1987-09-03

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 2, 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 third time and passed.
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the duty of speaking out against this very bad Bill. However, I am proud to speak up for refugees and for the many thousands of Canadians who have been supporting refugees and have indicated that they will continue to support refugees regardless of whether, as it appears, the Government has changed its policy.
I want to talk about the objectives of the Bill, with which I happen to agree. The objectives as outlined in Clause 1 are:
(a)	to preserve for persons in genuine need of protection access to the procedures for determining refugee claims;
(b)	to control widespread abuse of the procedures for determining refugee claims, particularly in light of organized incidents involving large-scale introduction of persons into Canada to take advantage of those procedures;
(c)	to deter the smuggling of persons into Canada and thereby minimize the exploitation of and risks to persons seeking to come to Canada; and
(d)	to respond to security concerns, including the fulfillment of Canada's obligations in respect of internationally protected persons.
Not only do I agree with those objectives, more important, they are in agreement, in conformity and in harmony with Canada's international undertakings to the United Nations, to the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 enlargement of that, which Canada helped to draft.
Let me refer to two sections of the convention for those who have not had the opportunity to study and become familiar with it. There is a general definition of a refugee as a person who, "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the
country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country". In other words, that is an asylum seeker.
In later articles, Canada undertakes with about 100 other countries several obligations. The most important of them is in Article 33, prohibition of expulsion or return, which internationally is called refoulement. It states that "no contracting state shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". In other words, Canada has solemnly contracted not to return a refugee in any manner whatsoever. That means even indirectly, even by sending him to another country that will then send him back to the country where he was persecuted.
Canada, like many other countries, has developed a system for examining people who come to our borders claiming to be refugees to see whether, in fact, they are real refugees. Our obligation is not to return a real refugee. Therefore we cannot exercise that obligation, or we cannot keep that pledge unless we find out whether the person arriving at one of our airports, an American border-crossing point, a sea port or on our shore is a real refugee or not. We must not send him back directly or indirectly to the country where he claims he would be persecuted unless we have found out to our satisfaction and according to our laws that he is not a refugee. That is what is at issue in the Bill. Unfortunately, those good objectives which I read are not carried out in the rest of the clauses of the Bill.
With respect to preserving access, what the Bill does is limit access. With respect to controlling abuse, the Bill falls far short, even after the Government accepted some amendments originally proposed by members of the Opposition. Deterring smugglers was mentioned in the Minister's press statement of last month. He made much of smugglers. Smugglers are mentioned in the objectives yet they are nowhere mentioned in the Bill. There is no adequate provision action to be taken against them. With respect to security, yes, there is action. However, it is not the security of those international persons called refugees who we are obligated to protect but, rather, some other unnamed persons, as well as the security of Canada. Given the evidence, and the lack of evidence, about the dangers, I would say that the Government's provisions greatly over-react on that point.

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
How does this Bill limit the access of people to our refugee determination system? It does so mainly by threatening detention and deportation on suspicion of terrorism. We have been through a clause-by-clause study of the Bill. Therefore, what I will say in general is that there is provision for an enlarged use of the Minister's permit and for a different type of permit use.
Instead of the matter being referred to the security review committee, it is to be referred to the Federal Court, which is not experienced in handling decisions on security matters. Its expertise lies in finding out whether or not a correct procedure has been followed as opposed to examining the contents of a procedure. Therefore refugee claimants may be held, as is stated in the Bill, on suspicion, if the Minister certifies that he has reason to suspect them of being security risks.
They may be detained. They may be deported. They may be denied the opportunity to make a refugee claim, contrary to our obligations under the provisions of the United Nations Convention which states that no matter what, every person must have his refugee claim examined, even if we decide we are not going to let him stay for whatever reason, perhaps for security reasons. If we are going to send him away, then we must send him away in the knowledge that he is a refugee, if that is what has been decided by refugee determination, and we must notify the United Nations. The Government has refused to accept our amendments which would have implemented that part of the Convention which we signed.
Thus it is clear that the Government wants to send out the message, "Refugees not wanted in Canada". The message is that refugees are not wanted unless our overseas officers have selected them and they are economically and politically considered advantageous to Canada as immigrants. Otherwise, refugees are not wanted. The message is, "Do not come to our shores if you are in trouble, we intend to shut the door". That is the message being given to refugees, in violation of the first objective of the Bill.
As a matter of controlling abuse, the Bill could have used the expertise of the Justice Department and the Immigration Department to devise a clause which would punish people who plan to help bogus refugee claimants or bogus immigrants to evade or deceive our immigration authorities. We have had a great deal of trouble in that regard. In fact, the law now provides for that.
The Government has said that there needs to be bigger penalties. It could have simply imposed bigger penalties and allowed for different grades of penalties, depending on whether or not an offence is trivial or major. The Government did not do that.
There is already in the Act, Section 95(a), a provision that every person who comes into Canada at any place other than a port of entry and who fails to report to an immigration officer for examination as required is guilty of an offence and liable to punishment. The Act, Section 95(e), also states that every person who knowingly induces, aids or abets or attempts to
induce, aid or abet any person to contravene any provision of the Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence.
What the Government undertook to do instead was to introduce the proposed Section 95.1 which does something quite different. What the Government undertakes to do is attack people who directly, honestly and openly bring a refugee claimant or advise a refugee claimant of the truth of the Canadian laws, to come to a border point and to offer himself as a refugee claimant to our immigration authorities. That is the right way to do it, as the Minister has said in the House. But that is not what the Bill states. It states:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, 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-
In other words, what this is saying is that if a person is on the run from the death squads in El Salvador and knows from the experience of his friends that he is not safe in the United States because that country sends back all but 2 per cent or 3 per cent of refugee claimants to El Salvador, where some of these people have been killed, and if that person decides to ask for safety in Canada and any Canadian helps him, then he is liable to two years in jail or a $5,000 fine. That is what the Bill states. The Minister promised he would never do that. Yet we do not know who will be the Minister of Immigration tomorrow. The Minister of Immigration often does not know what his officials are doing until it is too late to do anything about it. Therefore we should not write a law that the Minister says he does not intend to enforce most of the time. Thus the Bill does not do a good job of controlling abuse.
As I have said, it does a smashing job on security. But I think it over-reacts since the RCMP told us that there is no evidence that any of the undocumented people who came in over the past year, about 6,000 of them, were security risks. As the RCMP agreed, security risks do not come in as refugees and ask for their documents to be examined. They come in as expensive visitors with expensive forged documents. Those people are whisked right through, as any expensive visitor happens to be, unless there is some information against him.
Members of the public came to oppose the Bill. They came on as little as one-half a day's notice. There were members of churches, civil liberty associations, the Jewish Congress, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Coalition for a Just Refugee and Immigration Policy, Rabbi Plaut, who is at this moment in the next building speaking against Bill C-55 and who spoke against this Bill as well, la Coalition de Montreal pour les refugies, and the Canadian Bar Association which asked for amendments.
The Canadian Bar Association asked that the Bill be withdrawn and rewritten, but at the very least that it be amended. The two members of the Opposition who sat on the committee moved quite a number of amendments and then moved still other amendments at report stage earlier this week. 1 will mention just one of the amendments which I moved. It
September 3, 1987

concerns proposed Section 95.1, of which I have spoken. The amendment that I asked for was turned down.
My amendment suggested that the clause be rewritten to say that everyone commits an offence "who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet a person to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim". That is the situation we are talking about where 3,600 people came from one country and falsely claimed to be refugees, because we know that Jehovah's Witnesses are not persecuted in that country. Those 3,600 people made fraudulent claims, and they were organized to do so. That is what we are talking about, and as it stands that is what this Bill did not address.
I requested an amendment that would make it an offence to assist people to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim with these larger penalties, and the Government would not rewrite proposed Section 95.1 in that way. The Government added it in as an extra offence. But not in the manner in which it would clarify the law, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) in his speech on second reading, as between hcnest people who are helping refugees and shysters. I quote the actual words of the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni on page 8017 of Hansard. He stated:
We should ensure that those who traffic in illegal refugees for profit are separated from those who deal with refugees out of conscience. I believe that is one of the first amendments we should bring through.
The Hon. Member earlier stated that he "hoped to have the opportunity to sit on the legislative committee, and that this would be one of the first amendments we could make". For whatever reason, the Hon. Member was not put on the legislative committee on that Bill. However, he is on the legislative committee on Bill C-55. But in dealing with the amendments on that Bill, his colleagues did not listen to him.
There is another clause which also limits the country's response to our obligation to refugees. In Clause 8 the Minister is given the power to turn ships away. After we raised the point, as did many others, the Government did make an amendment which somewhat blunts the bad effect of that clause.
It now states that the Minister will have due regard, not only for the safety of the ship and the passengers but for the Convention, and it defines the Convention as the one from which I have read. If that clause is implemented, we will see how it stands up in court, and whether the phrase "having due regard" is a strong enough commitment to not turn away refugee claimants until it is determined whether or not they are refugees, and then not sending them back to the country from which they have fled.
Today we have news of the brief from Renaud Paquet, the National President of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, to the committee studying Bill C-55 in which he
Immigration Act, 1976
states, among other things, that the members do not believe it is right to ask the immigration employees to do the things that would be required of them under Clause 8; for example, to board the ships, cause them to turn around, and search and seizure.
There is a labour problem with implementing it, which would have been averted if the Government had accepted our amendment to not turn the ship away and let the captain do what he wants with those people that he was paid to transport to Canada. In the south seas that has resulted in thousands of drownings. The ship should not be turned away, it should be escorted into port. The captain should be charged with whatever offences are outlined here or in other law, and a determination made as to whether the passengers are refugee claimants and, if so, if they are real refugees. That would ensure the safety of human lives, and it would be a big deterrent.
We received no response on the most important requests for amendment, therefore, we must ask what the Government is trying to do? The Canadian Ethnocultural Council gave us a clue in the brief that they presented to committee a couple of weeks ago, and a letter sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on August 10, 1987, in which they state:
We are deeply concerned that the result of the information campaign of the Minister and Department of Employment and Immigration has had ruinous effects well beyond C-55.
This was prior to the announcement of Bill C-84. They further state:
Many critics have suggested that the purpose of the campaign was to silence criticism of, and gain support for C-55. If that is the case, the Government may well win the short term battle, but in the process will have done monumental damage to the harmonious race and ethnic relations in Canada.
They further state:
Unlike the hospitable reception by the residents of Charlesville, Nova Scotia, the treatment and internment of the claimants has been mean.
They then list some of the actions that form a pattern. I will not read them all. They point out that reporters were warned not to take pictures in Charlesville. That, Mr. Speaker, is an innovation in Canadian law. They further point out that the arrivals were disallowed contact with the media or community people. They were not informed of their legal rights to see a lawyer. Access was only allowed after Toronto lawyer, Mendel Green, began proceedings for a court injunction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but perhaps he could bring his remarks to a conclusion as his time has expired.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent for a further five minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: Is it the consent of the House to allow the Hon. Member five minutes longer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: It is agreed by unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member five more minutes.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: This list should be listened to. It is from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. They also point out that when processing of the claimants began, the first and most controversial case, Mr. Amrik Dhinsa, a person earlier deported, was brought forward and made public. This smacked of the most blatant attempt at creating negative reaction.
When processing of claims began media were disallowed, in a further attempt to control information, and again court proceedings became necessary to gain access. A confidential report of the Task Force on Security and Enforcement of the Department, suggesting problems in recruiting clearance of immigrants for security, was leaked to several papers.
Information of another Sikh in a totally different case, dating back several months, which was received confidentially, was leaked by unidentified sources to The Globe and Mail. Other false information on the 174 claimants was leaked to Maclean's Magazine to the effect that 33 claimants had criminal records. The information has subsequently been proved to be false.
Throughout the time the 174 individuals were not called refugee claimants, but rather illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, migrants, Asians, Sikhs, and East Indians.
At the end of July, rumours persisted that another refugee carrying ship was coming to Canada and the Canadian navy, air force, and coast guard were dispatched, giving the image of an apprehended invasion. Hysteria was climaxed.
The Ethnocultural Council has made its point very well, that there was a campaign by the Government to misrepresent what was going on by wild exaggeration. The effect of that was to produce public hysteria which would force passage of this Bill.
One unfortunate effect of the Bill when it is put into law will be what was noted in yesterday's Globe and Mail and Citizen, that now our immigration officers in Europe are jammed with people who are seeking papers-people whose papers are considered false-airlines seeking information about possibly false visas, or officials who complain that they cannot do their regular work because of all the paper work they are asked to do now that Canada is busy shutting out every refugee claimant who does not have a visa to Canada.
The Bill will not only fail in its stated purposes, but it will help to further disrupt the immigration service of Canada. It is very unfortunate that the Government has taken such a hardnosed line on it. I hope that Parliament will have the Government reconsider.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), for his comments. I would like to ask him a question about the process of developing law which will be applied selectively.
The Minister has said that he will not be prosecuting churches or other agencies which are involved in helping genuine refugees, that the intent of the law is to focus on people who are engaged in wrongful activities, in bringing refugee claimants into Canada under false pretences. However, the law still targets church workers and workers with refugee aid societies. The Minister may say that they will not be prosecuted, but the law is still there.
Could my colleague expand on the concept of developing law which has blanket coverage but, according to the Minister, will be applied very selectively? What are the implications of that for the rule of law in a country like Canada?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out by some officials that the decision to prosecute under certain laws is left to a senior official, such as an attorney general or a Minister, in order to avoid cases of mistake. That usually happens in very sensitive or politically related offences which are very difficult to define.
With regard to the immigration matter, the Minister seems to be terrified by the thought of a loophole. We now have loopholes through which elephants could march, but the Minister seems to be terrified of the slightest loophole, period.
The Minister and the Conservative Members of the committee would not make any attempt to make enquiries from legal experts in order to define in law the people who organized the Portugal scam, the Turkey scam, the Brazil scam, the Sikh scam, and whatever other scams of which the Department has been aware. They would make no attempt to define those they wish to prosecute. Instead, they defined a whole class of people comprised of thousands and thousands of Canadians and said that the Minister, in the privacy of his office, will decide which few of those he will prosecute.
Everyone who spoke to the committee, including the Civil Liberties Union and a professor of constitutional law from the University of Toronto, said that it was upside down to write a law to catch thousands when you only want to catch half a dozen. It is a bad precedent for Canadian law that a person cannot read the law to find out what is legal or illegal but will have to guess what the Minister would do in a particular case. That is not the rule of law in a democracy.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we were graced until a few minutes ago with the presence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), who finally decided that it was time to show up and defend his Bill. I see that he is now hiding behind the curtains; I am glad that he can hear me. He came into the House yesterday and delivered a 10-minute speech from a well prepared text. He then disappeared again without taking the trouble to defend his own legislation. The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) who usually sits behind him is afraid to get up and say one word about this piece of legislation. I have never seen, in the history of Parliament, such cowardly behaviour by any Minister. This has never happened before. The Minister
September 3, 1987

came into the House for 10 minutes yesterday and informed us of a number of interesting things.


Mr. Bouchard:: We know what you are.


Mr. Caccia:: He told us yesterday that Canada's refugee determination system is under siege. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to cast your memory back to the summer of 1986 when a boatload of people arrived in Newfoundland. The Minister has the nerve to come into the House 13 months later, one year and one month later, and tell us that the system is under siege and this legislation is urgently needed. Where was the Minister during the year and one month since the first boatload arrived?


Mr. Boudria:: It is a slow siege.


Charles L. Caccia: What nerve he has, to come into the House and make the kind of speeches which he made on second and third reading. He told us that the system is under siege. If that is the case, why did he not act before? He had plenty of time to come forward with a thoughtful piece of legislation which would have the support of all Canadians, rather than being criticized as it has been.
In order to illustrate that criticism and the reputation which this legislation is gaining in our learned community, even before proclaimed, I will quote from Professors Angus and Hathaway in the Globe and Mai\ of August 25. They say:
The problem with Bill C-84 is that it effectively guts this most basic international obligation by allowing the minister, acting alone, to decide that a ship should be forced back to sea without giving those on board a chance to show why they deserve protection.
What do you say to that, Mr. Speaker? Yesterday the Minister said:
-Subclause 103.01 of the Bill empowers the Minister either to order a ship captain to sail into port or to send him back.
Why does the Minister not make a clear-cut decision? Why turn the ship around? Why not allow it to be taken in so that the captain can be fined and those who are benefiting from this trade can be brought to court rather than creating an ambiguous situation? If the Minister and the Government are serious about preventing the arrival of people who are not legitimate refugees, why not go to the root of the problem, bring the ship to port, and prosecute the captain and the owner of the boat? This ambiguous position leaves everyone wondering what the Minister really intends to do.
Professors Angus and Hathaway make the following observation about the Bill. They say:
This Bill C-84, however, would make it impossible to sort out the real refugees from the bogus ones, and thus would put Canada in breach of international law.
What do you say to that, Mr. Speaker?
There are many observations in this article which I must skip over, but I will bring to your attention another one which struck me as being important, coming from learned legal
Immigration Act, 1976
people who certainly cannot be accused of having legal preferences. They say:
-the law may make illegal the work of church and other humanitarian agencies that assist undocumented refugees to apply for status under Canadian law.
Why would we make illegal the work of organizations and individuals who are engaged in humanitarian work?
Professors Angus and Hathaway conclude here that the Canadian Government "has engaged in a form of legislative overkill". In all fairness, the Minister dealt with this matter yesterday. He rejected the notion that people will be prosecuted, that is, the prosecution of churches and humanitarian groups. You can find that on page 8708 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker.
But these are new sections in the Act. They were marked as new in the Bill itself by the department. The Minister cannot get away by saying, "Actually this is not a new measure, it always existed". If they existed, they cannot be new. If they are new, they are there for a purpose, to be invoked, and you as a lawyer, I suppose, appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
If the Government does not intend to use these clauses, people cannot just rely on a promise, on the verbal reassurance given in committee, "Don't worry, it will not apply to the humanitarian engaged refugee organizations". You know very well that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is here today, but tomorrow it will be someone else who will have a different outlook and who will not be bound by the words of the present Minister.
What kind of business is this on the part of the Government, legislating one way and giving promises in the opposite direction, saying "The law is there, but do not take it seriously because we do not mean it for you." Is that your concept of law, Mr. Speaker? Are you then surprised why we are upset about this measure, why we have such a low respect for the Minister, who is not even here to defend the law on this matter, who is telling us that what is new is not new?
There must be some competence here and some way of sticking to what one really means. If the Minister does not mean what is in the proposed legislation, why not accede and accept the motions that emerged here at report stage and delete the clauses that are so offensive?
The two professors, Angus and Hathaway, went on in their analysis to conclude that:
-Bill C-84 is a misguided and uninformed response to the legitimate concerns of Canadians ... Yes, abuse should be deterred, but this can be done without violating international law, without infringing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and without making a mockery of Canada's strong commitment to human rights.
This is heavy stuff appearing in a newspaper that is known across the nation. It puts into jeopardy and casts a shadow of doubt on the validity of this Bill. Will it be challenged on constitutional grounds?

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
At the conference of the Canadian Bar Association last week some of your colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am told, were talking about the necessity of sending Bill C-84 to the Supreme Court of Canada for a constitutional reference to establish whether the Bill will work. Perhaps this Bill will be in the courts for a long time, thus making void this whole effort of allegedly protecting Canada from boatloads of refugees. What kind of reputation does the Government want to have with this kind of behaviour?
I am profoundly surprised, puzzled and upset, because yesterday the Minister in his speech did not clarify his points at all. He actually gave a set 10 minute speech in which he attempted to reply to days and days of submissions in committee and to days and days of debate here, and he then disappeared behind the curtains.
The Canadian Bar Association suggested that instead of the preamble we have now, it should be amended to read that the Bill is intended to ensure that genuine refugees are protected from removal to a country where their lives and freedom may be threatened. What did the Minister say to that? He ignored it. He did not say a word about it.
The Inter-Church Committee for Refugees came forward and said, determine the refugee status first and then decide the security issues, as it is done at the present time. First establish whether or not a person is a bona fide refugee. I think the vast majority of Canadians would find that sensible, desirable and a much quicker way of doing things. Then decide about security. But what did the Minister say about that? He said nothing. He just gave a short 10 minute speech.
We have already dealt with arresting a boat and escorting it to port to permit prosecution. Again, there is an ambivalent statement by the Minister in yesterday's speech which seems to come halfway at least in that direction. What upset us very much was that the Minister would not draw a distinction between racketeers and humanitarian groups. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council made that point, as did other organizations. Yet that input was ignored by a Government which made it a point in the 1984 election to proclaim that it would listen, consult and govern as a result of consultation and listening.
Here we are not talking of dangerous, radical organizations or extremist movements. We are talking of well established respected groups of Canadians, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, even that august body of radicals to which you belong, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association, not dangerous, subversive types.
They came forward, but not one of their amendments or suggestions has found its way into Bill C-84 in its final form. What a sham. What a disappointment. What a poor performance, particularly when, as I mentioned to you a moment ago, there is a high degree of danger that this piece of legislation once proclaimed will be challenged in the courts and then the whole process will come to a grinding halt. How would you like
to see that happen to you if you were the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Speaker? You would not, I am sure, and no one else would, because it would make this bunch of Ministers look like fools for having insisted on proceeding with measures shaky in substance alone.
This is why your colleague, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), on August 13 when we were debating Bill C-84, raised a signal of warning. He had the courage to do it. As you know, he is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration. He made three very important points which must be repeated. He said some major changes must be made. It took a lot of courage for him to say that, being a backbencher in the Party in Government. He said:
The changes in the refugee determination process which are proposed in this Bill are such that it would be practically impossible for a great number of legitimate refugees to apply for refugee status.
How do you like that, Mr. Speaker. That did not come from a Member of our Party or of the NDP, but from a Tory backbencher who is the chairman of one of our standing committees. The Member for La Prairie went on to say:
There are, 1 am sure, other rational and appropriate solutions to this problem, solutions that would not have us break an international agreement on refugees and that could not be challenged in court on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That was the Hon. Member for La Prairie speaking in the House of Commons on August 13.
He made another observation which I thought was not only dead-on but very sensible. He said:
The best way to put the smugglers out of business is to dry up the demand for their services. The best way to stop the queue-jumping is to shorten the queue. In short, if we want more orderly borders, we need more liberal borders.
I am sure he meant liberal, of course, in the small / sense. He has made good, sensible points. Evidently, they were not taken into account and that is very distressing.
The fact is that one year and one month after the ship landed in Newfoundland we are debating a measure which is called an emergency measure. We have been told that the refugee determination system is under siege. The Government had plenty of time to prepare something in a thoughtful manner in consultation with all those involved in the refugee movement. It had the time to produce something that would get the full support of the House, rather than produce panic legislation. It is panic legislation and that is what makes it so objectionable.
The legislation caters to fear. It caters to the lowest instincts in society. It is not funded on the advice of those who were in this business long before this Minister was appointed and who will be there long after the Minister, who has finally come to the House to hear the music, is gone. This kind of stuff will still be on the books, unless it is stopped in the higher courts.
September 3, 1987

It is legislation by pretending not to legislate. Earlier 1 gave the example of proposed Section 91(1). The Minister said that the Section is not new, yet it is new. Then he said that it is there, but he will not use it. He will not prosecute those who are engaged in refugee work. He will not make criminals of Canadians who have been active in that kind of work for years and years, as have the churches. That is legislation by pretending not to legislate.
It is legislation that is blind to international organizations. That is a matter that the Minister did not have the guts to touch upon even once yesterday. Not once in his 10-minute speech did he deal with Canada's international obligations. That kind of weakling is the kind of guy who does not even have the guts to come to the House to defend his own legislation.


Benoît Bouchard: You are as bad as you were when you were a Minister. You are not interesting.


Charles L. Caccia: He can raise his voice and make empty noises because he is a bully, but he will not be a bully for long.


Benoît Bouchard: I was here for Heap because he's interesting, you're not.


Charles L. Caccia: We put forward amendments saying that even though it is bad legislation and we don't like it, we will try it for six months and give it a sunset clause. I felt very uncomfortable with that because the sun will not set on this legislation. However, the sun will set on that Minister and the Government. It will take care of reactionary, backward measures like this.
I shall continue now with my intervention, after the interruption of the Minister. This is legislation by loopholes. It closes the loopholes surrounding those who arrive here on boats but, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), so eloquently put it yesterday afternoon, it allows for the same old process for those who arrive here by air or by land. If your brother, Mr. Speaker, is a refugee who arrives by boat, the boat on which he is travelling is likely to be turned around. However, if you are a potential refugee, Mr. Speaker, and you arrive by air, then you will not be treated the same way as your brother who came here by sea. How do you like that for equality of treatment?
It is also legislation by absenteeism, not on the part of one but on the part of two Ministers who chose to stay away when it got too hot in the kitchen. The poor Parliamentary Secretary was left here to steer this matter through in a rather compassionate and competent way. Perhaps the Government was served better by not having these two strange Ministers in the House to defend it.
In the end, it is legislation by cosmetics. It is smoke-and-mirror legislation which does not go to the root of the problem. It damages Canada's world reputation. It has said no to the thoughtful input of a number of organizations which appeared
Immigration Act, 1976
before the committee, the very same constituency that this Government said it would listen to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time is up. There is time for questions and comments.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member. 1 think we can agree that there has been a consensus across Canada that there have been abuses in the refugee system. This consensus across Canada calls for changes to correct those abuses. The consensus is based on public opinion and on the advice and concern of churches and organizations that are specifically involved in helping refugees.
Certainly Members of all three Parties in the House want to see the abuses of the refugee system corrected. There is no question that that consensus exists in Canada and in this House. Yet the Government chose not to proceed in a moderate, intelligent, deliberate manner to correct the abuses. Instead, it brought in such poorly drafted legislation that there is great concern among church groups and refugee-aid groups. It has certainly aroused the opposition of the two opposition Parties as well as a significant number of members of the Conservative Party, although only one or two have had the courage to speak out.
Given the fact that there is this consensus, why has the Government not proceeded in a more deliberate, rational, intelligent manner to correct the abuse? Why has it brought in such poorly drafted, Draconian legislation?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the answer to that question. Usually a Minister who proposes a Bill answers that question, not only out of courtesy but out of a desire to explain why the legislation, no matter what it is, appears before the House. Usually the Minister defends it at report stage and third reading, and extensively so, and submits himself or herself to questions of this kind. It is regrettable and more than just unfortunate that this Minister would not do that.
Evidently, as the Hon. Member just said, there is a consensus across Canada for changes and improvements. The Government has chosen not to proceed in a competent and thoughtful manner. I hope that in the course of debate later today, Members on the government side will come forward with answers to the very thoughtful question put by the Hon. Member, because I am not in a position to give a full and comprehensive answer to it.


Mr. Speaker:: We are just about at the stage of beginning Statements by Members, but I have a short announcement to make. I wish to alert Hon. Members of the House to the fact that no notice of Private Members' Business has been published for today. I have received a letter from the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett)

September 3, 1987
indicating that she is unable to proceed with her Motion M-61. Since it was impossible to arrange an exchange, the House will continue with the business before it prior to private Member's hour pursuant to Standing Order 39(3)(b). I am instructing the Table to drop this item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4)-

-the House will now proceed with Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, September 4 will, unfortunately for the Canadian population, mark the third anniversary of this Conservative Government. During these three years, the most neglected group in Canada has been low and middle income Canadians, including senior citizens and families.
Everyone recalls the de-indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit; everyone recalls the lowering of the limit set for being eligible to the full amount of the child tax credit; everyone recalls the one billion dollar cut-backs in these two programs; and everyone recalls the refusal of the Conservative Government to develop an effective child care program.
Moreover, senior citizens remember the de-indexation of Old Age Security Pensions, the refusal of this Government to provide the spouse allowance to single, separated or divorced claimants, the discrimination against older workers who are not entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits, and the five million dollar cut-backs under the New Horizons Program. The only thing that has been done for those people has been to give them a Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close with these words, and I trust that the Conservative Members will wake up, otherwise they will all be defeated at the next election for not defending the interests of families and senior citizens.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, Thursday's appointment of a Minister of State for Seniors is a clear signal of the Government's commitment to a very important segment of society, our seniors. The newly appointed Minister, himself a senior, a veteran, a distinguished parliamentarian and, above all, a great Canadian, brings to this position a wealth of successful experience in areas such as housing and health care for veterans. His exemplary work is endorsed by all parliamentarians, indeed by all Canadians.
Seniors applaud this Government for continuing to recognize their concerns and needs. The Minister has started meeting with seniors and their organizations, including the National Advisory Council on Aging. I know he feels very strongly that his new Ministry should be shaped by the citizens concerned, the seniors of Canada. I look forward to working closely with him as he begins yet another challenge in his distinguished career of serving Canadians. 1 know all Canadians will benefit.



IMMIGRATION


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Government is almost finished with a Bill which will include the interdicting of ships at sea when the Minister thinks there are bogus refugees on board. I am sure the Minister has seen the brief from the Canada Employment and Immigration employees' union which says in part:
On the second aspect, that of the interdicting of ships, we would oppose these provisions because of the commitment we have to the clients we serve.
We do not believe that ships should be turned away from Canada without allowing passengers to make a claim to refugee status-if that is their desire. False claimants can be quickly removed.
Ships can be seized, ships crews and captains can be fined and/or imprisoned. By turning away ships, Canada would run the risk of rejecting refugees, and the men and women who work on the front line would have to bear the public anger, which would no doubt ensue.
We want to work in a system which is open and fair. We want to enforce Canada's immigration laws in a just and equitable manner. We believe that this can be met easily without the interdicting of ships. In any event, the number of such claimants coming by ship is such a small percentage of the overall "refugee" movement that this provision will not significantly alter the work-load and will only serve to exacerbate the tensions surrounding this Bill.
I hope the Government will listen to its employees on the front line.
September 3, 1987



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister is aware, the Bankruptcy Act was passed in 1949 and is hopelessly outdated.
In my constituency of London East I have a constituent who recently paid $1,000 on account at a furniture store, leaving a balance of $90 which he said he would pay upon picking up the furniture in two weeks. Upon returning to pick up the furniture and pay the final $90 he found the store closed and the bailiffs lock on the door, the store having declared bankruptcy. It is incidents like this, and many others, which clearly tell us that the bankruptcy laws must be changed to protect innocent victims so they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous businessmen.
As well, I encourage the Minister to take measures in the new legislation to protect Canadian suppliers and wage-earners. I commend the Minister for reviewing this outdated legislation and urge him to move as quickly as possible in bringing the new legislation to the House.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, labour in Canada has fought a long and tenacious battle to attain today's work standards. In that battle the working men and women stuck together through thick and thin, often in the face of insurmountable odds, to gain a better life for themselves and their families. In doing so there was often suffering, both mental and physical, deaths, hunger and breakdowns, and at the time many a good man or woman would have been unable to stand these pressures without the support of other workers. It is for those reasons that labour has grown so strong and united over the years.
To appreciate the role that labour plays in the running of our nation, try to imagine a Canada without coal produced by coal miners, steel manufactured by steelworkers, fish caught by fishermen and processed by fish plant workers, food grown by farmers, and taxis driven by taxi drivers. The list goes on. With this thought in mind one can easily appreciate the havoc, mass confusion and total breakdown which would occur if our labour force suddenly disappeared or stopped working. Therefore, let us pay tribute to the contributions of the labour movement both in the past and to come in the future, and focus our appreciation of labour on Labour Day next week.



THE LATE GERARD LAHAIE

Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute all those individuals who make us proud to be Canadian. There are many, from national heroes such as Rick Hansen, Terry Fox and Norman Bethune, to our honoured veterans, and those who so bravely fought and died for us, and as well, the many local citizens, those often unsung heroes, who give so much of themselves every day.
One such individual who deserves our special attention is Mr. Gerard Lahaie who this summer was tragically killed on the west island of Montreal when he stopped to help a stranger, a woman, repair a flat tire at the side of the highway. Gerard, said one of his co-workers, died the way he lived, helping someone else. He would have chosen no other way.
I know all Hon. Members, who are often so busy and hurried that they have little time for personal thought and reflection, will join me in saluting Mr. Lahaie and all the other great Canadians of their neighbourhoods. We appreciate their efforts and are proud of what they have done for their community and their country. To Gerard Lahaie and all local heroes, thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FORESTRY


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia will receive revenues in excess of $200 million this year from the recently imposed export tax on softwood lumber destined for the United States. It was intended that these new tax revenues would be used to maintain and nurture the forest resource. Yet in B.C. the funds continue to disappear into general revenue while the expenditure for forest management continues to be woefully inadequate.
Provisions for basic silviculture are still below the level required to regenerate all currently logged areas within a reasonable time. Insufficient restocking of newly logged areas is increasing by tens of thousands of hectares per year. Intensive forest management programs, including thinning and spacing, have proceeded by and large under federal government job-creation schemes. In the Kamloops forest district they have accomplished less than 15 per cent of what should be done, leaving a shortfall of more than 8,000 hectares per year. As well, tens of thousands of hectares of forest land are falling before the onslaught of pest infestation.
If we were managing and husbanding our forests as we should, not only would our forest reserves be expanded significantly, but tens of thousands of jobless people would be put to work. I urge the Minister of State for Forestry and

September 3, 1987
Mines (Mr. Merrithew) to meet with his B.C. counterpart to	strike by the end of this month. That is the record of three
ensure the $200 million is invested in a forest resource and	years of Progressive Conservative government,
therefore enable tens of thousands of unemployed to find longterm or permanent jobs.
* *
*
[DOT] (mo)



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, St. Catharines has been the gateway to the Welland Canal and the Upper Great Lakes from the early 1820s.
Shipbuilding has been part of our heritage for over 150 years with the Port Weller Dry Docks continuing that long tradition.
Rationalization of shipbuilding on the Great Lakes has already taken place to the extent that Port Weller Dry Docks is the only Canadian Great Lakes shipbuilding yard left.
The union at that yard telexed that its workforce is reduced to a skeleton force of 62, the lowest level in 20 years.
While Canada's coastal maritime history is long and rich, let us not forget this great waterway to the heart of the continent and the skilled workers waiting there for work at this last remaining yard on the entire Canadian Great Lakes.
I encourage the Government to recognize the importance of maintaining an inland shipyard. Award a contract now to Port Weller and keep some 300 experienced yard workers off the unemployment rolls.
* *
*



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: 1 want to read a letter addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) concerning the Post Office:
As a taxpayer I must protest the way in which the Conservative government is handling the recent disputes at Canada Post. 1 am also dismayed to see the government allow Canada Post to privatize mail services.
The government knows that violence will occur if Canada Post uses replacement workers, but the government is allowing it to happen. 1 believe these replacement workers have the right to work, but the Government should provide them with full-time employment instead of using them as pawns in labour disputes.
Service has already decreased because of the privatization of mail services. To pick up a parcel or register I now have to stand in a long line-up-
The Government already created a strike in the Post Office last month. It is doing everything in its power to have another



LUXEMBOURG-PROSPERITY RESULT OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, the fast-track approach to a free trade agreement with the United States is quickly approaching and with it a genuine desire to secure the best deal possible for both countries.
Support for a free trade agreement between Canada and our American neighbour was echoed yesterday by Prime Minister Jacques Santer of Luxembourg who said: "It seems to me, from the purely economic point of view, Canada can only benefit from a free trading system with the U.S. and the rest of the world".
Luxembourg, with a population of only 367,000, has free trade agreements and prospers as a result. It has the highest standard of living in the European Community, the European Community's lowest unemployment rate of 1.3 per cent, and the lowest level of annual inflation at 0.3 per cent.
Luxembourg has historically forged trading ties with its neighbours while maintaining its cultural and political sovereignty. I hope the same will result for Canada.
*
* *



FISHERIES


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, fishermen on the West Coast are concerned about the many dredging operations that occur each year during openings on the Fraser River. The dredging performed by the Department of Public Works seriously hampers the gill-netting process and at times has cost the fishermen the loss of important income and the loss or damage of fishing gear.
Gill-netters on the Fraser River have asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) to consider rescheduling dredging operations from the current Monday to Friday schedule to a Tuesday to Saturday schedule for those few weeks each year that there are openings on the river.
In view of the fact that our fishermen contribute millions of dollars each year to our economy, I urge the Minister and his Department to review this situation immediately with an eye to reducing the impact that river dredging has upon Fishing activities and fish habitat in the Fraser.
September 3, 1987



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, where will the isolationist policies of the NDP end, and on how many international obligations will the NDP turn their backs?
First, Canadians heard the NDP policy that they would pull out of NATO and pull out of NORAD. NATO has been the expression of collective western defence since 1949, a multilateral deterrent that provides a stable framework for the management of superpower relations across Europe and the Atlantic.
As French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac said this week: "Isolationism is not desirable for any country in this era".
This week during the Ontario election, the NDP Leader said that an NDP provincial Government would pay up to 40 per cent more for Canadian-made goods over imports and require hospitals, school boards and libraries to do the same, at substantial public expense.
Recently, another isolationist policy emerged from the well-known NDP strategist, Gerald Caplan. He advocates Canada should withdraw from the Group of Seven industrial nations and presumably would have Canada forfeit its hard-won position as a member of the G-7 Finance Ministers as well.
This fortress or bunker mentality emerging from the collective minds of the NDP leaders needs to be seriously understood by Canadians. The NDP's true international allies are starting to emerge. Yesterday the Soviet news agency Tass accused Chirac of "harsh attacks on Canada's New Democratic Party" and also said he had accused the NDP of "dangerous neutrality".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).



THE ADMINISTRATION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will mark the third anniversary of the election of the Tory Government. If one word can be used to summarize these three years, my choice would be "disastrous".
Time constraints would not permit me to enumerate all of the blunders of the Government, but I am willing to give it a try. Ministers have resigned, were fired, or demoted. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has given new meaning to the word "patronage", making it a relative expression. There were thousands of appointments, so many that we have lost count.
Two banks have gone under, for the first time in 63 years. There has been abuse of power, conflict of interest, criminal
Oral Questions
charges, unprecedented waste of taxpayers' dollars for the lifestyle of the rich and famous, such as the Prime Minister, his friends and cronies.
This scandal-ridden Government will be remembered as the worst Government in the history of Canada. Luckily, time is running out and the country will once again, very soon, have the opportunity to elect a good, efficient, honest Liberal Government to replace this awful regime. It will do so under the distinguished leadership of the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner).



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians have a long memory. This Government got elected by promising lower taxes. Yet, after three years of this Conservative Government, on average a Canadian family pays $1,000 in additional taxes every year. In spite of all that the Minister of Finance is still talking about taxing food.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he told the House he wanted to consult Canadians. The one thing I can tell him is that Canadians did tell me how they feel about this issue, and they do not want a tax on food.
1 would ask the Deputy Prime Minister why is the Government hiding behind this so-called consultation when it knows full well that Canadians do not want a food tax?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that yesterday the Minister of Finance quite accurately outlined the process of tax reform and the necessity of tax reform. I think he also dealt with the suggestions of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to a tax on food. He said very categorically, as reported at page 8700 of Hansard:
Let me make it absolutely clear. There is no proposal in this document or
any other document in Canada to tax food. That is a fact.
The right hon. gentleman says he speaks on behalf of all Canadians, who suggest that there should not be a tax on food. I note that he is on record as stating that there should be a consumption tax. Most normal Canadians consume food, so I would assume that the right hon. gentleman is, in fact, advocating a tax on food.


John Napier Turner: This side of the House will not tolerate a tax on food.

September 3, 1987
8738__________________________________________
Oral Questions PROJ ECTE D COST TO FA MIL1ES


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that we gave the Minister of Finance every opportunity to deny that he was proposing such a tax. We have reminded the Government that a tax on food at current rates of sales tax would amount to an extra $453 on the yearly grocery bill for an average Canadian family. That is one month of groceries. Is the Deputy Prime Minister suggesting that Canadian families eat only 11 months of the year?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and myself have all attempted to clear up the confusion that is being created by the right hon. gentleman and by some of his Members. I repeat what the Minister of Finance said yesterday:
Let me make it absolutely clear. There is no proposal in this document or in any other document in Canada to tax food. That is a fact.
In response to the question posed by the right hon. gentleman, as well as one asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party who has selectively taken a phrase out of context, 1 said on September 1, in answer to the Leader of the NDP, as reported at page 8659 of Hansard'.
The tax reform proposals do not contain any provision for the inclusion of a tax on food.
On August 24, 1987, in response to a question asked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just, no doubt inadvertently, misled the House with the direct statement that the Government is considering a sales tax on food. That is false.
1 do not know how much clearer one can be. I wish that the Hon. Member would listen carefully to those answers rather than trying to confuse the issue by suggestions which are erroneous.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have listened carefully to what the Deputy Prime Minister has said and to what the Prime Minister has said. But the Minister of Finance refused to close the door yesterday on imposing a tax on food. He said that with all his tax reform proposals he wanted to consult the Canadian people before making any changes.
On Monday, before the committee hearings on the tax reform proposals even started, he issued an eight-page statement of tax changes to those reform proposals without any prior consultation with Canadians. If he can make those changes without consultation, why can he not make the simplest, easiest change of all? Will the Deputy Prime Minister stand up and give us the categorical statement:
"There will not be a tax on food from this Government"? That would be the best three-year anniversary present he could give the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made it very clear yesterday that there is no proposal in this document or in any other document in Canada to tax food. That is a fact. The right hon. gentleman advocates a consumption tax, as does his colleague from Westmount. Perhaps his Members on the Finance Committee are contemplating in the consumption tax the inclusion of a tax on food. If that is the case, then we will wait to see where they stand when the report comes out.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the tax reform proposals have been referred to a standing committee, and 300 or so briefs have already been submitted. The matter is under consideration. We will be interested to see where his Members stand on the whole issue of tax reform.
[ Translation]


TAX ON FOOD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Mrs. Denis and other senior citizens remember the Minister of Finance stating in this House when the old age pension deindexation issue was making headlines that all the elderly Canadians he had met were in favour of de-indexation. As we recall, this statement prompted the Prime Minister to apologize publicly.
Here is my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It says so in so many words in the document, complete with explanations. In consultations on the Blue Paper the Government made commitments to the effect that universality was not debatable. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister or his Conservative Government refuse to promise that their Party will reject any suggestion that bread, milk and butter be taxed? Why not make that committment? Why maintain that option?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to refer the Hon. Member to my previous answer. May I also point out that he has sent a letter to La Presse indicating that the Government is advocating a tax on food. That is absolutely false.


REQUEST THAT DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER PROVIDE CLARIFICATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Who in this Party is stupid? The Quebec Conservative caucus got together to study
September 3, 1987

the documents of the Minister of Finance, and they told the Minister of Finance that imposing a tax would be a stupid move. Is the Deputy Prime Minister implying that Conservative caucus Members are completely off course, that they were mistaken when making their recommendation?
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Conservative caucus, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, were mistaken and did not know how to read, or would it be quite simply that the Deputy Prime Minister does not want to tell the truth?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted here this morning to clear up the confusion that is in the mind of the Hon. Member.


Mr. Lapierre:: How about the Quebec caucus?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and myself have all said the same thing.


Jean-C. Lapierre: We don't trust you!


Mr. Garneau:: The Quebec caucus does not trust you either.


Mr. Nunziata:: Would you buy a used car from the Prime Minister?


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply reinvite the Hon. Member to read the response that the Minister of Finance gave yesterday. I will repeat it. I am quoting from page 8700 of Hansard.
Let me make it absolutely clear. There is no proposal in this document or in any other document in Canada to tax food. That is a fact.


FOOD TAX QUERY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. It relates to the matter of whether to tax food or not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: When the question was put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, back on May 28 of this year, he asked the Minister of State for Finance a question which ended this way: "What about food?" Regarding the sales tax: "Is food in or out?" The Minister of State for Finance responded by saying: "You will find out on June 18" whether food tax is in or out. It is now September 3 and we are still asking the same question.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is as it was asked on May 28 by my colleague. Is food being contemplated? Is
Oral Questions
food being considered? Is it in or out of the proposals for a national sales tax?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question.


WEEKLY FOOD BUDGETS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Deputy Prime Minister take a number of positions. He takes the position of Wayne Gretzky stickhandling around this issue. There is now a new position. It was not the New Democrats who raised this matter first. It is in the White Paper on Tax Reform which states:
If food and other basic goods are taxed, they would cost more ... If food
and other basic goods are not taxed, their prices would be lower.
This is in his document. He raised it. Are the people of Canada now to expect that, unless there is a statement to the contrary, they can expect their weekly food budgets to be increased, because there is no comment that this tax is not being considered?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is using the scare tactics that are quite customary of Members from that side of the House. The author of the White Paper on Tax Reform is the Minister of Finance. He made it very clear yesterday. I repeat again, for perhaps the fourth time, as reported at page 8700 of Hansard-.
Let me make it absolutely clear. There is no proposal in this document or in
any other document in Canada to tax food. That is a fact.
What could be more clear than that?


EXCLUSION OF FOOD FROM SALES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that we did not raise this issue. The Minister of Finance raised the issue, and it is right here. There are diagrams, pages and pages which talk about a food tax. It was not we who talked about a food tax; it was members of the Government who talked about a food tax and who are considering it. Why raise it in the first place?
My question, then, is directed to the Chairman of the Finance Committee who has been studying this issue. My question is very straightforward. Do other countries which have a national sales tax-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Lewis:: That is not in order and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that under the circumstances it is not in order to put the question to the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Perhaps the Hon. Member could find another way to put the question to ensure that a Minister does respond.

September 3, 1987
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M30)


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is once again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is he aware that countries that have imposed a consumption tax have, in fact, excluded food? Today the provincial Governments that have a sales tax exclude food. A person going to the grocery store pays tax on certain goods but not on food.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the chairman of the finance committee has a plan under way so that, when the Government does impose a consumption tax on the people of Canada, food can be excluded?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not know what plan the chairman of the finance committee has. I know that he is a very capable and competent chairman. I know that he will be vitally interested in all points of view relating to tax reform. That is the job that he is challenged with, and that is the job that he will discharge with the greatest of effectiveness.


SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned to our great horror that the federal Government had abandoned any defence of Canadian trade interests under the trade and commerce clause, and is now leaving it up to the provinces to represent Canada when it comes to the export of our resources.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister on another issue relating to the abandonment of our sovereignty.
On August 20 the Department of the Interior in the United States issued invitations for bids to drill on the Continental Shelf in the Beaufort Sea, including areas of Canadian territory. That is a clear transgression of every agreement. As the chief minister of the Yukon has said, it is a total abandonment of Canadian sovereignty.
Considering that those bids will be considered in four months from now, as of January 1, 1988, has the Canadian Government any intention to represent Canadians' interest in this steal of our territory?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: First of all, I do not agree with the premise of the question, the allegations, and the shrill rhetoric that the Hon. Member is advancing.
I am not fully up to date on this particular matter. I would be glad to take the question as notice, and I could provide a comprehensive answer to the Hon. Member. I regret that I am not up to date at this time.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ISSUE PROTEST
Lloyd Axworthy: My
supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. There is nothing shrill in trying to represent the integrity of Canadian territory against incursion by another country which is now issuing bids to companies within its own jurisdiction to drill in our territory and in our jurisdiction.
I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister is not more conversant with this matter. When asked about this several months ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the federal Government would not be taking any direct action until such time as the environmental hearings were over, and bids would be considered. That point has now been reached. There is now an opening of bids on Canadian land by the U.S. Government.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister specifically if he will be in touch with the Prime Minister and ask him to issue immediately a notice of protest to the President of the United States against this unacceptable action by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: I will take the Hon. Member's question as a representation. I will be raising the matter with my cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Predictions that we made when family benefits were reviewed have come true. Will the Minister now admit that the evidence from the National Council of Welfare, CCSD, NAC, the Economic Council, and Tristat Resources all proves conclusively that families have lost significant income as a result of the Government's past tax policies? Those associations also predict that families may lose over $1 billion by 1991 as a result of new reforms, if implemented.
Is this evidence correct or not? The Minister should know.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the evidence that the Member puts forward is
September 3, 1987

obviously selective on the one side, and in that respect it is not clear nor is it correct.
I wish to indicate to the Member that when she refers to these issues, she does not refer to the increases in the child tax benefits. She does not refer to the fact that today 860,000 Canadians are working who were not working three years ago on this anniversary. Obviously, that is a change.
The Deputy Prime Minister also indicated the other day that there are more taxpayers, and those are some of the reasons why. I should also say to the Hon. Member that when she looks at some of these papers and uses that in her own question in terms of predictions, I don't think one should stay with predictions, but one should look at actual facts. Those actual facts state that today 263,000 Canadians are above the poverty line who were below the poverty line three years ago.


INDEXATION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would direct the Minister to Hansard. I was quoting five authorities on social policy, and the facts which primarily were concerned with family benefits. The Minister should know this.
Rather than defending his Government's anti-family tax policy, I wish-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is straying into argument and going beyond the usual preamble. I would ask her to put her question to the Minister.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Since deindexation has the most negative impact on families, I wonder if the Minister would reverse his tax and become an advocate for families. Will he advocate full indexation of the family allowance, the child tax credit, the sales tax credit, and also the cut-off thresholds, as a beginning step toward greater tax fairness for families?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have been an advocate for that, that is why the Prime Minister and the Government have advocated increased credits, which we have already implemented-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Full indexation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -earlier payments of the increased child tax credits. The tax reform paper also looks at that question.
The last point I would make to the Hon. Member is that if she wishes to be an advocate, could she go back to Manitoba and ask the socialist Government why, when we increased the Canada Pension Plan benefit for disability, that Government does not forward it to the very poorest?
Oral Questions HEALTH


AIDS-TESTING OF IMMIGRANTS
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Canadians are increasingly aware of the alarming growth in AIDS cases in Canada, and indeed in North America. In fact, in the United States it is projected that by 1991 there will be 23 million cases or carriers of the virus.
In light of recent legislation in the United States regarding AIDS tests for immigrants and refugees, will the Minister tell the House whether he is contemplating similar measures for Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in respect to mandatory testing of any type, specifically for immigration, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and myself, along with our cabinet colleagues, are working very closely on this issue. On the surface when one looks at that issue, many people would say that it is a policy that we could implement, as some other countries are now considering, such as the United States, on December 1 of this year. There are a number of issues, whether medical, ethical, or administrative, and relating also to the type or the manner in which medical examinations are presently taking place in respect to immigration applications. The Immigration Medical Review Board had indicated previously hereto that mandatory testing was not recommended. It has now re-examined that policy and recommended that it in fact be implemented.
The World Health Organization, to which Canada has adhered very carefully, has so far not changed its policy from a voluntary system. I know Canadians are interested in this issue. We are considering the present policy but I am not yet in a position to change it and the status quo remains.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the past three years certainly have been the darkest in the history of regional development-the first Minister, the Hon. Member for York-Peel, was fired because of conflicts of interest; the second one, the Hon. Member for Langelier, was fired for incompetence; and the third one, who inherited a $350 million hole, now heads a department that is being phased out. In the circumstances, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member could now ask his question?

September 3, 1987
Oral Questions


Jean-C. Lapierre: Does his Government intend to issue a clear policy statement on regional development rather than taking makeshift measures or announcing piecemeal programs?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the people who were fired as a result of the failure of the Regional Development Act were fired on September 4, 1984, by the people of Canada. We have put in place a regional development incentive which is regionally oriented. It will build on the strength of western Canada and establish a basis for regional development in the east. It will be very successful.


FUTURE PROSPECTS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is fully aware that right now, as far as regional economic development is concerned no one who is involved has the slightest idea of the Government's direction and we even wonder whether the Government itself knows where it is going. My question to the Minister is this: Does this Government intend to come up with an overall policy, a policy enabling us to put an end to this situation of two Canadas, one rich and one poor? Does his Government have any vision of Canada and any idea about its responsibilities as a federal Government?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I thought I saw the pleasant face of the Hon. Member across the aisle. I do not know where his mind was when we announced a western diversification initiative of $1.2 billion over the next five years, an Atlantic Opportunities Agency with $1.2 billion over the next five years, and specific programs for regions in Quebec and northern Ontario. 1 wonder where the Hon. Member has been.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the result of the Government's initiative Canada's only national public broadcasting system, the CBC, has had major budget cuts, contracting out, and the decimation of production crews.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The record will show that the Tories applaud.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: In her official response to the standing committee the Minister has now indicated a willingness to consider selling off the capital assets of the CBC as well. How does the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile the Minister's
proposal with earlier commitments of the Prime Minister that the CBC is not for sale?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question was dealt with in the House a couple of days ago. I believe the Hon. Minister indicated that we want better synchronization of the private and public broadcasting systems. We are aiming at ways and means of delivering the best services to the people of Canada at the lowest possible cost. I think the Minister was speaking of certain aspects which may very well be achieved through the private sector.
In terms of privatizing the CBC, I think that statement was taken out of context. At the present time the Minister is putting together a new broadcasting policy which will be presented to the House in due course.


INTRODUCTION OF NEW BROADCASTING ACT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, since the new Broadcasting Act that the Minister mentioned will reflect the real intentions of the Government, when will the Government fulfil its Throne Speech commitment to introduce the Broadcasting Act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the Minister is presently working on that and taking into consideration the report of the standing committee. I believe she has asked the standing committee for some further background work on the matter. As soon as that is completed 1 think you can expect a definitive policy statement, hopefully coupled with legislation.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new President of the Treasury Board. One year ago the Government put in place, for the very first time in this country, employment equity legislation. At the same time, for the very first time, it introduced in the Public Service a program of affirmative action for visible minorities.
Will the President of the Treasury Board advise the House whether the Public Service of Canada now accurately reflects Canadian society as far as visible minorities are concerned? If it does not, is it his intention to introduce targets for hiring and promotion in the same way as has been done for women in the Public Service?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that
September 3, 1987

question. That is clearly the desire of the federal Government. Numerical target-setting quotas have been established by the Government. I think that was proven in August of 1987. This initiative would put the visible minority target group on an equal footing with other target groups in the Public Service.
That has been coupled with a series of measures, including a $10.5 million, 300 person-year special employment program, a visible minority employment office, a network of visible minority co-ordinators, special training modules and, as of June 30, 2,650 members of visible minority groups were registered in the Public Service's applicant inventory. Therefore, there is clearly progress which is the result of a deliberate policy of the Government.
* *
*


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have a copy of a confidential letter written to the Prime Minister from Mr. Renaud Paquet, the President of the Immigration Union.
The letter alleges that the Deputy Minister of Immigration has flagrantly breached immigration regulations by forcing his officials to grant landed immigrant status, contrary to the Immigration Act, to a visiting professor so that he may remain in Canada in order to teach the children of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Minister at the Claudel Lycee in Ottawa.
As it is vital I will read into the record that which the President of the Employment and Immigration Union had to
say:
The employees at H.Q. Canada Immigration, are flabbergasted that, on your behalf, or on behalf of Mrs. Mila Mulroney, are abusing the queue jumping on behalf of Mr. George Grossman, who was given very favourble treatment on orders from Mr. Gatean Lussier, a close personal friend of Mr. Grossman, to accommodate the education of your own children at the Claudel Lycee in Ottawa.
These allegations are very serious and imply that the Prime Minister and Deputy Minister are above the law. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime Minister immediately order a full and public investigation into this affair so that Canadians may know the details and the appropriate action may be taken?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, until further notice it is my view that when Mr. Paquet has charges or comments or allegations to make, I suppose he will direct them where they belong.
Second, we will check the allegations behind that. Now, again, until further notice, this is part of the usual package from the Liberal Party.

Oral Questions REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister because we have received an unbelievable answer. We have a grievance-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member had a very lengthy preamble to his first question. I know he would want to be as concise as possible in putting the supplementary question.


Sergio Marchi: I subscribe to your orders, Mr. Speaker. This serious allegation is not made by opposition Members but by the President of the union and a grievance has been filed with the union suggesting that officials were pressured into sidestepping the law. In order to clarify the situation and in order to ensure Canadians that no one is above the law, I ask the Deputy Minister again whether he will order a full investigation so that we may in fact know the details and take appropriate action when necessary?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, same question, same answer. We will investigate.
*
*
*


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Tens of thousands of Canadians have been persuaded that they could help to provide for their retirement years by putting savings into RRSPs as permitted by our income tax laws. Now because of the collapse of the Principal subsidiaries which were not covered by CDIC insurance, these Canadians will lose most of those savings.
Since so many of these people reside in the Deputy Prime Minister's province, isn't it time that the income tax law with respect to RRSPs was amended to require that such funds be invested in plans covered by CDIC coverage?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the issue which the Hon. Member raised is indeed regrettable but I think the Minister of State for Finance has responded to this issue.
The Principal Trust issue is regulated by provincial authorities to the extent that the Canadian Deposit Insurance

September 3, 1987
Oral Questions
Corporation was involved. The federal Government has covered those losses.
I might also take this opportunity to point out that when we experienced the collapse of the CCB and the Northland Banks the federal Government undertook to compensate those unsecured depositors, I must say to the objection of the New Democratic Party, which was most unfortunate. We have been clearly on record as demonstrating that we are serious about this.
We have tried to encourage provincial authorities to take whatever steps are necessary to accommodate these people, but in terms of the actual suggestion of the legislative changes which the Hon. Member has put forth, I will certainly advance that to the Minister of Finance and perhaps he can get back to the Member himself.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO LEGISLATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when people put money into RRSPs, they do not have to pay income tax at that time. They supposedly will pay the income tax when they begin to draw their benefits. These people have lost that money. They will not get their benefits and the Government of Canada at that time will not get the income tax which people would have paid. That money has been lost.
When will the Government change the law so that this kind of rip-off and fleecing of the public will not continue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Hon. Member is advancing a serious proposal that probably deserves serious attention. 1 will take that as a representation.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

After the massive lay-offs announced by CN in Moncton and all hopes of saving those jobs were lost, CN and the railway unions agreed to a workforce separation program. All of this was done in good faith. However, CN has unilaterally accelerated the lay-offs and the workers feel they have been double-crossed. Is the Minister aware of this situation and what is he planning to do to protect those workers, the very few who are left in Moncton?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the so-called accelerated lay-offs to which the Hon. Member has referred. The Minister of Transport is in Moncton today, I believe, and I am sure the matter will be raised. Perhaps he may very well be dealing with that issue on the occasion of his visit.


LAY-OFFS AT GORDON WORKSHOPS IN MONCTON- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Still along the same line of thought, Mr. Speaker, CN management continue to lay off people in Moncton even though there is more work than the workers can handle, particularly at the Gordon workshops. So why would the Conservative Government let CN act this way? Is it not the responsibility of the Government and the Minister of Transport to protect the jobs of workers, no matter where they are in this country, and to prevent these jobs from being transferred elsewhere?
In recent years the regions of Canada have been left to die a slow death. Is that the real regional development policy of the Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Government does not manage or run CNR. It is run by a Board of Directors, and a management team which is very competent and very effective. The Hon. Member would be the first one to criticize us if we were seen as unduly interfering with the management and operation of a Crown corporation. I know there has been a program put together funded by DRIE to support workers suffering dislocation.
I should also remind the Hon. Member that if he had been so concerned about the welfare of the workers of Moncton he would have done his bit to support the establishment of the General Electric locomotive manufacturing shop which would have provided long term jobs, jobs into the future. The Hon. Member chose to ridicule-


Fernand Robichaud: What did you do?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Windsor has become a paradigm of railway safety under the Government's deregulation policy and, in part, the deregulation policy in the United States.
September 3, 1987

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in lieu of the Minister of Transport. Is the Government aware that railway safety inspections have virtually ceased on international traffic between Ontario and Michigan? A great many cars have been found to have unsafe brakes, unsafe truck bolsters, defective wheels, many have had their safety cards removed, there have been some 20 derailments in the CP yard in Windsor, and a dangerous situation exists in the tunnel.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Is that where you get your tunnel vision from?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Is the Government aware of this situation which not only indicates what has happened in international traffic but presages what may happen in railways across the country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member may not be aware of this but Bills C-18 and C-19, the regulatory reform proposals in the new National Transportation Act, do not take effect until January 1, 1988.


SAFETY INFRACTIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, deregulation has existed in the United States. This traffic is going to the United States. I have cited a number of instances of safety infractions of a very serious nature. They represent a danger not only to the workers but to the people of Windsor respecting the possibility of toxic spills.
Will the Government take a look at this situation and see whether there is a solution to the problem that is being created? Will the Government also look at the potential for similar problems in Canada as a result of Bills C-18 and C-19?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, primacy of safety is always first and foremost in the minds of this Government in any transportation policy, and it is clearly outlined in the preamble to the new National Transportation Act.
I think it is very clear as it applies to the air administration. We moved very quickly on the tightening of the Aeronautics Act. I believe there is a new railway safety Bill that is being considered. There have been a number of areas where safety in the railway system has been tightened up. Certainly if the Hon. Member has some specific cases I will be pleased to draw them to the Minister's attention. Let me assure the Member that we take this matter very seriously and advise him that a lot of progress and tightening up has occurred in the last two or three years.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the House that there will be two more questions. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou and then a single question from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers said yesterday that the Canada Labour Relations Board's decision paves the way for an early settlement of their current negotiations with Canada Post, yet the Minister expressed disagreement with this decision. Why is the Minister intent on having a postal strike at any cost? Could he not tell Canada Post to accept the decision and bargain in good faith, thus giving Canadians the hope that there might not be a breakdown in postal services?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that no one on this side of the House wants a strike. No sensible Canadian would want a strike. However, I can also tell the Hon. Member that the worst thing 1 could do is to follow his suggestion that I involve myself in the items that are at the table and under negotiation now. In fact, it is contrary to the advice of the former Postmaster General, his colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau, who has suggested that the Government should cut the umbilical cord of Canada Post Corporation. That was a decision made by the House in 1981 and we are trying to do that. Why is the Hon. Member suggesting that we go back to the bad old days?


CANADIAN LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD RULING
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, since Canada Post became a Crown corporation in 1981 there had been no strikes until the one last May which was caused by the Government. Why does the Minister not tell Canada Post to accept the ruling of the Canada Labour Board and avoid the next strike? Why does the Minister want a strike?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this Hon. Member and other Hon. Members on both sides of the House complained for literally decades about the service provided by Canada Post. Through franchising, the post office will be able to increase service to Canadians dramatically.
Why is the Hon. Member suggesting Canada Post should not carry through with this attempt to improve services to Canadians? Why is this Hon. Member being a mouthpiece for J.-C. Parrot?

September 3, 1987
Business of the House TAX REFORM


FOOD TAX ISSUE-COMMITTEE EXAMINATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a short, quick question for the Chairman of the Finance Committee. I wonder if he could indicate whether the Finance Committee has any plans to conduct an inquiry into a food tax or whether the Finance Committee plans to conduct any study into exempting food from a consumption tax.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the committee is working on Phase 1 of the White Paper dealing with income tax and the relevant sales tax measures on the federal sales tax as it presently exists. After the first of the year, I expect the committee will take a look at Phase 2 and what may have occurred between now and then. Of course all items that might be taxed will be looked at, and how a new tax proposal might be put together will be examined in accordance with the proposal in the White Paper.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House Leader to give us a statement of the business the Government expects to present to the House during the coming days.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague's question, I would advise that the House will continue with debate on Bill C-84 today and, if it is not completed today, we would anticipate calling that Bill next week until it is completed.
If a message is received from the Senate requiring further debate on Bill C-22, we would then proceed to take up that item. As a backup to that would be second reading of Bill C-68 respecting the Bretton Woods Agreement and, if time permits next week, we would then move to second reading of Bill C-61, a Bill respecting measures dealing with the proceeds of crime.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-first and Twentysecond reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, in both official languages.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who recognize that there are troubles in many parts of the world causing people to seek safety in Canada from persecution.
Recognizing that Canada has established standards of refugee status determination but that existing procedures have broken down under the unexpected strains, also understanding that the Standing Committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force and has the support of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals, they are asking that Parliament enact legislation that will embody the principles involved in this report.
They also recognize that the report encourages fair and quick oral hearings for refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, and provides universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Conservative Government intends to consider the possibility of saddling Canadians with a tax on goods and services, food included; and considering that the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) and the militants are against this tax, I have here a petition signed by residents of my riding who urge Parliament to reject any measure designed to levy a sales tax on food products.
I have another petition signed by residents of my riding, this time from the southern or lower region of the riding, who also urge Parliament to reject any measure designed to levy a sales tax on food products.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of people associated with Mosaic, a multiethnic service in Vancouver.
September 3, 1987

They ask that, whereas one-third of Canadians speak neither English nor French and are of neither English nor French ancestry, and multiculturalism has been an official national policy since 1971; whereas multiculturalism is one of the four cornerstones of Canadian society and has not been recognized as a fundamental characteristic in the Accord, they call upon Parliament to urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government to amend the constitutional Accord by entrenching our nation's multicultural heritage in reality as a fundamental characteristic in the opening clause of the Constitution.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and responsibility to present a petition from a number of Canadians who point out that troubles in many parts of the world cause people to seek safety and asylum in Canada and that Canada in the past has established refugee status determination procedures, that these have broken down under the strain of recent years and that a committee of the House has proposed a new procedure which is quicker and fairer than the one now in place and that this procedure has the support of all Parties in the House as well as a number of organizations. However, the Government put in place procedures which turned refugees away.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to bring in legislation which embodies the principle of fair and quick oral hearings before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada and make the claim.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of a group of citizens from Quebec who are concerned that Bill C-55 threatens the traditional commitment of Canada to assisting refugees. They suggest the Bill be withdrawn and legislation fair to refugees reaching our shores be substituted instead.

[Translation}


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
_____________________________________8747
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When debate was interrupted at eleven o'clock the Flon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) had six minutes remaining in his question and comment period. 1 will entertain further questions and comments.
There being none, questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-84. To begin with I would like to say a word of appreciation to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), for his hard work on this issue in committee as it dealt with Bill C-84, as it is working now on C-55, and for his continuing interest in this entire issue. In the spirit of nonpartisanship, I should also say a word of appreciation for the work done by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Similarly, I would like to have been able to say a word of appreciation for the work that the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) would have done on this Bill had he been permitted by the Government to sit on the committee. As we all know, the Hon. Member was the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. Over the past few months, as he became more and more aware of the concerns of refugees and the problem of refugee status determination, he took a very active interest. At the same time he saw the Government going in a direction diametrically opposite to what his committee recommended and to that which is considered to be fair and just to the refugees.
The Government brought us back to deal with this legislation. It is the main item on the agenda. This is what constituted the crisis which justified the Government's calling the House back in August. Some 174 boat people landing off the coast of Nova Scotia constitute a crisis. There is a crisis but it is not in Canada particularly. It is a world crisis. It exists because there are over 13 million refugees around the world as defined by the UN Convention. If we look at other kinds of refugees, including those refugees from famine, ecological disaster, and internal causes, there would be many millions more. It has been pointed out that every day, 365 days a year, for the last 30 years, an average of 700 people have become refugees. Yet we create a crisis because 174 of them waded ashore in Nova Scotia.

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I would like to share a few figures with you to give you some idea of the magnitude of the problem. In Central America today there are 1.5 million refugees. There are two million Palestinian refugees in the Middle East. Some of these refugees are second and third generation. Some three million Afghans have fled to Pakistan and Iran since the Russian invasion of 1979. Some two million people were displaced in Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos over the last 10 years. Between 1980 and 1985, 400,000 people were forced to flee from Uganda. Millions of Africans have been displaced by war, internal oppression, famine and ecological disaster such as the advance of the Sahel. In the tragic split of the India subcontinent of 1947, at the time of the partition, over 14 million Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were displaced. Some of them moved south into India from Pakistan and others moved the opposite way. This is the magnitude of the problem our world has faced in the last few years.
While we in Canada think we have a crisis, the heaviest impact of this crisis has fallen on Third World countries. There are 25 Third World countries where more than 50,000 unassimilated refugees live in camps. The 20 countries with the highest ratio of refugees to local population are all in the Third World, and those countries have a per capita annual income of less than $700.
Sudan is perhaps a particularly outstanding example of the pressure this puts on a poor country. Sudan is under stress politically, economically and ecologically. It has had to create a special department with more than 1,500 people to look after the more than one million refugees who flooded into Sudan from Chad, Ethiopia and Uganda. In some of its refugee camps in the south the mortality rate is about 285 per 1,000. In a 12-month period 285 refugees out of 1,000 would die. That is the tragic condition of refugees in some parts of our world today. Yet we feel we have a crisis in Canada because of 174 boat people.
In May of 1979 there was a special conference on refugees in Africa. President Nyerere of Tanzania spoke to that and I would like to share some of his words. He was speaking particularly to the African situation, but I think it applies to all of us. He said:
Even if there was not a single new refugee in Africa from this day forward, it is relevant to remember that a refugee stays a refugee for up to 70 years if we do not make provision for his or her integration into our societies. Either we make arrangements whereby refugees can become self-supporting or they have to be fed for a lifetime . . . Refugees have only one thing in common-that they have fled from their country. Even the cause of their flight will be different. It may be persecution, or social upheaval, or war, or it may be famine which causes a disregard of borders. The refugees are usually, but not quite always, without property or means of earning a living.
But apart from the fact of seeking refuge they are as varied as Africa's people are varied. They will be of many ideologies or of none, of many different religions, and many different cultures. They may be nomadic or pastoral, just as they may be agriculturalists or urban workers. They will have different levels of education; they will be different in ambition, and in character.
All refugees are certainly victims, but they do not consequently lose their individual ideas about life and their own purpose. They will include the ambitious, the optimist, the pessimist, the honest hard-working man and the
sly delinquent; the person who will make the best of things, and the man who will grumble about everything. And so on. Generalizations about refugees are very dangerous; all that can safely be said is that they have sought refuge.
He goes on to point out how refugees often create large problems for the countries in which they seek asylum. This is particularly the case for Third World countries. Then he says:
Yet refugees are in no position to consider the problems of the country they flee to.
I suggest we should think about that as we debate this legislation; refugees are not in any position to think of the problems of the country to which they are fleeing because they are so preoccupied with their own desperate struggle for some kind of freedom and dignity.
Nyerere talks about the very slow progress that has been made in dealing with the problems of refugees. Indeed, on a world basis, we have fallen back in the last few years. Speaking of Africa, he asks why this is:
I do not believe it is a result of ill will, but rather that all the governments of Africa are busy and hard-pressed, trying daily to perform the miracle of the five loaves and two fishes. They are subject to many pressures from their people and on behalf of economic interests elsewhere. And there is no countervailing pressure in support of the refugee victims of injustice and oppression. The only pressure is our own awareness of Africa's unity and of our common humanity with our brothers and sisters. It appears that this is not a very strong pressure in comparison with others to which we are subject.
I believe we can apply to our world what he said about the common awareness of Africa's unity. The only countervailing pressure to completely closing all doors to refugees is our awareness of our unity as humankind and our obligations as human beings to our brothers and sisters in our common humanity. The question we must ask, with Nyerere, is whether or not in Canada in 1987 it is enough to keep our doors open.
There has been less funding by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to deal with long-term solutions for the refugee problems. Indeed, of the funding available to the UNHCR in 1970, 80 per cent was going to long-term solutions. However, as the result of the pressure of immediate problems in 1981, that had fallen from 80 per cent to 20 per cent. Last year it had risen again to 40 per cent, but we are still devoting far too little money to the long-term solution of the refugee problem. We then wonder why it is snowballing onto our doorsteps.
There is an important role for affluent countries in the north, such as Canada, to play in helping Third World countries cope with the refugee problems within their own borders. Instead of doing that, we are shutting the door. We are applying more restrictive measures.
Bill C-84 is supposed to deal with an emergency, but the Bill has been hastily drafted, rushed through committee, and the Government has refused to consider some of the well thought out amendments that were presented by opposition Parties. It has refused to listen to the kinds of interventions that have been made by a wide variety of Canadian organizations that
September 3, 1987

appeared to give their testimony. These organizations included representatives of our churches, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Bar Association, and refugee aid organizations. The Government has refused to listen to these considered, well thought out concerns of people who want to correct the abuses but do not want it to create an unjust situation.
The only conclusion one can reach is that the Government is playing on the fears of Canadians. While the fears are real and there is a concern among Canadians, I do not believe that these fears can be justified by the facts. If the Government was responsible, instead of playing on those fears it would attempt to deal with the situation, seek to allay those fears and explain the real facts about refugees.
Canadians have nothing to fear from the number of refugees who have come into Canada over the last 40 years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s we received some 60,000 boat people from Southeast Asia. They have not destroyed the fabric of Canadian society.
Since the 1940s we have received almost 500,000 refugees. They have made an invaluable contribution to Canadian society. We do not have to fear the contribution that refugees will make.
The attitude that we bring to refugees is one of those issues that will determine what kind of people and society we will be in the future. We can either have a society that is open, multiracial and a model for the kind of world we must create if humankind is going to live and prosper on a globe with very finite resources, or we can react as this legislation seems to suggest and move back to a more closed society that characterized the societies of our ancestors.
In early times it was a trait to be afraid of the people who lived in the next village or community, afraid of people who belonged to a different tribe or spoke with a slightly different dialect. Do we want to move back to that kind of closed society?
We have often thought about the kind of contribution refugees and immigrants from different parts of the world have made to Canadian society. We often emphasize the economic and business contributions, but I would like to think about the contribution these people have made to our level of tolerance and understanding. Perhaps I could use an example from my own ancestry to illustrate this. Some of my ancestors came from Ireland over 100 years ago. Like many other people who came from the old country, I presume they brought their prejudices with them. We know that there was a good deal of prejudice between Protestants and Catholics in the early years in Canada. However, 140 years later, that prejudice is left far behind us in Canada. The very idea of Protestant and Catholic bigotry seems sadly outdated, but when we consider the history of Ireland and the current events there, we see that it is still happening. Canadians cannot understand why.
I suggest that we have moved beyond this kind of prejudice and bigotry because, with so many other people coming to our
Immigration Act, 1976
nation, it just did not make sense for two Irishmen to fight over obscure points of religion.
Today, there are interchurch committees on refugees, consisting of Protestant and Catholic churches that come before the House of Commons to request a more open refugee policy. Even 30 years ago, a United Church moderator would complain that there were too many catholic immigrants coming to Canada. There has been a tremendous change in some of our thinking.
I suggest that we owe that change to the fact that so many people have come to Canada and created a multicultural kind of society. Some people have developed new prejudices, but that is another matter. There is still a fear of the stranger, a kind of latent racism.
I would like to share a poem with you, Mr. Speaker, a poem written at the time of the rise of Hitler by W. H. Auden, the English poet. In the poem we see that all the concerns that we have today for documents, committees, politicians, racism, and the fear that refugees will take away our daily bread were there 40 and 50 years ago. The poem is entitled Refugee Blues. The poem is either a Jewish couple talking to each other or a Jewish parent talking to his or her child. The poem reads:
Say this city has ten million souls,
Some are living in mansions, some are living in holes:
Yet there's no place for us, my dear, yet there's no place for us.
Once we had a country and we thought it fair,
Look at the atlas and you'll find it there:
We cannot go there now, my dear, we cannot go there now.
In the village churchyard there grows an old yew,
Every spring it blossoms anew:
Old passports can't do that, my dear, old passports can't do that.
The consul banged the table and said:
'If you've got no passport you're officially dead':
But we are still alive, my dear, but we are still alive.
Went to a committee; they offered me a chair;
Asked me politely to return next year:
But where shall we go to-day, my dear, but where shall we go to-day?
Came to a public meeting; the speaker got up and said:
Tf we let them in, they will steal our daily bread';
He was talking of you and me, my dear, he was talking of you and me.
Thought I heard the thunder rumbling in the sky;
It was Hitler over Europe, saying: 'They must die';
O we were in his mind, my dear, O we were in his mind.
Saw a poodle in a jacket fastened with a pin,
Saw a door opened and a cat let in:

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
But they weren't German Jews, my dear, but they weren't
German Jews.
Went down the harbour and stood upon the quay,
Saw the fish swimming as if they were free:
Only ten feet away, my dear, only ten feet away.
Walked through a wood, saw the birds in the trees;
They had no politicians and sang at their ease:
They weren't the human race, my dear, they weren't the human race.
Dreamed I saw a building with a thousand floors,
A thousand windows and a thousand doors;
Not one of them was ours, my dear, not one of them was ours.
Stood on a great plain in the falling snow;
Ten thousand soldiers marched to and fro:
Looking for you and me, my dear, looking for you and me.
The situation is that refugees look to Canada, yet it is a country which is closing its doors to them. They are aware of the pressure that comes upon them from everywhere.
The objectives in the Bill are objectives which we can support. However, the measures which the Bill enshrines do not meet those objectives. Therefore we cannot support those measures, i urge the Government to try to look at this Bill from the perspective of refugees around the world who are in desperate need. I urge the Government to look at the issue from the point of view of an open and honest consideration of what Canada can do, not try to trump up more fears, not try to build upon those fears but let us have a sane, honest, open and fair refugee policy.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, in his very thoughtful intervention the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) made a very strong case, revealing how this piece of legislation is based on fear and how it really does not go to the root of the problems that Canadians would like to see solved in an expedited and thoughtful manner.
The comments we have heard in committee, as well as in the debate at report stage, have been varied. However, one thing keeps recurring. It is a criticism that is being leveled at us by international organizations. It has to do with the fact that Canada has subscribed to a number of conventions that deal with refugees and that this piece of legislation, Bill C-84, is one that is likely to infringe upon our international obligations concerning refugees. That is likely to put Canada into the position of being criticized for not keeping our word with respect to these conventions.
These are of course very serious criticisms which were made as recently as a couple of weeks ago by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I would be interested to hear the Hon. Member's comments on this particular aspect of the legislation as it affects our reputation in the world.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think that Canada is not alone in developing this type of restrictive
legislation. What we are doing with this legislation is jumping to the head of the pack. We are right in there with countries such as the United States, which is now shutting its doors to refugees. This legislation must certainly make groups such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which awarded the Nansen Medal to Canada last year for our open door policy to refugees, wonder what impact awarding the medal had. It is like when parents praise a child for doing something good the child feels that it somehow has to compensate by doing something bad. The child does this to show that it is really not as good as what the parents had said it was. Canada was complimented for a good policy toward refugees and we now turn around and show that we are really not as good as what the Nansen Medal would indicate.
I am not a lawyer. I cannot say whether or not this law specifically violates the international covenants. I think that is a question in which the legal fraternity can engage. However, it certainly violates the spirit of those covenants. The spirit of those covenants is that Canada has a fair refugee determination process. That is being broken by this legislation.
The concept of being able to turn boats back, a provision which is contained in this Bill, violates the tradition that Canada had which spoke out against other nations which turned boats back when faced with a much more serious problem than was Canada. I refer to countries such as Malaysia and the Philippines. In those countries there was a steady flow of boat people arriving on their shores. To its credit Canada spoke out against that practice. We said that the boats should not be turned back, that that action put the lives of potential refugees in danger. We are now doing the same thing. Not only are we violating our commitments but we can also be accused of a form of international hypocrisy. We say one thing to Third World countries such as Malaysia and then we do the same thing ourselves.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has just outlined the difficulty that Canada is placing itself in internationally, in that it appears to be a hypocrite by saying one thing and then changing its policy with regard to refugees. Can the Hon. Member comment on the Bill from the standpoint-not as a lawyer, since he has disclaimed being a lawyer, but from the point of view of a minister of the church? Ministers also tend to learn something about the law and respect for the law. I wonder what his assessment is of the type of Bill that we have before us in Bill C-84. It lays out some very harsh penalties for people who aid and abet human beings who are seeking refuge in our country. How does the Hon. Member square that with the comments and the only defence from government Members when they say that they will blink their eyes at this particular law? What type of signals does that send out to Canadians from the standpoint of obeying and recognizing the law?
September 3, 1987


James Douglas Manly: Certainly, it must be a confusing signal. In the past the Government has urged churches and refugee aid committees to help refugees. Now a law is being passed that makes helping people who have no proper documentation to be accepted as refugees an offence which carries severe penalties. We have encouraged them, and now we are passing a law that states it is illegal.
Then the Minister states, "We are not aiming this law at you, we are trying to get at the agents who are doing this for profit and commercial purposes". What are the people in the churches to think of this whole situation? On the one hand they have been encouraged to be involved in this activity, and now they are told that it is illegal, but not to worry, they will not be prosecuted. It puts the churches in the same category as young people who smoke dope. They never know when the heavy arm of the law will come down on them. It is a law that will be selectively applied. It is a bad law. It should not be accepted by any Government that has any respect for the rule of law in a free and democratic society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this third reading debate on Bill C-84. Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to join the debate on second reading nor in the parliamentary committee which examined this issue over the past few weeks. Still I should like to make a few very brief comments in the House today-I do not intend to prolong the study of this legislative measure even though I do not agree with it-to let Hon. Members know that I am against the Bill as presented by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I do not support the Bill, but nobody should conclude that I condone the activities of people who arrive here by circumventing the law. You know very well that I have no sympathy for people who break the laws of our country and that, like all other Canadians, I too wish Canada had the legislation required to curb such abuses, as I said a moment ago.

We should all remember that the situation brought to the attention of the Canadian public, largely because of the Tory Government, is not something new. It did not happen one day this summer. Indeed, a boatload of refugees arrived in Canada over one year ago. The Government did nothing. A year later, a second boatload arrives with 174 people from the Indian subcontinent. This time the Government is trying to cling to power desperately; it is right at the bottom of the public opinion totem pole, it is scandal-ridden, and defective in every single way, shape, and form, it has lost the confidence of the Canadian people, and it just happens that the Government
Immigration Act, 1976
decides that this second event is going to be a crisis of large proportion.
The Government failed to tell Canadians that that was not the only day in 1987 when refugees arrived on our shores. In the year 1986, 18,000 people claimed refugee status here. That is 346 people per week. However, 174 show up one day this year and the Government decides, that's it, right now there is a crisis, Parliament must be recalled. It just happens that the Government has this multinational drug Bill it wants to pass as well, but that is not the real reason, of course. It only wants to recall Parliament to deal with this issue, say the Tories across the way.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, being the objective non-partisan person that you are, one can never, ever believe a Tory, because they brought us here under those false pretences. What they really wanted to do was sweeten the pot for the free trade negotiations and pass the objectionable drug Bill. At the same time the Government thought it would use this issue to drum up some support. As the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) eloquently and correctly stated earlier today, the Government was using in every means possible in a desperate attempt to drum up support.
Earlier this summer the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told us that it was an emergency and Parliament had to be recalled. The Prime Minister in his deep, serious voice, that few of us believe but with which we are all familiar, stated that Parliament had to be recalled quickly, right away. Two weeks later the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) found out that no one had advised the Speaker that Parliament had to be recalled. It slipped their minds. After all, it was only an emergency so one could not think of everything. The Prime Minister and his cronies were busy shining their Gucci shoes and did not have time to think of it. Finally, two weeks later, they advised the Speaker and, of course, Mr. Speaker did agree to recall Parliament within a few days.
The point I am making is that a boatload of refugees arrived a year before, and it is not an emergency. A year later a second boatload arrives, and then it is declared to be an emergency two weeks after the boat arrived, and two weeks later no one tells the Speaker that it was an emergency in order that the Speaker could recall Parliament.
We are supposed to believe that the Government is sincere in its approach? I am sure a few people believe the Government is sincere, but I am not one of them. I do not believe in the things that it does. I do not believe that the Government could decide one day this year that something was an emergency when 346 people per week for the last year have been claiming refugee status. In 1985, 8,000 people claimed refugee status; in 1986, 18,000 people claimed refugee status; in the first five months of 1987, 10,000 claimed refugee status. But it became an emergency in July at the time the Government was in a desperate position, trying to cling to power, at a time when it was in a desperate position trying to salvage its free trade

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
negotiations, and everything else that was going wrong with the Tories.
Parliament was recalled to deal with this legislation. Many people have brought to your attention. Sir, and to the attention of the Canadian public and the House of Commons that the Bill is seriously flawed. The Bill states that we have to punish people who bring in refugees. I could be punished. In the mid-1970s 1 participated in bringing the boat people from South East Asia. I was one of the people who participated in Project 4000 under the leadership of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), who was then the Mayor of Ottawa. At that time as Mayor of Ottawa she directed a very successful project of which I was a member. If I did that today would 1 be a criminal, according to the Tories? That is what the Bill states. What it ought to do is provide punishment for the criminals or the people who have done something wrong. The Bill should provide for the punishment of people who try to bring others to Canada in a fraudulent manner for profit. That is wrong. 1 am the first to say that is wrong, but that does not mean that everyone who participates in helping the underprivileged of this world is a criminal. It is obvious that people who give of their time in an unselfish manner are not criminals.
Finally, one must wonder about the Government. For the second consecutive summer the Government has failed so miserably to accomplish its legislative agenda that it had to recall Parliament. What does that tell you, Mr. Speaker? It tells me, and I am sure you will agree, that the Prime Minister and the Government cannot get their act together. The Government cannot get organized in order to get its legislation through before the summer recess. If the Government had gotten things under control Parliament would not have been recalled for so-called emergency situations two summers in a row.
This was the second attempt this summer to recall Parliament on a so-called emergency. You will recall that the first time the Deputy Prime Minister wanted Parliament recalled to deal with the drug Bill. As you know, he was more or less told by the Speaker to get lost, and that did not work out. A few weeks later the second so-called emergency arose, and this time the Government succeeded in getting Parliament reconvened, the real reason being to deal with the so-called first emergency rather than the second one.

What I mean, Mr. Speaker, is that for the better part of the year the Government has been wasting the time of the House. Among other things, I would draw your attention to the many hours the House spent on capital punishment, an issue which should not have been brought before the House in the first place.


Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Why?


Don Boudria: Because the matter had been settled a decade earlier already, as the Hon. Member opposite would know. The Prime Minister was quite reluctant to revive the death penalty debate, but he had made a commitment, one of his 338 election promises, and he just had to live up to one of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There will be time for questions and comments after the Hon. Member finishes his remarks. I hope Hon. Members will allow him to finish in order that we can have a very quiet day.


Don Boudria: As I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government made 338 promises during the last electoral campaign. 1 have here a copy of these 338 promises. I shall be quite happy to give one to the Hon. Member opposite, if he has forgotten his own commitments, and to any Canadian listening to us who would like to have one. If they write to my office postage free, I shall be happy to send them a copy of the book containing these 338 promises.
The Government decided to waste the time of the House with the debate on capital punishment instead of dealing with many other serious issues, such as finding a valid solution to the refugee problem, and various other pieces of legislation which would have been useful to improve the lot of the Canadian population, which is now suffering under this Conservative Government, but that is only temporary. The Conservative Government has managed its timetable so badly that it has had to call back Parliament for so-called emergencies two summers in a row. Having done so, it introduced Bills which were seriously defective, at least this year. I indicated earlier some of the weaknesses of this Bill. While I am the first to say that we need new legislation to deal with refugees, we have no right to pass defective legislation under the pretext that we need something else.
We have to offer the Canadian population legislation which is effective and better than what was there before.
Now that the Government has refused all amendments introduced by the Members of this House, including the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), whom I would like to congratulate for his excellent work on this issue, and various other Members, such as the Chairman of the Committee, a Government Member, who has had the courage to tell the Canadian people and all parliamentarians that this Bill is defective and could not and should not be supported by anyone, I invite all the Members of this House to reject this Bill and ask the Government opposite to prepare a Bill which makes sense and which can be supported by the majority of Canadians.
We should not forget that it was the Members of the Opposition who demanded one year ago that the Government introduce a Bill dealing with refugees. The Government dragged its feet, and one year later, introduced an excessive,
September 3, 1987

defective and badly written Bill and refused all amendments which could have improved it.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore invite all Members of this House to reject Bill C-84 because the Conservative Government has refused the amendments which could have made this Bill more acceptable. In its present form, the Bill is totally unacceptable for the great majority of Canadians.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). The refugee legislation which we are debating today, Bill C-84, and the other Bill that is in committee, Bill C-55, will become the refugee determination system. The Member quite rightly pointed out that we need legislation which stops abuse, but not on the backs of legitimate refugees; legislation which makes that clear in legal terms.
There are many parts of Bill C-84 which will be challenged in the courts because they do not live up to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within our Canadian Constitution. All Canadians are equal under the law. That is why I was very disturbed this morning to read a letter from the President of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union who alleges that the Deputy Minister of Immigration and others would have violated the immigration laws of this land for a personal return or as a personal favour. That allegation must be investigated. If it is left unaddressed and swept under the carpet it will give a very clear signal to Canadians that there is one law for the Deputy Minister and his friends and another law for all other Canadians and claimants.
I would like my hon. friend to address for a moment that very dangerous signal which can be sent out. At the very time the Government is talking about curbing abuse, we have heard an allegation by a union president that abuse is taking place in the higher offices of the Government. Would the Hon. Member share his comments on this issue with the House?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague, the Member for York West for that excellent question. He is very rapidly becoming one of the most knowledgeable experts in this House on immigration and refugee issues. Very clearly what the Member is indicating to us is that the allegations made, albeit not thoroughly investigated yet, do give an indication at this very delicate time to many Canadians that certain individuals appear to act in a manner which suggests they are above the law. There is one law for ordinary Canadians in immigration policy, and there is another law for my constituent who is trying to get her mother and father into Canada. Some have to wait endlessly in a line-two years in one case of a constituent from Orleans to whom I spoke this morning. There is another law for those who want an individual to be here for what appears to be some form of personal reward. That gives a very dangerous signal to Canadians. Compound that fact with the two things I have just described, plus the two following issues: one, the arbitrary piece of legislation with which we are dealing now with its
Immigration Act, 1976
tremendous failing. Second, this country is not even meeting its immigration quotas it now has. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are short by tens of thousands-I believe the number is somewhere in the order of some 40,000 or 50,000 people short of meeting the quotas-


Mr. Witer:: The levels for 1987 are 115,000, up from 85,000 in 1984.


Don Boudria: The Member sitting to my extreme right, which is appropriate under the circumstance, could correct me if he says that we are meeting our immigration quotas. My understanding is that we are between 40,000 and 50,000 short of meeting our immigration quotas.


Alan Redway: Immigration has increased in the last three years.


Don Boudria: Members will have their opportunities to state whether in fact the Government is meeting its quotas. The Government has increased the quota, yes. The target is increasing, but the shortcomings are worse, Mr. Speaker.


Andrew Witer: The number of landings was 100,000 in 1986, up from 84,000 in 1984.


Don Boudria: We are desperately short of staff to handle the number of claimants in the area of refugees. We know how badly equipped we are there. We know that it takes a year and a half or so for the refugee determination process, and in the way of applications for immigration it is even worse.
It seems, at least from the allegation made by the union in this case, that if you know the right person at the right time for the right reason, the rest is irrelevant. You can get into Canada very quickly.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the other area of concern I would like to have the Member address is the concern that regardless of what the clauses purport to say, claim or do, many legal experts have testified before the committee that the legislation and the particular clauses are seriously flawed. This piece of legislation will be tied up by the courts, which would have the effect of paralyzing the policy which is the concern of the legal community. Here we have a Government that brought us together under the guise of an emergency only to have in 12 months, 16 months or 18 months this policy which will be made null and void and unworkable because there will be rulings by the Supreme Court or other courts that will make a determination that it is unconstitutional.
In light of that, would the Hon. Member support having the Government send this piece of legislation directly to the Supreme Court for a judicial review so that we can buy some time and alleviate having the legislation travelling a very slow and agonizing death in the courts? The purpose of a judicial review would be to get a Supreme Court ruling immediately so

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
that we may determine whether this legislation is unconstitutional.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this Bill, as reprehensible as it may be, as awful a piece of legislation as it is-and we all know that it is that-I think the Hon. Member is quite right in saying that if the Government wants to proceed with a Bill that is bad, we have to disagree with it. However, why not send it to the courts before proclamation and make a commitment now in the House? I invite the Minister to do that. We will not proclaim the Bill but send it to the courts and obtain the necessary rulings first and only then proceed with it. I am expressing a personal view here, with which I am sure my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), will agree. If the Bill is sent to the courts and the courts determine that it is not only reprehensible but unconstitutional, hopefully the Government will then drop the whole issue, start all over again and draft a proper piece of legislation which we all recognize we need.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the Hon. Member's suggestion. I might remind him that the legislation is intended indeed to end abuses and prevent a massive invasion of illegal immigrants into Canada.
I might remind him that while in 1980 the number of claims totaled 1,600, it reached 18,000 in 1986 and went up to 16,500 for the first seven months of this year.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is aimed indeed at putting an end to all those abuses and to the entry of illegal immigrants into Canada. What we are proposing is to impose heavier penalties for smugglers and carriers and also possible detention until the identity of the person seeking entry into Canada can be established.
It would therefore seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that these are appropriate provisions in the circumstances, in view of the recent entry of illegal immigrants into Canada. So we have to act as a responsible nation to protect both our borders and the people of Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite just told us himself, no doubt inadvertently, that the legislation was not urgent. He just told us the number of refugee claims has increased gradually. So if there were something like 4,000 claims in 1984, 8,000 in 1985, 18,000 in 1986 and so on, this leads me to wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the increase was gradual, why the Government waited until six or seven weeks ago to decide there was an emergency. Obviously this is hypocrisy. Because the Hon. Member himself admitted the number of refugees or refugee claimants was 346 a week, for every week in 1987. So there was no urgency in any one week in August or July. Such was the case during all the other weeks. He just admitted inadvertently that the Conservative Government has been acting hypocritically, Mr. Speaker.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the debate on Bill C-84. Like the previous Member, I was not in committee but I have listened carefully to the debaters on this motion. Having myself been involved in issues with refugees and having travelled abroad, I think I have an understanding of some of the issues.
First, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who has worked very hard on the committee and before this House to bring to the Canadian public's attention and that of the Members of this House some of the very serious issues related to this Bill. I would have to join others in a non-partisan vote of appreciation for the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who very eloquently yesterday and today addressed the issues. Finally I would like to show my appreciation for the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais).
I think it is significant that Members from three Parties are commenting and raising concern about this Bill. It is particularly difficult, I am sure, for the Hon. Member for La Prairie to make his views known. I believe he has done so because, having heard the evidence, he can see some of the flaws that might rest in this legislation. That is a very significant point because the House was recalled on the basis of the situation being a national emergency. I would mention, if I can comment as a new Member, that that is not always reflected by the number of Hon. Members who are here.
First, I would like to say that-


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Far be it from me to chastise the Hon. Member because that would not be fair. Perhaps the Chair might wish to refer the new Hon. Member to the rules of the House as they apply to the presence or absence in the House of all Hon. Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) is correct in rising on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) is a new Member. I appreciate the fact that she is not quite aware that Hon. Members are not to reflect on who is present and who is not present in the Chamber. I am sure she will accordingly take heed of House rules.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr. Speaker.
I do not assume that government Members have a malevolent view and are trying to do something harmful or be overly repressive. However, I would say that one must observe that in trying to redress an abuse, there seems to be somewhat of an absence of common sense. This reflects a misunderstanding or at least a naive understanding of world politics. I believe it does not address the real concerns of Canadians. I would like to focus on those points.
September 3, 1987

This Bill will be remembered as the Bill that turned back ships at sea and provided penalties for those church groups and interested citizens who acted in good conscience as world citizens to protect those people whose lives and livelihoods were in danger. We in Canada have been fortunate because for over 100 years, we have not experienced war. Our political process has been free. We have had the right to participate without loss of life or liberty.
I was born in Canada during the Second World War. My family is of Scottish and British heritage. While my family was not rich, we are privileged. We have never had to live in fear of authorities because of our political views. A member of our family has never been taken away in the middle of the night and never seen again. We have never been persecuted because of our religion, our colour, our ethnic origin or our culture.
In 1939, if I had been of a different ethnic origin, of a different religion, from a different country, I may have been one of those Jews who were turned away from Canadian shores to die in a concentration camp. However, I was fortunate. I was a Canadian.
Recently I spent time travelling in South and Central America. I met people who were afraid to speak, people who had been punished for speaking out against their Government, people who lived in fear, people who because they fight for what they believe in were not just ostracized by their society, not simply ridiculed by their peers but were put into a situation that was a matter of life and death. I suggest that very few Canadians can truly know what that means. Some people may feel that it has been exaggerated and that that is not the way it really is in other parts of the world today. Alas, this is not the case.
One of the most difficult challenges faced by citizens of free countries is first to acknowledge that we are privileged and second to acknowledge that this privilege carries with it a tremendous responsibility, a responsibility to understand what not being free means. As legislators, we are free to disagree publicly and to appear on television or in the media challenging the Government. We must accept responsibility and acknowledge that just because we are all right and safe, we should not become smug. Nor can we have the luxury of isolating ourselves from the realities of a harsher world.
We must accept that freedom undefended is freedom lost. Certainly we cannot have control over other countries, but we must do our utmost to give refuge to those who live in peril and fear because of their beliefs. We cannot turn a blind eye to them. 1 suggest that as Members not only of this House but of the media learn more about political life in countries outside Canada, we are forced to acknowledge that our safe, free world is not the whole world. One is reminded of Marshall McLuhan who wrote that the world is a global village.
Certainly few of us can be isolated. Few of us can simply say: "Just don't bother us because everything is fine here".
Immigration Act, 1976
For a moment, let us review the history of refugees whose descendants make up part of our safe, free and democratic society today. They are the blacks who fled pre-Civil War America to escape from a system of slavery which was then legal south of the border. They are Irish immigrants who fled the famine in their native country in the 1800s. They are refugees from Marxist Russia, Mennonites, Hungarians, Czechoslovakians and Indo-Chinese boat people. All these people came here because they wanted to be free to participate in our democracy and in many cases, they were fleeing for their lives.
By and large, these people have integrated into society. I am sure many of their descendants are represented on legislatures all across Canada. In fact, one could suggest that for some of us, though not for myself, it might be very difficult to do in one's country of origin what one can do freely and openly in Canada, and that is, to argue against the Government and the Government's policies, something we are doing today in an open and democratic society.
Canadians have long had pride in our international reputation as a host to legitimate refugees. In past decades, refugees from many other places have formed a valued part of our social fabric. The Government's response makes a mockery of the contribution these former refugees have made to our country by offering a type of legislation in Bill C-84 that treats all potential refugees as criminals rather than as prospective citizens. It is based in many instances on a presumption of guilt as opposed to a presumption of innocence until, through a fair hearing, it can be proven whether or not a person is a legitimate refugee.
I suggest that the Government has generated a great deal of misinformation to justify anti-refugee legislation. Let me take a moment to discuss three of the most commonly heard myths used to justify this legislation. First, it has been said that refugee claimants in Canada are queue jumpers who make it more difficult for legitimate refugees to come to Canada. I do not know who first used the term "queue jumpers", but it gives a visual image of a nice, neat line-up of people standing there with documents in hand waiting to get into Canada. Then someone comes along and elbows them out of the way to get ahead. That is an image none of us like, and one can see the public's response. In fact, people who have gone through the immigration process do not see it as a nice, neat line. They waited many years and it is often a very complex process.
Problems in the immigration process certainly contribute to the current refugee question. We believe they are solvable and must be addressed. While the Government has attempted to do this, its tactics and methods are much more severe than necessary.
I have also heard expressed the opinion that Canada has too many immigrants. Other speakers have addressed this point. How many immigrants Canada should have is partly a matter

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
of personal opinion. We in the north, for example, may have a different view than those in southern Canada. We have had a number of refugees in the north, in the Yukon, and they have been extremely important contributing members of our society. It is certainly not the most hospitable environment for some, perhaps, but 1 can say unequivocally that these people have contributed a tremendous amount to our society.
About 50,000 people emigrate from Canada to other countries every year. We do have our own out-migration. As other speakers have mentioned, while immigration increased to some extent, we have not reached our set limits. For example, the Government set a target of about 115,000 immigrants this year, and in 1986 there were slightly over 99,000.
The third comment one hears, which really has not been discouraged by the Government, is the suggestion that terrorists use the refugee system to get into Canada. That really does not make much sense because most modern terrorists are well-trained and well-funded. They can easily obtain counterfeit passports and visas, and it is not likely that a terrorist will go through the very uncomfortable process of passage in an overcrowded boat to land in Canada in the middle of the night when they could quite easily come here through more legitimate means.
I would like to address one other area of this Bill and its emergency nature that is, the impression that the Canadian people have been calling for the Government to do something about this problem. 1 agree, as other members of the NDP have agreed, that there is a need for better refugee legislation. I do not think anyone in this House can accurately say what all Canadians think. We have to form our opinions based on those who contact us, and the media, and so on. Therefore, I would like to share with the House the thoughts of Canadians who have contacted me. I have a number of letters but I will just read some excerpts from a few of them to give the tenor of what they are saying to me. 1 have not been selective in any way. Being a new Member I have not received a lot of mail on this subject but these do represent the general tenor of the letters I have received.
I have one from Whitehorse, Yukon, and the person talks in some detail about the refugee. She says there has been a lot in the news about the ship people who came to Canada illegally. She says we cannot turn away people who are in danger of losing their lives. There must be a way to control this so the system is fair to everyone concerned. She imagines that people who are trying to come to Canada legally are frustrated, but we cannot deny the refugees at the same time.
1 also have a letter from Winnipeg, Manitoba, from someone who writes to express deep concern about the Bill to curb the flow of refugees coming into Canada. If passed, this law will result in thousands of legitimate refugee claimants being deported to the countries from which they fled, where many of them will face unjust imprisonment, torture and death. This person does not believe the Government's assertion
that only bogus claimants will be turned away. A look at the provisions of the Bill makes that clear. All refugee claimant applicants will be given only one chance to make a claim when they arrive in Canada. The person goes on to describe some other concerns and summarizes by expressing great concern that we will be denying entry to people fleeing persecution in violation both of our commitment under the UN Convention and of Christian and humanitarian principles. The person is not at all concerned about the few would-be immigrants who might make false refugee claims in order to bypass regular immigration channels. If Canada's immigration laws were liberalized, there would be no need for these persons to attempt such desperate measures. It is ironic that even our present low immigration quotas are not being filled, while thousands around the world are waiting anxiously to come to Canada. He asks as both a Christian and a Canadian citizen that we cause this Bill to be withdrawn, defeated or amended.
I have another letter from Whitehorse, Yukon, again. Bona fide refugees should be able to find a safe haven in Canada, it says.
Another letter is from Quebec. Briefly stated, the concerns are as follows. Refugees who may arrive in desperate circumstances and without documented evidence of persecution in their homeland will be required to make a credible plea for refugee status within a very short period of time. If they are denied refugee status, if they give the determination panel the wrong answers out of fear of authority or because they are confused, their grounds for appeal are severely limited. This person goes on to express some other concerns and sums up by asking the Government to withdraw the Bill in order that it be replaced with legislation which will end current abuses.
I have another letter from North Bay, Ontario, which says that the ships landing refugees on our shore, the futile attempts of our Navy to intercept incoming refugees, all bring to mind what happened earlier in our history. It summarizes by saying, "Let these people in. These are lives we are talking about, not just written statistics. Do not let history repeat itself."
While I do not purport to speak for all Canadians, I have tried to reflect what some Canadians are saying, those who have contacted me. They are saying what the NDP is saying. We need good legislation. We do not need abusive or repressive legislation.
There are two concerns I would like to highlight and then speak briefly to some points which we believe would improve the legislation. The present law allows the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to sign a certificate saying that someone is a security risk without saying what the evidence against that person is. It is evident to anyone who might be in that position that this is obviously unacceptable in a free society. People have a right to know why they are being turned away.
September 3, 1987

Another area 1 would like to refer to is the necessity for documentation. It is quite impossible to have documentation when you are fleeing a country. That is only common sense.
In conclusion, I urge Members to think about improvements to this Bill. We can solve the problem without abusing others and being repressive.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: As I was listening to the remarks made by my hon. friend, I felt again it was necessary to remind the House of the reasons behind this Bill C-84 dealing with immigrants and refugees. Mr. Speaker, why did Canada come to the conclusion that it had to pass a new legislation in this area? It is because of the immigrants who were arriving in increasing number at our border points seeking refugee status while not being truly refugees. When you realize that there were 1,600 refugees in 1980, 18,000 in 1986, and as many as 16,500 over the past seven months, it is clear that the Government had to take steps to remedy the situation. It is still more pressing when we see boat people coming to our shores and trying to enter Canada illegally, while other people follow the usual channel, respecting our Canadian laws and regulations, and trying to enter Canada legally.
Faced with this wave of people coming to Canada seeking refugee status while not being necessarily true refugees, Canada had to act to remedy the situation.
Moreover, what the Bill is doing, Mr. Speaker, is to impose heavier penalties on smugglers who are helping people enter Canada illegally. In addition to imposing heavier penalties on them, it will make it possible for immigration authorities to detain these people until they make sure of their identities. I want to remind my hon. friend of this: When someone arrives in Canada without proper documents, we are going simply to detain him or her until we can make sure of his or her identity. It seems to me to be normal for us, as the Govenrment, to do our utmost to protect our fellow Canadians and make sure we know those who are coming to Canada. If they are true refugees, Mr. Speaker, they will be allowed to enter Canada. Otherwise, they will not be allowed to enter this country, and I suggest it is our duty as the Government-and I suggest the Opposition should support the Government in this endeavour-to make sure that the people entering this country do so legally, following the usual channels, and that they submit to the normal process to enter this country as immigrants.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments. He asks if we should let people in without documentation. I would say yes, because it is very difficult to get documentation, receive a proper hearing and have a proper investigation. Anyone who has visited a country from which many refugees come would be naive to assume that
Immigration Act, 1976
one could simply go to the friendly immigration office or Minister of Immigration to obtain the proper papers in order to flee the country for being outspoken. Those people should simply be given a proper hearing, and if they are found not to be legitimate refugees, proper action can then be taken. However, they should be entitled to a fair and proper hearing.
Second, it has not often been stated that part of the problem may be with the immigration process as it exists. There is not enough processing of immigrants in many of the countries from which they come. Those who could apply under the regular immigration process are frustrated by the lack of personnel and delay in processing, and therefore try to use other routes.
Many refugees in the world are women. This is of special concern because often they are the most disadvantaged, subject to the most physical and mental abuse, and often have dependent children. They are frequently in dangerous situations, with no ability to control their fertility.
While they are perhaps one of the most disadvantaged people, our immigration policies have not looked upon them favourably.
We cannot be naive about the ability of refugees to obtain documents. Second, an improvement to the immigration process would greatly alleviate the problem of refugees attempting to enter by other means.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Government introduced a Bill at a time when the House is supposed to be in recess. It says that we are faced with an emergency. The Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn), voiced a similar sentiment a couple of minutes ago. He talked about the flood of refugees and how we must deal with them quickly.
Does my colleague not find this strange when the Government permitted hundreds of Portuguese people to come to Canada claiming refugee status because they were Jehovah's Witnesses and were being mistreated in Portugal, and permitted hundreds of Turks who, having lived through a military dictatorship were moving toward a democratic system and came to this country claiming refugee status? Yet the Government could not get its act together to pass a simple regulation that those coming from Turkey and Portugal who wanted to claim refugee status would at least need to have a Canadian visa before coming to Canada. If the Government did not believe quick action was necessary in those cases, how can it now say that we are facing an emergency and must pass the kind of repressive legislation it is proposing?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am probably not very qualified to comment on what is and what is not an emergency in the House, having only been here for a few weeks. However, I refer again to the issue of immigration policy and the definition of who is a refugee and who is an immigrant. That has become very clouded, not only in the minds of the public but in the minds of those who are attempting to come to this country.

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
As a Canadian, I do not want to be seen as repressive and attempting to shut out people who are in fear of their lives while others can apply by jumping the line.
Obviously, the House was recalled on the basis of 174 Sikhs landing on our shores. An article in today's Ottawa Citizen dealt with comments from immigration workers who would be implementing these policies if they were passed. We should also be concerned that we are asking these employees to carry out some rather reprehensible tasks, including boarding boats and turning people away. We should consider if that is the way we want to operate in a free, democratic Canadian society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question and comment period is over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has the floor.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this momentous debate because the future and life of Canada are on the line. Anyone familiar with certain polls or certain comments in the media and listening to this debate would get the impression that Canadians do not take kindly to refugees. That is where I beg to differ. Canadians are not against refugees, but they have no sympathy for any individual or group resorting to illegal tactics to enter this country.
Indeed, Canadians are against bogus refugees. Canada is now in a dilemma, Mr. Speaker, and in the 20 minutes I have I will attempt to explain why we have this phoney refugee dilemma. Precisely because our immigration policy makes it impossible for refugees to qualify, those who could very well qualify and contribute to the development of our country, it does not offer them the opportunity to settle here and become good Canadian citizens.
The Conservative approach to immigrants and refugees might be described as selective. Here is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. 1 would point out from the outset that the total number of immigrants who entered Canada in 1974 was in excess of 200,000, whereas only 86,000 arrived here in 1986. That is a significant difference, Mr. Speaker.
This Government gives greater priority to business-oriented immigrants than the previous administration did. For example, the number of such immigrants rose from 3,555 in 1984 to 5,369 in 1986. In addition, the Government lowered the eligibility criteria for this category.
When the Liberals were in office, business-oriented immigrants had to have more than money, they also had to have the kind of skills which would enable them to make a significant contribution to Canada's economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, we should not throw our doors wide open to these people simply because they bring money with them. I have nothing against money, and it stands to reason that any foreign capital entering Canada and invested in our economy
should be welcome because it creates jobs and spurs economic growth to some extent.
Mr. Speaker, one thing to which 1 object is making money the sole criterion. When someone wants to come to Canada, apart from having some capital to invest, he should also have some ability, something which will allow him to create a new market, develop new products or services, so that we may develop our economy and create jobs without Canadians losing anything by it.
If someone enters Canada with some money and buys an existing store, he will compete with a Canadian business. In selecting immigrant investors, we of course have to look at financial considerations, but we must also look at some rather important criteria, such as their qualifications, capacities, knowledge and the new markets they could create if they came to Canada.
In contrast to the figures I quoted earlier for immigrant investors, the number of family class immigrants decreased by 10,000 between 1984 and 1986, falling from 51,981 in 1984 to 42,798 in 1986.
It should also be emphasized that the Government often refers to the number of immigrants who apply, which is substantially different from the number of immigrants accepted in fact. Many people apply to our immigration offices asking to immigrate to Canada, but they are not necessarily accepted.
Canadians complain increasingly about the system and the fact that the authorities do not allow them to sponsor immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency where 40 per cent of the people come from minority ethnic groups, mostly Italian, of course, but also Polish, Haitian, Greek and Portuguese. The Saint-Leonard-Anjou constituency reflects the Canadian mosaic, with all ethnic groups being represented. Not too long ago, we held a multicultural youth festival. The weather was not very pleasant, but we were there anyway.
It is therefore normal, Mr. Speaker, that, as a Member of Parliament, I often have that frustration. And there lies the dilemma, when Canadians tell us they are against refugees. Not that they are against refugees, simply they do not understand how it is possible for groups to get to our borders. Those people who are good Canadian citizens, who have things of their own, who even have businesses, who are ready to give up their homes, everything they own to have their relatives come to Canada, have to wait a given period of time and in 95 per cent of cases, Mr. Speaker, their relatives are not even allowed entry. So they have to use that illegal way, to claim refugee status. Perhaps this honourable House would be amazed to hear that there are even refugees of Italian origin. It has come to this. Why? It so happens that the doors have been shut so tight in Canada that people who want to come here have to claim refugee status. There is no other way, unless you have money. In order to come to Canada, one must have loads of money or be a refugee.
September 3, 1987

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if only we could have a policy that would allow both genuine refugees to come to Canada and enjoy protection, and people who have all the qualifications of a good Canadian, who have parents or relatives in Canada, to come without resorting to unrealistic and often illegal means, all would be well.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party oppose Bill C-84. Because actually Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 fail to solve the problem we are now facing in Canada. Why does the Government not address that immigration policy, the whole matter of immigration that is so vital to Canada? The reason I already gave in this House, Mr. Speaker, at second reading stage. If in 1958 Canada had had the immigration policy or what is proposed in Bill C-84 and then in Bill C-55, I for one would not be here today in Canada and in this House to speak on immigration policy. This is the problem we have, Mr. Speaker. We cannot afford, as a country that is so great, so vast, so generous, to have legislation as restrictive and repressive as Bill C-84.
Of course, Government Members will suggest: You Liberals only criticize. What would you propose? Mr. Speaker, 1 view Canadian immigration policy as so important, so vital a matter that if I may, I would like to state the Liberal Party's position-a position that is clear and tolerant, that reflects Canada's unique nature.
Let me make it quite clear that we strongly deplore the facts that a few unscrupulous counsellors and other similar profiteers abuse our refugee status determination system. We will support any reasonable measure designed to remove people who take advantage of refugees and of the system. However you should know that the legislation already contains certain provisions under which the Government can take legal action against these people. So we have to make sure that the new measures are an improvement over the existing legislative provisions.
Under Sections 19 to 32 of the Immigration Act, 1976, individuals with a criminal record or likely to indulge in criminal activity are inadmissible in this country. Before being deported pursuant to these sections, the individuals involved must be given a hearing. Subsections 95(i), (j) and (n) also provide that legal action will be taken against counsellors and other profiteers.
Subsection 95(n) under which action had been taken against the captain of the Amelia stipulates that the author of a criminal act may be fined a maximum of $5,000, or imprisoned for a term of less than two years, or both. In the case of summary conviction the subsection provides for a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment for a term of less than six months, or both. Criminal Code sections concerning fraud may also be invoqued.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Government did have a law to take measures to enforce the legislation on the immigration of refugees to Canada. There is no emergency just because 174 people landed on our shores. In the past, Mr. Speaker, Canada did welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees. However, we never had to call back the House of Commons during the summer. It is not that I do not enjoy being here, but like every other Member of Parliament, I had planned to meet my constituents during the summer. However, we are now here to discuss a problem which the Government could have dealt
Immigration Act. 1976
with. Could there be other reasons? I do not want to discuss these reasons for the moment because I believe that the whole refugee issue is important for Canada and I shall use what time remains to speak about it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, as early as in 1980, when our Party was in power, the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), had recognized the problems we are facing today. Studies had been made and changes were officially recommended, in 1984 by Ed Ratush-ny, and in 1985 by Rabbi Plaut, both of whom had been commissioned by the Liberal Government to find solutions before the refugee problem became a real crisis. We Liberals therefore ask for a quicker refugee determination process with universal access. We shall continue to demand two minimum guarantees: First, that there be a hearing for each claimant, which guarantee was ruled necessary by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985 in the Singh case, and second, that we keep our international commitment as signatory of the United Nations Convention on Refugees never to extradite a claimant to a country where he might be in danger. We cannot give our support to any legislation which does not contain these two guarantees.
We also ask for an broader definition of the family class which better corresponds to the concept of the extended family held by many immigrants. For many of them, it is quite normal for a cousin to live under their roof and be considered a member of the immediate family. We are talking here about cousins, Mr. Speaker, but at the present time, neither the brothers nor the sisters are allowed to come to Canada. Often, even the parents-I shall never forget the first immigration case I had to deal within my riding. I did not even have furniture in my office when a man entered and told me this: I have a problem. My mother is 75 years old, and I have managed to bring her here as a tourist. I was in Italy attending my father's funeral and I just could not leave her all alone over there. I brought her here as a tourist. Upon her arrival, I went to the immigration office. The officer told me: You will have to send her back to Italy. She will have to submit there an application to come here. Mr. Speaker, you can easily imagine the anxiety of that woman. She was 75 years old and all her family was settled here in Canada. She had no one back there. Now, the immigration officer had said she had to go back to Italy.
Those are the policies which the Government should define. I am sure that once it has done so, and properly defined as well the enlarged families of Canadians with relatives abroad, established a system making it possible for these people to submit applications to enter Canada through our embassies and consulates abroad, following a process which is neither too long nor too complex, I am sure we will be able to deal with the false refugee problem, because we would be left only with true refugees. I think that Canada should do its share to help true refugees who are seeking asylum in this country.

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we, as Liberals, are strongly urging the Government to take initiatives, either through the United Nations or a Commonwealth or francophonie conference, such as the one which is being held now, to convince the other countries whose refugee status determination systems are experiencing the same problems, to work together to develop a satisfactory and global solution for all countries.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the problem of false refugees or refugees generally is an international one which will exist until this Conservative Government takes the necessary steps and shows leadership to call on all other countries, either through the United Nations or such other organizations as the Commonwealth or francophonie to develop a global refugee policy, so that Canada, together with a great many other nations, can meet this human and international need. As a country, if we pass legislation like Bill C-84 we will be moving one step back, and everything previous Governments did, whether Liberal or Conservative, will be viewed as a thing of the past and Canada will be moving towards a closed-door policy, becoming in the process a country that does not accept people who have the will, the spirit, and the courage to settle in a new country. People often think that is an easy thing to do. 1 went through that experience, being an immigrant myself. I can tell you that when you come here, not knowing the language, having no money and having a hard time finding a job it takes courage to stay here to work. Today I am proud of having made that step in 1958. I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud to be a Member of this House, and I hope we will keep on allowing people like myself to do what I have done.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member not only as a fellow Member of Parliament but as a fellow immigrant, but before that 1 listened to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), and I listened to the new Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin). They spoke as Canadians. 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was high time this House was recalled because after the arrival of illegal refugees, false refugees and 1 emphasize false, we as immigrants, we thought that by coming in-


Don Boudria: As you are!


Mr. Della  Noce@: If my colleague from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is smart enough to listen .. . did we listen to him a moment ago? He might understand what we are talking about. I am not finished.
Mr. Speaker, people in our ridings were calling us-50 to 60 calls a day-and these people were on the war-path against genuine refugees. I am an immigrant, and when I first came to Canada I considered that I was privileged to be accepted by this country. In return I worked like a good Canadian. But today this privilege no longer means anything because anybody can enter this country.
This is why I say it had become imperative to recall the House, it was urgent. Are we expecting one boat, two, three or four boats? . . . that is the kind of things we did when we were
going to school. It had to stop. I agree with my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) when he says that we probably have to open certain things.
But I am telling him that all those who apply for their card or their immigrant-refugee status arrive here as tourists. Yet the law states that they must apply from outside the country. This legislation was not passed by the Conservatives, it was already in force under the previous administration and, until further order, I am not a lawyer but as far as I know we have to abide by the existing legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the people back home are glad to see that we are coming to grips with the problem. We are not trying to prevent people from coming to Canada, quite the contrary. We want to give a chance to those who have been waiting for years to become citizens before this privilege is taken away from them by others who come here illegally by boat. I had that privilege myself, and again I express my gratitude to Canada for having accepted me as an immigrant.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and his questions. As I was trying to explain at the very beginning, the difficulty is that you have to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. The public now confuses these two groups.
Mr. Speaker, I can suggest a solution. I am convinced that if we have an open and well-established immigration policy with a faster selection system, there will definitely be fewer refugees and those who do come to Canada will be legitimate refugees.
However, Mr. Speaker, we must not take advantage of the public protests to pass repressive legislation.
As politicians, we have to play a leadership role and determine what type of society we want in Canada. Do we want a Canada with closed doors which will admit only people with money even if they do not have any technical qualifications? That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, while I agree partly with the comments of my colleague, I believe that, as politicians, we cannot say: Yes, the public is right and we shall pass repressive legislation.
We have to explain the true situation to the public. The fact is that we find it difficult ourselves at times to differentiate between refugees and immigrants because the legislation is rather complex.
Finally, I would like to say that, naturally, the Government can always try to put all the blame on the Liberals. We were in power for just nine months under twenty years. Everything that has happened can therefore be blamed on the Liberals.
What I can tell my hon. colleague is that, when the Conservative Government came to power, two studies had been made which suggested specific solutions as to what should be done. The Government decided to do nothing and to make more studies. Three years have passed and the crisis continues.
September 3, 1987

We are now facing a serious problem, but if we could put party politics aside, I believe that we could develop a good immigration policy for Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will recognize the Hon. Members for York East (Mr. Redway), York West (Mr. Marchi) and Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) for questions within the next five minutes.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question or two to the Hon. Member. On July 17, on The National on the CBC the Leader of the Member's Party said:
That boat might well have been apprehended and could have been turned back because this is not a legitimate refugee process.
The reporter asked:
Do we know that now?
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) replied:
Well, we know that the boat apparently comes from Europe and I don't know of any country in Europe that's persecuting people. I mean, this is not a boat that came from a country of origin.
On July 19, on the CBC radio program Cross-Country Checkup, when asked by a reporter:
But Mr. Turner, how do we know that some of these people wouldn't qualify under the Canadian system?
-the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said:
Well, they're not-if they came from Europe they were not fleeing a situation where they were facing prosecution or imprisonment or death. Well, I think the burden of proof-in situations where you've got a commercial enterprise and obviously a fraudulent effort to manipulate and bypass our regular refugee or our immigration policy-is on the boat.
On The National on July 27, he said:
The people on board could have been examined given some due processing, either at sea, or at port.
Does the Hon. Member agree with those statements by the Leader of his Party or does he, rather, agree with statements by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who, when asked about those statements on July 20 on CBC's Newshour said:
I have some difficulty in appreciating that position, in its entirety, because our position has been for the last two years, and that he's advocating as, is that there needs to be a processing.
On the same day on CBC's Newshour the Hon. Member for York West said:
1 don't concur with that. I believe that processing should be done, and one should be assured of the determination.
Subsequently, on August 1, when asked about the situation, the Hon. Member for York West said that the Leader of the Opposition never checked with him before speaking out.
Now, does the Hon. Member agree with the position of his Party Leader, does he agree with the position of the Hon. Member for York West or, alternatively, does he agree with
Immigration Act, 1976
the Director of Communications for the Liberal Party who, when asked about the situation, said:
It was very windy that day.
Does the Hon. Member agree with his Leader on this position, does the agree with the Hon. Member for York West, or does he agree with Mr. Raymond Heard,the Opposition Leader's communications director?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, after the way in which the Hon. Member addressed the question I wonder whether 1 should continue in his vein and ask him if he agrees with his Leader who said that he considers those people to be illegal aliens as if they were coming from the moon.
The Member is trying to create the impression that there is a discrepancy between the statements of the Liberal Leader and those of our official spokesperson on immigration. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) for the fight he has been leading on behalf of the Liberal Party and for the speech he delivered in the House yesterday.
This is the Conservative way of doing things instead of standing up and stating a position. The other day the Member got up in the House and said that there were 10,000 Sicilians in his riding. 1 would like to remind the Member that Sicily is part of Italy, it has not yet separated. I also come from Sicily.
Instead of expressing the concerns of his constituents and proposing a solution to this crisis, he is trying to find a discrepancy among Liberal Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to advise Hon. Members that the Hon. Member has exceeded the time for questions and comments, but I will allow the Hon. Members for York West and Windsor-Walkerville to ask questions if they will ease up on the preambles.
[ Translation]


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I followed with much interest and am very proud of the speech made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).
Proud because he spoke in a way that was both very emotional and very practical of his experience as an immigrant, and of the role played by the immigration process in developing and building this country. Because this country's history is based on the immigration process, and he explained in a very moving, very sensitive manner the immigrant's story. He has not travelled all over the world to find his new land. So if that immigrant had not enjoyed the life that is yours and mine in this country, we would have no immigrants in Parliament. But the Hon. Member rightly said that we need an immigration policy in order to make this country bigger and better than it is today.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou how he views an immigration policy, at the time when we have many people living in Canada, families with no boys

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
or girls and a population that is getting so old. How does the Hon. Member view an immigration policy for this country's future?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for those encouraging words. In the past, Canada has always had a family immigration policy. It is partly because of this policy that we all came to this country, and without offending anyone, I would like to point out that we all came here from somewhere else, either in the fifties, in the 19th century or at another time.
We therefore have to remember what we were, what we are now and what we want to become.
I believe that, first, an extended family immigration policy would promote family reunion. Second, it would allow a selection of immigrants more appropriate to the development of Canada, and third, it would enable Canada to increase its population. There is a serious decrease in the birth rate. If we close our doors to immigrants, we shall have serious problems in the next century.
Immigration is therefore a development tool for Canada, and not only a development tool, but also a means of survival.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A very short question from the Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, given that there is before the committee Bill C-55, a piece of legislation intended to speed up the refugee determination policy or process, and there is suggested as an alternative, and has been before the Government as an alternative, one variation or another of the refugee determination process recommended by the Canadian Council of Churches, does the Hon. Member really think that Bill C-84 is, in the final analysis, necessary?
If the Hon. Member regards it as unnecessary, would he be tempted to suspect, knowing that there is a great deal of fear because of unemployment and xenophobia and a measure in some quarters of fear mongering, that this Bill is not really intended to address the issue of abuse, abuse that is based on the extended time period heretofore required for refugee determination? Is it really a transparent effort to take advantage of a great deal of concern rather than to take the time to explain the cause for abuse and to communicate a better understanding, not only of the situation with respect to refugees and immigrants, but perhaps a better notion of where the future of this country lies if we are to continue to have a decreasing birth rate with its implications for the future economic and political stability of Canada?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the questions briefly. I think some of the Hon. Member's questions I answered in my speech. I asked why we had two or three Bills, such as Bills C-84 and C-55. We need one policy in the
global picture of our immigration policy, and without it I do not think we will solve any problems.
As to the birth rate and future population development, as I answered my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West, a good open immigration policy-1 spoke about family reunification-is the cornerstone of our future development. If we continue in the same direction we are in now, we will have serious problems because of declining birth rates and fewer immigrants, and I go as far as to say that the survival of Canada might be in danger in future years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, about 20 years ago it was my honour to represent the Department of Justice and the Department of Immigration for the Immigration Appeal Board, and from that long time interest in immigration matters, I have some comments about why I will not be able to support this Bill when it comes to a vote, I take it, next week. I will not be here to vote in favour of this measure.
First, I fully support the fact that a legislative remedy is needed to the current problem of manifestly patent or bogus refugee claims being made in Canada. They are being made daily and in virtually every city in Canada. Indeed, Sir, the stated purposes of the Bill to protect genuine refugees in need of protection; to control widespread abuse of refugee procedures in light of organized large scale introduction of persons into Canada to take advantage of the refugee procedures; to deter smugglers and thereby minimize risk to and exploitation of persons seeking to come to Canada; to respond to security concerns, including our obligation to protect internationally protected persons, are widely supported, I believe, by people of good will across our nation. They set a good framework for what the Bill should contain.
For the most part, Sir, the objectives do not appear to me to have been addressed in the Bill. I understand-and if I am wrong, I hope I will be corrected-that the Bill was drafted in a hotel over a weekend a toute vitesse, and it contains many of its flaws because of that.
Let me give two examples of what I am getting at: first, on the interdiction of ships. Clause 8 of the Bill authorizes the Government of Canada to order ships thought to be carrying illegal immigrants to refrain from entering Canadian waters. If the ship is within 12 miles, the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) can order it to leave.
One of my concerns, and I think the concern of many people, is that as worded and despite the accepted amendment of the legislative committee making it subject to the UN Convention, the clause will in practice do little or nothing to stop smugglers and minimize the risk to persons being
September 3, 1987

smuggled. This, of course, is because the ship's master who is ordered to leave Canadian waters under the Bill will neither have his or her ship seized nor be penalized in any substantive way. Why not instead authorize the arrest of such ships' masters, given reasonable and probable grounds, and authorize the sale of the ships upon conviction if so ordered by a court? It seems to me that that would really deter smugglers from attempting to bring people into Canada as they did in Nova Scotia.
Such a change is especially important, I believe, given the danger under the present wording of the Bill that ships' captains might simply abandon in international waters people they are carrying in their cargo holds after being ordered out of Canadian waters. This might well happen because of a fear that no other country would permit them to land. As Hon. Members know, this has happened in South Asian seas and 1 see in today's paper that immigration officials are also very concerned about what this Bill might do to their attempts to act as public servants of Canada.
Why not instead amend the clause to say something like the following: "Every person who, being the master or member of a crew of a vehicle used for transportation by sea, disembarks or allows the disembarkation or attempts to disembark or allow the disembarkation of a person or group of persons at sea is guilty of an offence"? Or perhaps the following wording would be better: "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 manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an offence".
It seems to me that clauses like that would give us the power to seize the ships of those scoundrels who have been doing these things and effectively deter such people from bringing people into Canada.
My second example deals with the questions of penalties for bringing undocumented aliens into Canada. Clause 9 provides large penalties for any person who knowingly helps someone come to Canada who does not have a valid visa, passport or travel document where one is so required. The way the clause is worded, it would not appear to catch the scoundrels who profit in bringing refugees for a fee.
Take, for example, the well-known cases of the Turks, Portuguese and Brazilian men and women who came here to claim refugee status. These people came to Canada with valid travel documents. They did not need visas at the time. They simply reported at ports of entry and applied for refugee status. The people who arranged those scams would not appear to be caught by the wording of the Bill as it is before us today, but they should be. It seems to me that other wording would make the clause deal more effectively with the situation I just mentioned. It is true that Section 95.3 would have caught the people who smuggled in the 174 refugees last month or those who brought the Tamils in last summer, but as I read the Bill,
Immigration Act, 1976
if the smuggling were done other than by ship, it would not be caught by the proposed wording.
It is important that many responsible individuals, including the former Primate of the Anglican Church, Bishop Bernard Hubert, President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and a great many other distinguished Canadians who have spoken against this Bill, feel that the Bill would catch church and other humanitarian or volunteer-aid groups who try to help undocumented refugees make refugee claims at the border. As well, the Canadian Bar Association has protested the Bill.
Many people aided by these volunteer groups do have well-founded refugee claims. Refugees cannot get valid travel documents from their countries. Can a Cambodian get a valid travel document? Can a Chilean who goes to the tenth floor of a downtown office building in Santiago get a valid travel document? Can an Afghan get a valid travel document to leave Kabul?
A great many responsible organizations and individuals have spoken out against this Bill, calling for it to be redrafted. Others have said that it violates the Charter of Rights. I can only say amen to the view voiced by so many citizens of good will that we should refer the Bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision as to its validity under the Charter of Rights.
Let me say a word about the so-called queue-jumping argument in favour of the Bill. As our laws have been, as they are now and as 1 trust they always will be, immigrants and refugees are in different queues. They do not mix. One does not jump from one line to the other. One is either in the immigrant system or in the refugee system. To argue that this Bill will stop refugee applicants from jumping into the immigrant queue is simply incorrect, to put it gently.
For the reasons indicated, I will not support this Bill when it comes to a vote next week.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments, as I always am, and took considerable note of them. The reasons he pointed out for not supporting the Bill disturbed and bothered me. I wonder if perhaps he might elaborate on them.
The first reason he has suggested for his lack of support of the Bill is the fact that there is no provision in the Bill, as he says, for seizure of a ship in circumstances such as those we have seen this past summer. I am sure the Hon. Member has acquainted himself with the Bill and with Clause 11 and all that goes thereafter. All that refers to the question of seizure, and I would just like to quote from it. It reads:
103.01 (1) An immigration officer or a peace officer may, where the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle was used in any manner in connection with a contravention of section 95.2 or 95.3, seize the vehicle as forfeit.

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Then it goes on to describe all the ways of seizure, all the ways the vehicle can be dealt with and what can and cannot be done as far as selling it goes.
The Hon. Member said that another reason he could not support the Bill was that there was no provision for dealing with unscrupulous consultants. I may be wrong, and 1 certainly do not claim to have the only legal opinion in the world, but it appears to pie that Clause 9 of the Bill would deal with unscrupulous consultants. The Bill reads:
"95.1 Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming iiito 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 offfence and is liable-
It seems to me that that provision as well as the subsequent provision in the clause could be used to lay charges against people in those circumstances.
The final point he raises deals with the lack of exclusion from the Bill of humanitarian groups, refugee aid groups, churches and others. He indicates this is a major reason for not supporting the Bill. 1 would not want to suggest that I can cite all of the instances where there have been exclusions of organizations of this sort, but in the Criminal Code of Canada there is a provision for something called theft. We do not exclude, say, a very poor mother from prosecution if she steals a loaf of bread to feed her family. Of course, as the Hon. Member knows from his long and distinguished legal career, the courts have their own way of dealing with those things if ever a charge were laid against such a person.
Given all that, I find it somewhat difficult to understand, and perhaps the Hon. Member could expand on his remarks, why he could not support the Bill for the reasons he gave.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), as he knows, and I take his question very seriously.
To start at the end, it is true that if a poor person steals bread that person is still liable to be charged. The Hon. Member knows as a lawyer that the court can give an absolute discharge or do all sorts of things. However, my concern is that you have such widespread concern among people in Edmonton, Toronto, in every city, town and probably village in Canada, that this Bill will hit someone in their congregation who tries to help a refugee. They have taken the trouble to come to Ottawa, many of them, to complain that they are being singled out or lumped together with traffickers in human beings, and that indicates there is probably something wrong with that part of the Bill. The library has a file that thick of material from people with concerns about the Bill. 1 think it is time to take another look at it.
The Hon. Member also referred to the fact that this Bill does not authorize the arresting or seizing of a vessel. He
referred to the seizing of a vehicle. I refer to Clause 8 on page 7 where it says:
Where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle-is bringing any person into Canada-the Minister may-direct the vehicle to leave or not to enter the internal waters of Canada-
That is what I was getting at and 1 have great concerns about that.
1 have attempted only to give examples of my concerns. Perhaps he did not like my examples, but I believe they are true. I am sure he is aware that there are many people of intelligence, knowledge and experience who are concerned about this Bill. We want to be tough but we also want to be fair. This Bill certainly errs on the side of being tough. I am told by people over in the Department across the river that they call it the 3-D Bill: Detain, deter and deport.
As I indicated, I am not going to be here to vote against the Bill, but I have sufficient concerns about it that I am certainly not going to be here to vote for it.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) for his position. Given the nature of our political system, it takes courage to back up one's convictions. 1 believe he is the second member of the Government, the other being the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, to stand up and be forthright on this issue.
1 do not say this lightly or in an attempt to take advantage politically of any statement of either of those two gentlemen. 1 simply wish to commend them because it has been a struggle to try to move the Government and a committee made up of largely government Members to amend the legislation, not to throw it away or go back to the drafting board but to allow those who wish to enhance and protect the refugee constituency and those serving that constituency to work within the system rather than simply stand there as witnesses to a process racing by them. I would like to commend the Hon. Member for being of assistance to that constituency.
1 would also like to suggest he was quite correct with respect to Section 95.1. Unlike the example of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) with respect to someone stealing bread, we are not talking about one law applicable in general. This is the creation of a new offence. It is similar to creating a separate offence for stealing bread. That is the major difference. We are creating a new offence which places priests and nuns and others helping refugees in the same category. The operative words are "without a visa". We have had thousands of refugees without visas aided by priests and others. I commend the Hon. Member for his articulation of those two points.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join with my friend from York West (Mr. Marchi) in expressing our appreciation for the position taken by the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). It is very much a question of ethics
September 3, 1987

with respect to how we deal with individuals claiming persecution in other countries. We appreciate the leadership shown by the Hon. Member on this issue.
I know that the Hon. Member for a number of years has played a leadership role in a committee dealing with Soviet Jewry. He has for many years made great strides in advancing the goals of that organization. I was moved by his comments about how the Bill would allow the Minister to intercept ships coming to this country. I wonder if in the back of his mind there was not the image of one of the very few dark days in our past, 1 think it was 1939 when a ship-


Robert Hylton Brisco: You weren't even born!


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, I was not.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Of course, then why should we be apologizing for it now?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not understand, I thought I was asking a straightforward question in response to the thoughtful comments by the Hon. Member. 1 was referring to 1939 when the Government of Canada decided, in the wisdom of the day, to not allow that ship to dock with its Jewish passengers. Most of those people were killed at the hands of the wicked Nazi regime when they returned to Europe. Was that imagery not in his mind when he was making his comment?


David Kilgour: It was a factor, and there was also a ship which landed in Vancouver that the Hon. Member will be aware of in, what, 1913? It was sent back to India. I am told that most of the people on that ship perished when they got back to India.
In response to the question, I have a bulletin from Amnesty International of which I am proud to be a member. Michael Schelew makes the point:
The Government states that no genuine refugee will be turned away from Canada's shores. But how can the Government decide who is a genuine refugee if it does not hear the claims of all refugee claimants on the merits?
The Government says that all genuine refugee claimants will be allowed to have a hearing on the merits. Once again this begs the question.
How can the Government determine who is a genuine refugee claimant if the proper decision-making body does not hear the claim on the merits?
I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that the Bill is simply not one which represents the Nansen Medal for the spirit of tolerance and understanding that I believe now exists from Kamloops, to St. John's, to Aklavik.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) on debate, may I just take this opportunity on behalf of the Speaker and all Members of the House of Commons to express our good wishes to the Pages who have been with us for one of
Immigration Act, 1976
the longest sessions we have had in Parliament. They will be leaving us, and I want to welcome the new recruits.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We wish them well. After two or three elections they will probably take some of the seats of Hon. Members who are here.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, of course, I would like to take a moment of my time to express my own gratitude to the Pages who are departing. 1 understand that some of them will continue to be around Ottawa, attending school here.
Like you, Mr. Speaker, I hope that some or even all of them will show up here on the right side of the House.
I want to take particular note of the fact that amongst the departing Pages is one Page from the City of Windsor. That person did such an excellent job that this year we will have two Pages from the Windsor area. I feel very proud of that fact.
I listened with great attention to the speech by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). 1 hope his colleagues listened to him with equal care because we are facing an issue of extreme and fundamental moral importance.
It is very clear that the Member has struggled with this issue and examined it in terms of his own experience and understanding of others who have worked with refugees, and within the context of what he knows to be a serious refugee problem world-wide.
On the one hand, he asked whether there is a problem with respect to the refugee determination process in Canada and, on the other, he asked whether the remedy sought in Bill C-84 particularly, and in Bill C-55, is commensurate with the problem at hand. I am sure he engaged in a painful and difficult reflection.
I must say that his very dissent draws a rather sharp contrast to what we have experienced in the House in the last several weeks during the debate on this so-called emergency. I looked around the Chamber as he spoke and, no matter how dramatic the character of his intervention, I noticed that virtually none of his colleagues on the government side raised their heads to even listen to what their colleague had to say, in spite of the fact that the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona is not the only Member on the government side who has dealt with his own conscience, wrestled with the issue and expressed dissent.
It has also been mentioned that, as happened a moment ago, we have had thoughtless, mean interventions when attempts have been made to explain those concerns that have worried not only those of us on this side of the House, the Hon. Member and his colleague, but which have bothered a great many organizations, including churches, labour unions, lawyers and civil libertarians across the country.

September 3, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Perhaps they do not recognize the seriousness of the arguments that have been advanced in opposition to this legislation. One must come to the conclusion that rather than treating this problem as an emergency, as it must be defined by virtue of our being called back to the House, it is being used as an opportunity. There is no question that there are many areas of our country in which there is great unemployment. Not only are people unemployed, they see no hope of ever being employed as a result of inaction by the Government, nor do they see a solution to the employment situation they face in their particular parts of the country. At the same time, it appears to them that others coming to this country from across the seas are getting jobs.
Experience tells us that when people face the kind of emotional stress caused by unemployment they begin to look for scapegoats and usually find them. In this area, the most frequent scapegoat has been the immigrant and the refugee, usually those who look a little different, whose collective behaviour arouses xenophobic suspicion. While these are realities, these episodes should not be mistaken as characterizing our country. I would prefer to believe that our country and its soul is characterized by the recognition accorded to it in the Nansen Medal.
One has to conclude that the Government has chosen to use an episode in Nova Scotia as a means of gaining political points. The Government has said: "Let's do it quick and dirty, never mind the details, never mind the fine points, never mind the Charter of Rights".
Earlier, my colleague cited the fact that although we have created a crisis in the country largely as a result of the failure of the Government to have designed an efficient, fast and fair refugee determination process, there is beyond this domestic requirement for a good process a real refugee crisis building up in the world. As my colleague indicated, there are millions of refugees in the world, particularly in the Third World, who are being produced as a result of any number of factors which include war, famine, and civil wars, which characterize too much of the world.
I cited the fact that ultimately my family and I are products of the flight of refugees, refugees from the United States. There is a lesson in that experience. In that instance refugees were produced as a result of slavery imposed upon a Third World continent. Of course, that terminology was not used then. In other words, the refugees of the 19th century were in large part a product of the actions of those who had to receive the refugees, that is, the western world.
When one looks at the refugee situation in the Third World and counts the number of refugees that are created as a result of wars against oppressive regimes supported by the West; when one considers the number of refugees that have been produced as a result of conflicts resulting from the contrived borders and the colonial manipulation in the Third World; and
when one considers the number of countries in the world attempting to pay off their debts by converting vast agricultural areas to the production of exportable food at the cost of producing food for the people of those countries, one can adduce the very strong argument that the western world is in very large measure responsible for the refugees that do exist-not for all but for a very significant number. A large part of the refugee problem has been precipitated by those western nations which now have to deal with their huge numbers around the world. It is certainly clear that there has to be a unified international approach to deal with the causes of refugees and to deal properly with their fate.
There is no one who would suggest that Canada can take all the refugees in the world, nor all the potential immigrants of the world. But in a country with a decreasing birth rate, a country which needs people, a country which can thrive and build a new future for itself only if we increase our population, it is certainly clear that we need not be niggardly in the way in which we treat potential refugees or immigrants. I would suggest that this piece of legislation is both niggardly and unnecessary. It would cast a pall of shame over us all if we do not make the appropriate necessary changes to bring it into accord to those imperatives of morality, equality and humanity which 1 hope characterize this country in which I have the honour to be a Member of Parliament.
It is quite a contrast to envision the poor and the hungry who come from nations of the world which have so little with the arguments one hears about queue jumping and suggestions that there are those who are trying to weasel their way in by devious means to take advantage of us all. When we hear this from members of the Government we have to pause to reflect on the consistency, the seriousness and, indeed, the morality of those who advocate this sorry piece of legislation.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, just today we found that among the most privileged in our country, and in order to ensure that their offspring are properly taught in the most exclusive schools, they managed to queue-jump a teacher, in whose stead no one else would do, to ensure that this very prominent individual and his family would not have to settle for something second-rate. Let me be frank. We have in the highest portion of the Government a manipulation of our immigration laws in order to do what? To queue-jump. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is more guilty of queuejumping than any refugee trying to flee death or persecution. I think that that is sad to note.
Many have pointed out that this legislation is, first, unnecessary and fundamentally flawed measured against the criteria set out in the Charter of Rights. I do not want to burden you, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you have heard many times before the various respects in which this legislation is in conflict with the Charter of Rights. It is so fundamentally inconsistent with the Charter of Rights that there is no way to make it right.
September 3, 1987

There are three choices. The first is to withdraw the legislation altogether, which would not be particularly hurtful. If the Government were to adopt a rapid and fair refugee determination process, as is possible to derive from Bill C-55 with appropriate amendments to bring it into accord with what has been recommended by the Canadian Council of Churches, then this legislation would not be necessary. I know that the Government will not do this because, after all, it brought us back here for an emergency. The emergency was Bill C-84 and Bill C-22 and the Bill dealing with Canagrex, and half a dozen other Bills. But this is part of the emergency.
One will note in the papers prepared justifying this document that there are the most devious arguments imaginable which try to point out that the Charter of Rights does not play a part to those people out in the ships in the middle of the sea. There is here a clear attempt to circumvent the Charter of Rights. In other instances in which there are people on our shores, there are those who say that this matter could be tested in the Supreme Court. There are others, including Members opposite, who have suggested that this sorry piece of legislation should be presented to the Supreme Court to let it adjudicate
Immigration Act, 1976
whether or not it fails in its test when measured against the Charter of Rights. In all of Canada we have only one group of people who see this legislation as consistent with the Charter. That group is made up of members of the Government.
There was an honest way for the Government to approach the situation. But this is a Government that rejects honesty, just as it has rejected the Charter of Rights. If it wants to reject the Charter of Rights, then it has a means of doing so in Section 33, the notwithstanding clause. If Members opposite want this legislation, I suggest to them that they tell the people of Canada honestly that they want it exempted from the Charter and declare to the world and those who vote for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being three o'clock, pursuant to the order made Wednesday, September 2, 1987, the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, September 9, 1987, at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, September 9, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers