subsidiaries of the Principal Group, First Investors Corporation and Associated Investors.
Is the Minister or the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigating possible fraudulent representation made by Principle Group? If so, are they prepared to lay criminal charges?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. There have been allegations of misrepresentation and I am looking into them. I am also informed that the British Columbia Government has issued a writ under the B.C. Trade Practices Act against the two investors groups, the Principal Group and the Principal Trust Company, relating to possible misrepresentation.
1 can tell the Hon. Member that the contracts the customers eventually did sign were clearly marked that they were not covered by CDIC insurance, in letters which were five times the size of the rest of the contracts. Whether there was misrepresentation leading up to the signing of contracts, I am inquiring into that. As I said, there are also other actions under way asking the same question.


REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. At that Regina meeting there was a representative of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who invited the people attending that rally, the investors who had lost money, to send in their own personal experiences, the documentation they had received from sales persons from the group. Surely the Minister must have these by now. Surely he is in communication with his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They must now be in a position to have reviewed those documents and those allegations.
I, too, have received letters full of allegations. Surely the Minister must now be in a position to state whether there was in fact criminal wrong-doing and whether the Government is ready to act to ensure that what occurred will never again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Minister could probably find a question in that preamble.
August 12, 1987


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and 1 will be meeting on this matter this week. Our response will be made known to the House very shortly.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that the Government has received in at least a preliminary version the report of Mr. Justice Parker into the investigation of conflict of interest involving the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot confirm that because I am not aware of the fact we have received it.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPORT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister check to see whether a copy has been received? And will he undertake that the report he receives from Justice Parker will be made public in its original version without editing or censorship?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Hon. Member asks his question as the expert of the Liberal Party on censorship so I will only receive the question on the basis that 1 will make inquiries. These matters are under the aegis of the Privy Council office, being under the Public Inquiries Act. I am sure that if the preliminary report is to be received, I will be apprised of that fact and I will make the Hon. Member aware of the result of my investigation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Western Diversification Initiative are, the plan in no way deals with the immediate crisis in Canadian agriculture, particularly western agriculture. The Prime Minister has been in the west, he knows the plight the farmers face. Will the Prime Minister, now that he has called Parliament into emergency session, deal with a real emergency, the crisis facing grain farmers in the west? Will he announce to the farmers what kind of action his Government will take regarding emergency support for grain farmers in the 1987-88 crop year?
Oral Questions


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know, and if he does not know I am sure he will be interested in knowing, that we continue our series of meetings with the farm leaders. My colleague, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Prime Minister, have already met with farm leaders. We continue that series of meetings. In fact our next meeting will be held in Winnipeg on August 27.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Government has announced another 18 per cent reduction in grain prices and that takes effect immediately. Is it not time the Government made some commitment so that the farmers know what the Government intends to do and so they know they are not in the position where they are not going to survive this next year?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows we have just completed the mailing of the Special Canadian Grains Program cheques, the largest single payment ever made by any Government in the history of the country, $1 billion.
I think the very fact that we signalled the continuing commitment of this Government and the fact that we are continuing the series of meetings-we have had three meetings now and the next meeting, as I indicated in my response to your question, will be in Winnipeg later this month, August 27,-are a clear indication that this Government, because of the priority it places on agriculture and because of the fact we recognize that Canadian grain and oil seeds farmers are facing very difficult times, will continue that commitment.
We are going to continue to work with farm leaders because we find we will come up with a far better program working with farm leaders and letting them put the final details on the program together rather than acting unilaterally on behalf of the Government.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister responsible for Industry, Science and Technology. I would remind him that Canadians, Montrealers particularly, are very impatiently waiting to know the final decision concerning the space agency which has been announced by this Government on a number of occasions. First it was to be announced last February then June, and now we learn that the decision has been again postponed.

August 12, 1987
Oral Questions
1 should like to ask the Minister if the Government will soon stop dragging its feet and unveil the policy for which we have now been waiting for months.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister responsible for Industry, Science and Technology):: As my colleague announced earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Government is now considering various alternatives before making a decision and an announcement in the best interest of Canadians. Once the decision has been made it will be duly announced.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE COMMITMENT
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been studying for months on end. The Government appointed the Picard Commission to study the economic and employment situation in Montreal. The Picard Commission reported several months ago already and its first recommendation was to set up the space agency in Montreal.
I ask the Minister whether he might not take the bull by the horns and say that Montreal will be the site of the space agency which has been announced so many times by this Government.


Michel Côté: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the decision will first be considered by Cabinet and announced in due time.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning the CBC said that it had obtained confidential copies of refugee application transcripts. Apparently these transcripts had been translated by free-lancers working at home without security measures having been taken to guarantee the confidentiality of the transcripts.
Can the Minister explain this serious breach of secrecy, this breach of confidentiality and security?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have also been made aware of the matter raised by my colleague. I think this is a very particular case. Generally speaking, the existing measures to ensure the confidentiality of refugee hearings are safe, but as I say there may be a particular case and we are treating it as such. The Solicitor General has agreed to my request to have the RCMP launch an investigation.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRANSCRIPTS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this is not an isolated case. Earlier this year immigration files and microfiche were found in garbage dumps in British Columbia. We have now found out from lawyers that transcripts of statements given under oath by people fleeing the repression of other regimes because they oppose them are being obtained easily by the media. One of them was published in The Globe and Mail last month.
Can the Minister tell the House what action he has taken to protect the lives of these refugees and their families or associates back home from the irresponsible action of the members of his Department who are not taking care of these confidential transcripts?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question previously. I said that when there is a particular case we give a particular answer. I have requested an inquiry by the RCMP. As soon as we have the answer I will communicate that answer to my colleague.

[ Translation\


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the now defunct DRIE.
Yesterday, the Minister was very confident when he told the press that the 1RDP program would continue and that there were enough funds to help Quebec businesses. Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders prevent me from calling the Minister a liar in this House, so instead, I am sure you will not mind if I ask him whether he can explain that at this very moment, his department's offices in Montreal, Val d'Or, Sherbrooke and Drummondville have been advised to hold up new applications because no more funds are available. How can the Minister tell his employees to hold up new applications and then tell the press there are sufficient funds?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously missed the point entirely yesterday, and he will probably go on doing
so.
As I have said previously, we must remember that the government has spent more this year than ever before. We have already spent $850 million. We have added another $200 million since June 1987, which the Hon. Member knows perfectly well.
August 12, 1987

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we announced four projects that will create 1 50 jobs in the Hon. Member's own riding.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, some people say the Minister does not know what is happening in his own department, and 1 think he should realize that yesterday, he announced projects that had been announced previously. It was just a rehash of what we already knew, and La Voix de L'Est said as much this morning. 1 would like to ask the Minister why, when he knows there is not a cent left in his department's coffers, he keeps telling business people that there is money when his employees say there is not. Why does the Minister not admit to his failure, why does he not admit that he has lost control over his department and why does he not resign?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member just said is patently false, and I emphatically deny what he said. 1 simply want to remind Hon. Members that we examine projects as they are submitted, but because of the improved economic situation due to the new-found confidence of Canadian business people and especially Quebecers, we are now faced with increased demand, for the simple reason that we have introduced programs that respond to the expectations of Quebec and Canadian entrepreneurs. And that is why we have been able to create 860,000 jobs since January 1984.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I have had several cases drawn to my attention regarding individuals in negotiations on mortgage arrears with the Farm Credit Corporation. Since the moratorium was lifted these ongoing negotiations have been stopped by officials of the Farm Credit Corporation and letters have gone out initiating foreclosures under Section 22. Is the Minister aware of this? Keeping in mind that individual cases must still be reviewed by a farm debt review board, is he aware of the aggressive attitude now being shown by field and office staff of the Farm Credit Corporation?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, no, I have not heard of the so-called aggressive attitude in the Farm Credit Corporation. If that is the case it would certainly be a very sharp departure from the normal humanitarian and compassionate approaches that have been used by the Farm Credit Corporation in the past.
OraI Questions
I take the Hon. Member's representations very seriously and I want to have a meeting with him after Question Period to discuss this very matter.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the Minister knows Yukoners are being ripped off by the Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty. Some 50 per cent of chinook salmon are spawned in the Yukon but 93 per cent are taken by Alaskans and only 7 per cent by Canadians, in this case Yukoners.
Despite ongoing talks between Canada and the United States, Yukon continues to be sold up the river. On Friday last the Minister closed the fishery in Yukon without notice. Does the Minister not think that it is high time to pursue aggressively our rightful ownership of this resource?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Hon. Member for Yukon on her first and, I think, very thoughtfully put question in the House this afternoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is true that since the successful conclusion of the Pacific Salmon Treaty-and I do not know if I am permitted to acknowledge that it was in your time of office, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -we have been attempting to negotiate a successful annex to the Pacific Salmon Treaty which would account for the fact that the majority of the Yukon River chinook stocks which are harvested by Alaskan based fishermen are born in Canadian waters.
We are very disturbed that in the present year the American fishery within Alaska is severely overtaxing this resource and fishing far in excess of the normal quotas set within the Alaskan fishery. For that reason I intend to be in consultation with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to seek a way of making a strong, formal statement of our concerns to the U.S. Government.

August 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Despite the subject matter of the question, the Speaker is prepared to invite the Hon. Member for Yukon to ask a supplementary question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 am glad to hear the Minister say that he is going to do something about it. We will be anxiously waiting to hear. We have already lost one season. 1 hope we can take this as an assurance to Yukoners, and to all Canadians, that we can trust the negotiating ability of the Government to give Yukoners a fair allocation of our rightful resource.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Indeed, I will repeat the assurance 1 have given. It appears that the Alaskan based fishery is exceeding the Alaskan quota guidelines by up to 50 per cent. That additional harvest is five times as large as the harvest by our own fishermen in Yukon. That discrepancy must be addressed, and I intend to address it immediately.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: My question is directed to the Minister responsible for western diversification. First, I wish to congratulate him on his new appointment, and both the Minister and his colleagues on the announcement last week of the $1.2 billion western diversification fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Congratulations are always in order, but keeping in mind the hour I would ask that the Hon. Member put her question succinctly.


Mary Collins: There has been some confusion, or perhaps misunderstanding in British Columbia concerning the funding. Under existing DRIE programs, British Columbia receives approximately $50 million a year. Dividing the $1.2 billion by four provinces in five years that works out to be approximately the same. Some people are concerned that the money is the same.
Can the Minister clarify and confirm that the $1.2 billion is new money, and does not in any way preclude funds from ongoing programs of DRIE and other Departments?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I thank the Hon. Member for the question because it does allow this clarification.
The fund is $1.2 billion of new money. On top of that, there will be $200 million transferred to the Office of Western Diversification for IRDP, WTID, and ERDAs that fall within the jurisdiction.
In economic development across Canada this year the Government has spent over a billion dollars, over $1 billion this year in industry, science and technology, $1.2 billion for western diversification has been identified, $55 million has been identified for northern development, and $1.5 million has been identified for Atlantic Canada. The Government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have made a commitment to the regions of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Less than one month ago the Minister told the workers of Firestone, the people of Hamilton, and all Canadians that if any equipment was moved out of the Firestone plant he would immediately ask for repayment of the $13.5 million that the federal Government gave to Firestone. That was on July 15. Now the Minister is in the process of negotiating an agreement with Firestone that will permit that company to strip its Canadian machinery and equipment and take it down to the United States and leave a barren shell of a company.
What happened between July 15 and today to cause the Minister to have this complete about-face after he gave his word to the people of Canada?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that what we have here is a very difficult and very complex situation. We have looked at various alternatives with Firestone. We have identified respective buyers, and we have asked the company to put $13.5 million, the amount referred to by the Hon. Member, in trust in order to keep all options open and find a positive solution that would keep this plant open, which would be in the best interests of the workers in her riding.


REPORTED EXPORT TO UNITED STATES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Less than an hour ago I spoke to one of the officials in his Ministry. There is not a single thing in writing between the Government and Firestone to guarantee any of those jobs or that equipment.


Some Hon. Members:: Louder!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will be louder, Mr. Speaker. If the government Members do not wish to hear a voice from Hamilton in
August 12, 1987

opposition they will be sorry because I will continue to speak out.
In my hands 1 have documents which show that a few days before Firestone made its announcement through the night it surreptitiously sent out half a million dollars in equipment to plants in the United States. That is half a million dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money which has been spirited out of the plant. This Minister has done nothing. He has not even met with me. The Minister owes the people of Hamilton and Firestone an explanation and a resignation.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleague I repeat that we have negotiated with the company and it has agreed to put in escrow the sum of $13.5 million in order to allow us to find a potential buyer. We have identified a buyer, and we hope to have a positive conclusion very shortly. In the meantime, we agreed that the company could move some of its equipment-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You do not have a thing in writing.


Michel Côté: -that would not prevent the running of the operation if there is a new buyer. That is how we are working for the benefit of the company and the workers of the region.


POINT OF ORDER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the Government's supposed policy on day care. 1 seek the guidance of the Speaker, but he will be aware that under the new Standing Orders, Standing Order 99(2) requires that a government must file a comprehensive response to a standing committee report within 150 days. The Speaker will also be aware that a few days ago this farce of a response was tabled, a copy of which was delivered to my office today, and in it the Minister admits that he has no comprehensive response, that in fact he is violating the Standing Orders. He is asking the people of Canada to wait until some vague later date.
Given the seriousness of the Government's alleged commitment to day care, and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) promise in the House and outside over the last couple of years, I would ask the Speaker to rule on what 1 consider to be a blatant and gross violation of the Standing Orders and, more importantly, a gross violation of the spirit of the Government's commitment to respond to the standing committee on day care which was examining the question.
In Standing Order 99(2) there is specification that it be a comprehensive report and not simply an interim notice. I have
Point of Order-Ms. Copps
in my hand the so-called response which was tabled on July 28 in which the Minister states that he will be introducing a comprehensive announcement. He states, "However a comprehensive announcement is expected early in the fall." The Standing Orders do not permit the Minister to respond whenever he feels like responding. The Standing Orders require him to respond within 150 days.
Given the Government's alleged commitment to day care, I cannot understand why it came out with this flimflam, sham document today and tried to sneak it through the House when everybody was on holidays. The Minister did not even have the guts to stand up and make a statement in the House, to table the document.
Is this a reflection of the Government's real response to the report of the day care committee? I think it is a farce, and I would like to get a ruling from the Speaker on this violation of the Standing Orders.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think a number of comments must be made with respect to the response of the Special Committee on Child Care.
I think as Your Honour studies the rules you will know that within a certain period of time the Government, and specifically the Minister, is responsible for the tabling of "a report" in response to a committee. That is exactly what we have done.
In the letter addressed to the chairperson of the Special Committee on Child Care, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), a letter which was delivered to the Table prior to the number of days required by the Standing Orders-and I think the first paragraph is very clear and within the rules-I stated:
As Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am pleased to present an
interim response, on behalf of the federal Government, to the Report of the
Special Committee on Child Care which was tabled on March 30, 1987.
That is within the rules of the House. I went on in that response to the Hon. Member who served as chairperson of the committee to say that the Government would be coming in with a further report or a further response on child care. The reasons for it are stated in the response, and the reasons are quite straightforward.
I think it has to be understood by the Chair why the approach was taken. First, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government-especially he on behalf of the Government-have very clearly stated the Government's commitment to the child care proposals to which he committed the Government as early as the campaign in September, 1984.
Following those statements at that time, and when the Prime Minister was sworn in as Prime Minister, he gave various cabinet Ministers responsibility for various portfolios. One was the child care issue for which I was given responsibility.

August 12, 1987
Point of Order-Ms. Copps
1 think Hon. Members know-at least, they should know because the special committee recognized it-that any child care response would also have to take into consideration provincial jurisdiction, and that is important. That being the case, provincial jurisdiction requires us to negotiate with the provinces the kind of response that would be best in terms of a child care program for the country, and specifically for families in need of child care.
I have said as well, in the response to the chairperson of the special committee, that 1 was negotiating with the provinces- and 1 have been talking with a number of provinces during the summer as well-on the kind of approach which would be acceptable to them in view of two things; first, in view of provincial jurisdiction relative to child care and, second, in view of the spirit that 1 think should now prevail in terms of federal-provincial relations, namely, the Meech Lake Accord which the Prime Minister was able to conclude with 10 Premiers and which 1 think all of us are now instructed both morally and tactically to follow. That is the procedure 1 have taken.
The response is quite straightforward. 1 have responded within the period of time. 1 have identified it as an interim response. I have, therefore, fulfilled the requirements of the Standing Orders.
Additionally, 1 have indicated to the House and to the public generally the process the Government is taking with the provinces and that the debate is continuing within Cabinet.
1 think the points 1 have made are not only in keeping with the new rules of the House but also arc within the spirit of those rules.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker. I rise on the same point of order. 1 concur completely with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
1 received this very inadequate letter yesterday with great difficulty. It was not tabled in the House, as we understood it should have been. With great difficulty 1 got it from the Clerk's Office. It was addressed to "Mrs. Shirley Martin, Chairperson of the Special Committee on Child Care". There was no attempt by the Minister to provide copies to the opposition critics.
As we understand it, according to the rules it should have been a comprehensive response. In no way is this a comprehensive response.
1 should like to ask the Minister, if he would be so kind as to give me his attention for a moment, why, for example, in this response there was no statement of national objectives for a national child care program.
He referred to the Meech Lake Accord. This is basic to the requirements under the Meech Lake Accord. How can he go into negotiations with the provinces when he does not have a federal position on which to negotiate? Surely, any federal position outlining national objectives should be developed with
Members of Parliament and should have been presented to the House.
We are very, very concerned about it. There have been long delays. A response was promised for June, and it was delayed again for the summer. This is completely inadequate. Now, of course, it is implied very vaguely that sometime in the fall there might be further information.
We concur completely with the criticism of this process and this Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the question is an important one, and I may remind the Hon. Member that according to the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, August 11, 1987, the Government actually did table a report yesterday, August 11. At page 1317, the document tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is described as follows, and 1 quote:
Interim Response of the Government of Canada, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Child Care (Sessional Paper No. 332-8/31), presented to the House on Monday March 30, 1987.
It is therefore false to claim the Government failed to table an answer. The point being made here, and it is a serious one, is that the so-called report tabled yesterday was not a comprehensive report on the subject. It was not a comprehensive report by the Government in response to the Committee's report. It was an interim report. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that provides that the Government shall or may table an interim report, according to Standing Order 99(2), which reads as follows:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the Committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
The Committee asked for a comprehensive report. It did not receive a comprehensive report but an interim report, and the Minister himself admitted as much, which is entirely unsatisfactory and irregular.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the House has no recourse against a Government that is negligent and perhaps irresponsible. However, the question is an important one, it is a topical issue, and it is a subject on which the Government should respond. 1 ask the Government-since the Chair is not in a position to do so, it is up to them to make the decision-to respond as soon as possible to this important report on child care.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Could the Hon. Member possibly give me a copy of the report?


An Hon. Member:: Yes, there is one right here.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments on this very
August 12, 1987

important topic which my colleague has brought to the attention of the House.
Very clearly Standing Order 99(2) reads as follows:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
I repeat: "table a comprehensive response thereto". Clearly there was such a request filed by the committee with the Government through this House upon the tabling of that report in the House. Therefore, it is the duty of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to report in this House in a comprehensive manner.
1 draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the letter the Minister sent to the Chairperson of the committee on July 28. The Minister said in part, and 1 quote:
-I am pleased to present an interim response, -
Very clearly if this is an interim response one can assume it is not comprehensive, otherwise it would not be called "interim". The Minister closed his letter by stating in part:
-and to establishing a comprehensive, quality child-care program for our children.
In other words, the Minister plans to take that initiative at some point in the future, which again 1 would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, appears to be in conflict or in breach of Standing Order 99(2) of the House of Commons.
Citation 8 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
A standing order has a continuing effect until changed or repealed.
In view of the fact that the rule we now have before us is applicable, has not been changed or been repealed, that rule is in order and should be followed by the Minister and any other Hon. Member of this House.
Citation 9 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
By custom, changes in the Standing Orders are generally made after study and a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Very clearly the committee has not formulated a wish to change that rule of the House. This further adds to what I said previously, that the rule is still in effect and must be followed by the Minister and, for that matter, by any other Hon. Member.
Finally, Citation 384 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, states:
Papers which must be laid before the House in pursuance of any Standing Order of the House are usually brought down without any formality by being deposited with the Clerk of the House as if they had been laid on the Table.
This rule very clearly states that the usual procedure is for the Minister to table whatever response he has to give pursuant to our Standing Orders without any formality and to do so according to the rule. There is no exception indicated in Citation 384. One has to further assume it was the duty of the
Point of Order-Ms. Copps
Minister to comply with the rules which were in effect at that particular time.
For these reasons, I would ask that the Chair verify the excellent point brought to the attention of the House by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and give a response to the House that the Minister must comply, pursuant to our Standing Orders, with a request which was made by a parliamentary committee.
\lr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, although 1 appreciate the point that is being made by my colleague, it seems to me we are here debating the word "comprehensive". It also seems to me that we should be moving on with the business of the House. I submit that this entire exercise is to allow the immigration critic of the Liberal Party to be outside doing scrums and 1 think that is an abuse of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist Hon. Members. [Translation]
The question is an important one. It arises from the interpretation of a certain term in our Standing Orders.

Naturally, that is a matter which the Speaker takes seriously. I know there are some other interventions to be made, but I think all Hon. Members could assist the Speaker in keeping their remarks exactly on the point 1 have to decide. Hon. Members will know that 1 have already had to comment on a similar situation, although I am not prepared to say until I have heard all the interventions that it is exactly the same. However, I am aware of the importance of the issue being raised.
I am also aware, and I might indicate this to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) who has indicated his intention to speak on this matter, that the Minister has given at least some explanation, as 1 read the letter. The Minister wants to come back later with "a comprehensive report". Those reasons may be very valid, although they may not completely answer the procedural difficulty which has been brought to the attention of the Chair.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can make a comment on this parliamentary reform without being accused by the Deputy House Leader of being a party to some strategy which has nothing to do with the matter.
I only want to say that what we are debating here, if we are debating anything, is whether or not this particular reform, which was instituted as a result of recommendations of the committee on which I sat-for example, the idea that the Government would somehow be accountable to committees and would have to respond to recommendations of committees

August 12, 1987
Point of Order-Ms. Copps
in a way it did not have to previously-is going to be respected, not only in terms of the technical definition of what constitutes a comprehensive response but in the spirit of reform.
The spirit of the reform is that the Government would make its position clear at a predetermined time with respect to the recommendations of a particular committee. In this case, I do not think anyone can argue this has been done.
The problem is that this is not the first time the Government has chosen this particular way of not responding to a committee's recommendation. My concern, for the record, is that over time this will become the habit, and the intention of that reform, which was to make Governments more accountable to the recommendations of committees-even if it disagrees with those recommendations-in the sense that it would be required to give a comprehensive response, will be lost by virtue of the practice now developing as a result of decisions being taken by the Government to not respond in the way that was intended by the reform committee when it made this recommendation.
Therefore, I simply say to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have a responsibility, as well as the Government, as do we all whenever the onus falls on us, to live up to not only the letter but to the spirit of those reforms. In this case, I think there is a strong case to argue that that has not been done.

Mlrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the remark of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) who is saying that one of the reasons why we object to the explanation as to why the report has not been tabled is that we seek to delay the debate on immigration. When we see that the Minister to whom the reprimand is directed is not even in the House, that he has left, I wonder if this is not simply a slap in the face and whether he reflects the attitude of the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Please! The Hon. Member will appreciate that it is not appropriate to refer to the presence or absence of a Minister or of an Hon. Member.


Lucie Pépin: I simply want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is one of the most important reports, that the report on day care centres is urgent. We have been waiting for it, and people have been telling us that for months. The Government also seemed to realize the importance of day care centres. But as it happens it is one of the very few reports to which the response was not produced in due time. So we do have serious reservations. 1 can understand that federal-provincial relations must be protected and respected, but as a rule when the federal Government wants something it shows leadership. One of the things for which the Conservative Government has been censured in this instance is its lack of leadership with respect to day care centres.
So allow me to repeat the question: Is this not a demonstration of the Government's lack of leadership in the case of day care centres? We are told a more comprehensive response will be forthcoming this fall. I would not even call this an interim
report, it is a letter, barely two-page long, addressed to the chairperson of the committee. So I am surprised, 1 am astonished, and I am very anxious to see where the priorities of the Government are and when it will take action concerning day care centres.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief submissions on the point of order raised by my colleague the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). It seems to me that the issue before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the Government was in breach of Standing Order 99(2). If you come to the conclusion that the Government has in fact breached that particular Standing Order, the question then becomes what the sanction ought to be.
The facts are as follows. The Special Committee on Child Care of the House of Commons undertook a comprehensive look at the day-care system in Canada in order to make recommendations to the Government. On March 30, 1987, that Special Committee tabled in the House its report.
Under Standing Order 99(2), the Government is required to table a comprehensive reply to a report from a Standing Committee or a Special Committee within 150 days. For the record, Standing Order 99(2) reads as follows:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special
committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a
comprehensive response thereto.
We must ask ourselves why Parliament in its wisdom decided to enact Standing Order 99(2). I think the reasons are obvious.
Parliament does not want to see the work of its Standing or Special Committees simply gather dust on some Minister's shelf as has happened in the past. In order to validate the work of a Special Committee such as the Special Committee on day care, Parliament decided to enact this particular Standing Order. I should remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the language of the Standing Order is mandatory. The word "shall" is used. It is not permissive. It is not up to the Government to decide whether or not it should file a comprehensive response within 150 days.
It is obvious why Parliament in its wisdom chose 150 days. It wanted to ensure that the Government had sufficient time to respond to such reports. I think that 150 days or five months is in this particular case sufficient time for the Government to respond to each and every recommendation of this Special Committee.
This afternoon, some Hon. Members have tried to determine whether or not the reply of the Minister dated July 28 was comprehensive. 1 think it is obvious for a number of reasons that this "Dear Shirley" letter to the chairperson of the
August 12, 1987

Special Committee on child care is not a comprehensive response as envisioned by Standing Order 99(2).
In order to assist, we would have to refer to a dictionary to determine what the word "comprehensive" means. I am sure most Hon. Members have a pretty good understanding of what it means. It is obvious as well that the Minister has some difficulties with regard to the definition of "comprehensive". Therefore, I would like to recommend to him a current edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary, without suggesting for a moment that an older edition might have a different definition of the word "comprehensive".
Nonetheless, this particular edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary which comes from the Journals Branch and was published not long ago gives the following definition for the word "comprehensive":
-including much or all (comprehensive term; comprehensive grasp,-
The definition of a comprehensive school is a large secondary school providing courses for children of all abilities. I could go on describing the definition of the word "comprehensive" but it is obvious that this two-page reply from the Minister is not comprehensive.
In fact, the Minister admits as much in the letter when he says that it is an interim response. I suppose one could argue both sides of whether or not an interim response could be considered comprehensive. If in fact it was a comprehensive response, why would it have to be called an interim response? Then again, one could have a comprehensive interim response as opposed to a brief interim response.
In any event, to conclude, the issue before you is whether or not there has been a breach of Standing Order 99(2). I think the evidence is clear, unequivocal and uncontradicted that in fact there has been a breach of this particular Standing Order.
The question becomes what the sanction ought to be. Can we prosecute the Government and the Minister in a court of law for breaching this particular Standing Order? The answer, of course, is no, we cannot. Are there sanctions in the standing rules? The answer, of course, is no.
It is obvious that the Government has shown contempt for Parliament by providing a "Dear Shirley" letter when it should have provided a comprehensive response. 1 do not mean to lecture the Government or the Minister, but recognizing that Standing Order 99(2) exists, the Government ought to have come to the House at the earliest opportunity to seek-if I could have the Minister's attention?


Mr. Lewis:: It's your Member.


John V. Nunziata: If I could just make one final point without the constant interruptions I have encountered from across the floor, the proper course for the Government to have taken would have been to come to the House to seek the unanimous
Petitions
consent of Parliament to provide an interim response and to extend the time period provided by Standing Order 99(2). Of course, some Hon. Members might have denied that unanimous consent but rather than taking that course, the Government chose to show contempt for the rules, for the Chair, for the House and for every Member in it by providing this "Dear Shirley" letter. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to first conclude that there has been a breach and second to severely reprimand the Government for its irresponsible act, its incompetence and its contempt for this House.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 want to thank all Hon. Members for their interventions. As I said, the matter is an important one and it is a somewhat difficult one.
The Chair is aware that the rule which has been quoted in English also exists in French and the word in French is "globale" and it is "comprehensive" in English. There may be some difficulties with that.
I know Hon. Members would understand why the Chair would want to defer any immediate judgment on the matter, particularly taking into account the fact that I have already had to comment on this particular sort of complaint, although 1 am not saying the other complaint was absolutely identical. However, I think it is also fair to comment that as the Minister has explained, whether it is procedurally excusable or not is something I have to decide.
The Government did seem to have some problems in being as comprehensive as it would later wish to be and I am sure Hon. Members would not want, at least at this point, to assume that there was any bad motivation on the Government's part. However, the procedural rules are there to be followed.
In this case, I think the matter is a serious one and I will give it careful consideration. I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for bringing the matter to my attention and I thank the Minister for being here and for responding as fully as he did.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the 170 petitions Nos. 332-2782 and 332-2784 to 332-2952 inclusive.

August 12, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the City of Toronto who are concerned that Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assist refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
Not to go into full detail, they go on to mention the problem of the safe third country part of the legislation, the lack of appropriate appeal or review procedures, and the fact that the standing committee recommended almost two years ago a far more just and speedy system for sorting out real refugees from false ones. They also point out that this has widespread support from the churches and labour movement.
Therefore, the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying 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 applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour of tabling in this House a petition signed by a number of residents of Windsor and Edmonton who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. These Canadian citizens, sharing a sensitivity and awareness of the real issues involved in refugee determination, in contrast to the Government, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 hope the Hon. Member will summarize the petition and tell me where it is from so we can carry on.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think I am in accordance with the regulations in reading what they are petitioning. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying 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 applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact. In duty-bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 161 and 163.


Ms. McDonald: 1.	Between (a) September I. 1986, and December 22, 1986, (b) December 22. 1986, and June 29, 1987, were any applications received for payments under the Public Lending Rights program by the Public Lending Rights Commission which were for payment in the fiscal year 1986-87 and, if so, how many?
2.	In the fall of 1986. were attempts made to update the mailing lists used by the Commission and, if so, what were they?
3.	In 1986-87, what was the average payment received under the Program?
4.	Were attempts made to ensure that fewer late applications will be received for payments in the 1987-88 period and. if so, what were they?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: am informed by the Canada Council that the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	The Public Lending Right Commission received 4,743 requests for payment during the fiscal year 1986/87 between September 1 and December 22, 1986. Of this number, 4,553 applications met the eligibility criteria while 190 did not. Between December 22, 1986, and June 29, 1987, 183 claims were received for fiscal year 1986/87 and, because these were received after the registration deadline, they have been carried over to the 1987/88 year.
2.	The mailing list which the Commission used in the autumn of 1986 consisted of the approximately 5,000 names and addresses of those who participated in a Canada Council test registration in 1981, plus the names gathered by phone between November and December, 1986 (a telephone answering service was set up to take calls 24 hours a day). In total, 7,860 registration forms were sent out. Even though the PLR program had just six months instead of 12 to be set in motion, time was found to update mailing lists, sometimes by telephone (when the address had changed but the phone number remained the same), and with the help of various sections of the Canada Council who had many of the current addresses (most often the Writing and Publication Section). In some cases it was necessary to contact the writing associations directly.
3.	In 1986-87 the average payment (arrived at by dividing the number of authors into the available funds) was $619.49.
4.	The number of late registrations in the upcoming year should be considerably diminished since we will be able to send out our registration forms two months earlier than last year (they will be sent out in August at the latest), and participants
August 12, 1987

will have until October 15, 1987 to apply. In bringing forward the deadline, we will also avoid the inevitable delays in the postal service that result during the Christmas season. We will, once again, send information to the authors' associations so that, through their newsletters, they can inform their members of how to register for the 1987/88 program.


Mr. Murphy: To date, has any money been paid to the Alexander Proudfoot Company of Canada for work done for Air Canada during the months of April and May, 1987 and, if so, in what amount'?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises that payments have been made to the Alexander Proudfoot Company of Canada for work done during the months of April and May, 1987, in accordance with the terms of the current contract with the company. Informations regarding the amounts involved is of a proprietary nature and cannot be released for contractual reasons.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Benoît Bouchard: that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee
Immigration Act, 1976
He said: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members have been recalled during what is usually the summer recess so that the House may take immediate measures to eliminate abuses against our refugee policies and then consider without delay a new refugee status determination process.
1 should think that most Canadians now agree that the process has given rise to a shady and despicable trade, namely trafficking in human lives. In our opinion, we must take immediate action to dissuade those who abuse the generosity of Canada by illicitly bringing people into this country.
Mr. Speaker, I think urgent action is required, a fact which cannot be denied. Witout delay our legislation must echo our feeling of exasperation and frustration at abuses against our generosity and our feeling of disgust for unscrupulous profiteers.

We must immediately declare through this legislation that Canada will no longer tolerate the willful and flagrant violation of our traditions, laws and borders. There is a sense of urgency for this is not yet a crisis. It is, however, a grave situation which, if left unaddressed, would grow worse. Those who say let us wait are merely asking that the problems grow worse and the solutions more distant and hence more difficult.
Today we address a Bill which we believe all Members of this House will agree deserves urgent attention and rapid passage. Let us consider the major features of this Bill. It increases penalties for smugglers and their accomplices with prison terms of up to 10 years and maximum fines of $.5 million. Penalties under the current Act do not recognize the recent phenomenon of organized smuggling of groups of individuals. These measures penalize those seeking to profit by preying on the hopes and circumstances of those wanting to come to Canada.
This Bill imposes penalties for the specific offence of disembarkation of passengers at sea for the purpose of illegal entry into Canada. The maximum penalties for this offence are $500,000 and prison terms of up to 10 years.
This Bill provides specific legislative powers to direct vessels suspected of carrying persons who are attempting to enter Canada in contravention of immigration law not to enter or to leave Canadian waters. This power is necessary for deterrence. It is likewise necessary for the apprehension of vessels and, where appropriate, to turn vessels back. The Government will consider all relevant factors in dealing with individual vessels and their occupants; the ships' locations, both in terms of international law and our capacity to intercept it; the ship's flag and the possible need to seek another country's cooperation; the ship's seaworthiness, the safety of our crews and the safety of the ship and its passengers; the condition of the passengers and the availability of food, water and fuel; and what we can physically do given the weather conditions.

August 12, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Above all, Mr. Speaker, whatever actions may be deemed appropriate, given the specific circumstances involved, we will not do anything to risk the health or personal security of any person.
The Bill provides powers of search and seizure in respect of smuggling activities and it provides for the forfeit and sale of vehicles used by smugglers.
1 should note, Mr. Speaker, that the several clauses dealing with search and seizure are, in essence, the same as those which exist under the current Customs Act.

According to the proposed legislation, heavier fines would be imposed on transportation companies carrying people who are not in possession of the required documents. The illegal entry of aliens in highly irregular situations is the main and most obvious source of abuse. However, the vast majority of people who do not have the required documents and arriving at points of entry into Canada use regular means of transportation such as aircraft, trains and buses.
In the past, some transportation companies have been unwilling to check whether their passengers have the required travel documents or were apparently not in a position to do so. The new provisions are aimed at encouraging carriers to be far more vigilant.
Of course, the best solution would be to prevent people not in possession of travel documents from boarding. The Government will now have the power to require any carrier to deposit a security for unpaid fines. Vehicles may be seized if these provisions are not observed.
Recent events have clearly shown we must have broader powers to detain claimants who do not have the required documents until their identity has been established, which is necessary both for security reasons and so that we can return immediately those who do not require Canada's protection.
According to the proposed amendments, a claimant may be detained as long as necessary, provided that after twenty-eight days, the Immigration Adjudicator is satisfied that the Government has made every possible effort to establish the claimant's identity. The reasons for detention will be subject to review every seven days after the first twenty-eight-day period.
Mr. Speaker, 1 realize that this legislation will increase the Government's powers with respect to detention. However, 1 may remind Hon. Members that both Bill C-55 and this legislation concerning deterrence and detention are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which grants everyone the right to fundamental justice and the usual legal recourse.
Both Bills take into consideration our obligations under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, Canada's traditionally humanitarian approach to the refugee question, and the rules established as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the Singh case.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the last and, 1 must say, more radical aspect of this legislation, namely, returning individuals who constitute a threat to the security of the State. Under these amendments, there will be no hesitation in dealing with such persons.

The process assures that we can act with the rapidity appropriate when we face security threats. Equally, it assures due process under the Charter of Rights. I would like to outline briefly the steps of the process so that Members are assured as to both of these elements.
When the Government has information showing that a person may be a security threat to Canada, that person may be detained for a period of up to 28 days to allow for the issuance of a certificate by the Minister and the Solicitor General certifying that the person named is prohibited from entering and staying in Canada. The Minister's certificate will constitute grounds to keep the person in detention and bar him from the refugee determination system.
The evidence in support of the certificate will be reviewed by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada and the person affected will be given an opportunity to be heard. If the Federal Court Justice is satisfied that the claimant poses a security threat, the person will be removed from Canada without recourse to the refugee determination system.
The last thing Canadians want is for their refugee determination system to be misused by terrorists and criminals. 1 would remind the House that there are persons who, under international law, are excluded from the benefits of the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees.
These then are the new features introduced by this Bill. A whole new refugee determination system for Canada is embodied in Bill C-55. It is a comprehensive attempt to deal with an extremely complex and difficult challenge.

We expect these measures will deter individuals who do not need our protection from coming to Canada by illegal means. These persons are free to apply for landed immigrant status. If they are accepted, they, as so many hundreds of thousands before them, will enter Canada, their heads held high.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation introduced by the Government today is only one of a series of initiatives taken by this Government to make its immigration and refugee policies more consistent. The Government has increased immigration levels. It has emphasized assistance to refugees abroad and provided a safe haven for the legitimate refugees who have come to Canada. In other words, we welcome those who come here openly and we shall continue to do so.
Unfortunately, the inappropriate and ill-assorted policies of the past are encouraging an increasing number of people to use a side door.
August 12, 1987

In the final analysis, the solution is to implement a refugee determination process which will achieve a balance between speed and equity. Such a process is provided in Bill C-55.
It will take some time before the provisions of this Bill can be implemented. This legislation deserves the consideration not only of Members of both Houses of Parliament, but also of all Canadians, men and women alike.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to comment on an especially sensitive part of Bill C-84 which concerns the penalties imposed, especially on those who abet the illegal entry of people into Canada. There are already penalties attached to non-compliance with Section 95.1, and this has never given rise to any criticism or complaint.
Provisions relating to the abusive entry of people without the proper travel documents are already contained in the legislation passed under the Liberal government in 1976. Nothing has been changed. We are simply maintaining this part of the Act. What we are doing is to extend this provision to those who abet the transport or entry of people, especially in groups of more than ten, and I believe that Canadians understand quite well whom this is meant to cover. I do not believe that 1 have the power to determine who is guilty and who is not; that is up to the courts, and the Minister has no intention of appropriating that right. However, I believe that the law must be obeyed, and no Canadian will be exempt from its application, whoever he may be. This is the framework in which our courts will have to interpret the legislation, and in this regard, we are remaining within the traditions of Canadian law while keeping an open mind, as we have always done, and maintaining the Canadian tradition of welcoming authentic refugees.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of my leader and my colleagues in the Liberal caucus at the second reading of Bill C-84. Perhaps I have an obligation as well, because 1 believe we are entering into a very sensitive and important debate which the country is watching. It is a country that is opinionated and wishes its government, its Parliament and elected officials to show moral leadership and do what is right under the circumstances, not for today, or for this summer, but for the long-term viability of the characteristic that enables us all to call ourselves Canadians.
It should be put very clearly on the record of the House of Commons that no Member of Parliament, regardless of the Party to which he or she belongs, favours abuse, whether it is in our immigration and refugee policy, in our workers' compensation claims, whether that abuse is in our Canada Pension Plans or in our unemployment insurance programs. No Canadian, no parliamentarian, and no political party favours abuse. No one encourages fraudulent claims and no one rewards those who persist in circumventing the regulations
Immigration Act, 1976
and laws of this country. Otherwise, it would jeopardize the very integrity of the system of government.
The Liberal Party is at the forefront of ensuring the integrity of the refugee determination system and of protecting the claim for the legitimate refugee who is escaping torture, persecution and death in all parts of the world in which there are countries facing internal and external upheaval. It is a question of war and peace that is at the source of the refugee movement. They do not wish to live in a country other than the one in which they were born. Everyone, whether an immigrant or refugee, would rather remain in their homeland and place of their birth, but because of circumstances affecting their existence as a human beings, they are forced to flee. They are not only going to Canada, but to countries all over the world.
In this global village, Canada is a recipient, with other countries in the world, of individuals who, in this international year of the homeless as designated by the United Nations, are seeking homes. Therefore, in order to protect the legitimacy of the individual claims that merit our consideration and support, we need to rid our system of abuse. We have repeated that assertion not only this summer, not only for the purposes of this emergency debate as defined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but clearly in the last two and one-half years of this Parliament.
We have repeatedly called for the Government to clamp down on the so-called immigration consultants and smugglers who are making thousands and thousands of dollars in trafficking on the desperation of human beings throughout the world. There were schemes and scams in Portugal on which we asked the Government to clamp down. There were scams in other parts of the world, such as in Turkey and then Brazil.
The cancer began to spread, but what did we have from the Government? There was laughter during Question Period, and there was ridicule during second reading of Bill C-55. The Minister did not respond to our questions and those from our colleagues in the New Democratic Party and certain Members on the Government side. We saw inaction, ridicule and laughter. The Government told us that we were exaggerating the circumstances of that abuse.
The system, this Parliament and Canadians are paying the price for that inaction. We are paying the price for a government that did not have the priority to try to address the refugee determination system in the proper context. Instead, the Government preferred to wait until May, clearly almost three years later, after the Plaut Report commissioned by the former Government, after the report of the standing committee led ably by the Conservative Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), after a report by our Liberal Party. There were reports from NGOs, reports from leading church authorities who came to Ottawa and suggested very specific solutions for giving our system a chance to work expeditiously and properly for Canadians, and fairly for those who wish to access the system. The Government did it only in May. Only in the dying days of June before we all left for our ridings for the summer

August 12, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
did it choose to bring the matter forward for second reading. For how long? For three hours. So we have a Government which, after only three years, allowed Parliament but three hours to debate its reformed refugee legislation.
Then members of the Government had the temerity to go across the country and say, all of a sudden, we have an emergency. It is as if they discovered the problem for the very first time when the Prime Minister and members of his Party visited their ridings in July. That is intellectual dishonesty. It is dishonest because it runs counter to the reports and the many hours of work that Members and Canadians from all walks of life invested, trying to assist their Government in putting into place a system that would work. But the Prime Minister, together with four different Ministers of Immigration, did not heed that advice. And now those same people, as well as the Prime Minister, suggest that it is an emergency. That is fine. We are here. We did not boycott the House of Commons. We came back to Ottawa to work.
Not only did the Government wait three years to introduce a solution to a problem that was discovered many years ago but it took 10 days from the time it declared an emergency to tell Canadians and parliamentarians when we would be coming back. It did not even allow the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, a government Member, to see the legislation until late last evening.
If an emergency is declared in a business then would one not want the board of directors of that business to meet quickly, to have the necessary information at their fingertips to encourage an enlightened resolution to the emergency at hand? I think most competent business managers would agree with that principle. It is no different in government. The 282 Members of Parliament constitute the board of directors of Canada, at least on a temporary basis. We are the custodians of the nation's authority.
I do not think the process has allowed or facilitated a mature and enlightened debate to address the frustrations that Canadians have with a Government which is unable or unprepared to come to grips with the situation. It is synonymous with trying to hide the deficiencies and the embarrassments of inaction. The Government is trying to mobilize a public relations campaign that is intended to send a message to Canadians that the Conservative Government is in control when the very opposite is true. More important, the Government has presented a piece of legislation that goes far beyond the parameters of the situation.
After having only between 24 and 32 hours to look at the legislation I feel that the proposals in it trample violently over the spirit of Canadian justice and civil liberties which were fought for heartily and finally attained. This Bill is an inflamed piece of legislation. It is a reactionary piece of legislation and it is an over-kill. It misuses the moment in
which there has been created a great deal of legitimate frustration across the country. But it is over-kill in terms of what the initial intentions of Government and Parliament should be.
We all agree that the abuses should be cleaned up and that the system should be tightened up. But does that mean that the legislation that is drafted-and the Department probably raced through it as fast as parliamentarians had to race through it-should offend and trample our Charter of Rights, our international obligations, the traditions of nation building which exist in Canada as well as the traditions of past immigration policy that are the centre-piece of our history and which, hopefully, will be the centre-piece of our future? This legislation offends our sense of fairness. It offends the civil rights and liberties that all Canadians and all individuals on its soil enjoy through our Charter. It creates civil disobedience in terms of those who are engaged in assisting refugees.
This legislation does more than just try to cut out abuse. It does more than try to get at the exploiters and the abusers of human misery. In fact, when one looks at the cumulative effects of this legislation one will see that it changes the character and the temperament which defines Canadian society. It is our character which quite proudly distinguishes us from other countries and other societies in the world.
We do not condone abuse. We do not encourage it, and we do not like it. But our Party is not prepared to stand idly by and accept a piece of legislation that goes far beyond the stated intentions and which plays to the worst fears. It promotes an exaggerated remedy that does not respect the precedents of a policy and battles that were fought by parliamentarians and Canadians prior to 1987.
It is for that reason that our Party, in the hopes of curbing abuse and protecting the integrity and the viability of the system and the rights of Canadians and those who wish to come here, asks and invites the Government to join us in amending this legislation in order to do what the Prime Minister, the Government and all parliamentarians want it to do. That is to say we want to try to clamp down on abuse. We want to allow a system which is fair, a system which will allow Canadians their civil liberties. We want a system which will allow individuals due process, a system which will allow them to enjoy the work this Parliament performed some years ago in terms of establishing a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as patriating the Constitution, something which made us the masters of our own destiny. We can now change the Constitution when we see fit.
If those struggles, those hours and those energies of symbolic movement, maturity and of greatness as a country mean anything at all, then 1 think these elements need to prevail in this piece of legislation.
Let us look carefully at the legislation for it contains a great many proposals. One of the aspects of the legislation gives greater powers of deportation to the Minister of Immigration. While the existing law allows the Minister to sign a Section 39
August 12, 1987

certificate deeming a person to be a security threat, the power is used very infrequently. It is reserved for cases in which it would be injurious to national security to disclose the evidence in an oral hearing. Otherwise an oral hearing is always held to determine if a claimant is admissible or not. Under Bill C-84 it will be possible to use Section 39 certificates in lieu of oral inquiries, not just for those who wish to disclose information injurious to the national interest but to all cases.
Furthermore, an individual who has a certificate 39 presented against him will not be able to go through the refugee system. If in fact that person is to be deported then it will be necessary through that process to establish the country to which he or she cannot be deported for fear of persecution.
Other changes would put that individual before a Federal Court judge rather than the existing Security and Intelligence Review Committee. For speed and fairness, the Government should allow that person the right to go before the review committee. The Federal Court will take more time. Obviously, the Federal Court has a legal expertise rather than a security expertise. If fairness and expeditious processing are at the heart of these concerns, then those movements run counter to what we have heard from the Government.
Amendments are needed with respect to the creation of deportation certificates. Within our present laws there is the power to deport individuals proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be inadmissible or who pose a security threat to the country. Those laws are established.
We have not been living in a vacuum until this year when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) told us that we have to do something about deportation. Those laws are presently in place, but with the protection of the rights of individuals and the rights of Canadians. That met with the approval of Canadians while we were drafting the legislation presently on the books. So before the legislation is changed, the Government ought to return to Canadians who approved the present measures. Yes, let us protect our shores. Of course, we always will. But let us have a sensitivity to the justice and the rights upon which this country has been built and forged and hopefully upon which it will continue to be built.
There is another provision in this Bill that the Minister may use force in directing any vehicle that has entered Canadian waters to leave. This power raises several interesting questions. How can the Minister know if everyone aboard is an illegal immigrant without due process? How can the boat be turned around without each person being interviewed? Will the interviews take place on the boat at sea? Will we send the Minister with his immigration officials to execute a policy of the seas? Most Canadians would expect that if there is a boat coming to our shores, ignorance does not help. We need to escort that boat into our port and find out who is on the boat, where they came from, what are their intentions. If we simply
Immigration Act, 1976
turn boats around, whether they are refugees or anyone else, we are acting without any information. We are not dealing with a situation that would allow the process of determination that this country has agreed to and has signed under international obligations.
Also, that would set up two different classes of refugees. If the person arrives by boat, that individual has no due process according to this legislation. If the person arrives at Pearson International Airport and states he would like to declare the status of refugee, he has due process. We cannot afford to have one system with two classes of refugees, because in that manner it is the mode of transportation that dictates the decision and not the circumstances.
What happens if no one wishes to come by boat any more and they come to our airports by charter planes? Will the Minister of Immigration order his CF-18s to protect our airspace? That is the logical conclusion if those steps are followed through when this legislation on turning boats back is highlighted. Therefore, amendments are needed to that section.
Another section that proves to be very difficult is the definition of smugglers. Do we mean consultants who are making a profit of $8,000 to $10,000 a head, who are forging documents for those individuals and dumping them on our shores? Of course, those individuals should be fined, penalized, and, if need be, put in prison. No one agrees with that corrupt, illegal scheme of making profits from human desperation. The time has not been taken to define smugglers. It has not been stated that it is in a transfer of money that the smuggler aspects would apply to those individuals.
In Section 95.1 of the legislation any individual, any Canadian, any church, any priest, any sister who helps a group of more than 10 refugees face the same penalties possible under the law as the phoney immigration consultants who are making profits. Canadians would not want a priest locked up for 10 years for trying to help an El Salvadorean who is hiding in the basement of a church in the United States to come to our border and try to salvage that person's life in the same way that they would want to lock up an individual con artist. Of course not, Mr. Speaker, but that legislation insults the integrity of Canadians. It does not challenge the exploiters and the abusers. It throws a net around everyone who is moved from the heart and the gut to try to do something for their fellow human beings.
Amendments are needed to that clause. Surely, the Minister will acknowledge that there needs to be a tightening up, otherwise we will be saying to churches and individuals, if they aid refugees they will be committing civil disobedience. Think about the type of country we wish to become. What type of a country would we be if the Opposition lies low because they wish to return to their summer holiday and allow that legislation to change the very temperament of this country? That needs to be amended.

August 12, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: There is another section which states that an immigration officer will be able to break open doors, windows, ceilings, plumbing without a search warrant to look for evidence of those who may be in violation of our Immigration Act. No one has any concern for trying to rid Canada of those who possess a threat to our safety and well-being. But do we have to trample over the rights of human rights organizations or churches because someone may have a suspicion, or the Minister or his deputy may have a suspicion? That, too, has to be amended and mollified with the characteristics of Canadians and not some banana republic that allows its police and officials to run rampant because they may have an interest or a political motive in allowing that type of trampling of rights.
There are also special detention certificates. Presently the law provides that if the Government or the Minister feels there is either lack of identification or a possibility of a security threat the person can be detained for 48 hours. After 48 hours there has to be a request to a special immigration adjudicator for permission for a further seven day period of detainment. Fair enough, if there is a suspicion and to make sure that the suspicion is false a detainment is requested. That was done with the recent immigrants, and it has been done for years. It has worked well.
The Government wishes to move from 48 hours to seven days without any questions. After the seven days, and after a special detention certificate, it would permit a Minister to ask for the person to be detained for 21 days. The adjudicator has no discretion whatsoever to overrule that request. Once again the power has shifted from Canadians and their laws into the hands of one single Minister who is calling the shots. That is dangerous. Today it may be the 174 immigrants who came off a boat; tomorrow we don't know.
Therefore, we must look at the matter in the larger perspective because some of these moves are un-Canadian. They have not been approved in the past and I do not think they would be approved today.
Another question was documentation. If a person persists once he is here in Canada in pushing in the face of our immigration officials fraudulent information, misleading information, or information which might incriminate someone else, of course that would not be right. However, that is very different from saying and trying to suggest that any immigrant or refugee who does not come with a document should be tabbed a cheater.
Why? If the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) knows the reality faced by many refugees, he will know that they may not have the luxury of being able to wait the six months needed to obtain a visa. Persons in Latin America may not have the luxury of going to our Canadian Consulate. I have written to the Minister about three or four specific cases of people who were afraid to go to the embassies
because the Chilean police knew their movements and had stake-outs at various foreign embassies. In those circumstances they do not have the luxury of getting documents.
What do they do? They get on a plane, they come to Canada, and they do not have documents. Let us afford the individual the time and flexibility to explain why he does not have a document, not prejudice the case and instantly suggest in the legislation that that individual has to be a cheater, there must be something wrong, let us put him in detention, get a certificate of detention, then get a certificate of deportation, and send him back.
In the very few minutes that I have, I suggest that amendments are needed in these three, four or five key areas because we need to protect our rights as Canadians which we have developed in a mature and thoughtful way through the years evolving to this date. We cannot allow one week in the summer of 1987 somehow to turn back the clock of development and progressive legislation.
We all have our differences-the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the New Democrats. By and large, hopefully, our ends are noble. Hopefully we are all here-and I truthfully believe this-to serve the common good. This is why we stood for office. This is why we were elected. The ends must be noble.
Another aspect to which the Minister should pay attention is that if the piece of legislation is enacted there will be a lengthy list of court and Charter challenges. There is no question. The legal profession, Canadians themselves, and human rights organizations have said that there will be court and Charter challenges. I ask the Minister what that will do to our system. What will happen six months or twelve months hence when there will be Charter challenges left, right, and centre?
1 will tell the House what will happen. It will render our system even more chaotic than the present one. If that happens, we will be testing the patience and trust of Canadians once again. Canadians deeply desire their Government and Parliament to get it right this time. If it takes additional time to ensure proper legislation, let us take that time. If it takes a committee to listen to some experts and to include Canadians in the public discussions, let us include them now. For the sake of God, let us have a piece of legislation which is foolproof from legal and human rights challenges. Otherwise, 12 months down the road Canadians will lose patience again. I fear, as a Member of Parliament, that if Canadians lose patience with a Government incapable of coming to grips with the situation, those sentiments and frustrations may turn, perhaps irreversibly, on a progressive policy.
Therefore, there is a responsibility on the part of the Minister. He goes across the country saying that they will raise immigration levels next year, which is fine and dandy. However, how do we expect Canadians to buy that policy if they are to be simply dragged through government inaction and incompetence and a system which has failed to be
August 12, 1987

improved despite the urgings and proposals offered by our Party?
The real solution is in the refugee determination system. We have suggested a proposal which is basically comprised by the following steps: an inquiry, an oral hearing before an independent refugee board distinct from the immigration flow, because that is a distinct entity unto itself, a review, and and appeal to the Federal Court.
It would go from months and years to weeks and months. It would provide fair and quick processing, which is the real solution facing us as parliamentarians. If we really want to do our homework this summer, let us overhaul the refugee determination system rather than move on a piece of legislation which insults the integrity of Canadians vis-a-vis human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties developed by those same Canadians through their Parliaments across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: What about the message we would be sending out to the world? On listening to the Government we would think that Canada lives in isolation, in a vacuum, and that somehow Canada is the only country receiving refugees. That is false. There are 10 million to 15 million refugees searching for a home. There are countries receiving refugees every day of the week. There are new wars and strife which are literally producing thousands of refugees.
What does this say? It says that it is an international phenomenon, an international problem, which means that we require an international solution.
Some years ago we signed the Geneva Convention which said that we as a country and as a people would participate with other western countries in trying to come to grips with the challenge of trying to house and feed people of the world. We have accepted that responsibility, but we cannot afford to encourage other countries to enact a similar type of regressive and restrictive legislation, because that would hurt the domestic nature of countries even further.
When we place a padlock on the international corridor and we have an international corridor of locked doors, where will people go and how will they do it? If we send out a message that the front door is closed, do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that in order to survive and carry on they will seek the back door? Do you not think that there will be consultants who will continue to abuse those desperate human beings and will always find clients to put on boats, trains, planes, and cars to get them in somehow and make a profitable buck at it? There will always be those low lifes in our society, and we should curb them. We should not produce clients for them who have no alternative but to try to seek a safe haven rather than face torture, imprisonment, or death. That is at the heart of human existence, and the human spirit never gives up.
Therefore, rather than running away and allowing other countries to do the same, Canada should be calling for an
Immigration Act, 1976
international summit of countries, a Commonwealth conference, to suggest to the world that we must re-evaluate the situation, regroup, and have a shared and co-operative type of resolve to try to come to grips with the situation. Otherwise, every individual country will be at risk of further abuse. It is a catch-22 situation which the Government cannot or perhaps refuses to understand.
The Government is not doing Canada any favours by allowing people to become more frustrated and desperate in searching for those back doors. 1 would rather have a front door policy which says: "If you have a legitimate claim, if you are really trying to remove yourself from torture and death, then you have a chance to receive justice in this country". But we should not send out a message that the front door is locked so that people continuously try to come through the back door. That is not the solution.
I believe Canadians take pride in the way of life which is Canada. They take pride in our justice system, in our Constitution and in our Charter of Rights. When we have people visiting us in this country, we find they are literally amazed at the progressive nature, the democratic and moderate attitudes that influence Canadian society in everyday life. 1 believe it is those qualities which distinguish Canada from the United States. As great, as powerful, as rich and as resourceful as the United States is, 1 do not believe any one Canadian living in Canada today would be prepared to trade his or her lot in Canadian society for that of the United States of America. There is sometimes a difficult definition to attach to why that is so, but we all feel it and we all live it. That has characterized our policy towards those who are old, those who are hungry, poor, and sick and those who are essentially less well off than ourselves. The Canadian way has always been to say: "You are also human beings and you, too, have rights the same as we".
Immigrants to Canada, are the centre-piece of our Canadian history, and they number in the millions, and I include myself in that category. When they arrive they have a new lease on life because of what Canada is and what it means. We cannot permit ourselves to lock the door now because the reasons we had for coming here are still valid for those people who wish to have the opportunity as well.
The first reaction of Canadians when they witnessed the arrival of the immigrants was to offer assistance. They offered them tea and coffee and cookies. I think that symbolizes the first reactionary Canadian-style attitude towards those who seek our help. Then the Government and the pollsters moved in. But do you know who are the best pollsters, Mr. Speaker? They are the 25 million Canadians who are watching this Parliament. They are watching their elected leaders and are expecting a moral leadership.
In the history of every nation, including ours, many actions have been popular at particular times in particular circumstances. However, with time and with reflection, many of those

August 12, 1987
Message from the Senate
actions have become a shame or a dark mark on that country's history. Leadership means staying the course. It means opting to do always what is morally and ethically correct. It means avoiding the lure of quick political fixes because of the attitudes and perceptions of some pollsters or the attitudes of any other nationality.
I hope that we in this Parliament-the class of 84 and others-will exhibit the moral leadership which has come to mean not only refugee policy but Canadian lifestyle in general.
1 conclude by asking my colleagues opposite, members of the Government, to show that we too are against abuse, that we, too, wish to protect the system from those who wish to destroy it. We invite the Government and our colleagues from the New Democratic Party to join with us in amending a legislation which can. which should and which must be made better for all Canadians if we are to expect to continue the tolerant and judicious way of proceeding not only for this group of individuals but for anyone else, for our children and for future generations.
Let us not have a situation where parliamentarians in 20 years will stand here in this House of Commons and ask how we could have approved Bill C-84 in 1987. We have a chance because we are still in the present, and 1 look forward to working with members of the Government in trying to amend this legislation which needs to be amended in order to give Canadians a piece of legislation which will cut out abuse and protect the system and will also make Canadians proud that we stood up in this House of Commons this summer and voted for the correct and appropriate procedure and avoided the quick political fix.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, and Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the large majority of nations in the world, modern Canada in fact is a nation which has been created by immigrants and refugees. Therefore, when we are discussing the future of policy in this area inevitably we are talking about our past as a people. It is a past, I would argue, that principally if not exclusively-because we have been a nation created on top of the foundations of the Inuit and Indian peoples who were here first-has been created by men and women from around the globe who chose to come to this country of ours.
We have created a nation that I think, frankly stated, is unsurpassed in its particular mixture of equality, liberty, compassion and tolerance if one makes a systematic comparison with all the countries around the globe today. 1 think that is a generally accurate description of modern Canada. Canada is a country which consists of people of all races and religions, people of a wide range of political persuasions, the vast majority of whom, of course, are within the democratic framework. Canada is a country which is rich and diverse. We should keep in mind, therefore, our historical origins that have created what we are today when we talk about the kinds of matters that have been introduced by the Government in its Bill today.
We are a divergent people. People have come here for divergent reasons. It is worth recalling that among those who have come here are black Canadians who fled the United States at a time in its history when it accepted slavery and Canada did not. We had Irish immigrants who fled the famine of their native country in the 1840s. Just previous to and after World War I, on top of the French and the English, the original European peoples, eastern and central Europeans, came and, to a considerable extent, filled up the prairie regions and made those parts of Canada the productive and decent places they are.
[ Translation]
And since World War II Canada has gained international recognition for welcoming people whose lives were threatened and whose future prospects were practically destroyed as a result of the war, poverty or political repression in their country.
Throughout the '50s and '60s Canada sprang to the assistance of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing from European and eastern countries because of the totalitarian regime. In 1973 we opened our arms to people seeking shelter after the brutal military takeover in Chile. In 1978 we helped the 100,000-odd boat people and provided a haven for thousands of others who were trying to get away from dangerous conditions in their country.
As recognition for the generosity of the Canadian people the United Nations awarded Canada the Nansen Medal for exceptional service to the refugee cause. Canada did show leadership in the past and, as a result, our policies are acknowledged the world over as being fair. If we want to maintain our reputation, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that in
August 12, 1987

future we follow the .same guidelines that guided us in the past. In the past Canada successfully paved the way for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees coming to this country. Unfortunately it was during the mandate of this Government that we detected shortcomings in our policies, inefficient administration and needless recourse to drama. What is needed is a clear-cut and fair policy which comes to grips with the problem, not the hysteria and panic so patently demonstrated by the Conservative Government.
For the New Democratic Party, as for the people of Canada, Bill C-84 is unacceptable, either because it does not deal with the refugee problems that are of concern to Canadians or because it violates the spirit and perhaps the letter of our own Charter of Rights. We in this Party want the problems that are felt seriously and are real, to be dealt with but we want these problems dealt with clearly within the principles of law and totally consistent with our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1 would like to talk about three crucial areas. Canadians have been legitimately concerned about the abuse of our very civilized refugee law and of our very civilized, tolerant and humane implementation of that refugee law. Canadians do not want that law abused and abuses there have been.
From my conversations with men and women of my constituency and from what I have heard from others by correspondence, as have all Members, I find that Canadians who themselves are recent immigrants and had to wait often for many years to become immigrants or who have relatives back in their countries of origin whom they want one day to be settled as Canadian citizens are the ones who are particularly sensitive to the reality and find offensive those people who have abused our immigration and refugee laws. We in this Party totally sympathize with those Canadians who find these practices offensive and we want to do everything we can to put an end to those violations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Canadians know that there are people who, through a variety of schemes, have got in by claiming, on highly bogus grounds, to be refugees. They have then managed to stay in Canada for a number of years and then, once again through a variety of stratagems, have gained the right to stay here permanently. That is not a fair process. It is not just and it is not what we in Parliament who created the present law had in mind.
There have been abuses with which we as parliamentarians have to deal. In our view, there have been many suggestions for dealing with these abuses. We have received a variety of reports including that of the Robinson task force and the admirable, lucid, humane and efficacious report made by Gunther Plaut. More recently, suggestions have been made by
Immigration Act, 1976
the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), the Chairperson of the employment and immigration committee of the House.
On behalf of my own Party, I wrote to the Minister last February to suggest some very concrete measures the Government could have acted upon if it wanted to deal with this abuse in an effective and humane way. Speaking on behalf of my caucus at that time, I relied almost entirely on what had been proposed by the Canadian Council of Churches. A thoughtful study was done by church leaders from across Canada, church leaders who are concerned about the twin goals of having a fair and humane refugee policy on the one hand and curbing abuses on the other.
What did the Canadian Council of Churches recommend that 1 passed on to the Minister in writing and to which 1 have not yet received a reply? It recommended a process that would have reduced the time required to consider the application for refugee status and finally to reach a determination. I will not go into all the details of the proposals now, but 1 would like to mention some of the key elements of them.
The council proposed a process that was fair and accessible and included hearings and appeals. It is a process which would have reduced the timeframe from the three or four years it is now to a matter of months.
In our view, if these proposals had been acted upon or indeed if they were acted upon now, the process would work. The process would deal with abuse for the very good reason that there are people who use a variety of scams and gambles to get into the country. Indeed, if these people are here for two, three or four years, marry and establish some kind of roots, they rely on the good will of the Canadian Government to accept them as immigrants. Many have taken this gamble. They have gambled in coming in with a process that has gone on for that long. Yet the same people, it has been argued in report after report with cogency, 1 believe, would not so gamble if they knew they were going to reside just a few months in this country and if they were not bona fide refugees they would be kicked out. That is clearly the conclusion reached by a variety of sensible and practical people who have looked at this matter, and that is the precise recommendation we in the NDP made to the Minister. It is one that we think he should be acting upon today.
Instead of responding to what its own Members have said, instead of responding to Gunther Plaut or the NDP or church leaders, what is the Government doing? It is turning quite upside down the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Mulroney) almost one year ago to the day. When the Tamils arrived off our shores about a year ago, the Prime Minister said people who arrive in lifeboats off our shores are not going to be turned away. "We are not", he said, "in the business of turning away refugees and", he added, "we never will under this Government". That promise was kept for all of one year.

August 12, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Thomas Edward Siddon: He said the same thing yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: He said one thing a year ago and his Government is doing just the opposite today. I will tell the Minister why 1 say the Prime Minister is turning his own promise upside down.
He said he would not turn them away if they got to shore, so what is he going to do now? He is going to send Canadian ships out to stop them before they get to shore. That is playing with words. The Minister knows it, the Prime Minister knows it, and the people of Canada are tired of this kind of hypocrisy. It is not merely an absence of justice, it is a travesty of justice.
The Minister, who is not in the House now, knows full well-1 do not say that critically. I respect your visual admonition, Mr. Speaker, about referring to the presence or absence of a Member. I apologize. 1 assume he is not here for good reason and I am not being glib on the point. I am just saying that the Government knows full well that this provision is playing with words. It is in effect a turning away of the ships before they get here. More than that, the kind of process the Government is using compounds the unfairness, from our perspective. It says that a representative of the Coast Guard is going to make the decision. He or she is going to be boarding the ship and ultimately deciding whether the people concerned are in a condition to be turned away. What that means in effect is that these people will have no chance for any kind of hearing on whether or not they are bona fide refugees. That is very clearly what we are saying. Up until now these people have gone through a process to decide whether or not they are bona fide refugees. This recommendation of the Government, if it becomes law, will give not to an immigration official but to a Coast Guard employee with no training, and of course there is no appeal process, the right to decide whether this boatload of people is or is not a boatload of legitimate refugees.
We have a couple of quite disreputable incidents like that in our history, in 1914 we turned away a boatload of Sikhs with quite fatal consequences for some of them. In 1939, not so long ago, a boatload of Jews were denied access. It is easy for us, I know, to make nice moral distinctions about what happened in the past. We do not know what we would have done had we been there. What we know is that we as a nation have grown in our sensitivity and commitment to human liberty and human rights for those who do not yet reside within our borders. We in this Party are not going to accept a clause in a Bill which will leave open the possibility of a repetition of what happened in 1914 and 1939.
A second concern of Canadians, and a deeply felt and legitimate concern, is about the profiteering which has been going on. People want to exploit the desires of others to come to our land. They have made money based upon the suffering of these people and their desire to come to this country. Well, we in this Party favour an intensification of the punishment of fines and imprisonment for those who profiteer in this way to get around or break Canadian law. If the goal is or ought to be
the putting to an end of that kind of profiteering and the effective curbing of some of the abuses, one would have hoped that the Bill we have before us would deal effectively with that. It does not deal with profiteering as such at all. It contains a provision which could lead to the imprisonment or imposition of serious fines on church people, representatives of Amnesty International, or other totally sincere and empathic human beings who are devoting a good part of their lives to try to facilitate the entry into Canada of legitimate refugees.
I do not say that lightly and I want to read into the record Clause 95.1 of the Bill which clearly makes this possible. It says this:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable-
It goes on to talk about prison sentences and fines up to the multi-thousand dollar level. I want to make a couple of points about that. First, most legitimate refugees who came to this country in recent years from Central America had no documents and could not get them. If they went to get them in a number of countries in Central America they would be put in jail or worse, so they arrive without them. They are arriving, perhaps even as we are debating now, with the aid of tremendously concerned church people.
According to my reading of this provision, the church people are subject to the penalties under the law. That is totally unacceptable to the members of my Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: There is now an agreement for this measure to be in committee by Friday of this week. We will move a number of very specific amendments there. However, I will make a suggestion now which I hope the Government will begin considering. I assume the Government had good motives in terms of getting at the abuse associated with profiteering and wrong-doing of that kind, and that there was bad drafting of the legislation. I will put it that way. If that is the case, in my judgment there should be no reference at all to documentation being required for these refugees and we should get to the real problem. I suggest that instead of Clause 95(1) we ought to be considering in principle wording such as the following:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets, or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet a person to come into Canada in a clandestine manner, or to make a false refugee claim, is guilty of an offence.
If a person commits an offence fitting within this category, he or she should be liable to the punishments included in other sections of the Bill. That would mean that the church person, who is acting in good faith, or refugees who have no documents, would not be punished by the laws of Canada. We do not want to punish refugees. We want genuine refugees to be acceptable to this country.
August 12, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I now want to turn to a third area of concern which Canadians have had. Canadians are concerned about the admission of people who might indeed be a security risk in our country or people who have committed major crimes in their land of origin. 1 would like to make a couple of points on this issue.
First, 1 understand international reality reasonably well on the point of serious security risk type of people. They are not the type of people who come as refugees. As the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) said the other day, it is much more likely that such terrorists, such evil people, if 1 can put it that way, will come in with all the documents, wearing expensive suits and, quite conceivably, flying first class in an airplane. They will come in well organized, not as refugees.
Second, 1 did some checking and 1 believe I am right that there is no record in Canadian history of the Government ever finding a person who is deemed to be a security risk who came into Canada and applied as a refugee. My understanding is that no person who turned out to be a terrorist or serious criminal has ever actually applied within Canada as a refugee.
That having been said, all members of all Parties of course want to do everything they can to ensure that no such people come into our country. My Party is as concerned about that as is the Government.
At present a refugee claimant who is detained because of suspicion that he or she would fit into this category is entitled to a hearing within 48 hours. Subsequently the Security Intelligence Review Committee would be asked to determine whether there is a valid reason for this detention. That is the existing law. On the whole, this process, in terms of this category of person, seems to be a good one. However, Bill C-84 proposes replacing the Security Intelligence Review Committee with the judgment of the Federal Court.
There are two serious things wrong with that. One, it is the Security Intelligence Review Committee which has some expertise in passing judgment about security risks. That is why we created the agency. That is why we are in the process of building up a cadre of people with some expertise in this field. They have the expertise and presently have the responsibility of making a recommendation. However, the Government does not want to use the people with expertise but wants to give the responsibility to the Federal Court, which has no expertise whatsoever in this area. I am sure that any judge would candidly admit that. We are going to turn it over to a federal judge who has no expertise.
The second point is that, as everyone knows, there is a backlog at the Federal Court level of many months. The Federal Courts are also overburdened. Therefore, it again seems to us that the legitimate goal of dealing with potential terrorists and taking steps to stop their entry has not been achieved in a sensible way by replacing the Security Intelligence Review Committee's work with that of the Federal
Immigration Act, 1976
Court. That is a recommendation which we in this Party find lacks any sense whatsoever and one we cannot support.
I want to conclude my brief observations on this Bill by saying that we want abuses in the refugee system of our country stopped. We want profiteers punished. We certainly want terrorists to be stopped from entering Canada. However, we want these problems dealt with in ways consistent with the rule of law, with our own Charter of Rights, and with the Canadian tradition which has shown an openness to refugees. We cannot support the present Bill precisely because it violates these requirements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order before the Minister speaks. I mentioned that I sent a letter to the Minister last February and that I had not received a reply.
I have just been informed that I did receive a detailed reply. I want to correct that.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for correcting what was obviously an oversight. I indeed appreciate some of his comments which were very helpful. Perhaps they have already listened to what they want to hear, but I would be happy to share a few remarks with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If there are any further conversations, I wish Hon. Members would have them behind the curtain.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a difficult and volatile situation. Recent occurrences compel the Government to enact legislation that will eliminate the abuse of our immigration laws.
What we have heard clearly is that queue jumping will not be tolerated. It is unfair that a claimant who is not a legitimate refugee can move to the head of a line. That undermines the system and it incites further abuse.
I can understand the frustration of many who have waited long periods of time, hoping that they can sponsor members of their family or others who do not meet the narrow constraints of our immigration policy. I understand those frustrations and, in fact, in his statement this week the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) gave hope to those who have older non-dependent children that very soon they will be able to bring them in to join them. We know how important it is for them to be reunited with their families.
The current system of the refugee determination process is absurd. It is chaotic, it is unfair, and it just does not work. I hear some proposing a system that is even more complicated. We do not have an appeal process on merit now and some are

August 12, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
raising the possibility of a new system that establishes an appeal on merit. One wonders how that will function any better when we already have a system that does not function now.
Clearly we need a system that is firm, fair, just, and balances reason with compassion. It has to be able to identify and welcome real refugees. It must be able to provide protection to those who need protection.
There are others who have been making inappropriate refugee claims. There are illegal migrants-certainly good people-who are attempting to abuse our system.
Recently we have seen an increase in that abuse. Since May of last year only about 10 per cent of those claimants have been found to be legitimate refugees, according to the best advice of our refugee status advisory committee. In the previous year at least a third of the same claimants were deemed to be bona fide refugees. This indicates an increased abuse.
What does this mean to the real refugees of the world, and how are Canadians to perceive how their resources are being abused when they could be a benefit to real refugees?
This is a serious matter. W'e are sending out a strong message. It is that trafficking in human flesh cannot be accepted. It is deplorable, and that kind of smuggling, keeping people in sub-human conditions and forcing them to risk their lives, will be stopped. We will put those people who mass market in that way out of business.
It could be tragic if we allowed this to go on much longer. The tragedy would be that it could corrode the environment in which we must continue to operate a refugee policy. We need a more hospitable environment in order to build a more generous refugee policy and indeed bring an increasing number of immigrants to this country. As other Members have indicated, immigrants and refugees have made an enormous contribution to the wellbeing of this country. They create jobs, rather than remove them, and make an enormous contribution in terms of goods and services that they require.
Some Hon. Members have raised the security situation. I want to assure all Canadians that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an individual is a danger to our society, or the person has committed a crime elsewhere, that person should not be permitted to make a refugee claim in this country. That position is supported by our international obligations and by our own Immigration Act.
We will continue to consider the reality. The fact that there are those who are not playing by the rules of the game has eroded public support. By welcoming and identifying real refugees, by removing unfounded claimants, by protecting legitimate refugees and deterring abusive claimants, we will send out a clear message to Canadians that in the summer of 1987 we heard their plea and that abuse will never be tolerated in this country.
1 want to explain the details of the new Bill and emphasize a few points before I do so. This legislation will bring in tough controls and some severe penalties. I will not deny that they are indeed tough, but this toughness is tempered by fairness and concern for refugees that has won Canada an international humanitarian reputation.
These proposals address a problem that has been brewing for the last few years. The arrival of the Sikhs is only the latest manifestation of this issue.
The number of refugee claims made at Canadian border crossings has increased dramatically in the last several years. In 1981, 3,450 claims were made. By 1986, that number ballooned to 18,000. An estimated 30,000 claims will be made by the end of this year.
Many of these claims are false and are clogging our refugee determination system. These measures will deter people who make false claims for refugee status from entering Canada.
This Government believes that tough deterrents will bring results.
What are we trying to do? The answer is simple. We want to prevent abuse of the refugee determination system. This will help genuine refugees to get fast, efficient assistance from Canada. We will help those who need our protection, not those who do not.
Bill C-55, which provides permanent solutions, was introduced in the House last May. Given the urgent human dimension of its recommendations, I would hope that the Opposition will consider Bill C-55 more objectively than it did last spring. It is landmark legislation that will streamline the claims process, provide expanded refugee hearing resources, make the determination process more efficient from top to bottom, and give Government new clout to dispatch economic migrants to safe third countries.

As for our motivation, we are deeply concerned by the unscrupulous smugglers who help people come illegally into Canada. Their activity is unacceptable. Not only is it unfair to those who pay their money on the strength of false promises, but it also jeopardizes human lives.
This is not only unfair to the people directly involved, but odious for all Canadians. We have to put an end to this practice and we shall do so. Experience has shown that existing penalties are not sufficiently harsh to deter smugglers.
The Bill introduced today provides appropriate penalties. Anyone who organizes or abets the smuggling of people into Canada is liable to a maximum prison term of five years and a maximum fine of $500,000.
The new provisions will make the activities of smugglers and merciless advisors more risky. Harsh penalties will also apply to the illegal disembarking of passengers in Canadian territorial waters. Our purpose is simple: We shall attack the
August 1 2, 1987

problem by making lawbreakers lose the benefits they could reap from their activities.
Transportation companies also carry responsibility for allowing people to enter Canada illegally. Some individuals enter Canada clandestinely, but the vast majority of improperly documented arrivals come on scheduled carriers.
Some transportation companies have been unwilling or apparently unable to ensure that their passengers carry proper travel documents. The Bill promises heavier fines for companies transporting people who do not have proper documentation. A fine of $5,000 for each passenger without proper travel documents will be imposed. The Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration will have the power to require any company to deposit a security for unpaid fines. Failure to comply may result in the seizure of the company's planes. Under this legislation airlines will be permitted to collect documents and return them to individuals upon arrival in Canada.
In addition, transportation companies will collect information to help identify passengers who conceal or destroy their documents. The Government recognizes that limitations must be placed on the liability of airlines and other transportation companies. We recognize that the Government is obliged to deal with inadmissible persons quickly. Transportation companies do have responsibilities and obligations-which 1 am confident they will meet.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, many of the recent illegal arrivals came without identification. We need to improve our ability to detain improperly documented claimants until their identities can be established. This is important for two reasons. We have to be careful not to admit anyone who poses a threat to Canada's security; and we must be able to identify people who really do not need our protection.
Under the new legislation people arriving at major ports of entry without proper documentation will be detained for a period of up to seven days. If, after seven days, the senior immigration officer can demonstrate that reasonable efforts are being made to establish the claimant's identity, there is an obligatory extension for a further 21 days. Extensions beyond this 28-day period can be made weekly.
This measure sounds quite tough. It is. If we do not know who a person is then we do not know if that person is or is not dangerous. Simply put, we must know whom we are allowing into the country.
The need to establish identity is an important security precaution. A firmer detention policy is essential in any serious attempt to deter large influxes of bogus claimants. Once again I must emphasize that our aim here is to deter people from coming to Canada illegally.
Immigration Act, 1976
An important aspect of the legislation allows for the detention of security threats until they can be removed. In cases suggesting a criminal background based upon confidential information, a Minister's certificate describing this evidence will be presented to the immigration adjudicator. The inquiry will then be adjourned. The Minister's certificate will be presented to a justice of the Federal Court. The claimant will be given an opportunity to respond to the Minister's allegations. If the justice of the Federal Court rules that the claimant is a threat, then the person will be removed. That person will not have recourse to the refugee determination system.

Mr. Speaker, I have been outlining some of the punitive aspects of this Bill. I emphasize that these are deterrent provisions. The previous legislation left too much room for abuses. The entire world now knows that Canada will no longer tolerate such abuses.
The new legislation also provides other means of deterring fraudulent applicants. Naturally, many people want to take advantage of the economic opportunities offered by Canada, but we cannot allow them to cheat and to bypass regular immigration channels.
The government is now facing a difficult situation. The refugee determination process has bogged down. To date, five years are needed to establish whether a refugee claim is genuine. During that time, the claimant is entitled to work in Canada. If the tribunal rejects the claim, it is very difficult to send the individual back to his or her country of origin after all that time.

Over the last five years some 40,000 claimants came to our door and, as was their right, they made a refugee status claim. After the seven other levels of appeal and re-appeal, only some 650 were asked to leave the country. That is not a refugee determination process-it is a licence to abuse. It is a licence to come in by the back door. It is unfair. What all Canadians want is a system that is fair and just. If the criteria are well established, then let everyone have the same opportunity to meet them. Some people should not be able to jump into a third line which is totally unrelated to the immigration line, or to jump into a line that must always be there for true refugees, those people who need protection and who should always find a home here.

An individual may have a steady job, have started a family and have children who are Canadian citizens. This however does not legalize the way he or she entered Canada and is a breach by economic migrants of established immigration rules.
Mr. Speaker, the current process, if I may say so, is an invitation to abuse. It is therefore clear that we need a more effective and expeditious system. This legislation is a major

August 12, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
and necessary step in that direction. Expeditious treatment will deter illegitimate refugee claims.

There is no better deterrent than a much more expeditious determination process. Once those people who are known not to be refugees whose claims are either manifestly unfounded, who have refugee status and who have lived sufficient lengths of time elsewhere, who can be returned to those countries or who can seek the protection of those countries are removed from the system, then that will send the clearest message to people around the world that it does not pay to sell all of one's belongings and pick up and try to hit Canada as an illegal alien. Indeed, it may be more appropriate and beneficial to those people to try to apply under the regulation, under the immigration stream. Indeed, most of these people have not done that.

People are more reluctant to take fraudulent actions if they know they can be removed rapidly, and we already have evidence of that.

Canada is an open and caring country. All of us are very fortunate to live here. We are privileged to claim Canada as our home. This is no secret to the rest of the world. Our international reputation as a land of peace and opportunity is what impresses people and makes them want to live here. And we want them to come. We will be increasing immigration levels over the next three years. I take pride in the international reputation Canada enjoys as a safe haven for refugees. It is an honour that hard work and dedication have won.
We steadfastly maintain our commitment not only to immigrants but to refugees. At least 17,000 refugees will enter Canada by the end of this year. Obviously, the attraction of Canada has led some people to attempt to bypass regular immigration channels. This worsening situation has prompted the Government to introduce deterrent measures to prevent abuse now.
We want to ensure that there is time for a full and reasoned debate of Bill C-55 to chart the path for refugee determination for some years to come. This Bill is designed to address immediate and difficult circumstances to stop the most flagrant abuses. Bill C-55 seeks to address long-term issues which are facing us. The Government is faced with a difficult situation. Responsible action is needed now and will be needed again in order to pass Bill C-55.
The task before us is one which transcends partisanship. It concerns fundamental issues of fairness, justice, and the integrity of our laws. As such it is a task which deserves not only the attention of all Hon. Members, it demands action. It demands our collective resolve and determination to deal expeditiously with these deterrent and detention measures.
I urge all Hon. Members to accept this challenge, and in so doing to take a major step toward ensuring that Canada will have a refugee determination system that is truly effective, responsive and just.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Mr. Waddell:: The Hon. Member from Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) made a strong case for the possibility that caring Canadians who are trying to help legitimate refugees could be charged and prosecuted under this Act. Is the Government prepared to look at that clause and to accept the appropriate amendment?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I indicated that I appreciated many of the thoughtful remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I have not had a chance to study in great detail what he has asked, or what he is offering. Certainly, I accept and welcome the contribution from him and other Members of Parliament. That is what this process is all about. Nothing has been cast in stone. We are certainly most willing and interested. There is an urgency to the situation. We must send out a message that we will be passing this Bill as quickly as possible. This Bill is to deter, detain, and deport in certain instances, and I would be very pleased to be able to observe and bring it forward in the manner that is prescribed.


Mr. Caccia:: It may help the Minister if I brought to his attention the point that has been raised, namely, that the Minister proposes in Section 95.1 to imprison a Canadian, a group, an organization, or a group within a church that engages in helping prospective refugees who may be without documents, and who may want to come into Canada. I am referring specifically to Section 95.1.
Would the Minister be more explicit and indicate to us whether he will accept an amendment that will take into account the number of organizations, churches, and individuals who seek, in the cause of helping potential refugees, a very legitimate activity under the Canadian system?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: For almost 10 years there has been a section in the Immigration Act, and I wish to quote Section 95(m). It states that the present Act includes the following offence:
Every person who (m) knowingly induces, aids or abets or attempts to
induce, aid or abet any person to contravene any provision of this Act or the
regulations, is guilty of an offence and is liable
The provision was always there, but obviously this was not intended to affect church people and non-governmental organization workers, and we share with them their dedicated interest to help real refugees. What we are attempting to do by the specifics of this provision is to get at the organizers of clandestine movements, those that deal with the mass marketing of human misery. Those are the people we want to put out of business.
August 12, 1987

The specifics are such that we have taken three definitions from the original Act. We have combined them here. What there is in the specific definitions, 95.1 and 95.2 was already covered by the generalities of 95(m). In the past 10 years we have not prosecuted a single person who was a member of a church or non-governmental organization for his or her legitimate activity. But if it is illegitimate activity, and if they are contravening the Act and mass marketing this type of misery, obviously they too should pay the price.


Mr. McDermid:: This afternoon we heard speeches from the Opposition which stated that the new laws proposed in both Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 were destroying the credibility of our immigration system. I wish to ask the Minister if he feels that this is true. Does he agree that the abuses which were increasing in alarming numbers over the last number of years were causing the credibility gap with our very generous and fair immigration system, and a very serious backlash was starting to develop here that could destroy what we have built up over the last number of years?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: In 1987 we will be welcoming 125,000 immigrants and refugees to Canada. These are people who will meet the criteria either under our independent immigrant class, business investors and entrepreneurs which are a small part of the program, family reunification, and 20,000 refugees and humanitarian cases.
When people who do not meet the criteria come anyway as they have been doing in increasing numbers, there have been over 16,000 this year, we know that over 90 per cent of them are non-legitimate refugees. They are people who should be applying in other streams. They should be applying as immigrants. This causes a frustration in communities with people who have been waiting to sponsor their relatives. 1 said that I understood that frustration and I understood why they are having difficulty waiting. The trouble it is causing in the community is that it is leading to a feeling that maybe accepting immigrants and refugees is not what we should be doing. I look out and say that there has to be a positive benefit to this. The positive benefit is to put your house in order, stop that abuse, stop illegal aliens. We say no to illegal aliens, and yes to real refugees.
At the same time let us give ourselves the opportunity to focus on the enormous contribution that immigrants and refugees make to this society. In 1986 alone, the 100,000 people who came here contributed over $2.25 billion to the economic development of this country. That is a gigantic contribution. All of them continue to make that contribution. They are not the ones who are out of work. They are the ones who are creating jobs, and by their purchases of goods and services they are helping to advance this society to allow us to continue to grow. I say that by being firm and fair and by creating this type of an environment, we can be assured that this hospitable environment-after 1 have cleared up the policy matter, created a better understanding of what refugees and immigrants are, and stopped illegal aliens-will allow a much
Immigration Act, 1976
broader growth of the immigration program, and will allow us to be more generous to real refugees. We are making a tremendous commitment to refugees. On a per capita basis, Canada does more for the real refugees of the world than any other country.


Mr.   de Corneille@: My question is directed to the Minister. Yesterday I received a telegram from within my riding from the Redemptionist Fathers. They were expressing understandable concern about the rather Draconian tone of the present Bill C-84. It seems to many that the Bill has already caused a lot of concern among groups. I know that the Minister would not wish to encourage concern if there is a way to deal with the matter. In trying to make Canadians feel that the Government at last is coming to grips with a subject on which it has perhaps delayed too long, perhaps it is now trying to come up with something that is so Draconian and so severe that it will satisfy everyone's concerns. That is not a very healthy way to proceed. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to do something about Sections 95.1 and 95.2.
In terms of not only religious communities but all those concerned about fairness, as I think are all Canadians, what is the Minister doing to assure Canadians that steps will not be taken or laws will not be passed that can implicate people who are working for refugees in a positive way in a Bill which is supposed to be trying to deal with only those who are genuinely exploiting the refugee situation?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody is clearly getting the message that we abhor the trafficking in human flesh. That process must stop. Very clearly our message of deterrence is being well received.
Perhaps the transportation companies will get the same message-$5,000 for every undocumented arrival. We want them to collect documents and we will authorize them to do it. We want to ensure that the people they bring here will be available to us in a way that we can get an understanding of where they come from and who they are.
We are not meaning to affect any individual who has dedicated his life and work to the real refugees of the world. However, we are going to stop this organized movement of clandestine groups who want to abuse us and take us for patsies. Canadians have said "no more", and we are speaking out loudly and clearly. Saying "no" to illegal aliens will still give us the right to say "yes" to real refugees and to do well.


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


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing me and for giving me the opportunity to follow the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) who, from the comments he has been making in the last 30 minutes, is obviously suffering from an acute case of schizophrenia.

August 12, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
On the one hand he says that Canadians are proud of the traditions and accomplishments in making this an open, tolerant, and generous country. Then he bangs his fist on the desk and says, "By God, we are going to stop all this kind of nonsense from coming forth", and begins waving the xenophobic flags and saying that we will not tolerate any more flagrant violations of the system.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Exactly.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, why don't you call them to order over there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It has been a great debate this afternoon on this particular Bill. We still have about seven minutes remaining. I hope courtesy would be extended to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: I think we should pose some questions to that Minister and his boss, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). If they truly believe that Canada has established leadership in this issue, why is it that they have introduced legislation which clearly contravenes all the international obligations we have signed since 1969? Why have they introduced legislation which caused the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to take the unprecedented step of sending an aide-memoire to the Government saying, "What you are doing is wrong"?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Did you see it and what it says?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes. That is exactly what it says. I have it right here.
Why is it that the United Nations High Commission said on the matter of transportation that to put the responsibility of determining who is a refugee on a private commercial airline which is untrained, as opposed to recognizing the responsibility of a country to determine the fundamental issue of who should be a member of its community, is against the convention on refugees? That is, again, from international authorities.
We could cite statement after statement, evidence after evidence, to show that the Government is flagrantly transgressing the commitment of our country to the international community. It is deliberately going against the steps we have taken as a country to support an international refugee system which tries to deal with one of the world's most serious and desperate problems.
There is no question that this is a problem which should occupy and demand the intelligence and response of all Canadians. We are a country which knows what it might be like to be homeless. Many of us come from families who were kicked out of their own countries. Many of our families fled from persecution, famine, and Governments which treated them in a tyrannical manner.
Put yourself in the following position, Mr. Speaker. We in the House can speak confidently, but think of yourself, your wife, and your family if you did not belong anywhere, if you had no rights anywhere, if you were kicked around from country to country.
I have met those kinds of people in the refugee camps of the world. I have talked with them. 1 know the desperation one can see in their eyes. It is no wonder they try to get here.
We have heard people talk about queue-jumpers and illegal aliens as if they were somehow criminally sponsored. They are people looking for a home, a place to belong, where they have some roots and some rights.
This country, to its credit and up to the last year, has led the world in trying to ensure that there was a fair system to deal with that problem. We undertook international negotiations beginning in 1983 with the Americans, the Europeans, and the Asians to try to find a way in which to share the burden. At that time we saw the beginning of Berlin walls for refugees around the world, the beginning of restrictive measures. We said to the international community: "This must stop. We must find a way of sharing the responsibility and a way of organizing ourselves as an international community to deal with this kind of problem". By the way, the present Government no longer follows that initiative. In fact it was dropped as part of its foreign policy agenda.
When they say, "Why didn't we find a solution", I say, "Why didn't the Minister and his predecessor follow that initiative to try to get international co-operation and fight against restrictive measures rather than go the opposite way and become a follower, following the worst examples rather than setting the best example."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: He says, "We appeal to find some solution to the problem in Canada". These solutions have been sitting on desks of the the Minister and his predecessor for over two years. The Plaut Commission, commissioned by the previous Government, was put forward as a way of clearly responding to a reform of the refugee determination system. It was then examined by a Commons committee with a majority of Conservative Members who came up with a unanimous report, which the Government ignored, as it ignored the Plaut Commission.
As if that were not enough, the former Chairman, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), called a meeting last December of NGOs, Amnesty International, UNHCR, and officials of the Department, and came up with a consensus decision.
Do we not hear from the Government all the time, "Let's find a consensus agreement, let's find a way of doing things that is commonly shared"? They had an arrangement to which the churches, refugee organizations, the UN, and Amnesty International agreed. Only one group did not agree; the
August 12, 1987

Minister and his officials did not agree. They were the only ones who stood against that consensus. They were the only ones who stood against the kind of solution which enjoys the total approbation of all interested parties in this country.
What was the problem? Why is it that only they are in step? Why is it that only they have the divine ordinance to tell who is a real refugee?
It is heresy for a Minister of Immigration to stand in the House and say, "I know who is a legitimate refugee, and we are going to keep the bad ones out". We have established in this country an independent process, a process immune from that kind of political influence, to ensure that refugees would have a fair, impartial, and independent hearing. Now we have Ministers of Immigration who are saying that they want to take it back unto their fold. They want to decide who are refugees. They want to decide whether it is the colour of their skin or their hair or their religion which determines whether they are bona fide refugees. They are corrupting that system, and they are going to hear more from me tomorrow morning on that. That is what they are engaged in-corruption of the system, and they know it.
One of the real responsibilities of the Minister of Immigration, rather than inflaming public opinion and rather than
Immigration Act, 1976
generating the kind of response we have seen, is to try to educate and to make Canadians understand the problems they face. It is a sensitive, delicate responsibility. It is a responsibility which has been kicked in the teeth by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration and his assistant. They do not recognize the responsibility to ensure that there is a balance between the system of proper recognition of civil liberties of Canadians and of refugees and making sure that the system works efficiently.
You will hear more about that tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will have 12 minutes remaining in his speech, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.

It being 6.00 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 11.00 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Section 3(2).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, August 13, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers