1988-02-01

Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by residents of Edmonton, Alberta. These petitioners are concerned that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the political and economic sovereignty of Canada by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control such things as foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore, these petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour and duty to present petitions from 100 residents of Whitehorse, Yukon, Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, and Mississauga, Ontario.
These petitioners wish to register their objection to the proposed plutonium flights over the Canadian North, recognizing the potential devastating environmental and nuclear proliferation risks.
Therefore, these petitioners pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize the danger of such flights and to say no to the transport of plutonium over northern Canadian territory.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from Canadian residents of Ontario-my province-who want to file a common grievance, namely:
That the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return, whereas Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws, whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in all key sector, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment, whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and indeed pleasure to rise pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who are concerned that the recently signed trade deal signed by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence. They believe that such an agreement implies the loss of jobs in many sectors and regions of the country, Therefore they are requesting that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada, and they believe that this debate should result in a national election prior to the final signing of any agreement.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present yet another petition signed by Canadians expressing their concern with the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. They believe it would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence, and they consider that such an agreement implies the loss of jobs in many sectors and regions.
They therefore call upon the Parliament of Canada to obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada, and that this debate result in a national election prior to any such agreement.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of Canadians from Toronto and other areas, similar to the petitions my two colleagues have just presented. The petitioners say that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal-

February 1, 1988
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask Members to use the same wording as that used by the Hon. House Leader for the NDP and not refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by his family name but rather by his title. It was done a few times and I am sorry to interrupt that particular Member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the trade deal signed between the Right Hon. Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Now you are learning.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am learning. Go to the election and you will learn, too.
The petitioners say that this trade deal would mean the end of Canada's economic, political and cultural independence as a country. They also feel jobs would be lost and they dare the Government to call an election before signing and completing such a historic trade deal.


Miss MacDonald:: It is signed, Ian. You have been away too long.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility to present to the House a petition signed by Canadians living in Montreal and surrounding areas.
The petitioners feel that because the Conservative Government had no mandate to conclude a trade deal with the U.S., and whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, and the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S., and whereas the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, the key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement through a national general election.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present on behalf of a group of approximately 50 citizens living in the communities of Choiceland and White Fox in the constituency of Mackenzie a petition which suggests that the Government did not have a mandate to sign a free trade agreement. That proposed agreement affects Canada's economic future and undermines our ability to develop the economy we wish. They call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement in a national election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendments 8 and 13(e) made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, but disagrees with amendments 4, 5(a), (b) and (c), 6(a) and (b), 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13(a) because this House believes they contradict the principles of the Bill for the following reasons:
Amendment 4 would exclude only criminals and war criminals from the refugee determination process, but would allow terrorists, spies and subversives to pursue a claim to refugee status, notwithstanding the fact that Article 33 of the UN Convention would permit the removal of these latter individuals to their countries of nationality or permanent residence, even if they were determined to be Convention refugees.
Amendment 5(a) would eliminate the authority of the Minister to direct a ship to leave or not to enter Canadian waters. This amendment would reopen a significant gap in Canada's ability to control its borders.
Amendments 5(b) and (c) arise out of Senate amendment 5(a), which is not acceptable, and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendments 6(a) and (b) would reverse the policy on which the Immigration Act, 1976 was based, which policy was not changed in the Bill as passed by this House. The amendments jeopardize the possibility of successfully prosecuting persons who profit from organizing illegal migration and from counselling fraud among refugee claimants.
Amendments 9 and 10 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to act quickly to search for evidence of major offences under the Immigration Act, 1976, in exigent circumstances, where lives are at risk or where evidence with respect to those offences may be lost or destroyed.
Amendments 11 and 12 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to execute search warrants which have been duly authorized by a justice of the peace, by denying explicit authority to break open containers where it is reasonably believed evidence will be found and by limiting the authority to execute these warrants at night.
Amendment 13(a) would reduce the initial period of detention without review from seven days to forty-eight hours, which would allow insufficient time for the gathering of information to substantiate allegations or to identify the individual, particularly when large groups of undocumented persons arrive at one time.
And that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendments 1, 2(a), 3, 7 and 13(b), (c) and (d), but would propose the following amendments:
February 1, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Amendment 1 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 22 and 23 on page 1, and substitute the following:
(c)	to deter those who assist in the illegal entry of persons into Canada and thereby minimize the"
Amendment 2(a) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 29 to 39, on page 4, and substitute the following:
(a) examine within seven days, in camera, the security or criminal intelligence reports considered by the Minister and the Solicitor General and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of those Ministers and may, on the request of the Minister or the Solicitor General, hear all or part of such evidence or information in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person where, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the evidence or information should not be disclosed on the grounds that such disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;"
Amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 7 to 12, on page 5, and substitute the following:
(d)	determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate; and"
Amendment 7 be amended to read as follows:
"Add, and immediately after line 6, on page 10, the following:
95.21 No proceedings for an offence under Section 95.1 or Section 95.2 shall be instituted except by or with the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada or Deputy Attorney General of Canada."
Amendment 13(b) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 1 to 22, on page 21, and substitute the following:
(2)	Where, with respect to a person detained under subsection (1), the Minister certifies in writing
(a)	that
(i)	the person's identity has not been established, or
(ii)	the Minister has reason to suspect that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19( 1 )(e), (f) or (g), and
(b)	that an additional period of detention is required to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention."
Amendment 13(c) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 23 to 47, on page 21, and substitute the following:
(2.1)	Where the Minister has issued a certificate under subsection (2), the Minister may amend the certificate to which the detention relates to include any matter referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (ii), following which the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention.
(3)	Where a person is detained under subsection (1) and the Minister has not issued a certificate under subsection (2), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith after the expiration of the period during which the person is being detained and that person shall be brought before an adjudicator at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the reasons for continued detention shall be reviewed."
Amendment 13(d) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 48 to 50, on page 21, and lines 1 to 18, on page 22, and substitute the following:
Immigration Act, 1976
(4)	Where an adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (2) or
(2.1)	is satisfied that reasonable efforts are being made by the Minister to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (ii), the adjudicator shall continue the person's detention.
(4.1)	Every review under subsection (2) or (2.1) of the detention of a person suspected of being a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(l)(e), (0 or (g) shall be conducted in camera, (a) the Minister is of the opinion that any evidence or information to be presented by or on behalf of the Minister at any review under subsection (2) or (2.1) of the detention of a person referred to in subsection (4.1) should not be disclosed on the grounds that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons, and (b) a request therefore is made by the Minister, the adjudicator shall order that the review or any part thereof be conducted in the absence of the person and any counsel representing the person.
(4.3)	Any person excluded by an order under subsection (4.2) from the whole or any part of the review under subsection (2) or (2.1) may apply to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or to a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice for the purposes of this subsection to have the order quashed and sections 36.1 and 36.2 of the Canada Evidence Act shall apply, with such modifications as the circumstances may require, to such applications.
(4.4)	Unless quashed, an order under subsection (4.2) shall, with respect to the person to whom the order relates, apply to every review under subsection (2) or (2.1), or part thereof, at which the Minister is of the opinion that any evidence or information to be presented by or on behalf of the Minister at the review, or part thereof, should not be disclosed on the grounds that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons.
(5)	Where the adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (2) or
(2.1)	does not continue a person's detention under subsection (4), the adjudicator shall make the appropriate order under subsection 104(3).
(6)	An adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (3) shall make the appropriate order under subsection 104(3)."
And the amendment of Mr. Marchi:
That the message of the House of Commons to the Senate be amended by:
a)	deleting, in paragraph one, the reference to Senate amendment 4;
b)	deleting paragraph two;
c)	adding to paragraph nine a reference to Senate amendment 4; and
d)	adding after amendment 3 the following:
"That amendment 4 of the Senate be amended by deleting the said amendment and by striking out line 16 on page 7 of the Bill and substituting the following therefor:
"(2)(c) and against whom a deportation order has been upheld by the Board; or""
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this Bill and the amendment because I think it goes to the future direction of the country. I am very saddened to think that the Government did not appreciate some of the amendments unanimously agreed to by the Senate. I say that because they were very much in line with the amendments presented by my Party.
Canada signed a UN convention in order to protect refugees all around the world. This Bill directly contradicts that Convention. The people who have made presentations both to the legislative committee as well as the Senate committee understand what is involved because they have been very much involved with refugees. They understood the purpose of the amendment which suggested that instead of turning boats back

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
we would look at securing the people who were on the boats and giving them an adequate opportunity to prove whether or not they were refugees.
With this Bill as it stands, we are right back to the kind of situation that existed in 1939 where, to our disgrace, we turned a boatload of Jewish refugees back to Europe at a time when they were being so badly persecuted. The result was that many of them ended up in concentration camps where they were killed. That is the kind of thing we are leaving ourselves open to now if we do not amend this legislation. Certainly there have been judges right across this country, and around the world, who have looked at this Bill and are very concerned at the direction Canada is taking.
We have always been well respected in the international arena and people have felt that Canada was a place that dealt with some sense of fairness and compassion with those who had no place to go. Certainly since we signed the convention 20 years ago we have tried to respect it. Sometimes not as much as we could, but this Bill ensures that we will be seen as not having been sincere in the first place. Certainly the Bill does not respect the Convention.
1 am also concerned about the fact we have not listened to those who have worked very intensively across this country, the church groups and others, and who have said how important it is to make sure of the security and safety of people's lives. We are now just ignoring all of that.
When I looked at the proceedings of the Senate committee it was interesting to see that many of the people who made presentations there had also made presentations to the legislative committee. It seems to me that there is a consistent feeling in the country about this issue and people are taking every opportunity to make the Government sensitive to the fact that this Bill takes us in a direction we have never gone before and one we do not choose to take.
It is important that we recognize that the western world is taking a minimum number of refugees in comparison to the total, and Canada is now saying that it is going to take less than that. We are going to be very selective. We are not going to worry about the fact that people have had to flee without proper documentation. We are not going to worry about that; unless they are properly documented they cannot get in here. It really does not make any sense at all.
There are people who have worked as volunteers at great risk to themselves in order to help those who have escaped to our country in fear of their lives. What we are saying now in this Bill is that those people who are reaching out a hand of compassion are now liable to become criminals in their own country. That certainly does not make any sense. We know that the situation in the world has not eased. The refugee situation has worsened. There are very sensitive areas from which people are fleeing. Some have been taken out of their beds and from their homes in the middle of the night. Some of their families have been able to escape across borders and been
able to reach Canada. We are now saying that those people are not entitled to an adequate hearing.
The United Nations and many groups within Canada are recommending a process for refugee determination and an efficient appeal process. That would allow people to be designated. If we are concerned about safety and security with regard to certain people coming into the country we have the ability of deportation. We are also able to take the time to find them safe refuge in another country before deporting them. I refer to countries such as Chile. We know that if we send people back to that country their lives will be at risk. In taking that attitude toward other people's lives we are being very crass. We are saying that unless they can go through the bureaucratic procedures they will have no refuge in Canada. It does not matter whether they are fleeing for their safety or have no access to any other refuge. This is a disgrace and will be a blot on our history.
I am very surprised that the Government is recommending such legislation because it was very critical when we actually turned a boat around in 1979. The ability to do that exists again. We do not want that kind of thing to happen. We want to keep our reputation in the international community as a caring country. Many of the people who came here after the Hungarian chaos in the 1950s became good citizens of Canada. They built a base in our communities and gave their loyalty to Canada. They realize that if Canada had not accepted them as refugees at that time they would not have lived.
This legislation says that refugees who have experienced great chaos in their own countries will no longer be welcome here. They will not be given time to seek out adequate legal counsel. We are closing doors to people who have not had the opportunity to get the proper documentation. We are saying that refugees who have crossed other borders with false documentation cannot be designated. That is not the kind of thing we want to do.
I am very concerned that in addition to attacking people who could come to this country we are attacking Canadians who, through their generosity and voluntarism, are helping these people. We are telling church groups, community groups, and families whose relatives want to come to this country that if they are helping these people to get through so that they can be identified, they are part and parcel of the problem and can be criminally charged. That is totally unacceptable.
Many of the amendments proposed by the Senate are part and parcel of the amendments which our Party recommended. It was very interesting that all the groups which made presentations suggested the same kinds of amendments. There is no doubt in my mind that the immigration laws were in chaos and the whole procedure had to be streamlined. We needed designation of refugees and designation of immigrants rather than having them all part and parcel of the same pool
February 1, 1988

with regard to numbers and quotas. We need people with expertise in refugee designation.
It would not take much longer than six months to go through that process in a humane, fair, and just way. Instead, we are bringing in a very restrictive Bill which will stop people from being designated. We will be sending them back, probably to their deaths in many cases, because they do not conform to our terms of reference for admittance to this country.
Surely a country like Canada, with so many resources and so much freedom, should be the first to give people a fair hearing and ensure that we provide a safe haven for any refugee whose life is in danger. Anyone who comes to our borders and claims refugee status should be given a hearing and an opportunity to compile their case. They should be entitled to a fair and honest appeal process. With the legislation before us we are telling the volunteers and church groups right across the country that we will have none of that. We will tighten the immigration laws to the extent that we will be so selective as to probably admit to Canada only white people who have half a million dollars.
It is a disgrace to set such criteria for admittance to the country. However, the larger problem will be in the long term. We know that our country is not renewing its population with its own birth rate. We will be admitting into this country people who will be very self-serving and without a sense of a pluristic society.
Up to now we have built a country with a mosaic of which we have all been very proud. The refugees who have sought haven here have made a tremendous commitment to the country and have helped us to understand the international scene and to have compassion because our roots are all so different. I would like to think that because of the mosaic we have in this country we have built a pluristic society which understands the enrichment of different cultures coming together, not in confrontation but in understanding of each other.
The volunteers, community groups, and church groups are recommending that the system be made more efficient but that the doors not be closed. They say that they want our country to continue to be a refuge for people who cannot find a safe refuge anywhere else in the world.
If every country is so restrictive on this issue the problem will become much more serious everywhere. If this legislation is passed it will probably be the most restrictive anywhere in the western world. I am particularly concerned about that because, in addition to putting people's lives in jeopardy, we are losing our international credibility as mediators and peacekeepers in the international field. We are saying that people coming to our shores must be treated in a very legalistic and non-compassionate manner and that if they do not conform to our system they will be turned around.
Immigration Act, 1976
I was most shocked by the fact that we could actually turn boats around at sea. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the Coast Guard be authorized to take this action. The Coast Guard is not trained in immigration policy and is not supposed to decide who can enter our country. The Coast Guard's function is much different from the immigration policy they are being asked to follow now. It does not make any sense that the Government is putting that kind of pressure on those people by delegating that kind of responsibility to them.
We could see the same thing we saw in 1939 when boats were turned back. I do not think there is anyone in the House who is not embarrassed about or does not regret that action in 1939.
That incident should be a lesson to us to avoid legislation that seems to condone such action.
I hope the Government seriously considers that this legislation is restrictive. It is not a coincidence that many of the same groups have appeared before both the parliamentary committee and the Senate committee, at a great cost to themselves. The Senate committee was unanimous in its amendments. The Government should get the message that this legislation is unacceptable to Canadians. The more that Canadians learn about this legislation the less acceptable it becomes.
On behalf of Canadians now and Canadians in the future, I plead with the Government to withdraw this legislation which could become a scar on our history. We want to have a proud history that shows that we honour and take responsibly the conventions we sign. This legislation does not do that, and it must be opposed. If the Government is unwilling to accept the amendments it should withdraw the legislation.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this morning to take part in the debate on Bill C-84. Immigration policy has always been a priority for the Liberal Party. The Liberal Government left a very solid foundation, and thanks to this legacy, the Conservative Government has been able to maintain and enhance our prestige on the international scene. However, Mr. Speaker, 1 find it hard to understand some of the measures being proposed in this Bill. In any event, I want to start by considering the immigration issue, first in terms of the world situation and second, in terms of the role Canada has to play.
The world situation. For over two centuries, people on this planet have been seeking independance and throwing off the bonds of their oppressors, thus becoming sovereign. We saw this phenomenon in Europe during the nineteenth century. At the time, the industrial revolution was accompanied by a number of popular uprisings. The monarchy, the Czars and other forms of government gave way to governments with a popular base, in many cases democratic governments. We have all read about the French Revolution, the popular uprising in

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Germany, the painful transition from monarchy to parliamentary system in England, and, even closer to home, the American Revolution next door. All these events produced a host of refugees trying to escape oppression in their native countries. At the time, many newly liberated European countries wanted colonies in order to expand their markets and sources of raw materials. Thus, England founded its empire, as did France, Holland, Spain and Germany. Many of the colonies were located in Africa and Asia. Subsequently, these new colonies also wanted to manage their own destiny and become the sovereign nations they were entitled to be. We remember the Congo, Algeria, and more recently Mozambique, all of which wanted their freedom as a nation. They achieved their freedom at great cost, and, as in the nineteenth century, the process was sometimes very violent. Every time, a stream of refugees was the result.
There are two other major upheavals that disrupted this planet, and I am referring to the two Great Wars. We all remember that these wars produced a large number of refugees. Not long ago, we saw many refugees arriving in Canada from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and today, we all are very much aware of the situation of Blacks in South Africa and their experience of the violence of a discriminatory regime.
We are priviledged to live in country like Canada where peace prevails in a democratic system. That is not the case on the international scene. It is a jungle where each country tries to get what it can. The United Nations contains the seed of an international political system. Until the people of this earth reach a common agreement, based on co-operation and good will, and take action accordingly, nations will continue to violate the basic principles of human rights, and refugees will roam this planet, seeking a safe haven from the pain and suffering to which they have been subjected.
One country that is an oasis for all these refugees, is, as you may have guessed, Mr. Speaker, Canada. The Liberal Party led the way in this respect, under the leadership of Louis St-Laurent, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. Unfortunately, with Bill C-84 we may be sending the wrong signals to the international community. What the Conservative Government is about to do with Bill C-84 is exactly that. We know, for instance, that it is very difficult for people living in Central America to enter the United States.
I wish Government Members would understand that we agree there is abuse in the system and that we should deal with the problem. However, the Government's aggressive approach has blown out of all proportion a problem that could have been dealt with quite simply. Earlier, I talked about what causes the refugee phenomenon, and I did so to explain why any action taken by Canada must be seen within a broader context. When we focus on very narrow issue of refugees who abuse the system in Canada, we tend to forget the problem is much broader and far more complex. Canada has often been very generous in assisting people in difficulty throughout the world.
I am thinking, for instance, of the plight of Ethiopia. Our aid has made it possible for many Ethiopians to stay in their
country. Our approach internationally should be a preventive one. We should work on eliminating the situations that generate refugees. In fact, this perspective is entirely in the Liberal tradition which has always encouraged aid, peace making and mediation.
So far, a lot has been said about Bill C-84, but very little about the persons concerned by this Bill. Who are these refugees? I will give an example of a family I happen to know. This family was living in Chile at the time of the 1970 coup. The police came to their home and knocked on the door. The wife had time to take her two little girls and run to the back of the house. The policemen came in through the front door and took the husband, a university professor. His wife and their two children barely had time to escape through the back door.
[DOT] (N40)
The husband was executed. His wife fled to Canada with the children. They arrived without papers, still dazed, and then had to cope with adjusting to a new country, new customs, a new language, the children without their father, the wife without her husband.
There are hundred of stories like that. There is an Indian saying: To understand another person, one has to walk a mile in his moccasins. In other words, one has to put oneself in the other person's place.
I suggest Hon. Members put themselves in the place of the refugees who enter this country and are faced with the new measures proposed by this Government in Bill C-84. Imagine a family that just crossed the Atlantic and faces a Coast Guard officer who has to decide whether they are genuine refugees. Imagine a refugee who is unfairly denied refugee status and cannot appeal the decision. Would you want to be treated like that?
If you were sent back to your own country, to certain death, what would your reaction be?
My colleagues have given all kind of reasons why Bill C-84 is unsatisfactory. I wonder what the present Government's real objectives are. In 1974, we had 200,000 immigrants. In 1986, we had only 87,000. In addition, the number of family-class immigrants dwindled from 51,981 to 12,798 between 1984 and 1986-10,000 fewer. This Bill was introduced after 300-odd people landed on our shores. As underscored by my colleague from York West (Mr. Marchi), over the two years when the boat people came here Canada became home to 106,000 individuals. I must therefore conclude that the Conservative Government has locked the immigration door and has no intention of welcoming immigrants: it is making a federal case out of 300 people arriving here, whereas a Liberal Government did let in 106,000 immigrants in 1979 and 1980.
The message sent out by the Conservative Government has already registered. In her release dated August 17, 1980, CLC President Shirley Carr noted that "during a recent tour of Central America CTC representatives were approached on a
February 1, 1988

number of occasions by labour union supporters who expressed dismay over the fact that Canada seems to be discarding the humanitarian principles to which it had subscribed for years and years".
Like my Liberal colleagues, I believe this Bill eliminates the right of appeal, it is contrary to the spirit of the United Nations covenant and, first and foremost, treats churches and humanitarian institutions like criminals.
Religious organizations do not want to find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Such organizations made it possible for that Chilean woman and the two children to escape from their country.
Do my Conservative Party colleagues really think that a person fleeing under death threats can walk in a Canadian consulate or tell the nearest police officer: "Just a minute, 1 want to leave the country, let me get a Canadian visa". No way, we must remember that her husband was killed to realize the futility of such a gesture.
With this legislation the Conservative Government wants to close one of the very few ways open to these refugees, namely religious institutions and organizations.
Do Conservatives Members fail to see that people working for religious organizations have a law which is much more basic than any civil law or any government law? The law of these religious organizations, their belief in a superior being, is infinitely fairer than any human legislation. Their conscience tells them to disobey civil laws if these laws show no respect for human decency.
The Senate amendment would help clear up that situation. As a matter of fact I fail to understand the logic of the Conservative Government. It shirks its responsibilities and lets churches come to the assistance of the most destitute people in our society. In 1987, the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, some religious organizations went to the rescue of homeless in Canada. What this Tory Government is saying is that since there is a shelter problem for the homeless, let charitable organizations take care of it. But with this legislation, it is saying to them: Do not take care of the shelter problem of the homeless elsewhere in the world. It is illegal. The Government of Canada is now deciding what is charitable and what is not.
Let us make no mistake about it: Refugees are people who are both without home and without country. Where is Canada when the time comes to stand up and be counted? During the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, we organized a world conference. We spent money for all sorts of conferences, studies, projects. Bill C-84 clearly demonstrates that this Government is involved in a window-dressing job, a PR campaign, and that it does not understand anything of the problems the homeless are facing both here and elsewhere in the world. What is in store for religious organizations are jail terms when, for the same charitable purposes, they try to help citizens of the world who are seeking an oasis of peace.
Immigration Act, 1976
1 suggest that, seen from this angle, the Senate's amendment should be fully reconsidered or altered to take into account the positive and necessary contributions of religious and charitable organizations in this context. This brings me to deal with the relevancy of the Senate's amendment concerning the forcing back of boats.
I am concerned about the Government's refusal of this amendment for two reasons. First of all, the passengers of such a boat would be denied any recourse, which is a blatant violation of our judiciary system. Also, and as a consequence, what the Tory Government is saying is: Not in my backyard! In other words, we do not want this problem in Canada. That is where Canada is missing the boat. Not only would this approach not prevent smugglers from continuing their trade, as the Official Opposition critic explained, but Canada would be sending a very clear message to the international community: Don't count on Canada any more. Is that the price Canada must pay to be part of the group of industrialized nations, the Group of Seven? Or is Canada giving up its role as a world leader in this field?
Mr. Speaker, the Government is always saying we should be opening up new markets by being competitive and developing our technology. That is how a nation is measured, but there are other ways as well. Canada has always been a leader in immigration. In fact, Canada was the world leader. Why is the Conservative Government trying to downgrade this country to the level of other countries that are economically well off but fail miserably in terms of their immigration policies and the way they treat other people on this planet?
I therefore urge the Government to adopt the Senate's amendment concerning the provision for turning back ships, or to at least amend it so that refugees will have legal recourse.
Canada's message to other nations must be clear: "The buck stops here".
We will not let refugees be literally shipped from country to country without giving them some legal recourse. We will not accept a replay of the kind of situation we saw during World War II, when a ship with Jewish refugees was refused entry by Canada and several other coutries.
The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) mentioned in the House the provisions of this Bill that will probably be considered to be unconstitutional.
Considering last week's historic decision on abortion by the Supreme Court I suggest that the Government make sure its Bill is indeed constitutional.
In concluding, I would like to make it clear that we, as Liberals, agree that any abuse of our system must be dealt with, but we do not agree this means destroying the whole system.
I may add that we, as Canadians, are privileged among the nations of this world, and that we have a duty to keep our doors and our minds open to the less fortunate on this planet.

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
If we look at the context of this problem and the long-term implications, the sight of 300 people arriving in Canada should not make us panic. I think that the suggestion by the Hon. Member for York West that Canadians should be informed of the many benefits that accrue to Canada as a result of immigration is a very positive one, in keeping with the best traditions of this House. The Hon. Member is to be commended!
Finally, Canada must continue to play a leading role in the world, co-operating with other countries in the search for a solution that respects human dignity.
The Senate's amendments and those suggested by the Hon. Member for York West are a step in that direction. 1 urge the Government to revise its decision and to accept those amendments.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that the Hon. Member who has just spoken believes what she has said. I think that that belief system comes about as a consequence of not having the time or the opportunity to really examine in detail the legislation which is before us, as well as the situation which led to the need for its presentation.
1 am becoming more and more disturbed. This is the fifth day of debate on this Bill. It is the fifth day of filibuster on a piece of legislation which brought us back to the House in an emergency session last summer. We are not really debating the legislation; we are debating suggested amendments made by the Senate.
The Minister has outlined for the benefit of the House the considerable difficulties that would be created in terms of our capacity to protect ourselves as a nation from terrorists, from criminals and from undesirable people if some of the Senate amendments were accepted. The purpose in returning to the House last summer was to bring forward this piece of legislation. It received careful consideration in committee. It certainly received careful consideration in the Senate. We are now in a filibuster situation in the House of Commons.
As a Calgarian, I am very aware that in some two weeks we will be into the Olympic Games in Calgary. Historically, the Olympics have experienced some unfortunate terrorist incidents. In the City of Toronto in the not too distant future world leaders will meet. These leaders are potential targets for terrorists.
As a result of benign neglect over many years Canada was left in an essentially defenseless position in terms of immigration law. We are trying to correct that. A minority of Members in the House through their behaviour and through the continuation of this debate are simply denying the majority of Members the opportunity to vote on whether or not the Minister has brought forward a reasonable response to the
amendments of the Senate. There is still an urgent situation in the country to correct the situation.
I say to the Hon. Member that not only have I studied these matters over the last two or three years as Chairman of the committee, but during the hearings that were held daily we went into great detail about this situation. There was also a clause-by-clause study of the Bill in committee. Subsequently, I spent a week in Geneva at an executive council meeting of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. A great deal of my time there was spent with the legal experts of the High Commissioner's office who went over in some detail both Bill C-84 and Bill C-55, as amended. I point out to Hon. Members that what is before the House are not the original pieces of legislation but the amended versions.
I came away from there able to say on public platforms across the country that no one was able to bring to my attention the specific legislation of any country which provided more legal protection for true refugees than would be true in Canada once these amended Bills are passed. With our present procedures in place we do not have something to which the rest of the world can look to Canada as an example. These procedures are archaic and difficult. They cause a great deal of unnecessary and unwanted publicity for true refugees. I say that because people abuse bad law. We have bad law in place today and it is being abused.
What we brought forward to the House and what committees have worked very hard on is the creation of good law to which the rest of the world can look to. I simply ask the Hon. Member, if she feels that this piece of legislation is really so rotten, can she provide to the House the name of a single country anywhere in the world which will provide better protection to true refugees than will be true of the combination of Bill C-84 and Bill C-55?
Not only is the legislation which is before us not bad, it will be the finest legislation that exists in the world in terms of providing legal protection to refugees. I defy anyone in the House to stand up and give an example of one country that will do the job better than Canada will do it once this filibuster is over. It is time for the House to vote on this matter.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that 1 do not often speak in the House unless it is because I have something to say. Right now I feel it is important and my duty to say something because of the number of people in my riding who have come to my office with respect to this issue. 1 do not feel at all that I am taking part in a filibuster. 1 am carrying out my duty as a Member of Parliament representing the people of my riding which is Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: The Hon. Member spoke of true refugees, which is precisely the problem. The Government is trying to tell me who is a true refugee. The Hon. Member asks me to name a country in which a true refugee is better treated than
February 1, 1988

in Canada. The problem we have is with the definition of true refugee.
1 will point out to the Hon. Member a case in my riding. I refer to a fellow who was living in Sri Lanka who is a university professor. In the middle of the night one night someone ran to his house telling him to leave because people with guns were coming. He fled through the woods with his family and learned from other people later on that that night his house was burned down, along with the other houses on the street. And he stayed in Sri Lanka he would have lost his life. His son was admitted into Canada as a refugee, but this gentleman of an older generation stopped in Spain. He taught in Spain for a few months. In order to join his son in Canada he then asked the Immigration Department in Canada for status. He is not fussy. I believe it is too late for him to be a refugee. He wanted to be a landed immigrant. He wants to have anything, but he wants to live in Canada with his son. Over the past two years he has been at many meetings, and he has sworn on the Bible many times that what he says is true. He now has a job in Canada. He is waiting.
1 have a question for the Government, and perhaps my own critic could tell me the answer. I remember very well that Bill C-22 was retroactive to June, 1986. At that time the Bill was not even tabled because it had lost its way through the corridors of this House. It was retabled in November, 1986. But the law that we passed just before Christmas was retroactive to 1986.
I would like to know if Bill C-84 is going to be retroactive like Bill C-22? If it is, I fear for the constituent in my riding. What can I do for him? I had better hurry and attempt to settle this. I am now in communication with the Immigration Department. But 1 feel that I will not have done a good job as a Member of Parliament in looking after this very touching case. I am sure the Hon. Member knows what I mean when you have office hours in your riding and those people come in with a good case, and it is the red tape in the Government that prevents us from settling the problem for them.

Mr. Speaker, I have now concluded my remarks, but I hope I will get an answer to my question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On the sketchy details provided, 1 can see nothing in this Bill or the next Bill that would operate in anything other than the favour of someone who, for humanitarian and compassionate reasons and/or legitimate refugee status, was to seek that type of status in the country. The Bills provide a better world for refugees, and a better world for people who should be given humanitarian or compassionate grounds.
What the Member is overlooking, and the difficulty that the Chamber is having, is that from time to time all of us see individuals who we feel have not been handled well by the
Immigration Act, 1976
bureaucracy or by the legislation. What we do not see is the reality that each month 750 to 850 people come to the attention of immigration enforcement officers for breaking Canadian immigration law, and at the moment they are taken to inquiry by enforcement, they claim to be refugees. All of a sudden, miraculously 75 per cent of the 750 to 850 people a month make the claim to be refugees. They are not. Some of them are criminals. Some are illegal immigrants who have snuck across the border, or come in with false passports or false credentials. There have been cases in the public print. As a nation we must be worried when we have a law that does not allow us to protect ourselves.
1 ask Members to not keep the individual so clearly in mind that they forget the nation. This Bill is a Bill to protect the nation. I urge that the filibuster stop and we go to the vote.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: As a solution, the Member seems to suggest that we could make an appeal on humanitarian grounds to the Minister when we have a special case. In the nine years that I have been in this House, 1 have only had one successful humanitarian case appealed to the Minister, and that was during a Liberal Government. At the present time I do not know how difficult it would be for me to reach the Minister on the other side. That is not a solution. The solution is to amend the law as presented by the Senate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the last question, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is not so much of a question, but more of a statement in response to some of the allegations made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He likes to suggest that thoughtful, positive debate is a filibuster. I wish to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government may have the largest majority in Canadian history, but that does not mean that it can run roughshod over Parliament.
Parliament was recalled during the summer to pass this Bill expeditiously. The Government felt that it could ignore the advice of all of the people who have expertise in this area, come in with a Draconian piece of legislation, and use its huge majority to jam it through the House of Commons. Thank goodness, in our parliamentary system that does not work. To a certain extent, there are checks and balances.
While I have personal views that are not necessarily positive about the other place, the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has agreed to make some changes to the legislation is proof enough that it was erred or seriously flawed. Because we are trying to propose ways and means of improving this legislation as responsible members of opposition Parties, the suggestion that this is a filibuster, I find unacceptable.
I remember Canada in 1979 pleading heavily with countries in Southeast Asia to accept the boat people as they were fleeing persecution. Canada was urging countries to be compassionate, to be humanitarian, and to provide a safe

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
haven for those people who were fleeing what they perceived to be a very negative environment in their home country.
If someone feels that a ship approaching Canada is filled with illegal refugees, this legislation states that we will use our navy or our Coast Guard to force the boat to turn around and return to its port of origin. How on earth will anyone determine whether or not there are legitimate refugees on board? This is obviously a silly provision. I wish to remind my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, that there have only been two cases in Canadian history where refugees have arrived by boat. This is simply one example, and there are many others, where my friends in opposition are attempting to explain to the Government that changes must be made to make this a reasonable and acceptable piece of legislation. 1 find it completely unacceptable that our responsible debates are called a filibuster.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and present the views of my Party on Bill C-84 and the amendments that the Senate has proposed to it.
It seems obvious to me, and I think it must now be obvious to the Canadian people, that this whole issue and this whole legislation was phoney from the start. The Government never did have a reasonably founded apprehension that there would be large numbers of refugees arriving in Canada by boat. There never was any degree of reasonable apprehension that among those refugees there would be terrorists or criminals. There never was any evidence presented to Parliament or to any other forum to suggest that the recall of Parliament in August, 1986, was necessary. We had a phoney recall. We have a phoney Bill. We have a phoney problem based on a phoney analysis, and what I believe is a false apprehension.
One has to wonder if in fact this was done in order to help the failing election campaign of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives under their then Leader, Larry Grossman. If so, obviously it misfired.
This country won the Nansen Medal for its treatment of refugees over a period of some 20 years. The Government decided to tear up that record and that reputation in an attempt to generate some positive response from the voting public by undertaking a campaign that had as its targets those who were in the weakest position to defend themselves.
It has been argued, and argued by many authorities, that the provisions of Bill C-84 as originally proposed violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has also been argued that its provisions violate the United Nations Convention on the treatment of refugees.
Many organizations have been critical of the Bill, and I should like to start by exploring one of the points which the Parliamentary Secretary was attempting to make. The obvious point of the Bill is to take action against Central American
refugees and those who come here by water. They are the easiest to identify or to pick out. They generally have the least in the way of available resources to assist them in making a refugee claim.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of 750 to 800 persons per months arriving and making refugee claims. He knows that the majority of those people in fact have proper identification and that the majority of those people come from such countries as Brazil, Portugal, and Turkey. Normally they are in possession of, at least when they board the aircraft, purportedly proper identification in the form of passports or visas. What happens in the case of those people is that sometimes they get through. Sometimes the deception is detected, and then they go on an individual basis through the refugee determination process.
The very idea that a criminal, unless a highly unsuccessful one, a terrorist or someone who is a security risk to Canada would choose to arrive by the slowest, the riskiest, and the leakiest means possible, for example, a tramp steamer trying to sneak in under cover of fog to a coast that is in many ways hazardous to impromptu landings, is risible. For the Government to suggest by way of the Bill that that sort of landing constitutes a threat to Canada's security is frankly a deception.
Many criticism were levelled against Bill C-84 when it was first introduced. I think it is worth while repeating them. People who are the subject of a security certificate will be removed from Canada without the legal right to make a refugee claim. Another criticism was that turning boats around permits the operator to escape without a penalty. The boat could return however many times and be turned around. Obviously the sanctions proposed against groups who assist refugee claimants are unacceptable since many of them could come under the threat of such sanctions through inadvertence.
Only a few years ago we were encouraging the countries of southeast Asia to take in boat people who, obviously in the degree of desperation that led them to get on those boats, were refugees. We put passengers on those boats at risk if we simply turn the boat around at sea. We put them at the risk of the master of the vessel deciding to make some riskier approach or deciding to wreck the ship so that it cannot be turned around, whatever the risk to the passengers. We have no way, in such a case, of finding out who the people are, where they are coming from, what their reasons are, or whether in fact they are second-hand refugees, those who have been driven to desperation by the poor treatment they received in their original country of lodging outside their home country.
If people are dumped into the sea because a captain has not taken them back to the point of embarkation, apparently the Bill makes it an offence for a passing ship to pick them up. The Security Intelligence Review Committee is already overloaded. Also, the retention provisions are unnecessary and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rejection rate for refugee claimants has historically averaged from 65 per cent to
February 1, 1988

70 per cent, which is something we should bear in mind in considering the Bill.
With regard to the Senate amendments 1 could go on-and undoubtedly I will at a future opportunity-at some length about the legitimacy of the Senate and the legitimacy of Senate adjustments or amendments to Bills which go to the Senate Chamber. However, this is not the time or the place to question, as I certainly would, the legitimacy of the Senate. The fact is that the Senate has produced some reasonable amendments which address many of the major objections to the Bill. I must say also that the Government has had the sense in some instances to accept amendments which are worth while and frankly to take away some, though certainly not all, of the objectionable aspects of the legislation.
I do not think that some of the original stated objections of the Government in the Bill are such that many would object to them. It is clearly necessary to place an increased responsibility on transportation companies to know who they are transporting and to know exactly under what status or claim the person is boarding a vessel or airplane in order to come to Canada. I do not think that is something we find objectionable. It does not go contrary to Canadian traditions as does much of the legislation.
1 am glad to see, for example, the Government accepting the Senate amendment which would permit a person who is the subject of a security certificate to be present during the presentation of the Government's case to the judge except where there are compelling reasons for exclusion. In today's environment of international terrorist activity against some states and institutions, I suppose we can conceive of a situation where a person's very appearance before the judge would have some risk to Canadians. It is not easy to do so, but nevertheless it is a possibility. Therefore, the acceptance of this amendment with the inherent flexibility for situations of extreme danger or urgency is at last something intelligent from the Government.
However, the Senate amendment which would remove the power to order a ship not to enter or to leave Canadian waters has been rejected by the Government. I can only see that as being a mistake. As I see it, the effect is that if Canada is able to communicate with a vessel that is within range of Canadian shores to make purportedly an attempt to land refugees, surely with the technology available or at the disposal of our Armed Forces and Coast Guard we have the obvious opportunity to apprehend the vessel at the very instant it enters Canadian waters or beaches on Canadian soil. Surely it is much better that we should know who is trying to enter Canada and why than that we should simply cast them adrift on the high sea, a practice which used to be known as marooning and of course implies the possibility of very high mortality among the victims.
Earlier 1 mentioned Canada's recent history because the two cases before this decade of ships full of refugees being turned away from Canadian shores are dark stains on the country's tradition of magnanimity and generosity to refugees. In recent
Immigration Act, 1976
history Canada has had a very good record in the treatment of refugees and of refugee claimants. That is a record which we should be seeking to sustain. Let us see if we can earn the Nansen Medal again sometime.
In terms of the measures in the Bill, which I for one do not find objectionable, the action to increase penalties on those who smuggle people into Canada or across borders for profit or gain is a very necessary control. However, characteristically the Government has lumped them together in Bill C-84 with measures which neither I nor my Party can support. Obviously preventing the entry of terrorists or criminals is a legitimate and worthy government objective. What we are saying about Bill C-84 is that it will have its hardest impact on those who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
In recent months, we have heard that the Government is seeking a safe third country for people who are turned away from Canadian shores. What does that tell us about what we have learned? I received a letter from a resident of Dollard des Ormeaux in Quebec who concludes by saying:
I remember learning in school about how Canada turned away boatloads of
Jews. Haven't we learned from the past?
Of course, those people did not go to a safe third country, they went back to a very dangerous situation indeed.
An example of comment in the press is that in recent years, Canada has been the most generous of western countries with regard to refugees and we have been congratulating ourselves endlessly about this. Perhaps we have, though it does bear repeating. It also bears repeating that not every person who comes claiming to be a refugee should be accepted as a refugee. Again, my belief is that before the advent of Bill C-84, we had adequate means to determine that.
We are after all largely a country, if not of refugees then certainly of refugees and immigrants. It is even stated by some ethnographers and historians that the aboriginal people of this country came to North America some 30,000 years ago via an ice bridge. That, of course, is now something that is beyond a reasonable determination, but apart from the aboriginal people of Canada, it is absolutely certain that all who have come here since, their descendants and those who will continue to come to Canada in the future, are immigrants all and in some cases refugees.
In the past, Canada's golden years of immigration included 1910 when over 400,000 people came largely from eastern Europe to settle the Canadian Prairies. We must truly recognize the contribution refugees have made to building the Canada we have, love and enjoy today.
There has to be a better way for the Government to get a judgment on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation than to submit it to Parliament and leave it to its fate before the courts. It has been said that a problem with Bill C-84 is that it may eventually be found unconstitutional, and 1 am sure there

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
are lessons for all of us in last week's Supreme Court judgment as to what happens in such a case.
We are glad to see the Liberal Party now on side so far as Bill C-84 is concerned. We noted, of course, the comments in The Ottawa Citizen of July 18 of last year made by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), but we are glad to see that the Liberal Party is also debating this measure with us in the House of Commons.


Mr. Belsher:: Liberal-NDP coalition.


Mr. Dick:: Filibuster.


John Edmund Parry: This is not a filibuster, this is an opportunity for Members of Parliament to debate a serious question and to put their views on the record. I am sure that if those who are heckling in a rather half-hearted way want to have an opportunity to put their views on Bill C-84 on the record, they can have that arranged for themselves.
It seems to me that the Government is now, some six months after the phoney recall of Parliament, carrying on with pushing this legislation through in order to convince the House and the country that the Government is still the Government. I would like to put government Members' minds at rest. All of us who understand the democratic functioning of this institution and who indeed love and defend democracy acknowledge that they are still the Government. It is not something that we see as being in question or open to challenge, but since they are still the Government let them show that they can adapt to changing circumstances. Let them show that they are capable of admitting an error once it has been made, rather than only of pushing forward willy-nilly, regardless of the opposition to Bill C-84 which they can now see very well is not something that is centered in the caucuses of two opposition Parties in Parliament, but is widely spread and shared across this great country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will realize that this Bill passed the House some months ago and was in the Senate for a very long time. When it was considered by the Senate, amendments were made and then some of those amendments were accepted by the Government in an effort to put the Bill through. Now the Bill is back in the House with a Senate position that is not reasonable. The Hon. Member's Party continues to speak about the Bill. Surely a Government is entitled to get its legislation through in a six-month, eight-month or nine-month period. The continual discussion and support of the Senate by the New Democratic Party is really something to behold.
My question to the Hon. Member deals with whether it is his view and his Party's view that those who conspire to break Canada's immigration laws should somehow be relieved of real search-and-seizure proceedings and should now be entitled to be treated as other than offenders. This is bearing in mind that there has been all sorts of evidence of people paying $3,000
$4,000 and $5,000 and even up to $10,000 for phoney documentation that would allow them to get onto planes, and for the organization of phoney immigration by way of refugee claims into Canada. Is it not his Party's view that that kind of thing that tears apart Canadian sovereignty ought to be a crime and that people who commit that kind of crime ought to be subject to the full penalties set out in Bill C-84?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question, though the strawmen were falling with such speed during it that I had difficulty counting them as they went down.
The Hon. Member must surely have heard me compliment the Government on its reasonableness in accepting some of the Senate amendments. As far as the time taken to get the Bill through the Senate is concerned, I would contend, and I think anyone who looked at the record would support me, that the time taken in the Senate was a reflection of the fact that the Government chose not to try to use any degree of powerful influence on the Senate to get this through faster. Certainly that indicates that the Government's effort to get this through the Senate was not up to the emergency billing the Government gave this measure when it recalled Parliament.
As far as phoney claims are concerned, I would repeat the point I made earlier in my speech. The Hon. Member talks of conspiracy. He talks of thousands of dollars changing hands for false documentation. No one disputes that this happens. We are saying, however, that Bill C-84 is only tangentially related to that sort of thing.
The fact is that it is an absolute sophistry to say that 150 or 180 people on a boat were conspiring to break Canadian immigration laws. They obviously knew nothing of Canadian immigration laws. Those who do conspire by procuring false documents are indeed knowing offenders, but the fact is that the measures to control that sort of entry into Canada were largely pre-existing.
What we have here basically are measures which would put in jeopardy the very lives of people who are generally too poor, too ignorant and too desperate to even form an intent to conspire against Canada's immigration laws, and who in many cases are not really aware except in the most fuzzy and haphazard way that those laws exist and will be enforced.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about democracy. When his colleagues stand up and chastise the Government for listening to a "goon squad", they are chastising us for listening to Members of Parliament who represent their constituents. The NDP has a rather weird idea of what is involved in a democracy. It seems some of their ideas would be more in accord with a dictatorship.
The Hon. Member mentioned the provisions of this Bill dealing with boats. I would like to let the House know that I think the difference between a filibuster, which is what we are
February 1, 1988

experiencing now for the fifth day, and an informed debate is the degree to which Members are truly informed and they lay information on the table germane to the issue.
In 1985, some two years ago, this Government took a world leadership position to develop a scheme which is referred to in the UN as RASRO, or the Rescue At Sea Resettlement Office. We are a signatory to that agreement. It encourages ship captains to pick up people adrift at sea in leaky boats and give them sanctuary on the ship. The captain is guaranteed that he can come to port and disembark those people. We took the lead in that initiative and we have an obligation under that treaty to resettle our fair share of those kinds of people.
That was concrete action taken by this Government with respect to boat people. What 1 hear the Opposition saying is that as we change Canadian immigration law, we should continue to leave in place provisions which would encourage the peddlers in human flesh to go to these desperate people, take their life savings, and cast them adrift in a leaky boat in the North Atlantic, one of the most hazardous oceans in the world. That is what they want us to do. Or, they would have us encourage those peddlers in human flesh to put those people on a great big leaky boat and take it to our shores, not a port or someplace with wharfs, but past the rocks and shoals and waves which threaten to capsize the boats.
1 say to Hon. Members that if Conservative Members in this House were to give in to the Opposition, that is what we would be doing. We would be encouraging the peddling of human flesh by unscrupulous people and putting the health and safety of these people at risk. Members of this Party say no. You can filibuster all you want but we will do nothing to encourage further traffic in misery. We are trying to stop it.
The Hon. Member says terrorists and criminals have access to expensive suits of clothing, false passports, and so on. There is no evidence that anyone comes in and claims to be a refugee when in fact they are a terrorist, he says. That simply defies reality. Surely the Hon. Member has had the time to read the newspapers lately and recognizes that, for example, one of the Tamil boat people is wanted on a warrant in West Germany for making Molotov cocktails. Surely that is a current event. It is dealt with prominently in our news media. Surely he should be aware of it and should be careful that, as part of his filibuster and throwing false information on the table, there is no suggestion that those who are capable of harming the people of this country use the refugee system.
Surely the Hon. Member is aware that 10,000 people arrived at our borders last year seeking entry, mostly as refugees, with absolutely no identifying documents. Those are not all the people who arrived. Those are the ones turned over to the RCMP so we could try to find out who they are. Does he honestly believe that we should leave the law alone so that they can just walk right into the country, 10,000 a year, and we do not know who they are? Or, should we pass this legislation in order to have a way of detaining people so we can learn who they are and whether or not they represent a danger?
Immigration Act, 1976


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to briefly respond to those points by the Parliamentary Secretary. 1 say briefly because I am not filibustering and do not wish to. It might be said that the Parliamentary Secretary, by consistently misusing the 10-minute period for questions and comments, is aiding and abetting a filibuster. The fact is he does so when he puts on the record intelligent observations about RASRO and then follows them with what I can only say is a complete distortion of my comments and my Party's position.
If the Hon. Member refers to Hansard for today, he will find me saying that I approve of higher penalties for smuggling. However, when he attempts to suggest that the opposition Parties would like to see people coming in on lifeboats, i think he goes absolutely against what I said, which is that it is much safer and much more secure for Canada if these boats, once identified, could be apprehended when they land.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate because 1 consider that, although there is an urgent need for both our refugee legislation and our Immigration Act to be re-examined and updated, this particular Bill has flaws and needs a lot of work. 1 found it distressing this morning to hear the Parliamentary Secretary, who is normally a thoughtful Member and from whom one would have expected better, dismissing all the genuine concerns on this side of the House as filibustering.
I am going to begin by laying out what is still wrong with the Bill, what could be corrected relatively simply with some good will on the part of the Minister, and then return to some basic principles on which I think we can agree.
First, one must point out that the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs were unanimous. Not only Liberal Senators supported the amendments before us, so did Conservative Senators. In this particular case the chamber of sober second thought did a rather good job.
The Minister, indeed, has admitted that his legislation was born in haste, because he has accepted some of those amendments. He has accepted that claimants may be in courtrooms when lawyers for the Government present a security or criminal intelligence report about them, unless the claimant poses a security or personal safety risk. This is surely an improvement on the original situation where a genuine claimant, who might be represented by a not very well informed or not very competent lawyer, was at risk, not knowing what had been said, and therefore not in a position to counter arguments. The state will still be protected because there is provision to exclude people when there is a clear and known security risk.
As to the question of threat of criminal prosecution against church workers or others who assist refugee claimants, the Minister is now prepared to guarantee that that will not happen without formal consent of the Attorney General of Canada. In other words, the church worker who in good faith

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
tries to assist someone to make a refugee claim is now not liable to punishment as was the case with the original Bill.
The amendment which the Minister has refused to entertain and which I seriously urge he re-examine is the one which allows boats to be turned back on the high seas. Apparently the Minister considers that there is some deterrent value in this. Surely, on the contrary, there is an enormous risk in this. If an unscrupulous ship's captain on a leaky, poorly provisioned, and poorly staffed boat on the high seas in the North Atlantic is turned back by our Coast Guard officials, what is the deterrent to him? He takes his unfortunate passengers back and dumps them somewhere or other. He still has their money and so has not lost anything.
Surely a much more effective deterrent would be to bring that ship into port, confiscate it, charge the captain, and jail him if necessary. That would be an effective deterrent but, of at least the same importance, Canadian officials would be able to examine those people on board and determine whether or not they were genuine refugees. If they were turned back on the high seas we would know nothing about them and they could be genuine refugees. That is the reason I think that particular amendment made by the Senate should be regarded seriously. The Minister has turned it down out of hand. I hope he will reconsider because that is an important part of the opposition of my Party to this Bill as it now stands.
This Bill was introduced in great haste in response to the arrival of a boat carrying 150 refugee applicants to Nova Scotia last summer. The Minister has been saying ever since that he needs Draconian powers in order to deal with fake refugees. However, there are powers in the present legislation which are not being used. A lot of the fake refugee applications are coming from unscrupulous so-called immigration consultants and lawyers. Section 95(n) of the present Immigrations Act allows prosecution of those who would counsel or assist illegal immigrants. That section has not been used other than to prosecute the captain of the Amelie.
The most extraordinary abuses are taking place and the Government remains inactive. In my own riding four or five immigration consultants have set up shop. They charge fees for counseling people on making false immigration applications. They have links with travel agents in various countries. The Government knew about this for years before it finally acted. It has finally laid charges against three of them but there is no indication when those cases will be brought to trial.
The first line of protection for us is surely to prosecute the people who are organizing the scams. Many of the people who have made false refugee claims do not know our laws and have paid large sums of money to these consultants who have advised them that this is the way to come into Canada. The key way to stop this must be to deal with these fake immigration consultants and with employers who knowingly hire illegals at poor wages.
There has been for at least two years, to my knowledge, a lively traffic in social insurance cards and the Government is not on top of that. There are some remarkably youthful looking people working in Toronto with cards which show that they are 65. They do not look a day over 21 or 22 but the Government is not acting on that.
Returning to the immigration law itself, I think we would all agree that the law as passed in 1976 is more than due for amendment and updating, for a number of reasons. However, let us discuss first what everyone in this House would agree on. Canada's effort in formulating and administering refugee policy is an essential reflection of Canada's humanitarian interests. Canadians have shown that they have the capacity to reach out to those who are suffering persecution for reasons of race, religion, or politics, and to give comfort to the homeless and stateless. Not very long ago, in 1979, Canada was setting an example to the world by urging Southeast Asian countries not to turn away boat people.
The number of people on the move in the world is increasing. It is reckoned that at any time 70 million to 80 million people are on the move. According to United Nations standards some are genuine refugees, some are unhappy, desperate people moving because of threat of war, revolution or, very often, sheer poverty in their own countries, and some have the same motivation as have immigrants- the desire to create a better life and future for themselves and their children, but they lack the skills which would make them acceptable as immigrants under the normal legislation.
Clearly Canada cannot accept 70 million or 80 million people. We must have laws which balance the needs of those unhappy people who would like to come into our country with Canada's interests. We must have laws which protect Canada's sovereignty. When the 1976 Immigration Act was discussed in this House and in committee those many different interests were balanced carefully and thoughtfully by Members on all sides of the House.
The legislation which the Government has placed before us now wants to slam the door but does not address the other matters. For instance, as long ago as 1980 there was much discussion in the United Nations about the need to find better ways to settle refugees nearer their own homes, the need to find better methods of international dispute settlement, protection of human rights, and assurance of economic prosperity in other countries. These all form basic parts of any approach to refugees and I have heard no attempt in this discussion from the Minister or Members of the other sides to pull those factors in. We only hear that this is a piece of legislation to slam the doors.
We all know that there are abuses but this Bill does not adequately deal with them. Neither does it ensure that we maintain our traditional commitment to assisting refugees. This Bill makes no attempt to involve citizens. Consider, for example, the magnificent effort at the time of the Vietnam refugees when church groups and citizen groups became

February 1, 1988

involved in assisting in the settlement of people. That was something of which we can be proud. Most of those people have gone on to become very good citizens who are contributing a lot to Canada.
We need to deal with abuses, but we certainly need to remember our traditional commitment to refugees as well. Unfortunately, this Bill does not do that.
1 might also mention that part of the reason people are being encouraged by so-called immigration consultants to misuse the refugee application system is that it is so hard to qualify as an immigrant under the existing Act. On August 12, when the Minister introduced in the House his legislation to deal with refugee abuses, he added as a sweetener that he was proposing to ease the rules so that unmarried brothers and sisters could be sponsored. Nothing has happened since then.
On January 29, the Minister issued a press release, essentially saying, "Don't call us, we'll call you". He said, "We are in the process of amending the immigration regulations", but went on to say that it would take several months. Why did the Minister raise false hopes on August 12 if he had no intention of moving for the best part of a year?
The Parliamentary Secretary opposite is an able man whom 1 respect. 1 do not think this morning's performance was typical of him, but I do not know how he can justifiably criticize us on this side of the House, complaining that we have had five days of debate about amendments, when his own Minister has had eight months in which to produce a regulation change that he promised and which is still not in force.
The commitment of the Canadian people to assisting genuine refugees still exists. Canada has never lost by it. We have gained many thoughtful contributing citizens. Our commitment to deal with those who would abuse the system must be equally strong because those who abuse the system flood it and block it.
Presently, only 10 per cent of the enormous numbers of people applying for refugee status are qualified. This means that the other 90 per cent are so blocking the system that those 10 per cent who need to get a decision and get on with organizing their lives in Canada are prevented from doing so. They are held up by a cumbersome system, and that needs to be addressed. I have no quarrel with that, but this particular Bill is limited, and the provision about turning back ships is wrong.
I hope the Minister will reconsider that amendment. 1 also hope the Minister will move on some of the other areas that he will start prosecuting so-called immigration consultants in a more vigorous fashion, that he will deal with abuses using the existing provisions of the Immigration Act and the existing provisions against fraud in the Criminal Code.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) say that this
Immigration Act, 1976
country should continue its commitment to true refugees and to their admission. I hope she would agree that that is precisely what this Government has done.
I submit that in the past three years and some months since the Government took office there have been more immigrants and refugees admitted to this country than in any similar three-year period for some time.
She directed our attention particularly to the admission of boat people from southeast Asia in 1979. I remind her that that was the initiative of a Conservative Government. It was an initiative that drew support from all sectors of our society. I was glad to be among those who arranged for admission and sponsorship of one of the boat people. I agree with her that many of them have become worthy citizens of this country, including the young man to whom I referred.
I was not as impressed when the Hon. Member opposed the clause of the proposed Act which authorizes the Minister to turn back ships that are suspected of carrying bogus refugees. Last August, when 174 would-be refugees landed on our shores, her Leader said that the ship should have been turned back. He rebuked the Government for not taking the kind of initiative that would have prevented the ship from landing.
It is not the first time that we have found there is some difference of opinion between the Leader of the Liberal Party and those who purport to follow him. However, I draw to the attention of the House today's gap between leadership and commitment.
I regret very much that there continues to be the reference to this clause that we have had this morning, as on other occasions. Normally the Hon. Member for Trinity is not a fearmonger and has not been so today, but I do regret that there has been no recognition given today, as on other occasions, to the fact that the Minister, having received such authority to turn back a ship, is enabled to do so only after having due regard to the safety of the vehicle and its passengers and to the convention. It is an authority that can be used only with restraint and due recognition to the safety of those concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the Member. As the Member knows, the Government has accepted a great number of the Senate amendments and has only refused one or two. One deals with security risks. The Member did not speak about that.
The Government's view is that if a person was clearly a security risk the Government could reject a refugee claim. Is it the view of the Liberal Party on behalf of which she speaks that the Government should accept security risks if the person makes a refugee claim?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has a wicked sense of humour is trying to get me to say something rather foolish.

February 1, 1988
My comments were directed to the section where I am very happy to say the Minister accepted an amendment, that would allow the claimant to be present when criminal intelligence information was presented about him, unless he was deemed to be a security or safety risk.
1 said that 1 was pleased that the Minister accepted that amendment because it seemed to me to provide a degree of necessary protection for the genuine refugee, while at the same time providing the state with the degree of protection that allowed it to exclude a person if there were strong grounds for it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Opposition is through filibustering, we on the Government side are prepared not to see the clock to perhaps bring this to a conclusion in the next five or ten minutes. I thought you might seek unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.00 p.m., the House took recess.
The concrete demonstration of Canadian support, particularly of the people of Rockland, has ended the isolation of these people. They now have friends in Canada, thanks to SalvAide and the Town Council of Rockland under the distinguished leadership of Mayor Jean Marc Lalonde.


OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY-NEGOTIATION OF NORTHERN ACCORD
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Energy agreements with the West and in the Atlantic provinces have done much to heal the wounds left by the ill-fated National Energy Program. One region of Canada yet remains to be dealt with. The future of Canada, North of 60, depends greatly on the oil and gas industry and this is recognized by the Government as it seeks to negotiate the Northern Accord.
Revenue sharing and joint management will allow the northern Territories to play their full role in Confederation. The importance of the Northern Accord cannot be overstated.

Si


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House Resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on January 19, 1988, the Rockland Town Council in my constituency decided to pass a resolution in favour of twinning with the City of Santa Marta, Cabanas, El Salvador. This village was virtually depopulated in 1981 as a result of an attack that affected not only Santa Marta but the entire region. I am informed by SalvAide that 80 people were killed in that massacre and that civilians fled to Honduras in order to live in refugee camps. There, some 250 children died within the first six months as a result of the camp living conditions in question.
Finally, the people of that community decided to repopulale their community of Santa Marta. Despite insurmountable odds and with the support of the international humanitarian community, 1,645 returned to their homes in Santa Marta. When they returned they found their homes in ruins and the community practically non-existent.



APARTHEID


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from two and a half weeks in the front line states of southern Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana. There I was lucky enough to go with ZIMOFA, the Zimbabwe-Mozambique Friendship Association, into the Beira Corridor. I visited a refugee camp called Gorongosa. Eight thousand people were forced into the camp by the camp's MNR South African supported bandits. At one point 10 people a day were dying of starvation, both children and old people, because the food cannot get through.
As I speak now, the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is in Lusaka with other Commonwealth Ministers, and I urge two practical steps on those Ministers.
First, we have to get food aid through and that means by communications and transport aid, what we call non-lethal military aid. The Minister should commit the Commonwealth to that right away.
Second, we should continue our good work through SADCC. I was able to attend the opening of the first project which was a hydro electric power project constructed by Canadian engineers.
I received a warm reception as a Canadian in southern Africa, but there are great expectations for Canada to deliver more stability and peace in the front line states are one of the


February 1, 1988

biggest blows that we and the Commonwealth can strike against the evil apartheid regime of South Africa.



ABORTION


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, cries of the unborn are not being heard in Canada at this time because of last week's Supreme Court decision. I must express my extreme disappointment with the ruling that was handed down when five of our Justices thought it more important that every woman should have equal access to an abortion rather than have an abortion committee examine the validity of such a request.
In British Columbia there are already 25 abortions for every 100 live births. This is an appalling number, and it is sad when live fetuses are killed without any consideration given to their rights.
I call on the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Government to work quickly and carefully with the provinces to address how to protect the thousands of unborn humans who will continue to be murdered as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision.
Many Canadians feel that the issue of abortion is not just a legal one. It encompasses the whole idea of family and obligation. It is this that must be dealt with now.



FARM IMPROVEMENT AND MARKETING COOPERATIVES LOANS ACT


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last June 30 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) asked the two opposition Parties to pass the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act in haste. The Minister claimed that if we went through normal legislative channels farmers would not be able to get loans under the program, and that without the right to consolidate loans, thousands of farmers would be forced off their farms over the summer.
The legislation was not presented until the last day of the session, even though the Minister had months to prepare it. We rushed it through, user fees and all. Did the farmers get their loans? No way. The regulations had to be done over. Several Departments got involved. There were more delays. It will be proclaimed today, seven months later. There are more delays to come.
The banks say that their new forms cannot be in their branches until sometime next week. So much for the Minister's word. And what of his Ministry's competence? This is inexcusable. No more can we trust the word of this Minister.

[Translation}



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the annual cerebral palsy telethon will take place on February 6 and 7.
The 1988 telethon will be the tenth anniversary of this outstanding event, and I should like to tell the House that Normick Perron President Jean Perron of La Sarre will act as provincial honorary president in Quebec.
This is the first time the cerebral paralysis organization has a president from one of the regions, and all Abitibi-Temis-camingue residents are convinced that Mr. Jean Perron will successfully face up to the challenge.
I take this opportunity to thank the thousands of volunteers who, back home as everywhere else in Quebec, selflessly devote themselves to collect funds to fight against this terrible disease, cerebral palsy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as it befits the occasion, 1 urge all my colleagues and the people of Abitibi-Temiscamingue to be very generous with their time and money in support of this noble and humanitarian undertaking.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Corporation, banks, and the Saskatchewan Government are now western Canada's largest land holders. The trend is continuing at an alarming rate.
The Farm Credit Corporation is being rated as the poorest group to deal with in the debt review boards.
Over two years ago I asked the House why a system of crop sharing between farmers and the Farm Credit Corporation could not be instituted to help young farmers over the low price grain crisis which now appears to have bottomed out.

February 1, 1988
Some form of crop share must be instituted to keep young, responsible farmers on and owning the land. The Farm Credit Corporation must lead the way if the country is to keep western Canada as its main grain growing area. At the very least the Farm Credit Corporation should be leaving the home quarter as a base for these young farmers to rebuild on.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at 3.30 the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) will finally have the chance to set the record straight with respect to parental leave. He will be visited by the man who has really highlighted more than any other person the discrimination in our current maternity benefits system.
This individual from Kitchener was faced with a situation in which his wife died in childbirth. As the remaining parent he sought parental leave to look after his child during the first critical weeks of the child's life. In fact, the child was suffering from meningitis, but because of the discriminatory nature of our current system regarding parental leave he could not receive those benefits.
Four parliamentary committees and one extra-parliamentary committee have recommended changing maternity benefits to include parental leave, to allow the choice to be available to either parent to take leave or not. This particular move would not cost the Government a penny. I ask the Minister at 3.30 to change the discriminatory nature of the law and to allow parental leave to involve both parents. Both parents should be involved in the raising of a child.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: 

CANADA POST CORPORATION


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not being fooled by Canada Post's efforts instigated, aided, and abetted by the Conservative Government to convince them that the removal of postal services from post offices across the country and placing them in private businesses is in their best interests.
A growing percentage of our mail is now being handled in places where people do not give their undivided attention to it, as they are committed to running their businesses, and where the mail is placed in areas which are not secure. In many cases the locations of those outlets have changed with little notice, as exasperated operators give up this time consuming customer service.
An angry constituent of mine writes:
Today I received in the mail a delivery notice from Canada Post to pick up a parcel.
This parcel is my fur coat, but I don't pick it up at the post office- I must go to ...
and the constituent names the store in a mall.
The constituent further states:
What is happening to our postal service? Our money built this post office in Kenora yet we don't use it for incoming parcels, just outgoing. Why?
I'm not the only person asking. One doesn't pick up groceries at a furniture store.
I could not have said it better myself.



ABORTION


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on the Morgentaler case by striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code as being contrary to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights.
At the federal level this decision leaves Canada without any law on abortion from conception right up until the very


February 1, 1988

moment of birth. At the provincial level there is now health care confusion with our provinces literally going in 10 different directions.
Throughout the country there is widespread ethical debate about the fundamental issue involved. Therefore, I call upon the Government to exercise its prerogative under Section 33 of the Charter through a notwithstanding provision as an interim measure.
Further, given that all seven members of the Supreme Court indicated that Parliament has the legitimate state interest in the protection of the foetus, I call upon the Government to establish in law that the word "everyone" in Section 7 of the Charter includes the foetus or the unborn child within its mother's womb.



AIDS DISEASE-PLIGHT OF THE INFECTED

Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has just returned from a major international conference in London sponsored by the World Health Organization and concerned with the AIDS epidemic which will affect up to one million people over the next 10 years or so. The Minister has indicated that Canada will host a conference in Montreal one year from now.
It is very interesting that the Minister is willing to speak out and host things internationally in this respect, while he has done almost nothing at home. During the Christmas recess I had occasion to consult with leading West Coast authorities, and also received information from San Francisco. It is very evident that nothing is being done to help people who are already infected. They cannot even get through on information lines, much less get any projects considered. New drugs must be tested. Nothing is being done about that.
There is a complete lack of co-ordination between different cities, and the three major cities in Canada have considerable experience now. There is no network in place to exchange information. The National Centre for AIDS is not providing full assistance. The public at large must have mass media education.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has wasted five days of debate on a few minor amendments to Bill C-84, an Act which is designed to control the
Oral Questions
abuse of our immigration system by stopping bogus asylum seekers.
Figures just released by the Immigration Department show that 26,944 individuals in 1987 asked for refugee status in Canada. This is an increase of 8,662 over 1986. In addition, only 30 per cent of those who claim to be refugees are confirmed as such. This makes the situation very serious.
With the Calgary Olympics on the horizon, and the economic conference scheduled for Toronto later this year, our immigration officers must be given the tools provided by this legislation to control our borders in order to prevent individuals, whose sole objective is to use these events to spotlight their cause on the world stage, from entering Canada.
I call upon the Opposition and their friends in the Senate to stop the filibustering of Bill C-84 and give the Canadian people the protection they deserve.



PLANNED IMPORTATION OF NEW ZEALAND LAMBS

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, sheep producers in Canada have been placed in a very uncompetitive situation as a result of lack of initiative by the federal Government. A firm from New Zealand has plans to import lambs, and en route across the Pacific to feed those lambs, and dump them on to the Canadian market.
This is a very unfair situation at a time when we on all sides of the House are attempting to develop the sheep industry, particularly the fledgling sheep industry in western Canada.
In an effort to provide our sheep producers with every support possible, I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to rethink the lack of attention he has given to this particular issue and take steps to disallow the importation of New Zealand lambs in this fashion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In a sworn affidavit filed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police it is alleged that the Minister of Energy personally arranged for unreported payment of certain campaign expenditures during the last federal election.

February 1, 1988
Oral Questions
Flas the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Energy whether the statements contained in this sworn affidavit of the RCMP are true?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that this was part of the evidence that was gathered during the course of the investigation. Mr. Gorman, having had the opportunity to study and examine this information, together with legal officials both from within his own Department and outside, came to a conclusion.
What we are suggesting is that Mr. Gorman, the Commissioner, made his judgment and used his discretion as he was so authorized under the Act, and obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with his decision.
This issue has been raised on the floor of the House for a number of days. The Government has indicated its willingness to send this matter off to a committee so that Mr. Gorman can be called before the committee to explain the decision he had reached and to elucidate on all the points that have been raised, rather than picking out bits and pieces of information here, there, and everywhere, and trying to make a new story out of it.
I have just spoken to the chairman of the committee, and he indicated that tomorrow there will be a meeting at 3.30 p.m. 1 would suggest that Hon. Members use that opportunity to pursue this in its fullest.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will of course be interested in pursuing the reasons why Mr. Gorman wrote his curious letter, but whatever the committee ascertains and whatever judgment the committee may come to, it in no way discharges the Prime Minister's responsibility of responding to some known facts and personally ascertaining from his Minister whether those allegations or facts are true.


PRIME MINISTER S RESPONSIBILITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always insisted here in the House that he is alone responsible for his ministers' conduct.
Here are my questions to the Deputy Prime Minister: Why is the Prime Minister trying to pass off his responsibility? Why did he fail to ask his Minister of Energy why he had kept silent about the letter for two years? Why did the Prime Minister fail to ask why his Minister of Energy and the legal advisor of the Conservative Party in Quebec contradicted each other in public? Why did the Prime Minister fail to inquire whether the statement made under oath by a RCMP officer was true?
These are public statements and the Prime Minister is responsible for ascertaining whether his Minister .. .


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have always known the Leader of the Opposition to be a fair and honourable individual who really-


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and 1 find it quite unbecoming of him to cast aspersions upon the Commissioner and to charge an individual when he has not been found guilty under the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. He can draw whatever conclusions he so desires, but I would ask him, in the interests of fairness, in the interests of equity, and in the interests of dealing with a distinguished parliamentarian, whether he would want, as a minimum, to get all the facts out and to get Mr. Gorman's version of why he took the decision he did. I think therein we have the crux of the matter.
[DOT] (M20)
Mr. Gorman chose, after due care and deliberation, as he is so authorized to do under the Act, not to proceed with a criminal prosecution. All Hon. Members can ask questions. The members of that committee can ask whatever questions they wish of Mr. Gorman and I am sure he will provide enlightened answers. 1 would invite the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to wait for that.


PARKER COMMISSION REPORT-ETHICAL STANDARDS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gorman may or may not feel free to tell the committee why he wrote the letter as to whether or not the Hon. Minister ought to have been charged. However, the Deputy Prime Minister is pursuing the same tactic the Prime Minister has attempted, namely, that unless a criminal charge has been laid or unless there has been a criminal conviction, nothing is wrong.
To cite the Chief Justice of Ontario-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Right Hon. Leader should put his question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he agrees with the citation that I will read him from the Parker Commission which looked into the allegations against against former Minister of the Government. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with this statement which is found on page 27 where Mr. Justice Parker cites with approval commission counsel:
"It is not enough-to show that you arc not a crook .... More, surely, is
expected of public office holders ....
Do the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister agree with the ethical standards the Chief Justice feels ought to be expected of cabinet Ministers, or does the Deputy Prime Minister disagree with those ethical standards?
February 1, 1988


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to cite selective quotations, perhaps he might be interested in what the law really has to say. It says that "no prosecution for an offence under this Act or for an offence under Section 115 of the Criminal Code in relation to anything that this Act forbids or requires to be done shall be instituted except with the prior consent in writing of the Commissioner".
The Commissioner has the discretion. He has the judgmental powers. After the gathering of evidence, the examining of evidence and the studying of evidence, he made the decision. If Hon. Members want to question that decision, they can do so till the cows come home. However, the fact still remains that under the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, his mandate was carried out. If Hon. Members decide that the mandate is ill-defined or needs to be changed, that is a perfectly legitimate question, but for God's sake let us have the evidence before drawing those horrendous conclusions.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DISCUSS MATTER WITH MINISTER
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister repeats constantly that we have questions to ask of Mr. Gorman, and he is right, but there are also questions that we have to put to the Prime Minister when he decides to face the House of Commons again.
The Minister's election expenses drama unfolds in a very strange and gradual way. We learn of new facts every second day-


Mr. Speaker:: I really think that the Hon. Member should put his question or else set a preamble upon which he wants to base it.


Jacques Guilbault: I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker. As details come out piece by piece, the Minister looks worse and worse. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he does not think that it is high time that the Prime Minister summoned his Minister to his office and had a frank discussion with him to try to determine what else the Minister has hidden from the Prime Minister and the people of Canada for more than two years now.


Mr. Speaker:: I have said before that preambles ought not to include a charge, and I have also said that the Opposition has not only a right but a duty to inquire in difficult matters. However, it is very important that preambles are carefully disciplined so that they are appropriate. It is not appropriate to go beyond the particular point about which the Hon. Member wishes to ask, and imply that there are other things of which apparently as yet there has been no information before the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member came very close to
Oral Questions
imputing motives. I think one would want to look at the extract tomorrow morning.
What the Hon. Member is really doing is, on the basis of one signed affidavit, finding the Minister guilty of an offence. There is obviously more information than that upon which the Commissioner based his decision, using his discretion and judgment as he is authorized to do under the Act. I find it rather strange that the Hon. Member would choose to be that selective.


MASSE AFFAIR-QUERY WHEN PRIME MINISTER WILL MEET MINISTER
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians and Members of the House find it strange that the Prime Minister cannot make up his mind to meet his Minister to shed light on the allegations contained in the letter, affidavits and other documents. I suggest this is the Prime Minister's responsibility. He should not be satisfied with getting information drop by drop every day like this. The time has come to turn on the tap fully.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his preamble is clearly argumentative. It is debatable. I must therefore seek the co-operation of all Hon. Members and ask them to direct their questions in the proper fashion.
Will you please ask your question!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question this instant. I should like to know when the Prime Minister will finally decide to meet his minister to discuss with him all the elements of this matter, in order to better assess whether his decision to maintain him as a Cabinet minister is justified. That is what we want to know. When?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think what many Canadians find very strange is that the Opposition continues to engage in character destruction rather than dealing with some of the very important issues facing our country.
The fact of the matter is that a mechanism has been set up to examine in detail all the pertinent points surrounding this issue. The Opposition were calling for a parliamentary investigation. We indicated we support that and will cooperate with the committee. I would hope the Hon. Member might be patient and go tomorrow to the committee, of which I understand he is a member, and perhaps he can outline what he would consider to be an appropriate way in which to fashion the hearing process. He might find the evidence that will be adduced during the course of the hearing to be very interesting.

February 1, 1988
OraI Questions


QUERY WETHER DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OR PRIME MINISTER DISCUSSED CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS WITH MINISTER OF ENERGY. MINES AND RESOURCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister refers to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
According to an article which appeared this morning in the Globe and Mail, there is an affidavit signed by an RCMP corporal which indicates that, two years ago, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources personally had asked Lavalin to pay some of the costs of his campaign, costs which were not included in his campaign expense statement. That is quite serious.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is quite simply this. Has the Deputy Prime Minister himself discussed this allegation with the Minister today, yes or no? Or has the Prime Minister discussed this allegation with the Minister, yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP takes some satisfaction in quoting The Globe and Mail. I think we all read the article this morning. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, this is part of the evidence obviously gathered during the course of the investigation and part of the evidence that was used by Mr. Gorman in reaching his decision.
I repeat, Mr. Gorman made the decision. He examined the information that was assembled and reached a decision. 1 can only assume there are other important and pertinent pieces of information that were taken into consideration as well.
I think the Hon. Leader of the NDP is being somewhat selective here by virtue of the fact that he has one piece of evidence with which he wants to find the Minister guilty of an offence. Mr. Gorman has a different version of the facts.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the Member for York-Peel is not a member of the Cabinet today, not because he violated the Criminal Code but because he violated the moral code of the Cabinet. That's the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask Hon. Members to leave other people out of the exchange unless it is absolutely imperative to the question.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told the House that he did not learn of the letter sent to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources some two years ago until about ten days ago. Presumbly he learned only this morning, as we all have, of the existence of an affidavit with very serious accusations.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think it is appropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada to get the Minister's opinion as to whether these serious allegations are true, rather than hiding behind the Criminal Code of Canada? Should the Prime Minister of Canada not be doing that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are going from the ridiculous to the sublime.


John Edward Broadbent: That's true, perfectly true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is quite a difference because in this case a clear mechanism under the Elections Act was followed. The Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did the proper thing. When there were suggestions that there was a contravention of the Act, he resigned from his portfolio until the process was completed. The mechanism in place dealt with this issue. The Commissioner rendered a decision. The Commissioner found that there were not sufficient grounds to prosecute and as a result the Member was cleared.
The Opposition are questioning the judgment and discretion which the Commissioner used. I suppose they are in their right to do so. However, I would ask them to direct these questions to Mr. Gorman when he will, in all likelihood, appear before the committee. I think that is the issue.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say with seriousness that the Deputy Prime Minister is either trying to pull the wool over our eyes or in some other ways attempting to insult the intelligence of the House by his totally unacceptable and absurd answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who has responsibility for the ethics code of his fellow colleagues, whether he is prepared to make a distinction between the Criminal Code in Canada in its application to Ministers on the one hand, and higher moral standards which are laid out in a code of behaviour on the other?
If he stands by the higher code of behaviour and does not restrict it to criminal offences, why has the Minister not got on his feet today to make a statement in the House? Why has the
February 1, 1988

Prime Minister of Canada not demanded that the Minister make a statement on the subject?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party does not like the answers he is getting. I regret also that he did not get his way when he wrote to the Minister earlier today asking him to make a statement. There will not be a statement made because we have established another process. That process is an inquiry or review under the provisions of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which Hon. Members opposite asked for. Now they want something else.


John Edward Broadbent: We want both.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why do they not make up their minds for a change?


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EXPORTS OF STEEL
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The ink is hardly dry on the continental trade agreement which the Prime Minister signed with the President in early January and we already see how U.S. industry is using it as a way of trying to get further concessions from Canadian industries such as steel and textiles. Just this weekend the U.S. steel caucus in Congress was saying that Canadian steel exporters must limit their exports or there will not be Congressional approval.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, as spokesperson for the Government of Canada, what the Government intends to do to counter these clear acts of intimidation based upon the proposed continental trade agreement?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 find that interesting. I hope the Hon. Member is now supporting the free trade agreement. From his comments today I gather that he has changed his mind and is now supporting the free trade agreement. We will welcome that support very much.
At this time as part of our regular series of meetings with the Americans, the quarterly bilateral meeting set up under the presidential steel caucus, is ongoing. We are finding that steel exports to the United States from Canada are at a level which is basically agreeable to Americans and Canadians. The export monitoring program which we set up is going very well and we have no concerns in that regard whatsoever.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has just described something which is not free trade but
Oral Questions
controlled, managed trade which is obviously not acceptable to the Americans. It is not good enough for representatives of the Government simply to hide their heads in a steel furnace and get themselves singed as a result.


PROVINCIAL COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to direct a further question to the Parliamentary Secretary. The chief U.S. trade ambassador, Mr. Yeutter, said this weekend that the United States will absolutely insist on full and total provincial compliance with the agreement by January 1 of next year or it will not be ratified.
Considering that three provincial Governments have indicated clearly that they do not intend to pass any legislation or to ratify the agreement, under what circumstances, under what rights, is the Government going to try to force the provinces to go along with its ill-begotten, misguided continental trade agreement, which the provinces at least know will sell out the country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should check with the Premier of the Province of Quebec who, the last time I checked, was a Liberal, and see what he thinks about the free trade agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: He's as big a sellout as you are.


John Horton McDermid: I might also say that on the weekend Clayton Yeutter said that Canada got the best of the deal on the free trade agreement and that we will do very well by the free trade agreement.
As the Hon. Member knows, only a very small part of the free trade agreement requires provincial implementation as far as legislation is concerned and that is primarily in the area of the pricing of spirits. As the Hon. Member knows, there has been a GATT panel on that. We have negotiated a free trade agreement on that end of things. I think he will find that, although the Premiers have said they are opposed to it, in no way can they or will they scuttle the deal.


ABORTION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Minister said on Friday that his Government wants to work with the provinces to determine the issues which have to be faced on the question of abortion in order that there will be a thorough understanding and a consistent approach across Canada, and we agree with him.

February 1, 1988
Oral Questions
However, since a preliminary clarification is urgently needed now, has the Minister arranged a meeting with his provincial colleagues for this week? Will he issue a public statement to clarify the public confusion which is rampant across Canada about access to abortion?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Hon. Member. I indicated last week that it was my intention to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible and to be in touch with the provincial Governments on this very important and sensitive issue.
Accordingly, on Friday I wrote to my provincial counterparts, the provincial Attorneys General, in order to obtain from them their views in a preliminary and more substantive fashion. I have asked them to consult with their Governments on the provincial level with respect to this matter on the broadest basis, and also to let me have the benefit of their initial points of view.
1 am hoping that I will hear from all provincial Governments at a very early stage so that we can in fact address this matter and try to determine the course of action in the weeks ahead.


PROVISION OF ABORTION SERVICES BY PHYSICIANS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister now has an interpretation from his own legal experts regarding the immediate implications of the Supreme Court decision, the kinds of things which medical associations, women, and doctors need to know right away.
Will the Minister state publicly today that it is now legal for physicians to provide abortion services directly to patients? Will he at least say yes or no to that question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the implication of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada is quite clear. It has rendered the present provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to abortion under Section 251 unconstitutional.
The Hon. Member knows that this is a federation. There is a provincial responsibility with respect to the delivery of health services. There are other elements, including the criminal law, involved in this whole process.
If she has examined and received legal advice from the legal advisers of the New Democratic Party, she will know that there is clearly a very important provincial role and function in this whole question. I simply say that we are trying to take a leadership role on a national basis with respect to this issue, as I indicated on Friday.
The Hon. Member may not agree, and it may be the position of the New Democratic Party that they would intrude and attempt to direct in some way the responsibility of all the
provinces in matters of health and delivery of health services. I am not sure that is the position of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in the issue. He nods that it is not.
It is a sensitive issue on which we are working very carefully. We will continue to work in the best interests of the Canadian public.


RIGHTS OF THE FETUS
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, 1 applaud the Minister of Justice on his reply. However, I would also ask him if he would bear in mind the rights of the fetus when bringing up this question with his counterparts in each of the provinces.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. He has had a very substantial interest in this issue.
The decision of the court itself will make it clear that the judges, in the majority and in the dissenting judgments, have indicated that the rights of the fetus are an important consideration with the respect to the criminal law capacity of the federal Government.
There are different approaches taken with respect to this issue. There was no clear definition with respect to the full implications of the rights of the fetus. As I indicated on Friday, there is another case before the Supreme Court of Canada where that matter is more specifically addressed. The court may have an opportunity to address itself with respect to defining the rights of the fetus in Canada under the criminal law provisions.


RESPECT OF PROVINCES FOR COURT DECISION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Given the various and in fact differing responses of various provincial Governments with respect to the application of the Supreme Court judgment in terms of service delivery, given the important leadership role that should be played in this issue by the Government and the Minister, what action has he taken to ensure that the Supreme Court judgment is respected by the provinces, from British Columbia to Newfoundland?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member recognizes, as we all do, the sensitivity of this issue. I have no doubt, as the Justice Minister has indicated, that the federal Government has a responsibility to give leadership.
I am not in a position to put forward options at this time. I think it is responsible for the federal Government to look at the various implications. I have given instructions today to have a letter on the issue go forward to my provincial counterparts to ascertain their views as quickly as possible, which is similar to what the Hon. Member suggested.
February 1, 1988


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would be most happy if the Hon. Minister would table with the House a copy of that letter.


MEDICAL CARE SYSTEM-RESPECT FOR PRINCIPLE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in his letter has the Minister asked for guarantees that the principles of medicare will be respected so that services will be available across the country regardless of the various viewpoints of provincial jurisdictions? Will he guarantee accessibility and that the Supreme Court decision is respected across the country? Will he table the letter?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I hope I was clear in my first answer that I have given instructions today to prepare letters to be ready for distribution later today. I am not in a position to table the letter at this moment but would be pleased to do that later, at a convenient time.
As I stated in my first answer, the letter is straightforward. It asks the various provincial Ministers for their early views on the issue. That is as far as the letter goes.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for the Environment and the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the priority Cabinet is giving or not giving to the issue of the clean-up of toxic wastes from the Great Lakes.
We have new information that the Americans are basically getting close to us in agreeing to the problem.
We have an accord on clean-up, but Cabinet is not giving it high enough priority in order to promote it so that we will actually achieve that clean-up.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that there will be some real action in this area, including containment, removal and destruction of those toxic wastes that affect the drinking water of millions of Canadians?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate on behalf of the Minister of the Environment that the Minister is well aware of the representations made by the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation on this question. He is continuing to work with his counterparts on the Great Lakes, as he has for some time under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Amendments which he has made with counterparts in this group include new provisions for more comprehensive toxic controls, including contaminated sediments, atmospheric toxics, land run-off sources and ground water.
Oral Questions
The Minister is placing increased emphasis on waste reduction by control at the source, and lake-wide management plans by which a schedule of load reductions for the Great Lakes is to be developed and implemented.
I might add that the Minister, with the support of all Members in the House, is developing a Canadian Environmental Act. It is presently before a legislative committee, and will provide additional measures of protection for the Great Lakes and other important areas of Canada.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is gobbledegook and does not go very far when the prime consideration is waste sites like Hyde Park, and when there are millions of people who have to drink the water. We have an accord in place but it has not been acted upon.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: My
question was directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the priority Cabinet is giving this absolutely urgent environmental question. While it is fine to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's", unless there is the removal and containment to stop the ongoing leaching into the Niagara River and Great Lakes System and on into people's drinking water, all these other questions do not matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has put her question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think all Members of the House and Canadians know that the Minister of the Environment of Canada for this Government has done an unprecedented job in raising international awareness of Canada's concern on such matters as toxins and contamination of the Great Lakes, and contamination of our atmosphere through his important leadership in the conclusion of the ozone treaty.
This Government has no apologies to make for the leadership the Minister is giving in Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Approximately four months ago I asked when the federal minimum wage which had not been adjusted since May, 1986, might be increased. I was informed that a review was in progress.

February 1, 1988
Oral Questions
A reasonable time having passed, I return to the subject and ask when the lowest paid workers under the federal jurisdiction might expect some justice?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at that to my hon. colleague, I will take his comments into consideration when we effect the next review which will be shortly. The review is presently under way. Obviously my hon. colleague's concerns will be taken into consideration.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We were all touched with the case of Mr. John Mclnnis whose wife died shortly after the delivering a baby girl.
Mr. Mclnnis applied for unemployment insurance benefits under Section 30, pregnancy benefits, of the Unemployment Insurance Act. He was denied benefits.
In light of the fact that there is need to build some flexibility into Section 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, can the Minister stand and tell this House whether he is prepared to consider amending the Act? I can assure him that we on this side of the House will give that amendment speedy passage. Will the Minister stand in his place and promise such an amendment giving flexibility to Section 30?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will not make that promise today to my friend. With the co-operation of the Hon. Member for Kitchener I will meet Mr. Mclnnis this afternoon.
I am also touched by the case, but I think my friend understands that when we have to make an exception-and it could be the case at the present time-we have to consider what it represents for all Canadians who could be in the same or a similar situation.
I am aware that we could amend this legislation but I think we have to take the time to look at the case carefully to be sure we do not make mistakes for other Canadians.


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION-TIME QUERY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister.
In light of the fact that while the Mclnnis case has come to our attention there have been several other cases across the country, and since the Minister says he will consider and consult with his officials-we are very concerned about
ensuring that Mr. Mclnnis qualifies and he doesn't go beyond the initial benefit period of the claim-can the Minister tell us how soon will he report to the House that he is ready to bring in a Bill to amend Section 30?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I requested from the Department some information about the case and about the different possibilities that we have.
I repeat what I said before. Other cases which could be referred to me could represent different approaches in terms of problems. I want to be sure if there is any answer given to Mr. Mclnnis that the decision we will make could be applicable to other cases.
1 will not change the legislation 10 or 20 times because cases could be different. I think the Hon. Member will agree and that as soon as the information is available and we can move in some direction, we will make a decision.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week we saw the Minister of Communications lose control of her Department-it was taken over by the back-bench-and the all-news network was cancelled. This week we hear that the Tory right-wing group calling themselves the Dinosaur Club, has taken over the Departments of the Secretary of State and Justice and is now telling the Government how to operate the House.
Could the Minister tell us in response to this article whereby we find two dozen back-bench Members calling themselves the Back-Benchers Club, the BBC, which stands for dinosaurs, whether they are running the show? They killed the all-news network. Are they going to kill the Official Languages Act or is the Government still calling the shots? Is the Government still in charge or has it given up to the back-bench Tories?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has been around the House a long time. I know that he does not always believe everything he reads in the newspaper. 1 think this is one case where he should heed that advice.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING BILL C-72
Jean-Robert Gauthier: But I do
believe this Mr. Speaker, and I have known for the past few weeks that there are a few odd Tories who are running around in this caucus and preventing the Government from taking
February 1, 1988

action. I therefore ask the Minister clearly and precisely: Is he prepared to call Bill C-72 for second reading tomorrow?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals and the NDP would stop filibustering Bill C-84 and other pieces of legislation, we may get on with that job.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Mahmoud Muhammad Issa Mohammad is a convicted terrorist now living in Canada who was allowed into Canada under this Government. It appears not only did Mr. Mohammad misrepresent himself to Canadian authorities to get landed immigrant status, but last week he misrepresented himself to the Canadian people when he said he allowed passengers of the Israeli airliner to get off before shooting the plane.
It is clear from 1968 news reporting that no one was allowed to leave the plane and that the plane was shot containing passengers and crew.
In view of the extreme nature of this case why is it that he and the Solicitor General did not resort to the security certificate procedure contained in the Immigration Act which would have allowed for a hearing but for a much speedier removal from Canada, if the case developed properly, than the procedure which the Government, in fact, chose to follow?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Mohammad case is now before an adjudicator. His case has been adjourned to February the 16th, when the hearings will continue, and I do not think any interpretation of this case would be appropriate at this time. I suggest it would be preferable if things developed as expected.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURE CHOSEN BY GOVERNMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the case, but with the procedure chosen by the Government. A few means are available in such a case, and it seems the Government took one of the slowest. Again I ask the question: Why did they choose this case instead of a court which would produce results much more quickly?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the deportation process is extremely complicated and, particularly in the case of a landed
Oral Questions
immigrant, it involves a series of steps which department officials must take. My colleague is referring to a faster procedure. In this case both the Solicitor General and particularly the Minister of Immigration have considered that the safest and most effective way was to proceed as they did. I repeat that a landed immigrant has appeal rights which must be respected. Contrary to what my colleague is suggesting, I do not claim or I do not think that we could have completed the deportation procedure in two, three or four days. Rights do exist and, regardless of the statements we have heard over the past two weeks, I think such rights must be respected on the basis of the decision made concerning the status.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerning the granting of four lobster licences in Nova Scotia and the contradiction between the Minister's statements and those of the Ministry of Fisheries for Nova Scotia regarding Nova Scotia's objections.
How is it that Mr. Leith has stated that the Nova Scotia Government has long opposed the licences and wants them revoked yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says that Nova Scotia did not even object?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, had the Hon. Member been at the standing committee when I gave a complete account of the scientific justification and the objective selection procedure, which was set up by my officials for establishing this new fishery, the Member would have received the answer to his question.
I said at the standing committee last Thursday that my office was in consultation with the office of the Minister of Fisheries of Nova Scotia on this question. I was advised that the Province of Nova Scotia and the Minister would not oppose the issuing of these licences. That which I said at committee is exactly what I repeat today.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, what kind of consultation is it when the provincial Minister of Fisheries himself has long stated that they would object and they did object to these licences being granted?
This is not the first time there has been contradiction about advice given to the federal Government by the Minister of Fisheries in Nova Scotia.

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has also said that even if he had had the advice it would not have made any difference. Doesn't this really make a mockery of consultations between federal and provincial counterparts on what the Minister should have known is the most controversial issue in Nova Scotia? The Minister does not know what the Minister of Fisheries for Nova Scotia wants, and it does not make any difference anyway.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, had the Hon. Member been able to attend committee last Thursday he would have received a complete and full account of the basis on which this important economic initiative was taken in Nova Scotia, including the discussions which occurred with my provincial colleague and his office.
It is quite possible that Ministers change their opinions from time to time. But 1 say again what I said before, this consultation did occur.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, and on the amendment of Mr. Marchi (p. 12340).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m. there were seven minutes left in the question and comment period of the speech of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). If there are no questions or comments then we will proceed with debate. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) on debate.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the debate on Bill C-84 this morning. I heard the usual over-cooked rhetoric from Members on the government side, according to whom those of us who are attempting to bring some reason, perhaps some humanity to this legislation, are filibustering. I suppose that they would make the same accusation of the Senate or of the large number of organizations which presented their points of view to the Senate.
Some 400 individuals and organizations in some manner let the Senate know their objections to this legislation. Some 37 organizations made direct representations before the Senate committee. I suppose all of these people are people who are engaged in a filibuster. They could have no other motive
except to somehow make it difficult for the Government to do good things.
Of course, you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, as well as we, understand that there are some serious defects in this piece of legislation which is justified on the basis that there have been thousands who have abused our immigration procedures and our refugee determination processes to undermine Canadian law, to jump queues and God knows what all. What in fact has been the issue is that this legislation in its Draconian way threatens to place Canada in a position in which not only will it be in contravention of the UN Convention on Refugees but our own Charter of Rights. We have to regard these as serious questions.
The Senate listened carefully to the interventions of many Canadians, most of whom have a long established interest and concern about refugees. Many of these people have been involved in giving access to the humanitarian care that Canada provides to refugees for which we have been characterized as giving in the past. Thus we have regarded the Senate amendments as being constructively framed, not to make it difficult for the Government but to reflect the true heart of Canada.
In looking at all of the rhetoric that has issued from the other side of the House, particularly in the wake of the arrival of two boatloads of people which occasioned the introduction of this legislation, I must confess that there have been times when we have been ashamed of what we have heard from that side. Some of it has contained only slightly veiled elements of, if not racism then certainly of xenophobia which I think can do nothing but embarrass us all.
I suppose it has to be said that the events which transpired after that and the consideration of the very rapidly introduced Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, as well as the Senate's rather slower deliberations, are an object lesson in saying to a democratic institution such as our own that we should not react in a crisis situation with the first thought that comes into our heads. That has been the record of the Government in respect to its response to those episodes which has been, in effect, to come up with legislation that is essentially thoughtless and that has not given sufficiently due attention to those principles that 1 think most Canadians have long since accepted as being essential to the Canadian outlook upon the world, upon Canada itself and its citizens.
The Senate introduced a number of amendments. The first of the amendments is an interesting one. It is interesting from the point of view of the criticism of the original framing of Bill C-84 and alludes to the kind of motives and outlook which impelled this Bill into the House. That is to say the suggestion by the Senate that the wording "the assistance of clandestine entry" replace the word "smuggling" in the description of the purpose of the legislation. What the Senate noted is that "smuggling" is a word more appropriately applied to merchandise, goods or commodities. That the Government chose to describe the infraction in that term smuggling is an allusion to the kind of depersonalization which has occurred on the
February 1, 1988

government benches and in the mind of the Minister in considering the way in which the Government might properly address the problem. This is a problem that we all recognize in terms of dealing with the massive numbers of illegal immigrants who come to Canada, but which in the approach the Government has used confuses illegal immigrant with refugees.
In the fourth amendment the Senate suggests that those who have been issued security certificates not be rejected from the refugee determination system. That is to say that the Senate recognizes that because someone has been characterized as a security risk, that person does not necessarily present a serious threat to the safety of Canada or to Canadians.
Security risks may be characterized in a number of ways. For example, they may be people who, as defined in the Immigration Act, advocate the overthrow by violent means of some government or another. This is interesting because the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) not too very long ago suggested that the Government might be willing to accept some Contra refugees into Canada in the wake of the culmination of the peace proposal that is now going on with respect to Nicaragua. Surely that simple fact demonstrates what should have been done by the Minister; that there are circumstances in which those who might be characterized as security risks, particularly on the evidence of another Government, may indeed be people who should have some access to refugee status and the ability to seek santuary somewhere.
If Nelson Mandela, Winnie Mandela, Bishop Tutu, or any number of Haitian dissidents were to seek refugee status under this legislation, they would find themselves in great difficulty if the refugee determination process or the effects of this legislation were to end up with such applicants being given a security certificate, that is, classified as security risks.
The United Nations recognizes the fact that such may be the case; that those who may be classified as security risks may well require a safe haven somewhere, and require that such people have access to the refugee determination process before they are deported, and that an opportunity be provided for them to seek safe haven in a safe country.
In response to the presentations and representations of a number of organizations, almost unanimous, the Senate made a suggestion for amendment to Bill C-84 which would have provided that those who have security certificates be granted access to the refugee determination system. Therefore, we find that in rejecting this amendment, the Government has again made a decision which flies in the face of consensus among those whom this Party, and I know the Official Opposition, respect as people who are presenting a case that has reason, merit, and which on the basis of the Senate amendment should have been considered a reasonable inclusion in this legislation. Indeed, we place ourselves in a rather unique category. We would join only Belgium in this provision which excludes those
Immigration Act, 1976
classified as security risks from the refugee determination system.
If we look at Senate amendment 5, which the government also rejects, which has to do with turning ships around, we find another area where the Senate has presented an amendment that this Party sees unobjectionable, indeed, which it supports, an amendment that is again supported by any number of organizations which consider that the refugee process should be a fair one.
If one looks in the legislation as it is presently written, one finds the proposed Section:
91.1(1) Where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within
(a) the internal waters of Canada, (b) the territorial sea of Canada, or (c) twelve nautical miles of the outer limit of the territorial sea of Canada is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Minister may, after having due regard to the safety of the vehicle and its passengers and to the convention, direct the vehicle to leave or not to enter the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, as the case may be, and any such direction may be enforced by such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Senate rejects that proposed section. We favour the Senate position in this respect. What we are doing is creating a situation in which the Minister in some fashion determines that there are no refugees on those ships. I do not know how the Minister intends to do that. One fundamental principle of the refugee determination process is that there should be due process, that a refugee claimant should have an opportunity to have his or her claim heard.
The legislation as presently written would have the ship turned around, to what fate no one knows. Is it to be turned around in the direction of a safe country? How are we supposed to know whether it is a safe country? Indeed, is there any expectation that the ship that is turned around will go to any country? Of course, there is a very great fear that a ship's captain faced with the prospect of having to sail to God knows where with a boatload of people may indeed decided to dump them at sea. 1 do not know if the Government or any Canadian wants to be in the position of being responsible, as this legislation would have us responsible in the circumstances, for having boatloads of people dumped at sea. This is something to which Canadians have previously objected.
In fact, we recall the situation in 1939 when the St. Louis tried to approach Canadian waters to land some Jewish refugees. Other nations had also rejected them, and their fate was that they had no place to go and death was their refuge. There have been other examples in which Canada has more recently condemned the Philippines and Malaysia for having turned boats around. Now we have before us legislation which would have Canada do the same thing.
In respect to the refugee determination process, it is expected that such applicants or potential refugees will have access to a reasonable process. It is required by international convention, and it is required by Section 7 of the Charter. I know that the Minister states that as long as they do not land

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
in a port they are not in Canada. Nevertheless, on the other hand they will be subject to Canadian law that will determine whether those boats will be turned around on the opinion of the Minister. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot argue that it is not subject to Section 7 of the Charter because they are not in Canada, and at the same time apply legislation to them which could lead to a fateful end of those who have sought Canada as a place of refuge.
If it is our intention to deter such effort to bring illegal immigrants, even if not refugees to Canada, surely the appropriate thing is to escort such ships into port. If the captain is guilty of breaking Canadian law, then that captain can be put in jail, fined, and have his boat forfeited. At the same time, we would have an opportunity for any legitimate refugees to have their cases heard.
It would seem to me, and to any sound thinking Canadian, that the amendment suggested by the Senate is the most appropriate. It is clear. Without too much difficulty we can apply this amendment in the practical case and bring about the appropriate solution sought by the Government. The amendment as suggested by the Senate is as follows:
91.1 Where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within
(a) the internal waters of Canada, or (b) the territorial sea of Canada is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Minister may direct that the vehicle be escorted to the nearest port of disembarkation and any such direction may be enforced by such force as is reasonably necessary.
What more could be desired? What could be more fitting? Bring the ship into port; try the captain and if he is found guilty, jail him. If there are illegal immigrants, deal with them in the appropriate fashion. On the other hand, if there are refugees then let them have access to the refugee determination system which is appropriate under not only the Canadian Charter of Rights but the international convention.
Finally, we have to deal with the question of aiding and abetting.
I am sure you have heard repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation as presently written would cause any number of humanitarian people devoted to the cause of refugees to be jailed. Among the reasons they might be jailed is that refugees do not have the appropriate papers. I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of those who have come to this country did not come by boat in the first place. They came by airplane and had documentation of some kind or other.
It is rare for humanitarian groups devoted to the aiding of refugees to bring in such refugees in a clandestine fashion, which is something that was recognized by the Senate and ought to be recognized by the Government. I do not understand why it is not possible for anyone who thinks logically to accept the amendment as proposed by the Senate.
The following people would be guilty of a crime: every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets, or knowingly attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet a person to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim, or knowingly brings or attempts to bring or otherwise knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets, or knowingly attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet any person to come into Canada in a clandestine fashion or manner. That is what should be sought, and what would be satisfactory. That would preclude the imprisonment and prosecution of people who are trying by their sincere efforts to help those threatened in their homeland with death or torture or persecution. That amendment should have been accepted by the Government. Why it was not I do not know. It may have been pigheadedness, it may have been stubborness, it may have been stupidity, or it may have been inhumanity. However, it certainly does not reflect the views of Canadians.
Mir. Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member feel that someone who assisted a refugee or someone to come into Canada and organized the fraud and misrepresentation to make that entry into Canada possible should in his view be subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting a breach of our Immigration Act?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seemed to have difficulty framing the question in an appropriate way, but let me simply say this. The amendment as suggested by the Senate would certainly deal with the case that he mentioned.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: But you would have to do it clandestinely?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No. Let me read it to the Hon. Member: "Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets", et cetera, "to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim" would be covered in the Senate amendment.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I guess we have two kinds of filibuster in this Chamber-an intelligent filibuster based on information which Hon. Members should hear and a rhetorical filibuster based on attempt to incite, and I think we are dealing with the latter.
This is the fifth day of debate on Senate amendments. We are approaching an historic milestone in the life of Parliament. Meanwhile many other problems exist in the country. We have debated the Bill since August. However, perhaps just to emphasize the fact that the Hon. Member opposite is dealing with rhetoric rather than with intelligent comment, the situation he abhors, of being able to charge church leaders and others for organizing people, is the situation that exists in Canada right now. Until the day we change this legislation those people can be charged, can be convicted, and can suffer the penalties of that conviction. That is the legal situation today which the Government is trying to correct.
Let us come to the second part of the issue. Do we correct it? We have to look at Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 as a package.
February 1, 1988

For the first time in Canadian history Bill C-55 says clearly that anybody who breaks Canadian immigration law in any way, shape, or fashion, fraudulently or otherwise, and makes the claim to be a refugee will not be chargeable until that claim is determined. If they are found to be a refugee, they will never be charged and never be convicted. Today refugee claimants do not have that kind of protection. Without this Bill they will not have it tomorrow either. With this package of changes they will have it.
If we listen to criminal law experts on the particular clause in Bill C-84 which seems to bother the Hon. Member, we must ask ourselves whether any provincial Attorney-General will ever be able to get a conviction of somebody who organizes an activity which in itself is not illegal. Bill C-55 indicates clearly that engaging in those kinds of activities, if one is a refugee, is not to be illegal any longer. However, those who organize manifestly unfounded claimants-the 3,000 people who came from Portugal and the 1,800 who came from Brazil where there was no basis for the claim-will be chargeable under the new legislation, and they should be chargeable under the new legislation. This is why the Act is being amended.
If they want to complain, let them complain about the present legal situation. Let us get off this filibuster and let us vote. They have a right to an opinion different from that of government Members. We happen to believe that our view is the best view for refugee claimants and the best view for the country. They happen to have a different one. Let us go to a vote and move along. Let us get to some other important pieces of legislation such as that copyright. In the meantime, having come back for an emergency session in August, surely we have passed the point of rhetoric. We should be dealing with the matter in a substantive, factual, and informed way.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the repeated characterization of the debate by the Opposition as a filibuster is nothing short of despicably anti-democratic, and the people of Canada should understand it. That representative of the Government says that what I have said is rhetoric. What I say is an expression of the passion with which I reject the Government's position on this legislation.
The Hon. Member says that what a refugee may do in order to gain admission into this country after the determination of refugee status will not be construed as illegal. Once again he says that 1 am using rhetoric, but he refers to the Portugese and so on who came into the country with documents. Yet it is his legislation which would jail those who knowingly organize, induce, aid or abet, or attempt to organize, induce, aid or abet the entry into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa. What refugee is going to come into this country with a ready-made passport and visa unless he or she is going to do it at the risk of his or her life? This is not rhetoric. This is truth. The Senate recognized the truth, as did 400 organizations which made their case to the Senate. This is not a filibuster. It is an attempt to get the Government to
Immigration Act, 1976
listen to the people who have a more sympathetic chord in their heart in respect of refugees in the world.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 too want to comment on the interjections of the Parliamentary Secretary who seems to feel that by poking a stick into a cage with a grizzly bear that somehow you will get co-operation from the grizzly bear or that somehow the bear will start treating you nicer.
It is an odd way to get co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons, to be hurling insults and making accusations and then asking, "Will you co-operate?" We are the grizzly bears and they are the ones who are poking sticks. Quite frankly it is an odd approach.
Repeatedly the Parliamentary Secretary rises and says that this is a good and thoughtful piece of legislation. He says that this is a useful initiative. Of course, there are useful components of this legislation. Every single clause is not a horror show.
The point in a debate in the House of Commons on a motion is for those of us who are in Her Majesty's opposition Parties to try to identify whatever flaws may exist in legislation. As my Hon. friend for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) so eloquently stated, dozens and dozens of groups with expertise and experience in this matter, people who have dedicated their lives and raison d'etre to this issue, have said repeatedly that there are serious flaws in this legislation. Various members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties have pointed them out.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are simply doing our job. We are trying to convince the Parliamentary Secretary that he should not have the attitude that because his Party has a large majority of Members, it can ignore democratic traditions and the parliamentary system and just use jackboot techniques to jam any legislation through. Our parliamentary system does not withstand that kind of arrogance. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to be thoughtful when making comments. As we attempt to improve this legislation, and hopefully not for much longer, we should be given that recognition and not be accused of filibustering legislation when that is not taking place at all.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said. The Government, of course-


Mr. Andre:: That still doesn't make it true.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It makes it a lot truer than it was before.
The allegations made by government Members that opposition Members are filibustering this Bill are completely ridiculous. If there is any reason for the delay in this Bill, it is because the Government introduced a Bill which was completely inadequate and unsatisfactory for the purposes

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
supposedly intended by the Government when it brought it forward.
Hon. Members will recall that this legislation was brought forward in a great hurry after a boatload of people were brought ashore in Nova Scotia this past summer. It was perceived at that time that a Bill of this kind would be popular with the people of Canada. The bringing forth of this Bill in such haste was an unfortunate response to the situation.
As has been said this afternoon, not all of this Bill is ridiculous or unnecessary. There are some very good parts to this Bill, but there are parts that need to be corrected. As long as these gaping inequities exist, it is the role of Parliament to examine them.
Such a strong supporter of the Senate as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) would, I am sure, realize and admit that the Senate has provided a very good service, though none of its major recommendations have been accepted by the Government. Some of the minor ones have been accepted and I think that these minor recommendations do help to strengthen the Bill and give it a great deal more credibility. I think it is unfortunate that there are some amendments that the Government has refused to acknowledge.
It has been stated already that those who knowingly aid refugees or would-be refugees to come to Canada are open to prosecution under this legislation. The way that clause is worded is unfortunate. There are people who want to bring refugees into this country who are taking a chance. They will now have to say to themselves: "We will bring these people to Canada to protect them from the danger they are facing in their own countries and we will risk prosecution in order to do so. There is a bad law and we must ask ourselves if we will aid these people and be subject to the bad law or, on the other hand, if we will not aid these people and play it safe".
These people who have the benefit of their fellow men at heart will take the risk of being prosecuted because they are helping refugees. These people who want to help their fellow men are not criminals. They are not people who will falsify documents or lie, but they will help people in need.
To say that refugees must have passports or visas when they arrive in Canada is completely ludicrous. Refugees who are in difficulty and fear for their lives in their own countries have to leave very quickly and do not have a chance to obtain proper documentation before leaving.
It is important to ask what kind of image we want to portray as a country. Of course, we do not want to portray Canada as being a place where anyone who wants to leave his own country for whatever reason can come. That is not the point, but it is important that Canada maintain its image of being a country that helps those people who are in genuine difficulty in their own land and who were trying to make their own country a better place and therefore fear for their own safety.
What is the Government doing about all this? Of course, the Government is taking a very stand-pat position on this Bill. It
is saying that even though it was brought in in haste and without proper thought, the Government will not make any changes to it because it does not want to tip its hand any more than it already has by acknowledging that it brought this Bill forward without proper thought. Of course, the Government is hoping that Canadians do not see the inadequacies, inconsistencies and inequities in this legislation.
One particular clause of this Bill typifies the problems that exist with this legislation. It is the clause which gives the Government the right to turn back vessels that are possibly bringing people into Canada illegally. The Bill provides that this must be done with the approval of the Minister and talks about possibilities that are very slim and probably will not happen. A very real possibility exists that this will happen, but this cannot be tolerated in our society.
We are not only talking about refugees or people who come into Canada illegally, we are talking about the rights of individuals. I do not think it is right for the Government of Canada to take a position of us and them. The Government is saying that those who are Canadian citizens are one type and those who are not Canadians are another type and are not of the same status and do not have rights. 1 believe that that is wrong.
If we go along with that, we are saying that we agree with the Government's position. If we agree with the Government's position, we will start the downward slide in our high standards of human rights. No sooner will we have agreed with the Government's position on reducing the rights of these people who would come into Canada legally or illegally than we would be saying that human rights abuses in other countries can go on. We will start turning a blind eye to these abuses. Then we will start saying that no one is a refugee because if a person is a citizen of another country, that person has a responsibility to that other country. Gradually, we will become more callous in our thinking toward our fellow man. To me, that is the real threat in this piece of legislation. Then we come back inside our own borders and start eating away at the rights of Canadians. Soon the very people who have agreed to the whittling away of rights of people from other countries begin to see their own rights whittled away. That is the inevitable consequence of treating some more fairly than others.
Turning a vessel away in this situation is not fair treatment of our fellow man. Second, it is not the answer the Government says it is. The people who have organized this sailing for profit will be allowed to get away, only to turn around and do it again with another boatload of people. Third, to set those people adrift outside Canadian waters in goodness knows what kind of conditions and in what kind of vessel would be a travesty.
I ask you, what happens to those people then? Do we allow them to bob around the ocean in an unsafe vessel? Do we allow
February 1, 1988

them to just stay there, men, women and children? Undoubtedly, over the course of time, they will reach the shore anyway, the fortunate ones. The unfortunate ones will perish at sea. Is that what the Government wants?
That is completely unsatisfactory. It is no answer at all. It does not deal with those who break the law and profit from the misery of these people. The better solution would be to bring the vessel into port and charge the person in control. Make sure that person is penalized to the full extent of the law. More important, we would make sure those people, whether they are true refugees or not, at least have a safe haven while their case is being decided.
What is wrong with giving them the benefit of the doubt? What is wrong with bringing them ashore and applying Canadian law? The law is here, why push them away? Why devise laws for these people and then drive them from Canadian waters and not apply the law? It makes no sense whatsoever.
We have to give some real thought to this. We have to reflect on it once again. To say that this Bill is being filibustered is not adequate. What kind of alternative do we get? We have heard two or three cases during the life of this Government involving people who had the money to get into Canada even though they did not have the proper qualifications. They did not have the proper background or had committed acts in their country which, under ordinary circumstances, would not make them eligible for Canadian visas or landed immigrant status. There seems to be a double standard.
We have to look at the true situation. The true situation is that all the people who land in Canada deserve to have Canadian law applied to them. You cannot say that because they come here by boat their right to Canadian law is any less important than that of someone who lands by plane or who comes across a bridge from the U.S. The law applies to people who come to Canada regardless of the method. It is here to help them. It is here to strengthen the fabric of this country.
There is no need to try and to belittle the Opposition who feels there are inconsistencies in this Bill and provisions which whittle away at the fabric of this country. We feel there is something to be said for Canada's role in the international forum and this is what we want to bring forward. That is very important, along with the rights of humanity.
I congratulate the Senate for its reflection on this Bill and the amendments agreed to by the Senate committee. They were agreed to not just by Liberal members of that committee but by all members. I think that is very important. It says a great deal about the workings of the committee. They dealt with it in an unbiased and unpartisan manner. To allege political partisanship does not do justice to the role of Parliament in dealing with this very important piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.
Immigration Act, 1976


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that someone who is usually so thoughtful, and who comes from a province with ocean borders, would so easily buy the prepared notes which have probably been done by someone who is landlocked using testimony that comes out of Toronto. Reading time after time in this House from that same set of notes is an attempt to give them credibility and contribute to what 1 have characterized as a rhetorical filibuster. It is not an informed filibuster but a rhetorical filibuster.
The Hon. Member spent a lot of time talking about the boats. I would like to spend a minute or two talking about the boats.
Maritime law, as he should know, currently allows ships to be taken into custody within your territorial limits and escorted to port. Nothing has changed. That power exists today, it will exist tomorrow, and nothing we are debating in this Chamber changes that. What did that law standing alone produce? It produced peddlers in human flesh who put people on unsafe boats in the North Atlantic. It produced another group of peddlers of flesh who brought an unsafe vessel, not a passenger vessel but an unsafe vessel crammed with people, with inadequate sanitation, health care and food, and so on, not to a port but to a rocky shore. Those who say, "Leave them all alone" are inviting a continuation of profit for peddlers in human flesh who put desperate people's lives at risk. This is really what they are arguing for time after time. They are saying that the law should not be changed because it provides the opportunity to peddle in flesh and put people's lives and health at risk.
Through changing the law we seek an additional power rather than a replacement power. We want the Minister to have the power, when satisfied as to health, safety, and refugee convention, to turn a boat back. If the penalty for ships' owners when caught is confiscation and imprisonment, are they more likely to put people in lifeboats outside our limit? Operating on the assumption that humanity does exist in those ships' captains, those peddlars, if you give the Minister the power simply to turn the boat around rather than putting the captain in prison and confiscating the boat, are they more or less likely to put people in lifeboats on the North Atlantic?
Surely the option produces the best results for the people about whom the Opposition continually says it cares. The present law put the Tamils in the lifeboats. The present law put the people in the boat on the rocky shore. It is time to be reflective. It is time to end this nonsensical filibuster.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the debate has not gone on long enough because the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Hawkes) has said that even though he has heard it many times it still has not penetrated. I hope that if we say it a few more times it will penetrate.

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
The Bill does go further than the existing law. To say that the Bill is only intended to give another avenue to the Minister is just not correct. This legislation would blatantly put the welfare of the people who would be the cargo in these vessels out of the window without any regard for them whatsoever. To turn a vessel around it would have to be in Canadian waters.
The fact is that it is much better to seize the vessel in order that the cargo will at least be in your protection. You will have boarding rights which will enable you to learn the condition of the people. You will at least have a chance to help them. If the people are in desperately bad health and on the verge of succumbing to the rigours of the voyage, you can do something for them. You could airlift them and give them immediate treatment. If you turn them around, they are sentenced to certain death.
In the interests of human beings there is no choice. You must do what you can. You do not put people in prison and starve them to death simply because they are illegal. You do not subject them to inhumane treatment just because they are criminals. Even if these people are criminals and are coming into Canada illegally they are entitled to humane treatment. That is what we ask for-humane treatment.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the point which the Hon. Member has made is covered in the legislation. The Minister will have authority to stop a vessel, examine it, and direct it elsewhere subject to due care for the interests of the people aboard and due respect for the convention. The concern which the Hon. Member is expressing is within the ambit of the proposed legislation. We have here some fearmongering.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, we do not want the option of due care but the certainty of due care. We do not want the Minister to decide whether he or she will give due care. We want to be able to assure these people that they will get due care.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated very much the response which the Member made to the last question and I agree with him completely. I would like to ask him a question which has been bothering me for some time.
The Member will recall the days after the Vietnamese War when people from Southeast Asia were in boats at sea and their lives were in danger. Many of them had paid people for their passage and were what the Member referred to as the human cargo on these little boats.
The ASEAN countries; Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, took them in and were the countries of first refuge. If we apply what Canada is trying to do with this legislation to the situation there, those ASEAN countries would have applied all those prohibitions and those people would have been left at sea.
Is that a fair analogy? Would the Member like to comment on that? It is wonderful that those countries, which are so poor
themselves, took in those refugee claimants. They still have many of them in camps and Canada refuses to take them.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to reply to that. That is a lesson we learned which the Government has obviously not remembered. This country took in thousands of Vietnamese boat people, as they were called at that time, even though they were not floating in Canadian waters. Canada's record has been tremendous in that regard because of our concern for the lives and welfare of these people. They were in camps in Southeast Asian countries in the best conditions which those countries could provide.
The Government of Canada moved quickly and instituted a fifty-fifty policy with private groups. Areas of this country which were not as economically strong as others participated. Groups in Newfoundland, Cape Breton, and from coast to coast sponsored these people to come to Canada. That shows that regardless of their own economic conditions Canadians are very concerned with the welfare of their fellow man.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has the floor on debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been reported from the other place and the amendments suggested there were unanimously passed by the members of that place. They felt so strongly about it that they endorsed the recommendations to humanize this Bill. That is the key to this extra opportunity which the Government has to deal with this issue. The Senate has given the Government an opportunity to deal with the Bill once more.
Good legislation goes through without too much debate. Bad legislation keeps turning up. The Senate has given the Government an opportunity to improve this Bill in a humanitarian way. This legislation is bad in a number of ways. It turns away boats as they enter Canadian waters. That has been recognized by many people on both sides of the House as a dangerous situation. This may turn away legitimate refugees in the process, without giving them the opportunity for a hearing in Canada. That runs against the traditions and practice of Canadian immigration policy for many years.
Canada is a country of immigrants. We come from a background of people who left their homes to come to Canada in search of a better life with greater opportunities. We have had a tradition of accepting refugees who wanted to take advantage of the greater opportunities that our parents had. If this Bill adopted, we may turn away legitimate refugees without the benefit of a hearing.
Second, those who profit from the plight of refugees by transporting them by boat would be forced to drop potential refugees outside the 200-mile boundary, leaving it up to them to make it to shore. Would it not be more useful to seize the ship, and put out of commission these rip-off artists and
February 1, 1988

unscrupulous agencies who profit from refugees? Would it not be more useful to confiscate their vessels so they can no longer carry on such practices?
The Senate has done the Government a service by giving it another opportunity to correct the legislation. It had the opportunity to make this a more humanitarian Bill when it was first introduced to the House. Humanitarianism is the key element forgotten in this Bill. There is ample opportunity in Canada for everyone to have the kind of full and productive life that refugees want. Canada has great wealth, with many opportunities for an almost limitless number of people. It is wrong to prevent such an opportunity by ignoring the basics of humanitarian treatment.
There are two key elements of the Bill to which we object. The Government has refused to address the question of authority to detain identified refugee claimants for long period without review. It has also retained the right to turn back ships at sea, thereby preventing humanitarian treatment of people attempting to get into Canada.
The amendments with which we are dealing today suggest that as much opportunity as possible be given to these people to have access to a legal process which allows them the right to a hearing in Canada. Such a provision would allow us to live up to the reputation we have built over many years. It will fulfil the traditions on which this country was built.
Another area of concern is the treatment of people who help refugees get into this country. The Government has another opportunity to deal with this issue in a much more meaningful way. 1 think it is important that the Government use this opportunity to take the proper steps as suggested by our Party and others and reinforced by the Senate. It should change the Bill so that it is more acceptable to the people of Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are in a Filibuster-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: We are in a debate, not a filibuster.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We are into a filibuster, if you listen to the repetitive nature of the speeches and comments.
We have been debating this legislation since August. I would like the Hon. Member opposite to provide some clarity. Current maritime law allows Canada to escort a vessel to port and charge the captain for an alleged crime and seize the vessel. That law clearly led to the Tamils being put into lifeboats and made a ship's captain decide not to go to port but to go to the rocks in the near shore in the middle of the night. This put the lives of passengers at risk in both cases.
Is it the position of the New Democratic Party that we should continue with this law? If so, how can they rationalize that continuing with that law is safer for passengers? The only two experiences in recent Canadian history have shown that the existence of that law encourages ships' captains not to get caught but to dump their passengers in lifeboats or sneak in the middle of the night into rocky shores, in view of the risk of their vessel being seized. Vessels are worth millions of dollars.
Immigration Act, 1976
They run the the risk of ending up in jail. It is that law which is currently on the books, with no other outlet, that produced the risks which the Tamils the summer before last and the group in Nova Scotia last summer experienced.
What train of logic leads the Opposition to believe that upon reflection we should leave the country stuck with that law if the Opposition cares about safety?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the filibustering of which the Hon. Member speaks is not filibustering. It is an opportunity for himself and other members of his Government to recognize that this Bill would be better if the Member accepted the recommendations put before this House by the Senate.


Ross Belsher: All of them ?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Member speaks about the law which causes, he says, opportunities for people to be dropped offshore. There will be no change in what happens as a result of that law. The chances are that instead of dumping people a few miles off the coast, people will be dumped 200 miles off the coast saying, "Take it on your own. Accept the money and go", if you go with that sort of logic. If people do come into our waters, why not seize them, and why not make them adhere to the established Canadian law? Does the Conservative Government think that, by putting in place a law which could turn away ships, it would increase the ability of refugees to come to Canada?
I understand the Member had an opportunity to see the most recent ships that came here. Had those ships been turned away it would have meant the death of many people because the conditions which they had to endure were unacceptable slave conditions of the past century. If those are the kinds of suggestions the Government is making, the Government is condemning people to death who are picked up as refugees trying to come to Canada rather than giving them an opportunity for a legal and rightful hearing.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Hon. Member. He was asked by the Parliamentary Secretary questions that relate a lot to the legalese of the situation. I think the Hon. Member should be given the opportunity to talk a bit about the tradition that is violated by this legislation.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we have had a tradition in Canada of accepting people and giving them an opportunity. I thank the Hon. Member for his question.
We also have had a shameful experience in that area because on a couple of occasions, one in Vancouver and one off the East Coast, we turned away legitimate refugees because we did not give them an opportunity to be heard. Let us not have that kind of situation recurring in Canada. Our tradition is to accept people into Canada and to give them a fair hearing.

February I, 1988
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) for the concern that he has shown over the years for the plight of the downtrodden and the oppressed.
I would like to follow up on the questions that were asked by the Parliamentary Secretary as well as the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) with respect to turning ships around. The Member from Prince Albert made reference to this issue. 1 note in the report from the other place there is background reference to this issue. Of course, the Senate, in making recommendations for changes in this area, looked at a couple of important arguments. The Senators looked at the questions of our international obligations and how they impact of the Charter of Rights.
In that light, the Senate is saying that it is difficult to imagine how Canada could, in fact, be seen to be adhering to its international obligations in turning a ship away, although Bill C-84 does state that the convention relating to the status of refugees is to be taken into account.
In the few minutes remaining, I would like to ask the Member to comment on the importance that the Member attaches to Canada adhering to its international obligations and also to the importance of adhering to our obligations under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By turning a ship around without allowing the basic due process to refugee claimants on board, the Senate suggests that it is quite possible that we would be in breach of the provisions of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights.
The argument made by departmental officials is that the rights under the Charter apply to people at a port of entry and not at sea. As the Hon. Member for Prince Albert knows, and he has spoken on this on a number of occasions, this matter is not at all resolved. I believe the Hon. Member has made reference in the past to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the case of Singh v. the Minister of Employment and Immigration in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the protection of the Charter extends to every human being who is physically present in Canada and by virtue of such presence amenable to Canadian law. Thus, of course, refugee claimants can invoke the Charter.
The issue as to whether a claimant who has not yet landed in Canada but is in Canadian waters was not specifically before the court in the Singh case. The Hon. Member will be aware that Canada has played a positive and constructive role in the past in this area, and this particular legislation is a significant step backwards.
The Member knows, for example, that Canada set a positive example for the rest of the world in 1979 and 1980 when we urged the countries of Southeast Asia not to turn away the boatloads of refugees fleeing from those countries. I might say as well that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) played a truly outstanding role of leadership in the community here in Ottawa in helping to resettle those particular individuals.
Would the Hon. Member for Prince Albert in the short time remaining care to comment on the importance of Canada adhering not only to our international obligations but as well to our obligations under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have been able in the past to point with pride to the fact that we do recognize the rights of human beings all over the world. We recognize our international obligations in accepting legitimate refugees from all parts of the world to the extent where we accepted an award for our understanding in accepting refugees when they came to our shores. If we abrogate those traditions, the Charter and our international obligations, we are stepping backwards. We are going back to the time when many parts of the world felt that they had the right to say no to refugees who had a legitimate reason for entering a country.
The tradition of refugee status is a longtime tradition which international law has accepted for many, many years. It behooves us to take care that we are not one of the nations which breaks that international obligation and the opportunity to show ourselves as believing in the Charter of Rights which we have accepted in our Constitution.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood-Acid Rain-Government's strategy vis-a-vis United States/Government inten-tions/Request that Canada break off negotiations with United States; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)-Government Appointments-Request for committee scrutiny/Request for native representation on Board.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, and the amendment of Mr. Marchi (p. 12340).
February 1, 1988
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the Senate amendments to Bill C-84, a Bill dealing in the area of immigration with the restriction and entry into Canada and accelerated removal of refugees claimants. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has risen throughout the debate in the last few hours to try to characterize what we are doing here in the House as a filibuster, to say that all the points have been made and that it is now time to put the question. Far from it. In this debate I submit that every Member has a duty to speak. Each of us has to stand up to tell the country why we feel that the oppressive majority which the Conservatives represent in the House should not be allowed to prevail on this Bill.
Is it not interesting that in the Senate not only do the Liberal Senators find this Bill oppressive and unacceptable but the Conservative Senators have joined them to urge on the important government amendments to Bill C-84 which is now before the House? I think that we would be derelict in our duty as Members if we did not all stand up and loudly and clearly repeat the message that has come virtually unanimously from the Senate that this Bill with the oppressive features which it contains, which I will refer to in a moment, has no place in the law books of Canada. No matter how right-wing the Government is or how motivated it is by the back-bench club which has stood up against some of the most progressive institutions in our country, there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a voice in the country that will not let this Bill pass.
I want to say something about the context of the legislation, and to talk about our history for a moment. I would also like to talk about some of the other legislation on the books that, in my view, covers adequately in most respects the situation of illegal immigrants and those whom for proper reasons, the Government may wish to remove from Canada. For the sake of history I would like to point out that probably more than any other country in the world Canada is a country of refugees. It is more a country of refugees than the United States, Vietnam, China or the frontier countries of first reception where refugees flee from unsatisfactory situations within their own borders.
Recently, I saw some statistics with respect to this point. They show that in 1985 one out of every 329 Canadians is in Canada as a refugee. That does not refer to their parents or to their grandparents but to each one of 329 individuals. If we look at the 1920s and the 1930s when Ukrainians came to Canada in such large numbers to seek refuge, and to the postSecond World War years when so many others came from Europe, and to the Vietnamese refugees, it is clear that the voice of the refugee and the descendant of the refugee is a strong part of our national heritage.
When I hear the Hon. Member for Calgary West challenge us to find another country in which refugees are treated better,
1 do not think that is good enough. I know that it can be done.
Immigration Act, 1976
However, I think that the challenge is to ensure that our best humanitarian tradition is preserved in our law.
At the same time as I say that, there is another feeling in the country which is very important and which deserves respect, too. That is to say that no one in Canada likes to see us made suckers of, or likes to see the country used by people who are not refugees and who have no legitimate claim to come or to remain here but who come and look through our laws and at the humanitarian impulses of Canadians to try to find some basis to stay here. Part of our history, too, is openness and fairness toward refugees. At the same time this is not wanting to be abused or to be taken advantage of.
1 would like to turn for a moment to some of the other legislation which is available under our present laws for dealing with those who claim to be refugees. It is an interesting day for me to do so because earlier today in Question Period I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) a question about the claim to remain in Canada of Mahmoud Issa Mohammad who has been taken by the Government to court in a deportation process. An adjournment was granted until February 16 in this case. Mr. Mahmoud Issa Mohammad is by his own admission the individual who, with accomplices back in 1968 fired on an El A1 aircraft. In front of me I have a clipping from The Globe and Mail of December 27, 1968, which reports on this incident. He is the individual who fired in a terrorist attack on an El A1 airliner in Greece. According to the clipping there were 47 passengers on board and a crew.
Mr. Mahmoud Issa Mohammad was arrested, charged and convicted for that incident. Events revealed show that he was released subsequently on an exchange made to release hostages who were being held in another country. It seems pretty clear that he did not serve the sentence that was imposed upon him. When he came to Canada he admits that he concealed his record and lied about his background in order to be allowed to enter Canada as a landed immigrant.
The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) rose to say that our country would not become a haven for terrorists when he was asked about this matter a few days ago. He suggested that very strong measures would be taken because there are strong measures under the laws of Canada to do everything the Government can do to have Mr. Mohammad removed.
One can imagine how Canadians feel when they see a story such as that unfolding and how they would want to be certain that the laws were effective and that something could be done to remove an individual such as Mr. Mohammad who, by misrepresentation, obtained landed immigrant status. When they learn from the Minister that it will take months and years-and a departmental official, unnamed, said in the media that it could take five years to remove him-it is no wonder that some Canadians think that we need a law such as Bill C-84 on the books to give us the ammunition needed for

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
dealing with people who come in and try to take advantage of our lax immigration laws.
That brings me to the question that I asked in the House today. All of this is very relevant because it goes to show that a tough Bill such as Bill C-84 is not really needed. In my question I referred to another part of a law of Canada, that is, to Sections 39 and 40 of the Immigration Act, as amended in 1984. I will not read the statute although 1 will refer interested Members to Section 39 of the Act, wherein there is a summary procedure for dealing with an individual found in the country other than a Canadian citizen who is in violation of the important parts of Section 19 of the Immigration Act.
When the Minister of Immigration and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) are of the opinion that such an individual has been found in Canada, and I suggest that Mr. Mohammad would certainly fit within that definition, a certificate can be issued. A summary procedure would have been available under the present legislation, which, in due course, depending on the evidence, could have led to the deportation of an individual like the one I have been describing.
# (1630)
This procedure does not deny natural justice to the individual. There is provision for a hearing. An individual can be represented by counsel. He has the right of appeal if he is dissatisfied with the result of this procedure. Yet the Government has chosen not to use this procedure, but to rely on a procedure involving the Immigration Appeal Board, involving the possibility of appeal to the Federal Court for review, and as one of the Minister's own officials stated, to a procedure that could permit an individual to remain in our country for five years.
I assure Hon. Members that I am not going to attribute improper motives to the Government. But I wish to ask the simple question, why not use a summary procedure rather than a long drawn out procedure? Does that have anything to do with Bill C-84, which the Government is trying to convince the House that it needs now? The Minister of Immigration answered me by stating that they had looked at the procedures available and decided to take the slower, more studied and deliberate procedure which they chose, rather than the one that is provided in Sections 39 and 40 of the Act.
I want to put it to the Government to use the procedures that we have now rather than coming forward with the very controversial measures contained in Bill C-84, measures which are dubious at best and which are inconsistent with our tradition as a country that is receptive to refugees, but at the same time respectful of the rule of law in not wanting to provide asylum, as some other countries do, to just anyone. We want to be certain that those to whom we provide asylum are basically law-abiding and do not violate the clauses contained in Section 19 of the Immigration Act.
My colleagues have put forward some of the difficulties that we have with this legislation. They are highlighted by the treatment given to the legislation in the Senate. I find it totally unacceptable that the Government seeks to arrogate to itself the authority to turn back a vessel. Turning back a vessel on the high seas takes a very great deal for granted. It takes for granted the fact that the people on the boat are not legitimate refugees. That should not be taken for granted. They should be entitled to a hearing. A summary procedure can certainly be applied to it. But there may be individuals on that vessel who deserve to be considered as refugees and who are refugees. They can come to Canada and make a useful contribution. If returned to their country of origin, or even to the place where they embarked on the vessel, which could be a different place from their country of origin, they may find their lives in danger.
I tell the Government, the Liberal members of the Senate and the Conservative members of the Senate tell the Government, that as Canadians we do not want to take that risk. We do not want to place individuals, who come under our responsibility as they approach Canadian shores, in that type of jeopardy. We object to the procedure which permits the boat to be turned back. We insist that there are summary procedures that are available for dealing with individuals, for giving them a right to be heard by an independent tribunal and a very summary right of appeal once they land in Canada.
A person might argue that that means that people will take shots on Canada, and that those who are not entitled to come into Canada as refugees will come anyway knowing that the boat has to land. I challenge that. If one looks at the situations in the past with the boats that have landed, the Prime Minister indicated that everyone on board was going to be allowed to stay. If that is the policy, then people will want to come. Boats will want to risk coming to Canada in the hope that they will receive that type of treatment by the Government of the day. But if they know that if they are not qualified there is a very summary procedure which will result in their being returned to the place from which they came within a short compass of days or weeks, not months or years, then they will not come in the first place. They do not come free. They have to pay to come. They have to make arrangements to come. They take a certain risk when they come and put themselves in a boat not knowing as much as they might like to about the safety record of the boat and about the intentions of the captain. It is a risky business to come in a boat. If people know that unless they are a bona fide refugees they will only be able to stay in Canada for a very short period of time, then they will not take those risks. There is no good argument for turning back the boat, which the Government proposes to take for itself in this legislation.
There is another reason why turning back the boat is unacceptable. There may be terrible hardships on the passengers on the return voyage. There is no assurance that the captain would not have needed to land for water or food. Whether or not the individuals are refugees by their original
February 1, 1988

definition, by passing this Bill we can put them in a terrible situation where they could actually be in a life threatening situation as a result of being turned back.
The Senate is correct. In his opening statement my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), was correct. The Government is wrong to insist that it needs this type of power.
It is unacceptable to criminalize the non-profit humanitarian activities of individuals and groups, including religious groups, for example, churches, ashrams, mosques and synagogues, that, on a benevolent basis, might come forward and offer to try to assist strangers among them without necessarily knowing the character of their arrival and the character of their claims. It is quite wrong and unworthy of a Canadian Government, and it is out of keeping with our heritage to characterize and criminalize that type of humanitarian activity and intervention by those groups.
Having had a rebuke from the Senators of their own Party, as well as from the Liberal Senators and from the Opposition united on this Bill, I urge the Government to reconsider its rejection of that portion of the Bill. Let us not criminalize those humanitarian groups among us which come forward and want to help. Let us not put them in a position where they have to go and see their lawyer, or check out with the police whether it is possible to help this group that has come on shore, for example, in the situation of the Tamils a few months back.
I wish to conclude by reminding the Government about the reaction that this Bill has engendered across the country. Perhaps the Government thought that it was on to something good. Certainly, the BBC, the Back-Benchers' Club, with a strict right-wing agenda, would have been happy to see harsh measures for wrongdoers. But this Bill goes much further than imposing harsh measures to deal with wrongdoers. It is an insensitive Bill that establishes a wall which is bound to trap deserving refugees. This country resonates with refugees and with the sense of the cause of the refugee. This Bill should not pass.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, indeed we are on to something very good. As the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) mentioned, Bill C-84 will prevent terrorists and those who are a security threat to our country from claiming refugee status.
Does the Hon. Member agree that the Senate filibuster and the filibuster which is taking places here today are just delaying actions? Does he not agree that Mr. Mohammad is ever so close, without Bill C-84 being passed, to claiming refugee status and delaying the whole process for another five years or six years? I think Canadians will not stand for it. If the Bill were passed, Mr. Mohammad would not have the right to claim refugee status, and after a seven-day period we could ship him back to where he came from.
Immigration Act, 1976
We must not forget that Bill C-84 is also in conformity with Article 33 of the United Nations convention. Does the Hon. Member agree with that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the Bill, if passed in its present form, would certainly prevent some terrorists from getting into the country if they came in pretending to be refugees. I must say-and I say it with respect to the Hon. Member-that that is the kind of thick-headed thinking that results in using a hammer to deal with a problem which does not require that kind of heavy-handed treatment.
We have a very good tool for dealing with the case of Mahmoud Issa Mohammad. I do not know why the Government has chosen, instead of using that tool, Sections 39 and 40 of the Immigration Act to fall back on a more general provision that calls for a hearing before the Immigration Appeal Board and reviews by the Federal Court of Appeal which could go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not know why the Government has chosen that procedure to deal with the case raised by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom).
However, Mr. Mahmoud Issa Mohammad is not claiming to be a refugee. He is here with landed immigrant status obtained, as he himself indicated, by lying to the officials at the port of entry. This is something which he admitted.
The Bill will not help with people who sneak in and obtain landed immigrant status. The risk we run is that genuine refugees will be on those boats that get turned back. There are boat people living in my riding which borders on the riding of the Hon. Member for Willowdale, and there are boat people in his riding. I presume to speak on their behalf. Let us not resort to this kind of heavy-handed tactic and present it to the Canadian people as if it were the only way of dealing with the problem. It does not even deal with the problem. It deals much more broadly and much more insensitively with a variety of human situations, many of which will have merit in every single situation. I urge the Hon. Member to reflect on the position he has taken and to join with us in opposing the harsh provisions of the Bill.
As to the International Convention on Refugees, I do not want Canada to be following the lead of the United Nations in matters of humanitarian treatment. I would like Canada to be setting the example.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Government has consistently, as had the previous Government in 1979, set the lead. I think the legislation would be viewed by international legal scholars as taking another giant step forward for the protection of refugees.
However, I think the Hon. Member had a little courage. He deviated from the script that was prepared for the filibuster and provided something new and different, and for that I commend him. He also has courage and perhaps some gall to try to defend the laws which currently exist.

February 1, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
If anything should be clear to all Hon. Members of the House, it is that the current law is inadequate. It was forced through the House in its basic form under closure by the previous Government which the Hon. Member served. He brought to our attention some 1984 revisions which he says can be used with Mr. Mohammad. Perhaps that assertion by the Hon. Member speaks to the difficulty engendered by this debate.
The Hon. Member is absolutely correct that there is a faster way of determining whether Mr. Mohammad has indeed broken Canadian law and is indeed a terrorist. Because of the state of the law today, once that is done, once the Security Intelligence Review Committee and all such procedures have been followed, and Cabinet has considered it-and we must remember that there are six cases before that group right now going back to 1986-we are still stuck with a system that begins with an inquiry for removal where the refugee claim can be made. What he has proposed to the House is that by using a different section of the law we take the five years and make it seven years. That is the sum total of all bits and pieces of immigration law, the basic reason the Government has tried to go for the fastest method. There is nothing under current law that will even come close to matching the speed with which the country can protect itself in the future if the Opposition will cease filibustering and let us get on with changing what is demonstrably such a very bad law.
The Hon. Member has Quorum for today which contains a little piece from The Toronto Sun. He may not understand its total significance, but it says that 163 people out of the administrative review are in detention today because of security considerations. It also says that they have opened another 762 files on inadmissibles on similar suspicion. What that is is 4 per cent of the backlog that existed in the country prior to May 22, 1986 about whom we have serious security concerns. We have over 40,000 in the backlog that has grown since that date. If 4 per cent is consistent-and it has not grown-we are looking at another 1,600 people inside the country today, along with that 900, who are a serious security concern.
When the House was called back last August, the Speaker said that it was on an emergency basis. The emergency still exists. Perhaps I feel it more keenly because the Winter Olympics are coming to my city. Perhaps the people of Toronto should feel it more keenly because international Ministers are coming to Toronto and they are targets of terrorists.


John R. Rodriguez: Scare politics.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Scare politics. We are getting nothing but ill-considered and ill-informed political rhetoric from the other side in an attempt to stall the House on something that it was decided a long time ago needed to be dealt with with speed and dispatch.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I stretched my ears to hear a question in the comments of the Hon. Member. I do not want to characterize his intervention as a filibuster, and I do not want to take a great deal of time to answer it.
He has a point. 1 am not standing up to say that the procedures in the present immigration law for expelling those who should be expelled are adequate or that they cannot be improved in that they are working well. In fact, I would have been prepared to welcome some legislation to make them work better.
Our own spokesman, the Hon. Member for York West had some pretty good ideas, I thought, on the kinds of things we would have liked to see in a law to improve that type of procedure. As I indicated, nobody wants to be made a sucker. We do not want invalid claims to succeed in letting individuals who should not be allowed to come to Canada, let alone remain here, stay here for unduly long periods of time. However, the Government has a right-wing agenda and is sticking to features of this Bill which I think violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and which certainly violate the sense Canadians have that genuine refugees should be able to come and stay in Canada.
The Government should relent and take our advice and the advice of Conservative Members of the other place who agreed, in their criticism of these features of the Act, that the Government is cutting off its nose to spite its face. I know that there is a serious administrative problem in dealing with the backlog. This Bill has some features that would help clear up that backlog. Let us get on with it. However, by insisting that it have the whole cake including the portions of it that are poisoned, the Government is forcing us to resist. All Canadians want us to do so.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share a few thoughts with my colleagues. We are dealing here with legislation which is of profound importance to the kind of country we as Canadians want to have. We are dealing with legislation that in many ways is a direct repudiation of a long and honourable tradition of recognizing that those who are fleeing from oppressive regimes should not be turned away from Canadian shores. That tradition was recognized by the United Nations in 1985 when Canada received the highest possible award, the Nansen Medal, in recognition of our tradition of compassion and understanding. Since that time, the actions of the Conservative Government in response to a boatload of 174 refugee claimants who arrived in Nova Scotia in the summer of 1987 have put a black mark on that international reputation.
In his continuation of his attempt to filibuster discussion of the Bill, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) suggested that there was a crisis that had to be responded to quickly. It was some two years ago that a committee chaired
February 1, 1988

by that Hon. Member, the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration, made unanimous, all-Party, recommendations of a mechanism for ensuring far speedier access to the refugee determination process.
Yes, Canadians are concerned about queue-jumping. Canadians are concerned about abuse of the system. However, Canadians also want to ensure that in rejecting the abuses and those who would abuse the system and exploit individuals, we do not turn our backs on a tradition of concern for those who are genuine refugees fleeing from persecution.
It was on August 11 that Parliament was recalled to deal with what we were told was a national crisis. Canada was being invaded and the Government intended to take speedy action to deal with that invasion. The action it took, Bill C-84, has been condemned by virtually every group that appeared before both the House of Commons committee which studied the Bill and the Senate committee.
The business before the House now is the report of the Senate back to the House. The Senate heard from some 37 witnesses who gave a very comprehensive review of the issues involved in this important piece of legislation.

The Senate, for instance, heard testimony from representatives of religious communities and humanitarian groups, from people from all regions in this country, from the Canadian Bar Association, Immigration Law Section, from professors of constitutional international law, from civil liberties experts and private citizens. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has proposed a number of amendments to ensure that the Bill does not violate our obligations, not just our international obligations but also our obligations to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee shared the view that the Bill was contrary to the principles of international conventions on refugees and probably also to the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The courts and court decisions support this view. In fact, the Senate's report suggests this position is supported by several decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives on the Committee signed this report, and one would have hoped Conservative Members here in the House would have responded to this appeal from their Senate colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has accepted several amendments proposed by the Senate, but it insists on rejecting other, essential amendments. For instance, it still refuses to accept amendments to Section 6, concerning men and women who work, for instance, with churches and humanitarian groups to help refugees.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments are aimed at protecting these people who want to continue to work in the best traditions of this country. Unfortunately, the Government has refused to accept these amendments. The Government suggests that the amendments will make it impossible to prosecute
Property Rights
successfully those persons who make money by organizing clandestine migrations and by advising individuals on how to make a fraudulent refugee claim. Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Senate says. In fact, it said that the Bill was a threat to Canadians who were not breaking the law at all! I am thinking of Paragraph 48 of the Senate's report, and 1 quote: "Bill C-84 would create offences with heavy penalties for knowingly organizing, inducing, aiding or abetting people to come into Canada without proper documents".
Mr. Speaker, many witnesses have strongly criticized the provisions concerning aiding and abetting, provisions that have also disturbed a great many Canadians.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hour of five o'clock is rapidly approaching. If there were a predisposition on the opposition benches to conclude this item by not seeing the clock for a few minutes, the Government would certainly be willing to support that. I wonder if you could seek such unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Of course, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will be able to continue his speech whenever this matter is brought up in the House again.

It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 4, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reimer:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982 should be amended in order to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the Senate pass similar resolutions.
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, that issue of property rights has been a personal concern of mine for at least a decade.

February 1, 1988
Property Rights
In 1979, when I ran for the first time as a Conservative, a group of Quebec candidates adopted as their basic political position, almost as a prerequisite to running for the Conservative Party, that property rights become part of any Progressive Conservative elections platform. As for my Party itself, it has had that concern for decades. We are all aware of the efforts made by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker on the matter of property rights.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is involved is not simply a matter of lofty principles, but rather practical matters. We know very well for instance that property rights are part of the balance between community and individual rights. Let me explain. The community of course has a right, as a society, to a healthy, positive development, but the individual also has the right to basically protect the principles inherited along with citizenship.
In 1981, during the Constitutional debate, Hon. David Crombie, now a Minister but then a backbencher, although not backward because he had very progressive ideas, stated on February 18, 1981: "Secondly, the Charter of Rights does not include property, as I mentioned earlier. The right to enjoy property is essential to people understanding not only of their rights but of their freedom and security. We put a motion to include property as a right; and it was voted down". The Hon. Member then to criticized the approach taken by the New Democratic Leader when he suggested the Charter of Rights had to be enacted as put forward because of the need for change. And the Hon. Member went on to say: "The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said it is time for a decision, time for change. We have to act decisively in history".
As you see, Mr. Speaker, this principle was of major concern to many responsible members of our party.
I also want to quote the comments made by the Speaker of this House, the Hon. John A. Fraser, who was then Member for Vancouver South. He was asking the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, why, knowing that it would be useless to attempt negotiating to incorporate property rights in the Constitution, the Sollicitor General, acting as Justice Minister, had made such a commitment. He also asked: "Is the Prime Minister really trying to make us believe that it was put forward to broaden consensus which the Prime Minister knew perfectly well did not exist?" I should add that the major issue of the day was to broaden consensus among the Opposition Parties. The Right Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau had replied: "Madam Speaker, the federal Conservative party seems to attach such importance to this matter" At which point someone had interjected: "You're damned right we do". To which Mr. Trudeau had replied: "The hon. member says, "You're damned right we do". I say that if they want that amendment so badly in the constitution, and they want it so badly that it should bind all the provinces as well as the federal government, then let them come and support us and maybe I will give up the support of the NDP." He was therefore willing to trade on a basic principle.
Mr. Fraser had then replied: "Madam Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that the Conservative proposal is to put these provisions that we have been suggesting and working on to the provinces." In other words, we wanted the support of the provinces for a very basic principle because our party believed in the rights of the provinces as it believes in the rights of the individual.
As for Mr. Hamilton, who was then Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose-Mountain, he said the following in his speech on February 23, 1981: "The third point 1 wanted to mention was the right to enjoy property, which is the first item in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. Why any Liberal or NDPer would deliberately, in full public glare of television, radio and newspaper, stand up and declare that they did not want this entrenched in the Constitution is beyond me. Anyone who knows the history of the new world, South America, North America, Australia and New Zealand knows why people came to these lands. They came to enjoy the ownership of land. To the working man, that means his home."
Vince Dantzer, who was representing the Okanagan North riding at the time, stated on March the 2nd, 1981: "There are other flaws in this document, flaws due to the process and haste which has characterized the passage of this resolution. Where are property rights?
During the committee hearings the hon. member for Provencher proposed the following amendment: Freedom from unreasonable interference with privacy, family, home, correspondence and enjoyment of property. These basic rights have been accepted in our tradition for hundres of years. They appear in the Magna Carta. They were present in John Diefenbaker's bill of rights. Yet, the Liberal majority at the direction of the New Democratic Party retreated from the position of acceptance to one of rejection and refused to allow the charter to guarantee the right of Canadians to own and enjoy property. "A man's home is his castle", but not in Canada under a Liberal and NDP government." It is rather ironic, Mr. Speaker, because these days, the idea of a Canada under a Liberal and NPD Government is again fashionable.
Canadians could then remember that at that time, such a government prevented them from enjoying the right of property which is a very basic right, not only as a principle, but also as an economic right.
Everybody knows that the citizen who owns his own house, who has the joy and pride of possessing assets, will respect them, respect himself and his neighbour much more.
On the other hand, we often realize, when watching TV or reading the papers and magazines, the great many social and basic problems faced by people forced to live in the tenement sections of ghettos, such as those found in the major American cities, where a great many individuals, because they do not own any property or their own house, feel dehumanized and show the most complete disrespect for themselves, their neighbours and the premises they live in.
February 1, 1988

Personally, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this old principle should be enshrined in the Constitution, but it is also something quite practical for us Canadians, because, as 1 said, it ensures the balance between the rights of the community and the rights of individual Canadian men and women.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, Canadians should not be concerned in any way about the fact that property rights are not enshrined in the Charter of Rights. We have lived and now live under jurisprudence which has established an unwritten basis in law for property rights. Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized as a fundamental freedom the right of an individual to own and enjoy property, and the right not to be deprived of that property. This was established without being written into the Constitution.
Therefore, Canadians should not be concerned that property rights are not enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their rights of property remain sound regardless of whether or not they are in the Charter. In fact, many countries believe that countries such as Canada, which have developed their law structure from the British parliamentary system and the British law structure and have established recognized rights, are in a better position than those which have them written into a charter such as is suggested here. When you include such rights in a charter, because it is sometimes necessary to abrogate those rights in some way, you have to make exceptions to them. As those exceptions develop the rights become less free than they would be if they were not written.
The Anglo-Canadian right to property has been confirmed by a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court came down firmly on the side of property rights. While they are not enshrined in the Constitution they are definitely the rights of the country.
Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be
construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist
in Canada.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically set out that the fact that the rights of property are not included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not mean that they do not exist. There is nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says that these rights do not exist. That is the basis upon which we in Canada live with the security that the property we own is there for our enjoyment.
This therefore seems like a little bit of overkill. Perhaps it is playing a little bit on the fears which people have of government and of what they see across the border where property rights are a little more subservient to the Government. Countries around the world look upon our situation with envy because we feel secure in our property rights and can fight
Property Rights
them in the courts without any suggestion that they are not secure.
In the process of discussing property rights we should also look at the history of Canada. We are in a rather unique situation in that when we brought our Constitution back we had the opportunity to decide what would be in it and what would be in the Bill of Rights. In the process of looking at what had happened over a period of 100 years the Parliament of the day accepted a Charter of Rights which did not include the right to enjoy property because it appeared to that Parliament, as it appeared to many people across the country, not to be necessary. In fact, the two strongest advocates of not including property rights in the Constitution were the then Premier of Alberta, Lougheed, and the then Premier of Prince Edward Island, MacLean-one a Conservative, one a Liberal. The third Premier who came down against the inclusion of property rights was Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan. In the discussions regarding property rights in the Constitution the position of not including property rights was supported by a Conservative Premier, a Liberal Premier, and a New Democratic Premier, and by the parliamentarians at that time.
Parliament spent many months discussing the Constitution and finally accepted the position which was acceptable to the majority of people in the House of Commons at that time. Consequently, property rights were not included in the Charter of Rights.
I want to confirm that Canadians should not be concerned in any way about the fact that property rights are not enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Property rights have existed for 100 years in Canada and for several hundred years in the British tradition around the world. They have been challenged in courts and have never failed to be upheld. Consequently, I do not believe it is necessary to put property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to have the opportunity to speak in support of the motion of my hon. colleague from Kitchener to amend the Constitution Act, 1982, to include property rights.
One of the two reasons I did not vote for the Constitution Act in 1982 was the fact that property rights were not included. The other reason was that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gave no protection to unborn human beings. Many of us in the House at that time were very upset by those omissions in the Charter. We can see today, as a result of the decision brought down by the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, January 28, that unborn human beings are more and more discriminated against by not being included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Government of the day had no intention at any time to include unborn human beings in the Charter.
However, with regard to property rights, the Government of the day did in fact originally include property rights in the Constitution but later rescinded them. We later learned that

February 1, 1988
Property Rights
the Government bowed to the wishes and pressures of the New Democratic Party to remove property rights from the final text of the Constitution. We know why the NDP took this action, Mr. Speaker. Members of the New Democratic Party were being true to their belief that all property should be owned by the state. The NDP believes that the state knows what is best and that the people of Canada should follow their lead with no questions asked. God help us if by some accident of fate the NDP ever came to national power. It would be a disaster of the greatest magnitude.
Denying the right to private property to Canadians certainly makes a mockery of the existing rights to life, liberty, and security of person as depicted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The member of the New Democratic Party said that the definition of property is very complicated. I agree with that. We have real property which relates to land and we have personal property that deals with everything from cars to negotiable instruments. Just because the definition of property is very broad and it will, of necessity, have to be interpreted by the courts, is no reason not to embark on that course to have property rights included within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At the outset, I would like to emphasize that in my view property rights have played a central role in the evolution of our society. Indeed, property rights are an essential part of British parliamentary democracy. These rights can be traced back to King John, the year 1215, with the signing of the Magna Carta.
Today, the right to own, use and enjoy property is fundamental to the economic life of our country and of other western democracies. For these reasons I believe property rights should be enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The role of property in the economy of our country, the right to own, to use and to enjoy property, is fundamental to the basic feature of democracy, which is individual freedom. The Progressive Conservative Party has had a long and honourable association with this idea.
It was a Conservative Government under the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker who, in 1960, introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights which included protection for the enjoyment of property. In the recent process leading to the patriation of the Constitution, it was the Progressive Conservative Party again that wanted the inclusion of property rights.
Unfortunately, that process was not included in the end and I am very pleased that the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) has come forward through his motion in an attempt to correct the situation.
The motion before us would add the enjoyment of property to Section 7 of the Charter, thereby guaranteeing the right not
to be deprived of the enjoyment of property, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In conjunction with that, it is reasonable, I believe, to say that what we are talking about is the unreasonable deprivation of an individual when it comes to property rights.
I suggest that some of the fears I have heard enumerated in the House, that people's rights will be trampled on by the rights of Governments to conduct the business of either the province or the federal Government, are really misplaced. I do not think that is what we are talking about at all. We want to strike a reasonable balance between the property rights of the individual and the legitimate concerns of the state. I would not feel so strongly about this if I had not seen examples in Canadian history where property rights of the individual had been trampled upon.
The House will be aware of all the problems surrounding the expropriation of land for Mirabel Airport. The facts are this: Much more land than necessary was expropriated for the airport. Everybody knew it and acknowledged it. The people whose farms and homes were expropriated fought the issue for years, indeed decades, to do something about it.
I became a believer in this resolution just on that issue alone because I always thought that if property rights had been enshrined in the Constitution, people would have had a legal access and would have been able to take a legal route to show and demonstrate to a court of law that their rights had been unnecessarily deprived. It was a very moving moment for all of us when the then Minister of Public Works spoke to all the farmers who had been deprived of their property and acknowledged that a terrible mistake had been made. All the suffering during those years by those individuals was proved unnecessary.
There is no question that if this motion had been passed and been part of the Constitution, concerned individuals would have had remedy in law. I think that is what we all want. Therefore, I ask all Members to begin the process of enshrining property rights in the Constitution. It is a long and difficult process and I know it will need the support of the provinces. It is long overdue and we should begin the process now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there is an odd historical event occurring now as I sit opposite my friend, the Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). He may remember a former incarnation in his busy life when he served on the Constitution Committee which, prior to 1982, considered the patriation package, including a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
He and other colleagues of his in the Conservative Party were strongly advocating that the Constitution should entrench property rights. The Conservative Members of the committee were enthusiastic about including property rights but were unwilling at that point to indicate that if property rights were put in the Charter they would support it. In other words, it was a negotiating freebie.
February 1, 1988

1 hope the Minister will rise and tell the events from his point of view, but my recollection as I was sitting close to the negotiators was that the Official Opposition, the present Government, was opposing the patriation and the Charter, and were wanting changes to it.
I do not mind saying that we needed friends at that time and were quite alone in the country at that point on the patriation package. Most of the provinces were dead against it. The Official Opposition was opposed to it.
Whenever a good idea came along-and I think the inclusion of property rights was a good idea-we always hoped to use that piece of bait to further the small support that the constitutional package had at that particular time. I know the Member will correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that they were interested in it. The Member for Rosedale might have said on the record that this would make the package more attractive and easier for them to support, but they never said that if we put it in they would support it.


Mr. Crombie:: But we did support it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Now the Member for Rosedale wants me to get ahead of myself.
My colleague Jean Chretien, the former Member for Shawinigan, was negotiating with the committee, hoping to get the support of the Official Opposition. He took ill at approximately four o'clock of an afternoon and was supposed to appear before committee in the evening. I was in Barrie, Ontario, speaking to the Kiwanis Club when I received a telephone call. I had to return to replace my colleague that night in Ottawa because we were working to international deadlines. There were other reasons why that meeting had to be held that night.
I had in my bag of tricks the approval of the negotiating committee to agree to the particular amendment that the Member for Rosedale and others were asking, which, in substance, is essentially the amendment that is before us tonight.
I was very pleased to be able to say that we would amend the package accordingly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That was Friday night.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: A funny thing happened over the weekend. Other Members can speak to their side and perspective, but when next Monday morning came, it turned out that the negotiating committee had to take that back off the table. I say this to the Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) and hope that he will have some sympathy for the situation we were in at the time. Not only did we fail to pick up any additional supporters as a result of making this part of the package, it looked as if we might lose the New Democratic Party, who had already agreed to support the package the way it was. Their company was an important element to the success of the package.
Property Rights
Now that that is behind us and patriation has occurred, everybody turns out to have been in favour of it all along in spite of the various political positions we were taking. I want to indicate for the record that this amendment does enhance the Charter. It recognizes property rights, not in the absolute- even the right to liberty is not absolute in the Charter-but recognizes it as one of the important values in Canadian society. This is not something to be tossed aside lightly by the Government of the day, by Parliament or by a legislature without having a good, sound justification for doing so in a free and democratic society. That is all this provision would do.
Concerning a grand scheme, the Member who just spoke before me said that the nationalization of all private property is the grand scheme. 1 hope it is not, and I do not think it is. But even if there were a grand scheme, and even if that grand scheme were adopted by some future Government of Canada, I think that the balance which the Charter provides would respect both interests. The Canadians would be more comfortable in the enjoyment of their property as they are more comfortable in the enjoyment of their liberty and their right of security of the person in a wonderful Charter of Rights and Freedoms which truly makes a difference in our life.
I have another minute or two and I have a comment to make about the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause in Section 33 of our Constitution permits any legislature or parliament to override the Charter and, in effect, to act as if these rights were not vested in the Canadian people. I think that the notwithstanding clause is incompatible with the Charter. The story of how it came to appear in the document is too long to put before the House now. As everyone knows, it was not the idea of the Government of the day. It certainly was not Mr. Trudeau who wanted his proposals for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be suspendable. It was a condition with which we had to agree if we wanted to get that basis of support which the Supreme Court of Canada held that we needed to have to go back to Britain for the last time to get permission and Britain's legislative blessing on the patriation and the establishment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What I do not understand, and perhaps some members of the government Party could help me with that-

1 should like to conclude in French by saying that I do not understand why the Government is now so reluctant to take this initiative. It has recorded a success with the Meech Lake Accord and has greatly helped our Constitution to progress. I do not agree 100 per cent with what it has achieved, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it has obtained the unanimous support of all Canadian governments. Why did it not enshrine the rights of property at that time? I feel it was because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had no agenda, he had not "advanced" the interest of all Canadians to have their national perspective in the Charter. That is a major flaw which will be

February 1, 1988
Property Rights
remedied, I hope, following the forthcoming election which will "build" the Government of today.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the motion of the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) to amend the Constitution Act, 1982, as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
The purpose of this amendment is quite simple: It would protect the houses, buildings and lands owned by Canadians from any arbitrary Government interference. These provisions could have been included in the Constitution Act, 1982, which repatriated our Constitution without the support of the 27 per cent of the Canadian population residing in Quebec, in spite of the fact that there were then 74 Liberal Members from Quebec in this House. Yet, they agreed to a new Constitution for Canadians without the official participation of Quebec.
I would also like to refer to a comment made by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who said that, when we negotiated the Meech Lake Accord, we decided to limit the discussions to the integration of Quebec into the Canadian Constitution. Indeed, this is why we had a specific agenda. This agenda was quite well-known, notwithstanding what the Hon. Member for York Centre may have said. We were well aware of the wishes of the premiers generally and especially of the Quebec Premier, Mr. Bourassa, to have my province rejoin the Constitution, as you had not taken care of it yourselves.
I shall now come back to property rights, Mr. Speaker. These rights exist, and they scare many people, especially the socialists. Property rights terrify them. What they would like is a community of the instruments of production and especially a community of the means to spend and distribute wealth. They are afraid that, if we keep the existing legislation, they will be unable in the future to nationalize banks and oil companies and to allow state interference in the private sector. This is what the socialist party fears the most about the liberal-socialist coalition already referred to by the Liberal Leader and which would mean a movement to the left by our representatives in the House of Commons. With such a coalition, the Socialists will be in a position to demand more from the Government, to nationalize everything and surrender the future of Canada to technocrats who are not accountable for the use of our resources.
These people, who promote the ideas of Karl Marx, should look towards Russia and China and realize that these countries are starting to privatize some means of production.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Gabriel Fontaine: They can yell as much as they please, but the fact remains that the Communist system in Russia is moving a little towards capitalism. The same thing is happening in China. They recognize to a certain extent the failure of the Communist system and the collective property.
If we do not want the same thing to happen here, the Government, instead of moving towards collectivism and developing state property to protect-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Quebec's own little Fascist!


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, could we ask the few Socialists who are present here to show a little more respect for the Chair and the House of Commons and allow me to continue? Could we ask them at least that, Mr. Speaker? I know that they are complainers, that they are drop-outs and intellectual failures in our society, but they should respect those who have been elected here and are addressing the Chair.
I want all Canadians to understand that we want to give back the greatest possible benefit to the taxpayers who own and are accountable for their property. We want to make it possible for Canadians to acquire wealth. Strangely, Mr. Speaker, if it were not for us who are aware of the importance of private property, of capital and private initiative, the Socalists could not survive in this system because they are essentially parasites of a rich system which is capable to support even extremists in our society. They are people who tag along private enterprise, because private enterprise is rich. If these people were really serious, Mr. Speaker, they would move to another country. They would move to a country with a system compatible with their philosophy.
Indeed that would bring some relief to our country and to our House of Commons because the greatest frustration I have in this House, Mr. Speaker, the greatest frustration imposed by democracy, which is very useful to me, but the worst enemy of democracy is to see before me these intellectual beggars who aggravate us and try to aggravate Canadians all year round in this House. It is important for Canadians to know these people are like that. It is important for Canadians to know that these people could not care less about Canadians who produce and Canadians who want to develop their country through the private sector and with full respect for personal initiative.
I see they are smiling, but you are smiling because our country can support you, otherwise you would be beggars.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this is just the kind of situation where I would like to be able to speak French.
But I will have to reply in English to my friend opposite. I always enjoy his speeches. I hope that he will be happy when we return him to the private sector where he can be productive after the next election.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Have you got a job?


An Hon. Member:: Come on over.
February 1, 1988


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Members opposite suggest that I run against them. I would be pleased to do that.
The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) and the other Conservative Member who spoke, whose riding escapes me at the moment although I believe he is from Ontario, rant and rave about the NDP being for all property owned by the state. They rant and rave and accuse us of being, first, Russian communists and, then, Chinese communists. It is as if they had never heard of democratic socialism. They do not know the difference.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a case of desperate, pitiful, hopeless people who have to resort to Red baiting. That is what they are doing rather than debating the topic of private property.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), our speaker on this debate, tried to deal with the issue of private property and property rights. He made the point that during the constitutional debate the Premiers of Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberta, who were in fact a Liberal, an NDPer and a Conservative, were against putting property rights in the Constitution. Yet no one in this debate has asked why. I think there are reasons why.
Prince Edward Island was afraid of putting property rights in the Constitution because it wanted to retain the right to enact legislation to protect its farmland and its waterfront from being taken over by Americans especially, and by other people. The people of that province were concerned about that problem. If property rights had been in the Constitution they may not have been able to enact that type of legislation.
The Premier of Saskatchewan had taken over the potash industry for public services. He had taken some resource corporations under public ownership for the great benefit of the people of Saskatchewan, as, indeed, other provinces have done with respect to hydro power and so on. He was afraid that if a property rights provision were in the Constitution, it would be struck down by the courts.
The Premier of Alberta had his own reasons. I suspect they were that he wanted to be able to tax the oil industry, which was the biggest industry in his province. He wanted to get some of the revenues and to control the development, so far as that was possible, of the oil industry within his own province. For public policy reasons these Premiers were suspicious and, indeed, were against having property rights included in the Constitution.
"Property rights" is a buzz word. What the Conservatives really mean by property rights is that they want something in the Constitution that will stop Governments from doing things that would enact the collective public good, that would stop some economic planning, for example, or that would stop the takeover of a particular company. They do not say that they want this without compensation. There would be compensation and so on. In fact, they want this right included in the
Property Rights
Constitution so that government will be severely restricted. They do so because they do not believe in government. I am not talking about every Conservative. There are a group of them who do believe in the John A. Macdonald tradition, something that others seems to be forgetting. It is the mainstream Canadian tradition that there is a partnership in Canada between government action and private industry action.
We have a mixed system in Canada. That is one of the things that makes Canada different from the United States. The Conservative Party is determined to make Canada more and more like the United States until we eventually become the fifty-first state. To say that the NDP does not believe in private property is nonsense. We accept that there is a mixed system of private and public enterprise in Canada.
What the motion before us would do is to load the dice so that there could not be public enterprise in the future. That is what the real agenda is here. That is what the Conservatives want.
The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) gave an interesting speech on this subject, especially with respect to what happened during the constitutional committee hearings. I was there and I remember the day to which he referred. I might tell him that, quite frankly, I was astounded by his speech. He said that property rights, and I use his words, were a piece of bait to get Tory support. It is lucky that his mother-in-law or his father-in-law were not there because he would have traded them off as well for Tory support. He said that property rights were part of his bag of tricks. That is an indication, if I might say to the Hon. Member for York Centre, of the Liberal frame of mind.
I think what happened on that Friday night when the Hon. Member for York Centre agreed to put property rights in the Constitution is that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chretien identified over the weekend what was happening. The proposal was promptly withdrawn on the Monday when good sense prevailed.
While the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) is in the House I want to say this. I will never forget the look on his face at that committee meeting. I remember when the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was trying to talk out the clock, quite frankly, and there were but a few minutes to go until 6 p.m. Finally, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, if one can believe it, was running out of words. He could not think of anything else to say. However, it finally hit him and he said, "Mr. Chairman, the family farm. We have to protect the family farm".
I will never forget the look on the face of the Hon. Member for Rosedale as well as the looks on the faces of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and some other Ministers who thought that that was really something. Of course, the clock struck 6 p.m. and Serge Joyal, who was then the Chairman, declared the meeting adjourned until Monday.

February 1, 1988
Property Rights
What was placed in the Constitution was a provision with respect to native rights and not property rights. That is the most radical part of the Constitution. If some were astounded by the Supreme Court decision on abortion, I think they will be astounded by some future Supreme Court decisions on aboriginal rights. They will shake up a great many people in Canada.
In conclusion, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert was quite right. Property rights are included in Canadian law now. An Englishman's home is his castle. We have the notion that there is a right to property. Property cannot be taken away under Canadian common law without compensation. If such a provision is placed in the Constitution, then the Governmment's hands will be tied. No one is in favour of outrageous expropriations and, in that regard, I refer to Mirabel. Yet the Government cannot be stopped from expropriating land to build an airport since that is in the public good. A balance must be struck.
The experience in the United States in the early 20th century with the American Supreme Court was that it struck down government laws because there was something equivalent to property rights in the American Constitution.
"Property rights" is nothing but a buzz word. The Hon. Member can keep her hot tub in the Gatineau. The NDP will not steal that from her. Property rights are included in the common law and we do not need them included in the Constitution or in the Charter of Rights. The only reason that some Conservative Members want it in there is that they want to restrict the Government from enacting laws that are in the general public interest in the Canadian tradition. They want to take us to a right-wing American tradition, which is not Canadian. That is why this should be rejected.
[DOT] <17501


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the motion introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), to amend the Constitution of Canada in order that Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads as follows:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
The Hon. Member for Kitchener has rightly pointed out that the addition of the words "the enjoyment of property" to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights is a natural adjunct, a given, to those principles that we as Canadians hold dear.
However, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) is on record as saying that "Canadians should not be concerned in any way about the fact that property rights are not enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Yet in a Gallup poll commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Association 81 per cent of Canadians said "yes", Canadians do feel that it is "fairly" or "very" important
to amend the Constitution in order that property rights be protected.
The right to enjoy property was left out of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights when it was proclaimed in 1982. As a result, Governments are able to pass legislation or make regulations that may violate property rights. The exclusion of property rights is a grave oversight, in my opinion.
Protected property rights go back to 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta. The right to own is similarly recognized in the English Bill of Rights in 1627, in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Rights which Canada signed in 1948, and finally in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. But now in 1988 we do not have that protection.
The entrenchment of property rights is recognized in many democratic countries, such as the United States, Australia, Italy, Finland, Sweden, and West Germany. In Canada, however, it is not.
The simple acknowledgement of the principle of property rights and the understanding that there is an inherent belief that what one owns or possesses is his right to keep, is a tremendously reassuring principle that has evolved through time. We take a degree of satisfaction and pleasure, perhaps even refuge in our possessions, our reward for hard work.
I take pleasure in sitting in the backyard, working in the flower bed, mowing the lawn, or just puttering around because it affords me a certain degree of peace of mind, contentment, and enjoyment.
But what if my little Shangri-La were taken away from me, for some reason or another? What if my property rights were not recognized? This very real event has happened to many Canadians. Many Canadians were persecuted in their mother country because of government upheavals, changing ideologies, war, or religious persecution. Not only were their human rights violated, but as I argued earlier, property rights, being a direct adjunct, were violated without any form of compensation.
While it is not likely that this occurrence will happen in Canada, the entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would prove to be a safeguard, guaranteeing the rights of property owners against abusive or threatening measures taken against them.
I fully appreciate the difficulties that Hon. Members are encountering in defining the term "property". I believe that all Members from all sides of the House have stated that property encompasses not only property as in real estate, but intellectual property, passive property, and government largesse, which includes welfare payments, old age benefits, unemployment insurance compensation, and so on.
I am in agreement with the Hon. Member for Kitchener who argued that, although it may be difficult to define and interpret "enjoyment of property", it should not detract from the central principle of recognizing and entrenching property rights in the Charter.
February 1, 1988

During the last election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party took the position that it supported the entrenchment of property rights in the Charter. Since that time, as a result of the Meech Lake Accord, the Province of Quebec has become a constitutional member. Provincial authorities are presently investigating their concerns in regard to property rights.
1 believe that we will do an injustice to the Canadian people if the House does not support the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Kitchener. It is an injustice because the entrenchment of property rights in our Charter is clearly what Canadians want, and it is fundamentally the correct course of action for us to take as parliamentarians.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, I think we still have four minutes to debate this motion today, but we were unprepared for this. Still I think 1 will echo some of the comments of my colleagues.

1 wish to speak a little in English to ensure that all the folks from LaSalle are listening to me.
1 am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on this motion for a resolution to amend the Constitution to add property rights to Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a matter of constitutional reform with no significant potential implications. It is a matter that has stimulated debate and discussions in the House of Commons and in other forums, and that has not yet been resolved. This is because while the premise of this amendment is simple, the actual amendment proposed raises rather complex questions. The premise is that the houses and homes, and lands and property of Canadians deserve protection against arbitrary government action. However, the actual amendment raises questions that go beyond the concerns expressed for having such a constitutional provision. This is clear from previous debates and discussions. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to some of those matters today in the hope of adding some clarity to this debate.
The first thing I would note is the text of the proposed amendment before us.

Has my time expired, Mr. Speaker? Too bad, 1 had a good text to read but unfortunately I ran out of time. Thank you for your attention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Adjournment debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
ACID RAIN-GOVERNMENT'S STRATEGY VIS-A-VIS UNITED STATES/GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS/REQUEST THAT CANADA BREAK OFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, recently I raised the question of acid rain and the negotiations with the Americans on an accord, and the fact that the negotiations are not moving ahead at all. We are not anywhere near to having an agreement that would actually reduce the emissions that cause acid rain. In the United States, emissions come largely from the midwest. We need emission reduction in the United States parallel to what Canada has done.
Ontario and Quebec have done a remarkable job at reducing sulphur dioxide emissions. We have an understanding that they will be reduced by 50 per cent by 1994. We would very much want to see the Americans making a similar commitment, and I regret to say that we do not have that. 1 do not see that the federal Government is working strenuously to that end, yet every day we hear new news about the effects of acid rain. Today the Presbyterian Church in Hamilton, on James South, is nearly falling down as a result of acid rain. Damage to monuments and buildings is part of the bill which must be paid on acid rain.
[ Translation]
The withering of the maple groves, especially in Quebec, is another problem. The Union des producteurs agricoles taxes Ottawa of weaknesses and spinelessness in the face of the serious problems caused by acid rain from the United States.
An international forum on acid rain will be held soon in Quebec. Experts from the United States and from Europe will be attending. The Quebec provincial Government will be represented, the environmentalists will be there, but not the federal Government.
Now, the withering of the maple groves is caused by the acid rain, especially from the United States. And the European expertise may be usefull to us in Canada, since the withering of European forests is well advanced and the remedies are also well advanced over there.

I regret that the Canadian Government is not going to be there, nor will it provide financial aid for this important conference which is coming up shortly.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has called acid rain the litmus test regarding the competence of the Government in dealing with environmental questions with the

February 1, 1988
Adjournment debate
United States. I regret to say that that litmus test has been failed. We have a Government which has been actively pursuing a free trade agreement with the Americans. All the while that this has been going on, acid rain has been relegated to a question of lesser importance. In order to get that free trade agreement, that Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, acid rain has been neglected.
I say this with great regret and knowing that the Government has in principle endorsed the Brundtland report, the World Commission on the Environment and Development, which indicates that all economic decisions should have an environmental component. Here we have the major decision for the economy which Canada is facing with the trade deal and the environment was not even considered. The effects of acid rain, the effects of toxic wastes, and the effects of any number of environmental questions, were totally ignored by this Government concerned to move ahead on a trade deal for the wrong reasons.
President Reagan said while he was in Canada that he would consider an agreement with Canada. We have negotiations going on, but they have not been successful. So far the Americans are not willing to specify any actual reductions or specify any timetable. This is essential.
Let us talk about money. Supposedly $5 billion is committed in the United States. Only half of that or $2.5 billion would come from the Government. The rest would come from industry sources. Of that $2.5 billion, $300 million had already been committed to research on acid rain. The Government's commitment, far from being $5 billion, is down to $2.2 billion which in fact has not been appropriated by Congress.
Why not? Our friends in Congress do not see the point in putting more money into research, especially research which will not necessarily reduce the causes of acid rain. Unless we have a real plan with a timetable and with actual remission reductions specified, we are not going to get anywhere.
We need to have two million tonnes of emission reductions from certain areas to improve the situation in Canada. That means 10 million tonnes over all to get the qualitative reductions we need. We are far from it.
Let me close by saying that I think it is absolutely essential that the Government begin to take seriously Canada's number one environmental question, acid rain, and give it a high priority. The first thing it must do is call off the negotiations. We have to send a message to Congress and the administration saying that this kind of negotiation that is going nowhere is not acceptable. Let us begin to prepare the way for a new Congress and a new President. Let us show them that we take the problem very seriously indeed. Let us work on the things that we can work on here at home, especially the effects on human health which we can share with the Americans. Let us not continue this farce of believing that the negotiations we are having with the Americans now will do any good. They will not. Let us look to the future.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to respond tonight to the Hon. Member's question on the negotiations of the Canada-U.S. acid rain Accord, an issue that is of concern to all Hon. Members. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) continues to have this interest.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has established an acid rain abatement program that will reduce its acid rain emissions to 50 per cent of 1980 levels by 1994. Six of the seven federal-provincial agreements required to fully implement the Canadian program are now in place. The federal Government expects to sign the agreement with Nova Scotia very soon. However, since approximately 50 per cent of the acid rain in eastern Canada originates in the United States, without similar action on the part of our American neighbours, our abatement program cannot be effective in protecting Canada's environment.
Last April, President Reagan agreed to consider Canada's proposal to negotiate a bilateral agreement including targets and schedules to reduce the U.S. trans-boundary flow of acid rain emissions to acceptable levels. Our officials subsequently provided their American counterparts with an outline of the elements Canada feels are essential in an effective Accord.
Publicly, we have stated that we want the U.S. transboundary flow of S02 into eastern Canada to be reduced to two million tonnes by 1994, equivalent to the percentage reduction targets in our own abatement program. This proposal is based on sound scientific information and on existing principles and obligations under international law which provide that countries must ensure that activities within their jurisdictions do not damage the environment of other nations.
Canadian officials met with American counterparts in Ottawa last November 30 but the Americans were not prepared to provide Canada with a formal response to its concept paper at that time. The American negotiating team stated that a decision regarding the American position would be made by the President's domestic policy council at its mid-January meeting and that they would provide Canada with a substantive response to the proposal on January 25.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has indicated that the American response received in Washington on January 25 was sorely inadequate. The main components of an Accord which the Americans were prepared to negotiate with Canada include: one, a heavy emphasis on joint research, emission monitoring and further problem definition; two, recognition by Canada that market-force-driven implementation of new technologies and deregulation will significantly reduce future U.S. emissions; and three, the most disturbing element for Canada, the position that any Accord could not include scientific emission targets and schedules.
February 1, 1988

This counterproposal indeed falls far short of the key elements needed to protect Canada's environment. As the Minister of the Environment stated in the House on January 26, he, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are currently reviewing every available option that will enable Canada to obtain the reduction it requires in the U.S. trans-boundary flow of acid rain. A decision on how the Government intends to proceed will be announced shortly, but Hon. Members may rest assured that the federal Government will continue to pursue this vital environmental issue with the United States, with the administration, with the Congress and with the American public.
GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE SCRUTINY/REQUEST FOR NATIVE REPRESENTATION ON BOARD


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my appearance on the Adjournment Debate this evening arises from the unsatisfactory answers given by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) on November 23, 1987. He was responding to my question concerning the composition and representation of membership of the board of the FEDNOR agency, as the acronym has it, or the Advisory Committee on Development for Northern Ontario, as 1 believe the official title is. I asked the Minister if the Government would be appointing more members to the board. Having initially said there were seven more vacancies, in his reply to my supplementary question he said:
There are 12 members on the board. There are still four vacancies to be
filled.
That was well over two months ago and those vacancies have not yet been filled. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary should account for that omission.
I would like to point out that three nights ago the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion had the eight present nominees to the board come before it for their confirmation hearings. It rapidly became evident, under very probing and perceptive questioning by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), that seven of the appointees owed their appointments to their connections with the Progressive Conservative Party. That is really not the gravamen of my complaint in this matter. We expect the Government to appoint Tories to the board. This certainly is not going to be one of the most financially lucrative boards to which a supporter of the Government could possibly aspire. I might say incidentally that the eighth appointee appeared to be a partisan of the Liberal Party. Indeed, one of the seven left some doubt as to where his current loyalties lay, although it was clear as to how his appointment was arranged.
Those four vacancies have to be used to get some balance on the board. I am sure that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is not going to tell me that a board made up completely or almost completely of people who have a firm allegiance to the
Adjournment debate
Progressive Conservative Party is going to be a board that will be capable of rendering fully objective decisions no matter how strong their background in business, how strong their understanding of regional development, or how strong their understanding of financing programs might be.
It was obvious from those who came before us on I believe it was Thursday night that the native element of northern Ontario, a very significant element numerically and even more so if we consider the lack of employment and underdevelopment of the 100 odd reserves in northern Ontario, was not represented on this board. Yet the chairman of the board acknowledge with some pride, I am glad to say, that the board would be having an active interaction, an active role, in regard to the economic development of native communities. If that be so, and I trust it is, there should be representation that reflects and is conversant with the realities of the economic situation of native communities.
Another obvious component that was not represented among the eight who appeared before us was that of labour. Organized labour is very strong in northern Ontario with its resource industries of mining and forestry in particular. Organized labour of course has many representatives who have very well-developed ideas on the nature of regional development, on regional development needs, and could contribute a great deal to this board.
Finally, I think it is proper to point out that the resource and processing industries, which are the raison d'etre, if you like, for the economy of northern Ontario in very large measure, were significantly under-represented on this board. Indeed, the board members collectively could only claim, I would say, a passing familiarity with resource industries.
Mining, the forest industry, and the forest resource processing industries such as sawmills and pulp and paper mills need to be represented on this board if we are to have a balanced composition.
I was glad to see that the matter of potential conflict of interest has been taken care of. Let it not be said that I will not compliment the Government when such a compliment is earned.
We did, of course, highlight in our questioning the over-all inadequacy of the funding allowed for the FEDNOR agency. There is $40 million available for grant distribution plus $60 million in loan guarantees. Not to criticize, contrast that with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agencies which has something like five times the per capita available funding.
The basic question which I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary answer this evening is when appointments will be made to those four open positions and whether they will be made in such a way as to ensure that we end up with a balanced board, not only in terms of ideology but in terms of the community of interest of northern Ontario they represent.

February 1, 1988
Adjournment debate


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to remind the distinguished Member for Kenora- Rainy River (Mr. Parry) that ACOA deals with four provinces while FEDNOR deals with northern Ontario.
Were the Minister here this evening, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of Members in the Chamber again the very important and very major thrusts which the Government is making toward the economic rehabilitation of northern Ontario. As you know, Mr. Speaker, FEDNOR is the recently announced federal economic development initiative for northern Ontario. A key component is a $55 million fund, and there are different ways to explain the levels of the funding. Its intention is to fill the gaps which exist in federal programming with respect to that region. I think that is particularly fair to say with regard to new native economic thrust for the future.
The Northern Ontario Development Advisory Board was established to provide an important source of advice to the Government on federal economic policies, programs, and services, particularly as they relate to FEDNOR and economic redevelopment.
The eight board members, announced on October 9 last by the Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher), the Hon. Solicitor General, on behalf of the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), are all northerners and represent the region's geographic districts. They bring with them a wide variety of expertise and experience together with
a very deep and personal commitment to the economic redevelopment of northern Ontario.
There has been some suggestion here this evening that all such nominations by the Governor in Council are subject to the approval of the appropriate committee of the House. These eight, as the Member has just indicated, were all, if I am correct, before the committee only last week.
The Order in Council establishing the board does provide for 12 members and eight of them have been appointed. There are four appointments yet to be made and these vacancies will be filled with the assistance of suggestions coming not only from the Member for Kenora-Rainy River but all those interested in the orderly economic development of that part of Ontario. Suggestions will come from native people, labour, and the resource based industries, which, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, are so important.
Since the announcement last fall the board has been meeting regularly. Planning and discussion of appropriate programs are ongoing. There will be a secretariat established in Sault Ste. Marie. I think the Member will be pleased to join with all of us in applauding this first step. The board will be rounded and fleshed out to its full membership. I know it will do an excellent job for that part of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, February 2, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers