1988-02-02

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition No. 332-3518.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-278, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have to leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, at present, Section 173 of the Criminal Code deals with criminal intrusions at night. It has been mostly used in relation to peeping Toms. The law at present is totally ineffective in daylight hours. The proposed change would extend the offence to acts of voyeurism committed in the daytime as well as night.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, on behalf of a number of people in western Canada, to present a petition on the subject of the trade deal the Government negotiated with the United States.
These people are very concerned about the future of Canadian sovereignty, and believe it has been compromised through this agreement. They are afraid that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has threatened the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions. They also believe that the 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 United States.
For those and other reasons the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to dissolve and let the people of Canada have the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade arrangement through a national general election.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions signed by resident of the Yukon who are concerned that the U.S. and Japan propose to fly plutonium over the Canadian North. As that represents both an environmental and nuclear proliferation risk, they call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize the dangers of such flights and to say no to the transport of plutonium over northern Canadian territory.
M0)


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from Gull Lake, Saskatchewan, who are very concerned about the trade deal which has been signed.
They believe that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate to conclude a trade agreement with the United States. They believe that these negotiations have compromised Canada's sovereignty. They believe that the government trade

February 2, 1988
Order Paper Questions
deal threatens the very fabric of our political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership in Canada.
There are a number of other points about which they are concerned which I will not bother to read. By and large, they call upon Parliament to dissolve now to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure, in accordance with Standing Order 106, to present a petition from a number of residents of Spadina as approved by the Clerk of Petitions.
The petitioners have said that considering that the trade deal arranged between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural, and political independence, and considering that such an agreement implies the loss of jobs in many sectors and regions, the undersigned request that the Parliament of Canada 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 the signing of such an agreement.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of my constituency of Ottawa Centre and other people who were visiting in my constituency from Kingston and other parts of eastern Ontario who are opposed to the trade agreement which has been entered into by the Government with the Government of the United States.
They believe that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude this trade agreement. They recall that during the course of the negotiations the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They call upon the Government to dissolve so that Canadians can have a general election so that the people of Canada can make a decision on the trade negotiations.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition which has to do, as you would know, with the free trade issue and the recently signed Mulroney-Reagan agreement. Your petitioners wish to present a common grievance which reads as follows:
Considering 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 sectors, especially agriculture, energy, the 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.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 1, 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
[Stage Direction]

February 2, 1988
[Stage Direction]
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:
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."
Immigration Act, 1976
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:
(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(1 )(e), (f) or (g) shall be conducted in camera.
(4.2)	Where (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""
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) had the floor. He is not in the House and, therefore, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate being recognized this morning to make some comments on Bill C-84. We have had a good debate on this Bill. We are discussing, of course, the Government's motion in response to the Senate's reaction to this Bill. My hon. friend

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
from Spadina very eloquently presented my Party's position on this government initiative. I thought he had done the job so well, as had a number of my colleagues, that this round of debate would be ended after another two or three interjections. However, a number of things encouraged me to change my mind earlier this morning and I have decided to say a few words.
Earlier today I was handed a telegram from the Council of Christian Reform Churches. It brought to my attention that the government motion on Bill C-84 is very inadequate and unacceptable. They believe it is unacceptable in the way it relates to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in how it refers to the United Nations Convention for Refugees, about which 1 will have more to say in a moment. When the Christian Reform Churches brought to my attention that there were some real problems with this government initiative I decided to explore it a bit further.
This morning I was also handed a lengthy telegram from the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. The Inter-Church Committee for Refugees said that the government response to the Senate refugee Bill report is unacceptable. They said:
The Senate undertook a serious study of Bill C-84 and made minimal changes to make it constitutional and thus workable. There was no room for compromise.
The government response denies persons their right to have a refugee claim heard by insisting on calling them a security risk or turning away boats. That is an unacceptable and unnecessary denial of individual rights.
That phrase, "turning away boats", reminded me of an incident which happened many years ago in our country. I received a number of phone calls over the weekend from constituents of mine who are of the Sikh religion, They reminded me of the Kamagata Maru incident which occurred on our West Coast.
At that time a number of people from India wished to come to Canada to make Canada their home. They chartered a boat, certainly not a liner or a passenger ship, but a regular freighter which was their home for many weeks as they journeyed from Bombay and other parts of India, primarily the Punjab region. They arrived on the coast of British Columbia in the Port of Vancouver and wanted to make Canada their home.
The Canadian officials with the Port Authority in Vancouver, and I regret to say with the support of the federal Government of the day, held that boat in the port day after day as the Government of the day tried to find ways of stopping these people from landing and becoming Canadian citizens. One of the saddest days in our history was when the federal Government decided to use our naval gunboats to force that ship to return to a port in India. Those Sikh immigrants were forced to return to their homeland against their wishes and their will.
The Kamagata Maru incident, as it is now referred to, is a very dark mark on our history. There are others. As an example, a ship carrying Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany and other parts of Europe came to Canada and
the Canadian Government forced it to return to Europe. We did not want to welcome those refugees at the time. The federal government of the day thought this was inappropriate and forced the boat to return to Europe. I am afraid to say that sources tell us that virtually all of those people eventually met death at the hands of the Nazi war machine.
[DOT] (U20)
Most of us are well aware of those two incidents. We now find that this legislation includes a clause that would give the federal authorities the right to intercept a ship coming into Canadian waters with alleged illegal refugees onboard and the right to force that ship to turn about and return to its port of origin or some other port. In other words, someone would determine that the people onboard were illegal refugees, but 1 do not know how that could be determined by flying over the ship or quickly visiting it without allowing due process to hear those people claiming to be refugees. Quite frankly, it makes me shiver because it conjures up images of the Kamagata Maru incident or the incident when we forced the ship with people of Jewish faith to return to Europe.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has repeatedly made it clear that a denial of access actually violates the intent of the U.N. Convention on Refugees. As a matter of fact, a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees spokesperson who testified before the legislative committee examining Bill C-84 said that, "According to the provisions of the convention, it is necessary to determine if the person is a refugee or not." He went on to say, "During the refugee determination procedure it is always possible to discover whether the person committed a serious crime of a non-political nature, but it is necessary first to proceed to a determination of refugee status."
There are many concerns about this legislation, but 1 am reminded by my constituents of the Kamagata Maru incident. The Government still insists on maintaining a clause in Bill C-84 by which the Kamagata Maru incident could occur again. That is something of which I and my Party want no part, and we identify this as a dark day in Canadian history. We describe this as a very racist act of a past government and something that ought to have no place in Canada in the past, present or future.
I cannot imagine that anyone in the House would want to accept the fact that this Bill enshrines this kind of behaviour as part of Government legislation. Personally, I welcome the amendments that were adopted unanimously in the Senate. While I do not agree with that particular institution, their amendments to Bill C-84 are good. They follow very closely the amendments which my Party moved when this matter was debated in the House. They would correct the main flaws of this Bill and, therefore, 1 regret that the Government has rejected the majority of the Senate amendments, including amendments which the Government accepted in principle but then whittled away most of their meaning.
February 2, 1988

I regret that the Government has chosen to rush this Bill in after months of delay, with so little time for Members to read it before debate is completed. I want to congratulate Members of the New Democratic Party and those in the Liberal Party who have spoken out about the major shortcomings that still exist in Bill C-84. The Government has failed to listen to virtually every individual and group with experience in the area of refugees. I believe there were dozens and dozens of qualified groups with great experience in matters dealing with immigration and refugees that universally condemned this Bill. All pointed out major shortcomings in Bill C-84, yet their voice was ignored by the Government. I find that rather arrogant and 1 question whether the Government is serious in its intention to bring forth legislation that is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the United Nations Charter dealing with refugees. This Bill fails on these two counts. On that note I will conclude my remarks to allow others an opportunity to raise their concerns.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's comments are ones that we have heard many times before, not only from the Hon. Member but other Members of his Party and the Liberal Opposition. The remarks really repeat what has been said during a very lengthy debate on Bill C-84, when it was first before the House for debate on second reading, then at third reading, report stage and at committee stage.
We are now into what I believe can be reasonably described as the longest filibuster of any matter coming back from the Senate that has occurred during the course of this Parliament. The Hon. Member indicated that he was in support of all the amendments that came from the Senate.
The Government has specifically rejected amendment No. 4. In fact, the Liberal Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has moved an amendment to these proceedings which would put the Senate amendment No. 4 into place. The effect of that, of course, would be that refugee claimants who are criminals, and war criminals, would be excluded from the refugee determination process but the terrorists, spies and subversives would be allowed to continue through the process.
It is my understanding that Article 33 of the U.N. Convention provides that where there are reasonable grounds for regarding a refugee claimant as a danger to the security of the country in which he or she is, that article would permit the removal of the individual from Canada even if it were determined that such person was a convention refugee. Does the Hon. Member agree with the amendment put forward by the Liberal Member for York West that would allow terrorists, spies and subversives to make a claim for refugee status in this country?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put by my colleague. At the beginning of my presentation 1 indicated that I welcomed the amendments that were adopted unanimously by the Senate and that they followed very closely the amendments which my Party moved regarding this matter. While I certainly agree with the intent of all the amendments, there
Immigration Act, 1976
were nuances about which my colleagues previously indicated we had concerns. I think that would clarify for my hon. friend that we do agree with the general principle, but we certainly do have some concerns about the fine points.
I would like to use this opportunity as my hon. colleague would like me to do, to say something about the right of the Government to turn back ships. Some of my constituents, and particularly those who come from countries with many citizens that have become Canadians, feel that the Government might now wish to turn away people alleging to be refugees if they come from countries where the people are of the wrong colour of skin or perhaps countries where there are the wrong politics. There is some concern that if there were biased sentiments on the part of certain officials on colour, race, religion or politics, that could be used to determine whether or not a ship would be turned back. Some of my constituents who are of the Sikh faith have concerns about how that could be used against their kin who would be forced to return to a problematic situation in India.
Many Sikhs fled persecution in India and sought refuge with their families here in Canada. They are very concerned about just what future government policy may be. 1 believe we want to do everything possible to send a clear message, through this legislation and perhaps by other means as well, that in no way would any Canadian citizen or landed immigrant be required to return to India or to any other country where his or her life would be put in danger. I hope that covers the issue raised by my hon. friend.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and possibly follow it up with a question. I would like to respond to the comment made by government Members to the effect that this is a filibuster on the Senate amendments to Bill C-84. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, I asked this morning and received statistics concerning the debate. Hon. Members will be interested to know that we have debated the amendments proposed by the Senate for 13 hours and 25 minutes. That is far from being a filibuster. Over five days-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member who has been here for many years knows that under the new rules we only comment during questions and comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member, not on the words of another individual who has questioned the Hon. Member who has spoken. I would hope that the Hon. Member would realize what he is doing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 fully appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I just thought that 1 would come to the defence of my good friend from the NDP who spoke for 20 minutes, as the rules allow. I take exception to other Members saying that he is filibustering.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he feels about Government Members telling him that he is part of the filibuster designed to prevent the amendments from the Senate to Bill C-84 from going through. Does he not feel that 13 hours and 25 minutes of debate is not sufficient time to get the Government to understand good common sense?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Ottawa- Vanier asked if 13 hours and some minutes would be adequate time for the Government to assume some sense. I do not think we could be here for enough weeks for that to occur. While that might sound like a rather casual comment, it is a thoughtful comment.
Hon. Members will recall that the Senate held hearings on Bill C-84, a Bill which strikes at the very essence of what this country is all about and whether we welcome people who face oppression in other countries. Dozens of witnesses appeared at those committee hearings, and every single witness opposed this legislation.
We must admit that when every single witness opposes a piece of legislation and points out major flaws in it, it is not surprising, since the Government has ignored all of that advice, that members of the Opposition feel more than ever an obligation and responsibility and indeed a duty to attempt to bring some sense to the Government by pointing out what these experts have said. 1 think that this is probably one of the more important debates this House has ever had.
We as members of the Opposition are trying, in thoughtful and positive speeches which offer suggestions and point out weaknesses and flaws in this legislation, to make our points. To call that a filibuster is to make the kind of comment that can only be described as unparliamentary and, quite frankly, undemocratic.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the refugee question and on Bill C-84. I am particularly concerned about this issue. While there was a real problem which needed addressing, the Government has handled it in the wrong way. I believe that a large part of the responsibility for the problems we face with the backlog of refugees seeking determination under the present process must fall upon the present Government.
1 do not want to deal with this at length, but I would remind Hon. Members that it has now been some two and half to three years since we received the report of Rabbi Plaut on refugees and it has been something over two years since we received the report of the employment and immigration committee. That report represented a consensus on a workable means for putting into place a more effective refugee determination process.
If the Government had been prepared to listen to the recommendations that had been made at that time and if it had been prepared to go along with them, we would now have an effective determination system working. After a couple of years, if contentions made by refugee-aid groups, by opposition
Parties, by the churches, by Amnesty International and by a whole range of people involved in the refugee question were that the procedure did not prove to be workable, perhaps some further amendments to the process might then have been needed. Instead of that, the Government continues to reject the bulk of the amendments which came back from the Senate.
I am normally not an advocate of the Senate of Canada. 1 believe it is an outdated body and 1 do not think that having an appointed body as one of the Chambers of this Parliament makes a great deal of sense. I believe that the Senate should be abolished. However, it exists now. It has a Constitutional role and, for once, it is trying to redeem a pretty tawdry record by doing its constitutional job of being a Chamber of sober second thought.
I find it interesting that a Chamber of this House, which has traditionally been known as a defender of the privileged and wealthy and as a body which ignores the needs of average Canadians, should have been so convinced by the evidence presented to its committee which laboured long and hard on Bill C-84 that it came back to the House with 13 amendments. These amendments would turn this Bill which is unworkable, unfair, unconstitutional and would sully Canada's international reputation, into a piece of legislation which my Party and most people concerned with refugees would be able to support. It does not make it perfect.
We recognize that some difficult compromises may need to be made, but there is the wherewithal for reasonable compromise in this particular area in the amendments put forward by the Senate. However, rather than going along with that and rather than trying to build a certain amount of consensus and support from the people concerned with the refugee process, the Government continues to bull ahead, accepting only two or three of the recommendations from the Senate. It then put forward a motion which essentially would reject most of those amendments.
If the Government still believes that the Senate should exist, then it should be prepared to accept that the Senate does function and that its constitutional mandate is to function as a chamber of sober second thought. We are not talking here about the Senate trying to undo a major tax Bill, or about the Senate trying to reverse economic policy being made by the Government of Canada. Those functions properly belong in the House of Commons. We are talking about sober second thought after detailed consideration of a difficult topic.
Under those circumstances I have to say that until we get rid of the Senate or until the Government says that it does not acknowledge any validity in terms of the Senate's operations and it will get rid of it as soon as it can, then the Government should be prepared to listen to the suggestions that the Senate has made and to give them positive consideration. It does not necessarily mean that the Government should adopt all 13 recommendations. It does mean that it should be prepared to
February 2, 1988

give enough consideration so that the bulk of the 13 representations will be accepted. Of course, that has not occurred. The consequence is that we are back to where we began in this affair. We are back to a situation in which we have an unacceptable response from the Government.

The refugee issue will remain a controversial one and will continue to generate appeals to our courts of law, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Last week after the decision on the Morgentaler case, we saw how the Supreme Court was prepared to apply the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to every jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. If before last Thursday, the Government was unwilling to respond to the constitutional concerns of the Senate with respect to Bill C-84, it should be willing to do so now.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am personally very disturbed about two questions. First, the matter of precluding from the refugee system people found to be security risks, without further specification, instead of specifying only those refugees who are indeed a threat to Canada's security. Second, I am concerned about the fact that the Government has rejected the Senate's remarks about assistance given to refugees by various groups here in Canada, by priests, religious communities and volunteer groups who simply want to help these unfortunate people.
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned that the Government remains determined to restrict access to the refugee claims process to the wealthy and to those who have direct access to Canada, and I am referring to people coming from Eastern Europe, of whom it could be said that their need to seek refugee status is certainly becoming less urgent then it is for people from Central and South America, Africa, and other parts of the world. The Government is effectively saying that if you have spent two or three months or perhaps two or three years of your life seeking refugee status and fleeing from one country to another, if you are in that kind of a situation, your chances of entering Canada as a refugee are nil.
Mr. Speaker, I was in Montreal yesterday, and 1 had the privilege of meeting Canadians originally from Zaire, in Africa. As you know, Zaire is a country that has been rather unlucky. It was formerly the Belgian Congo and has now been under the dictatorship of General Mobutu for nearly twenty years. There was a brief period of parliamentary democracy in Zaire, but now they have a situation where it seems General Mobutu, the country's dictator, has actually extracted a fortune of $5 billion from his people and put it in Swiss banks.
Mr. Speaker, attempts were made to found a new political party in Zaire. I am referring to the Democratic Union for Social Progress. In January, leading members of the new party, Mr. Tshisekedi and Mr. Kanana, went back to Zaire in response to a declaration by Mobutu that other political groups would now be permitted and would have freedom of expression and be free to participate in political life in Zaire. Unfortunately, during demonstrations in Zaire there was an attack by armed police. Ten citizens were killed, many others
Immigration Act, 1976
were injured and the two leaders of the new political party were arrested. This is a tragic situation, but it is not the first time this has happened in an African country. However, if a member of the Democratic Union for Social Progress were to come to Canada seeking refugee status on the grounds of the events in Zaire, what would happen under the proposed legislation, now that the Government has rejected the amendments proposed by the Senate? There is no direct access. Travel is very difficult, and besides, the average annual income is about the same as in Haiti, which is between $60 and $100 per year in U.S. funds. Even if there were direct flights from Zaire, how could a citizen of this opposition movement pay for a flight which might cost as much as ten or twenty times the annual income of the average citizen in this country of 32 million inhabitants? For all intents and purposes, therefore, it is impossible.
Mr. Speaker, assuming that a religious organization in Montreal with contacts and even missions or schools in Zaire had helped someone seeking refugee status in Canada, what would be its situation under the Act? With so few changes in the Government's remarks, this person or religious organization would be liable to the full penalties of the Act and to the same ordeal as the travel counselors who had organized trips for Portuguese and Brazilian nationals seeking refugee status in Canada in a way which was clearly and definitely illegitimate.

That is the kind of situation which the Government is creating in the current situation because of its refusal to accept changes in the law.

Perhaps I might quote a paragraph of the report from the Senate committee which dealt with this legislation. I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that of the thirty-seven groups of witnesses which appeared before the Senate committee which dealt with Bill C-84, only one supported the Bill as proposed by the Minister. And this group was made up of witnesses from the Department of Immigration.

I am reminded of just how in certain cases the bureaucracy of the Government of Canada, for which I normally have a good deal of respect, has in fact had an agenda and has refused to recognize the democratic process. In a democratic process it is ultimately parliamentarians who make decisions and not officials. The officials may disagree privately with what parliamentarians ask them to do, but it is their constitutional duty to go along with the Government.
Instead, we see here a case in which the Department of Immigration has kept on pushing. It has terrorized, or at least convinced Ministers that they have to have this broad and sweeping legislation. As a consequence we have legislation which in my view is likely to get struck down when it gets into the courts because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Mr. Speaker, it dealts with security risks. And now I am looking for the section of the report . . . because in this section, it is clear that. . . here it is: "The Committee is also concerned that much of the security intelligence that would underlie the exclusion decision might be unreliable and possibly even fabricated because it would originate in the country of the person's origin and might be designed to discredit dissidents ..."
If a member of an organization seeking to promote democracy and social changes in Zaire came to Canada seeking refugee status, would the Government of dictator Mobutu say that this person is not a security risk? Quite the contrary, it would say that this person is indeed a security risk and should not be accepted in Canada. This is the situation with which we will end up if Bill C-84 is adopted.
"Witnesses argued that sometimes this kind of "evidence" actually helps to prove the person is a bona fide refugee." The fact that Mobutu has designated a person as a security risk in his country clearly demonstrates that he or she is a threat to the security of that co.untry for trying to establish a democracy, a democractic process, the creation of a new political party through means different from those of the army.
Mr. Speaker, as some of my colleagues have already asked, in the case of a Government such as that of South Africa, which uses all kinds of acts of violence against black Africans, is the Canadian Government saying that any refugee claimant who has not renounced to violence as a tool for the liberation of his own country would be a threat to Canadian security? In such a case, any member of the African National Congress, which is the only truly viable group representing black South Africans would in effect be viewed as unacceptable as a refugee in Canada since the ANC has not renounced to violence to the extent that the South African Government has not renounced to its own acts of violence against the Black population of South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I quote again from the Committee report:
The Chairman of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee (RSAC) also pointed out that some of the security grounds for exclusion are highly subjective and could exclude some surprising people:
This is also important, Mr. Speaker. I continue:
When we talk about protecting our borders and protecting our citizens, I think most of us are thinking of terrorist attacks or of people who come here to commit acts of violence, criminal attacks against individuals or subversion against the state.
However, this clause also includes a category of people in Canada who are working to-as the language says-"engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government."
As I have just said, any Member of the African National Congress would be viewed as someone who engages in or instigates the subversion by force of a Government, in this case, the South African Government. Our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is now at the meeting
of External Affairs Ministers of Commonwealth countries in Lusaka, South Africa, to find a way to change the opinions of his counterparts about a basic policy of the South African Government.
Mr. Speaker, during his Victoria Falls meeting with Mr. Kaunda and the other South African heads of state, who did not all appeal to violence, even the Prime Minister admitted that it is not up to us in Canada to make the decision, if only because we are not directly involved in that situation. Our Prime Minister said that if under the circumstances people are urged to resort to violence because there is no other way to throw out such an antidemocratic regime, then it is not up to us in Canada to render a favourable or unfavourable judgment.
However, Mr. Speaker, our immigration officials will indeed have to render that judgment.
The chairman of the advisory committee went on to say:
That is a very subjective provision of the law. We are talking about people
who have not been convicted of a crime and who are not necessarily terrorists.
We do not want terrorists in Canada, with that I agree.
But, Mr. Speaker, I can no longer agree when our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) considers the possibility of Canada opening its doors to Nicaragua Contras, while at the same time his colleague the Minister of Immigration is intent on pushing through a piece of legislation which will put an end to refugee arrivals from Central America because such individuals just might threaten the security of the state which forced them to become refugees in the first place.
Since my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by again telling the government: Think about your constitutional responsibilities. The Senate exists, and it now has a constitutional role. Fair enough, let us abolish the Senate. But for the time being it can still give sober second thought to various measures and bills. That being so, heed the sound advice from the Senate, take it and give us effective legislation which all Canadians can endorse, not extreme right measures.


@Acting Speaker: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Mr. Fontaine:: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I think a note of caution is in order, because last week, the Hon. Member told Quebecers that if his Party were to form the Government, it would come down very harshly on the Maritimes. Apparently, his Leader did not appreciate that statement.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member first of all whether he had his Leader's permission to speak this morning. Was there an understanding on the amount of information he could give the House? I say that because we know he often speaks and afterwards has to be disciplined by the Socialist Leader.
February 2, 1988

1 would like to ask him more specifically about Bill C-84 and whether he thinks Canada should continue to be considered internationally as a target for traders in phony refugees, for people who abuse the good faith of individuals in far-off countries and charge exorbitant fees for bringing them to Canada illegally. Does he support those people? That is what Bill C-84 is all about. He should have adressed this issue instead of talking up a storm and going around the world in 20 minutes.
I also want to ask him how he can reconcile the position taken by his Leader, who last week was ready to crucify Mr. Mahmoud Mahommad. He wanted to put him out of the country immediately, but for the last six days, he has been part of the Liberal-Socialist coalition. I think he should ask his Leader and perhaps the Leader of the Liberal Party as well what he should do. Why does he want to crucify this terrorist or put him out of the country when at the same time he refuses to approve a Bill that would help us deal quickly with such cases?
In concluding, he referred to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this Party has been against the Senate from the very beginning. However, when it suits them, for political purposes or out of solidarity with the Liberal Caucus because a coalition is in the offing, they support the Senate.
What is so genuine, so transparent, so clear about their position? That is my question, Mr. Speaker, and I hope some day they will understand they should stop wasting the time of the House-today is day six-and taxpayers' money to repeat over and over again what the coalition and its members have been saying and give us a world tour.
I wish you would remember your constituencies are in Canada and not all over the world. So start representing those constituencies and stop going around the world ten times in twenty minutes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member rose. I further noted he did nothing to calm his constituents. In fact, the Hon. Member unfortunately is leaving the House, Mr. Speaker. But I am referring to the fact that he made great promises to his constituents over the last six or eight months, and indeed he completely forgot those promises.
Promises also were made by the Minister responsible for the area as far as shipbuilding is concerned. And they did unfortunately try to convince the people everything was normal, altough it was not. I personally made an error. I was corrected by my Leader who stated that, and I accept it, we would not reopen a contract that was awarded, such as the contract .. . even though we criticize from time to time the manner in which decisions are made.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to refer to the matter of Mr. Mohammad. This is someone who had been living in Spain for a number of years and clearly it was indicated on the refugee's passport. And there were a lot of errors made under
Immigration Act, 1976
the Conservatives, which allowed that individual to enter. So it is our role as an Opposition Party to criticize. We did this vigorously. This Government's mismanagement is not only a matter of the Immigration official in Spain making a mistake-the Government must assume their political responsibilities for having allowed the situation to arise.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me if I accept that Canada should be a destination for bogus refugees? The answer is no. And I know for a fact the amendment to clause 9 of the Bill as proposed by the Senate, which is now before us, states in fact that:
"Every person who knowingly organizes a person or a group of persons to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an offence and liable ..."
So there we have it, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that under the Senate amendments, if someone organizes a plane load of peasants from Portugal or citizens from another country such as Brazil to come to Canada, stating they are Jehovah's Witnesses or something else in order to claim refugee status, it is clearly unacceptable that the persons, the group of persons that organized that be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty. So there is no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. But at the same time, let us hear the matter of the 36 witnesses who opposed the Bill before the Senate Committee because it is going much too far.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated in his comments that he was in support of all Senate proposals in connection with Bill C-84. One of those Senate proposals, proposal No. 4, would allow terrorists, spies, and subversives to make a refugee claim.
Article 33 of the United Nations Convention provides, if there are reasonable grounds for regarding a refugee claimant as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, for the removal of this type of individual from Canada even if he were determined to be a convention refugee. The proposal of the Senate in that respect has been rejected by the Government, but the Liberal Opposition has moved an amendment to reinstate it.
Is the Hon. Member personally in support of the amendment? Will he vote for it? Is that also the position of his Party?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult question. We will oppose the amendment coming from the Liberal critic. On the general question I cannot say that I have been as heavily involved with it as the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). However, certainly the testimony from the spokesperson of the UN High Commission for Refugees indicated that in fact the way the Government was proceeding was in violation, as I understand it, of the way the UN procedure was anticipated.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
1 do not want to take it further than that, but I believe that is the case.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having looked around, 1 do not know if there is a quorum in the House of Commons. There may be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is a quorum. Does the Hon. Member have a further question or comment?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, I have a question. Indeed there is a quorum now that people have regrouped. My question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this Bill; I have not spoken on it before. I feel that it is an extremely important Bill. Certainly in my riding of Yukon we have a number of refugees who have made a significant contribution to the community and to the territory as a whole. They are certainly well respected by the other people in the community and territory.
It was interesting for me during the break to have the opportunity to travel to a number of communities in my riding and to speak with students in January when the schools were reopened. This issue was raised by many students. They were very confused about what were immigrants and what were refugees. I guess they reflected the gambit of opinion which one often sees throughout Canada.
I am pleased to speak to the matter today because it is an area which is still somewhat confusing to many people in Canada. I am also pleased to support many of the Senate amendments. Like many of my colleagues, I do so with some difficulty since I have some problem with the authority of that body. However, in this particular case the Senate has listened to the comments from across Canada. It has heard many of the same people who were heard by the legislative committee, and it has responded in a very reasoned way by proposing a number of quite useful amendments.
The issue is not really one of taking too much time for debate; it is an extremely serious issue in Canada. We see that in the general public on the one hand there are remarks which seem to reflect an attitude that somehow Canada is being taken advantage of, that somehow someone is doing something to us over which we do not have control, and that we must have better control. I think other groups of people who have worked with refugees, have assisted refugees, and have travelled abroad, more clearly understand the very pathos and tragedy of people who become refugees. We see a debate which sometimes does not just dwell on the facts of the case but on the impressions of people.
The impression of one group that the refugees about whom we are talking are somehow taking advantage of us in Canada
and are misrepresenting themselves is perhaps true in some cases. Certainly it does not describe, by far, the majority of refugees. Therefore, my Party and I say that there must be some improved ways to ensure that people who come to Canada presenting themselves as refugees are truly in need of protection.
On the other hand Canada cannot abrogate its role and its well deserved reputation for responding in a humanitarian way to the needs of those who are in situations in their own countries which put their lives, their families, and their wellbeing in jeopardy.
A further point which the Senate amendments have addressed is that of the constitutionality of Bill C-84. When we hear Members speak of the high cost of this debate, taking up taxpayers' funds, we have to see if we can bring some reason into this debate for the Government to support some of the reasoned amendments which will save taxpayers' money, otherwise there will be many charter challenges and a lot of money will be spent in the courts.
1 would like to return to the issue that I addressed early. There is great confusion between what is an immigrant and what is a refugee, and why a refugee and an immigrant come to this country. Many witnesses at committee hearings and many commentators have pointed out that because of the many problems in our immigration system this has led to a backlog of people awaiting entry to Canada. Our inability to deal with that backlog has exacerbated the problem of access to this country by legitimate refugees. People who, in other circumstances, would be immigrants as opposed to refugees, are representing themselves as refugees. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The Government felt it was so serious that it recalled Parliament on an emergency basis to deal with it.
The issue is fundamental; the two systems are not working well together, namely, our immigration system and the rules relating to refugees. I want to say a few words about what it means to be a refugee. For those of us who have been fortunate to have lived in Canada all our lives and have not been faced with threats to our lives or well-being because of our views, it is often very difficult to imagine what it would be like if that were not the case. That is why we have so much public debate on the issue. Most of us who have lived in security find this difficult to understand.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Bill really deals with the whole business of fraud in refugee transactions. The Member, no doubt, has some valid points of view on refugees and what it is like to be a refugee, but would it be too much to ask that she confine her remarks to the principles of this Bill, namely, how Canada will deal with fraud artists and how we keep out people who are undesirable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Member will be coming to that point. I thank the Hon.
February 2, 1988

Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) for bringing that to my attention. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) has the floor.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I quite understand what the Bill is about and we are trying to deal with those people who are misrepresenting themselves as refugees. I am attempting to say, perhaps not articulately enough for the Member across the floor, that often there is a misunderstanding about what a refugee is and what a refugee can do. I think this Bill reflects some of that misunderstanding.
For example, to suggest that a refugee can go to a country's local immigration office, receive all the proper documentation then leave that country with the blessing of the officials and blithely come here to present the proper documentation, is incorrect. If that were the case, we would not be discussing the question of fraud and misrepresentation. Refugees do not have that option. They are often in a situation, as the Member well knows, where their lives are in danger if they speak out and they cannot go to the local office, get all the proper documentation and blithely leave their country. If we limit access to those seeking asylum to those travelling by airlines, legislating that the airlines must require and control documentation; if we insist on proper forms of visas and transit visas, and forcibly return people from border points, the only right that people would have would be to stay in their countries, be tortured, detained or killed. That is what we are talking about.
To counteract that, we are suggesting that every person who comes here has the right to be heard as to the legitimacy of whether or not that individual is a refugee. We are not suggesting that every person who says he or she is a refugee should automatically be accepted on that word. But we have to accept the reality that a person may not be able to get the kind of documentation this Bill suggests should be obtained. That is not an appropriate or realistic, but rather a punitive and unrealistic form of control.
What is being suggested by the amendments and by my Party is that we should have a process in place where a person can state his or her case in a full hearing about whether or not that person is a refugee. It is at that point that those who may misrepresent themselves will be identified and not accepted as refugees.
I want to say again that we cannot categorize all people as misrepresenting themselves in order to ensure that the few people who do will not be accepted. There is a compromise position presented in these amendments. It is a position which I believe, and which many others believe, will address the problem and ensure that we carry out our humanitarian obligations, not contravening the very constitutional base of this country. We must also make sure that we do not allow in people who are not genuine refugees, who can apply through the other immigration process.
I feel very strongly that we must as a country keep our deserved humanitarian reputation, while at the same time we
Immigration Act, 1976
must have appropriate systems and mechanisms in place to ensure fairness for immigrants and refugees. I believe these amendments would go a long way toward addressing that.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in her comments indicated that she and her Party are supporting the amendments from the Senate on the basis that they would be helpful to genuine refugees.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, one of those amendments being put forward by the Senate would allow terrorists, spies and subversives to make a claim for refugee status in this country, even though Article 33 of the U.N. convention indicates quite clearly that where there are reasonable grounds for believing anyone making a refugee claim can be regarded as a danger to the security of Canada or any other country, such person can be excluded from the system. It is quite obvious that the Hon. Member by joining in the filibuster of the New Democratic Party is in this case in support of that position of allowing terrorist, spies and subversives to make refugee claims.
Does the Hon. Member seriously support that position? Will she be voting for that portion of the Senate's proposals, recommendations and amendments? Will the New Democratic Party be voting for that portion of the Senate's proposals, amendments and recommendations?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague's comments illustrate the level of debate that sometimes occurs and why the public wonders what we do here. Of course no one is supporting terrorists and spies coming into the country. We are saying that everyone deserves a fair hearing. Everyone deserves an opportunity to present his or her case and not be prejudged. Certainly a person should be deported if a person's status as a legitimate refugee, as we understand it, is not accepted. To frame the argument in terms of supporting terrorists and spies is clearly a factious argument. It is not being supported by anyone, as the Hon. Member, I am sure, well knows.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in her response to my question the Hon. Member did not indicate whether she and her Party would be supporting this particular Senate amendment. She made it quite clear that she feels the thrust of all these amendments would be for the better. She also indicated she and her Party do not support terrorists staying in this country.
I would like a clear answer, yes or no, on whether she and her Party are going to be supporting amendment No. 4 put forward by the Senate?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate what I said. If the Hon. Member is asking about the subamendment-

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976


Alan Redway: No, I am asking about the original proposals from the Senate which have been rejected, and you indicated you are supporting all of them.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I did not indicate that.


Alan Redway: Then let us make it clear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I think what 1 said is clear. I said we support many of the amendments brought forward by the Senate.


Alan Redway: Which ones?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The Hon. Member had a chance to ask a question.
There are a number of amendments that we support. To make it clear for the Hon. Member, we support amendments 2 and 3 to restore the right of a person accused of being a security risk to hear the case against him or her, as I said before. It is important that those persons be given a full hearing and have the opportunity to present their case before an appropriate committee. It is important that there be no prejudging of what may or may not be done. We are suggesting that the people who hear that person will be the judges of whether national security is in danger, or the safety of persons is endangered.
I believe the Hon. Member is trying to frame this in an inflammatory way. What we are simply trying to support is the right to claim refugee status. Amendment No. 4 that he speaks to restores the right of a person accused of being a security risk to have his refugee claim determined. Simply put, that person has the right to present their case to the persons who judge that case and determine whether that person is or is not a refugee. Surely this is a right anyone should have, to present their own case and not have it framed by someone else. This right of claim to refugee status follows our own Constitution and Charter of Rights which apply to any person in this country. This would maintain Canada's obligation under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and enable the person concerned, if deported, to have UN assistance in finding a safe country other than the one they fled.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, having heard all of the debates this morning and I think most of the critical clauses referring to the amendment have been covered. I just want to say on behalf of my Party that we are prepared to vote at any moment. As soon as the Conservatives are ready, we are.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is the sixth day of a filibuster on the Senate amendments. Certainly the Government is ready to vote on the amendment, but I would like some clarity from my hon. friend. Does the same willingness exist, without further debate, to deal with the two technical amendments put forward by the Government as well as the main motion, or are we just simply
talking about voting on the amendment moved by the Liberal Party Member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Maybe if I just put the question we will find out what happens. How would that be?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Marchi.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.
Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being after 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker. Quebecers, Montrealers are really disappointed in the Prime Minister of Canada. They expected him to unveil programs to promote the economic renewal of Montreal East. We expected him to announce, when he was in Montreal, that in co-operation with the provincial Government he would inject $25 million to establish a business modernization and restructuring office, that he would commit considerable amounts of money toward training programs, the employability of Montreal East workers and the eligibility under the Program for Older Worker Adjustment.
We also expected the Prime Minister of Canada to select Montreal as the site of the Space Agency, to offer a $130 million expansion of the old harbour and money for the development of the Montreal harbour, but the people of Quebec also expected the Prime Minister to announce redress for the Lauzon, Sorel and Montreal shipyards that have been unjustly treated.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister did when he came to Montreal, to City Hall and the Chamber of commerce was clown about. Nothing concrete was announced for the people of Montreal and Quebec.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, this is an historical day in the House of Commons. We are now in the sixth day of a Liberal/NDP coalition filibuster on Bill C-84, a Bill which is extremely important to Canada's future. This Bill is aimed at preventing the abuse of Canada's generosity and humanitarianism by getting control of our borders. The measures in this Bill are aimed at those who jeopardize the safety of legitimate refugees and imperil the security of Canadian citizens.
This filibuster is costing Canadians almost half a million dollars per day. Is this the style of low-handed dealings that Canadians could expect if we were ever unfortunate enough to experience a coalition of those two Parties? Rather than continuing to stall a Bill which is supported by the majority of Canadians, those two Parties should let Parliament get on with the business of passing Bills for the betterment of our citizens.

February 2, 1988
It is time that we asked the Canadian people if they want an opportunistic coalition or a common-sense Government. Let's call an election!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know if the United Nations has proclaimed 1988 the year of CBC bashing, but this Conservative Government certainly has. The onslaught began last week when the Communications Minister succumbed to the petty and vindictive whinings of many of her caucus colleagues and put on hold indefinitely a CBC all-news channel. Conservatives believe that if you control the messenger you can control the message. The Minister's decision was a blatant, thinly veiled effort to muzzle the CBC.
Today we learn of yet another attack on the corporation. Now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Secretary of State are getting into the act. They are working with real estate friends in Toronto to scuttle plans for a much needed national broadcast centre. Public broadcasting is under attack, and this foolhardy Conservative Government is leading the charge. It must be stopped. Let's have an election!



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government was elected with a large majority by the people of Canada to govern the country, and the Opposition and the Senate are thwarting the will of the people.
For weeks the Liberals and the NDP coalition, along with their friends in the Senate, have stalled the passing of immigration laws desired by the majority of Canadians. These bleeding hearts want every boatload of illegal so-called refugees, and every person who tears up their papers arriving at our airports, accorded the same treatment set out for true refugees, even if they are deemed to be terrorists and security risks. "Don't turn the boats back, let them land", the Senate and the Liberal-socialist coalition cry.
For several weeks the stalling of legislation has been going on and already it has cost the Canadian people more than $3 million. The Senate and the Liberals and the NDP talk democracy but act like totalitarians. Let's call an election and get rid of these obstructionists, these bleeding hearts!



CANADA POST CORPORATIONS


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister responsible for Canada Post answered a question from my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) concerning the closure of Laval's postal processing plant saying, I quote:

"I understand that Canada Post did brief Members of Parliament from that area with respect to its plans".

As briefings go, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that 1 first heard about the closure of Laval's postal processing plant in a telephone call from the mayor of Laval who wanted to know if I was aware of it. I also learned that the local Conservative Members had not been consulted either. Later my office got a phone call from Canada Post officials promising that I would be sent information and releases. Mr. Speaker, these documents reached me only late yesterday afternoon.
I want to take exception to the attitude of the Mulroney Government and the Minister responsible, disrespectful as they are of our representative duties as Members of the House. Laval happens to be the second largest city in Quebec. Astonishing though it may be, the Conservatives consider this city as a negligible factor, a city with over 300,000 residents which apparently does not even deserve to have a postal processing plant.
We have been told that the employees will be transferred to the Montreal downtown plant. But what will happen after that? Will they be included in the lay-offs announced in the rationalization plan to which my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou referred last Friday in this House?
Mr. Speaker, the Laval postal employees have the right to know.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Senate is seeking to deprive the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) of his authority to turn around ships which have been chartered by racketeers to bring people to Canada.
It has been argued that the best deterrent would be to bring the ships into port and confiscate them. The Minister does not share this view. He feels that it would be only a hay rake
February 2, 1988

attempt which would allow many more groups of people to enter Canada illegally.
By maintaining his power to turn ships around, even if he exercised this power on rare occasions, we would take away from the racketeers who organize illegal trips their main argument of a guaranteed access to Canada.
If the people concerned start having serious misgivings about the success of the various schemes, they might be less tempted to pay the high prices demanded by the racketeers, and the attractiveness of these organized trips would no longer be so great.
Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members of this House will have to unite to support the amendment moved by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to turn the ships around and stop these racketeers who are organizing illegal trips to Canada.



WILDLIFE


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak today on the release of a publication entitled "The Caribou are our Life", which outlines the importance of the Porcupine caribou herd, one of America's most unique natural resources and essential to the subsistence activities of the aboriginal people of Alaska, the Yukon, and Northwest Territories.
Today this booklet is being distributed to all Members of Parliament. I am happy to say that the Department of External Affairs has shared in the costs and supported the voices of the Yukon and Northwest Territories in speaking out against the opening of caribou calving grounds to oil and gas development.
What this means is that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska must be protected from oil and gas development. We were alarmed when the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources appeared to support development in this area, a stance not previously taken by the Government.
However, clearly we now stand together in attempting to persuade the United States Government of the importance of the wise use of this land. Northerners are not opposed to development, but we know that we must respect our wilderness heritage and the aboriginal people who depend on it.
I call upon all Members of the House to support the pressure for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, this minute has six days. Canadians have witnessed, for the first time in history, six days of phoney debate on Senate amendments to Bill C-84. The Conservative Government of Canada, by this Bill, will put an end to illegal and undesirable aliens from entering Canada.
Six days of stalling this Bill by a nonsensical filibuster could presently allow legal entry of terrorists into Canada. If another "Munich" occurs in Calgary or Toronto, it could very easily be blamed on the Opposition's irresponsible tactics in the House.
Higher drug prices would easily have been avoided by the new drug price review board, had the Opposition not used the same tactics when stalling Bill C-22.
If the Opposition plans to continue this filibuster in the House in such an irresponsible manner, perhaps it is time to call an election so that voters can throw them out and put mature people in their place.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is having a great deal of difficulty deciding whether or not to support the awarding of the second batch of frigates to Saint John Shipbuilding Limited.
First it was the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) stating in Quebec that his Party would reopen the contract and give Quebec half the frigates. Then the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) stated in the House that such decisions should be made after an open and honest tendering system regardless of where you live, for which I applauded him. That position was backed by his Leader who, later in the day, indicated that his Party would not re-open the contract. However, last Thursday, the NDP Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) was saying in the House:
-I want to express my astonishment at the Government's decision-to award the second half dozen frigates entirely to the Saint John shipyards-
It is particularly repugnant to Quebecers to see one particular enterprise, the Irving interests in Saint John receiving this very large contract to the detriment of the provincially owned Marine Industries-
It is time the New Democratic Party got its act together on this issue. The NDP is pitting region against region, similar to the way the Tories did with regard to the CF-18 decision. This attempt to sway the voters of the Province of Quebec is unacceptable. Such behaviour is not in the national interest.

February 2, 1988



IMMIGRATION


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, the House has been faced for the past six days with a fillibuster from the Liberal-Socialist coalition which opposes our bill aimed at stopping illegal refugees.
Does the Liberal-Socialist coalition want Canada to continue to be considered as a privileged target country by all those involved in the illegal refugee trade throughout the world?
Does the Liberal-Socialist coalition continue to support these international smugglers?
Last week, the Socialist leader wanted the Government to crucify Terrorist Mahmoud Mohammad and send him away immediately; yet, together with his party, he still refuses to adopt the necessary legislation to settle quickly the case of this terrorist.
The Liberal-Socialist coalition should make up its mind quickly, unless it wants to receive a clear message from Canadians during a general election, Mr. Speaker!



NECESSITY FOR GOVERNMENT TO GIVE INFORMATION ON SUBJECT OF THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

Mrs. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women are confused since last Thursday about the procedures to be followed to obtain a therapeutic abortion. Unfortunately, they cannot turn to the federal Government for guidance, because it has not yet responded to the decision delivered by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the provinces interpret that decision quite differently.
It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that the Tory Government clearly indicate to Canadian women, physicians and provincial governments that Section 251 of the Criminal Code can no longer set the procedure through which therapeutic abortion services are made available.
After having done that, the Government could perhaps take up the real challenge underlying the entire matter. A broad range of health services should be made available to Canadian women. For that purpose, the federal Government should finance the search for safe and effective contraceptive methods as well as the educational programs of responsible organizations such as the Planned parenthood Federation.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed a record six-day filibuster in this House by the Liberal-Socialist coalition supporting the Liberal dominated Senate amendments to Bill C-84.
The Minister, in a spirit of co-operation and openness, has accepted several of the 18 Senate amendments. This uneces-sary filibuster has cost Canadians $3 million to date, all for the political advantage of the Socialist-Liberal coalition.
Let us stop this silliness and political grandstanding and let the democratically elected voice of Parliament get on with its job. Once again we are seeing the unelected Senate thwarting the will of the duly elected Members of Parliament from passing a progressive piece of legislation, very much needed for the protection of Canadians, and giving a fair process for all who would seek refuge in Canada.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, there is an emergency in Ethiopia. Last November the Government of Ethiopia issued an urgent international appeal for 1.05 million tonnes of food. This appeal was subsequently increased to 1.3 million tonnes, virtually the same amount as during the 1984-85 famine which claimed the lives of approximately one million people.
Very few of us will forget the tragic scenes of starvation and death three years ago. Today, Ethiopia faces an equally urgent situation. Drought and locusts are now threatening the meagre existence of seven million Ethiopians. If we act quickly and decisively, lives can be saved. Government aid is significant but more can be done. Canadian farmers have been exceptionally generous but various fund-raising appeals to average Canadians have reported a poor response.
Do we as Canadians have to see the bloated bellies of children before we are jarred out of our complacency? I call upon our Government to provide more assistance, and at the same time urge all Canadians to help avert this famine by sending their donations to Oxfam Canada, the Canadian Red Cross, or Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief.
February 2, 1988



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned, the Prime Minister maintains that he did not discuss Mr. Gorman's letter nor the matter generally with the Minister.
Yet, Mr. Gorman's letter states that the Minister has taken part in an offence under Section 62.6 of the Canada Elections Act.
How can the Prime Minister still maintain that he does not have the duty to ask the Minister whether the facts mentioned in the letter are true or not, especially as these facts affect the credibility of his Minister as a politician and a member of his Government?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to this question. The Leader of the Official Opposition refers to a private letter apparently sent by the Commissioner to the Hon. Member for Frontenac. As for me, I referred to a public statement made on November 28, 1985, in which the Federal Elections Commissioner, Mr. Joseph Gorman, said, and I quote: "And I have decided that no charge would be laid against the Hon. Marcel Masse." Following this decision of the investigating Commissioner, 1 decided to have the Minister rejoin Cabinet.
There has already been some reference to the letter which the Leader of the Official Opposition himself described as ambiguous or remarkable. It is certainly unusual.
As for the official statement dealing with the findings of the investigating Commissioner, it was made public and I quoted it myself and acted accordingly.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister describes Mr. Gorman's letter as a private letter addressed to a Minister. Such a letter is never private and it concerns the public duties of the Minister.


KNOWLEDGE OF CONTENTS OF LETTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources resigned in 1985 he did so because there was suspicion that he might have violated the Canada Elections Act. At that time there were mixed signals about who knew what and when they knew it. As the Prime Minister himself has suggested, the Minister remains under suspicion as a result of Mr. Gorman's letter. The Prime Minister stated he did not know of the existence of this letter until he saw it in the press.
Oral Questions
Can the Prime Minister assure this House that neither the Secretary to the Cabinet, Mr. Tellier, nor his own principal secretary, Bernard Roy, nor their staff, knew of the contents of this letter during the relevant period? If they were aware, why did they not tell him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that the Hon. Minister remains under suspicion because of the ambiguous nature of the letter from Mr. Gorman. I think that is quite accurate. That is why the House has decided to take cognizance of this matter officially at 3.30 this afternoon. I am satisfied that at that time all appropriate questions can and will be asked and answered.


REQUEST THAT OFFICIALS APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the House has not yet taken a decision on the matter and the committee has not been seized of the matter. The Prime Minister says that it will be referred to the committee. We will wait until that happens.
However, as we have said to him before in this House, that does not absolve the Prime Minister of his duties as Prime Minister to ensure the probity, credibility, and comportment of his Ministers. That is his responsibility and no committee of the House can absolve him of that responsibility.
Since the Prime Minister has refused to deal with these questions on the floor of the House, will he authorize the Secretary to the Cabinet and his own principal secretary to appear before that committee when it sits?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the committee is master of its own destiny. The committee can take whatever decisions it deems appropriate.
My hon. friend refers to the Prime Minister being responsible for the probity and credibility of Members and said that what transpired does not absolve the Prime Minister. I am not seeking absolution. That which transpired was straightforward.
My hon. friend was advised of the fact that subpoenas might issue in regard to an investigation undertaken under the Elections Act. Immediately upon being apprised of that, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stepped aside in the finest traditions of British parliamentary practice.
During the two months that the investigation and interrogations went on, he was outside the Cabinet. There was then a public statement issued by the gentleman conducting the investigation that no charges pursuant to that investigation would be laid.
It seems to me, in terms of reasonableness and fairness, that surely the hon. gentleman, not being charged, is entitled to all

February 2, 1988
Oral Questions
the presumptions of innocence which exist for all the citizens of Canada.


MASSE AFFAIR-QUERY WHETHER MINISTER INTENDS TO GIVE HIS VERSION OF FACTS TO COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that the Government supported the proposal for a parliamentary investigation on election expenses. He went even further and said the Government was prepared to co-operate with the investigation. I now want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he intends to take advantage of the committee hearings and come and state his opinion, his views and his version of the facts in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in that case it is out of order.


OPPORTUNITY FOR MINISTER TO PRESENT HIS POINT OF VIEW TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE-POSITION OF COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, in that case I would like to direct my question to the Chairman of the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. 1 want to ask the Chairman of the Committee whether he is prepared to recommend that this afternoon. Committee members give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources an opportunity to come and state his point of view before the Committee.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice in this House that negotiating of committee work is done in committee. The Member can certainly bring that information to the committee at 3.30 and we will be pleased to deal with it.


PRESENTATION OF REPORT TO HOUSE-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last Thursday I asked the Prime Minister about the contradiction, reported in an article in the Globe and Mail, between what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said two years ago and what his lawyer said at the time. The Prime Minister answered last Thursday that he intended to look at certain transcripts. He would then present a report to the House of Commons. My question is quite simple: Does the Prime Minister have this report today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION-DISCHARGE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is more than a little disturbing. Since last Thursday the Prime Minister has not taken the time to examine a matter of serious contradiction that goes to the root of the integrity of one of his Ministers. Since then there was another article in the paper yesterday that alludes to an affidavit signed by a member of the RCMP, accusing the Minister of action that, if grounded, constitutes a violation of the Elections Act. When will the Prime Minister start doing the job for which he was elected as Prime Minister of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP says that he is referring, in terms of the discussion between the lawyer and the Member, to a serious contradiction that goes to the root of the integrity of the Member. That is clearly the view of the Hon Member. That is not at all a fact. It is simply an opinion and surmise, such as many put forward by the Member, in much the same way as he says the affidavit to which he refers accuses the Minister of dishonesty-


John Edward Broadbent: 1 did not say that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -or a violation of the law. It does no such thing.
It is my understanding that it is an affidavit that initiates proceedings pursuant to which an investigation took place, and the investigation by the investigating commissioner cleared the Member in terms of charges not being laid.
I just invite my hon. friend, inasmuch as he is dealing with the reputations of people, to give people the presumption of innocence and be very prudent and careful in any accusations he makes without any justification.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt that he did not hear the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER EXAMINE ALLEGATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am quite serious. On both contentions about the Minister I did not presume guilt. I said if the contradiction-


Some Hon. Members:: If!


John Edward Broadbent: -that was cited in The Globe and Mail turned out to be true, then the integrity of the Minister is on the line. 1 said if the allegation-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the New Democratic Party is stating that he has placed a question to the Right Hon. Prime
February 2, 1988

Minister. In restating it, that question seems to the Chair to be a hypothetical question and may well be out of order. However, perhaps the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would want to phrase his question in such a way that there is no doubt that it can be accepted.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all I wish is that the Prime Minister would not distort the meaning and substance of the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that it is not appropriate to impugn the motives of any Member. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


John Edward Broadbent: The contradictions that were alleged in the press a week ago impinge on the integrity of one of his Ministers and the Prime Minister promised to examine the transcripts and report back to the House. Considering that yesterday there was a report which says there is an affidavit signed by an RCMP corporal, the substance of which, if it turned out to be accurate, would mean the Minister in question violated the law, why is the Prime Minister not concerned about the integrity of his Government and examining these allegations and reporting to the House? That is the issue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, by raising the decibel tone it does not-


John Edward Broadbent: Deal with the truth just for once.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All right, my hon. friend has made a great hobby-horse of saying that he, and presumably he alone, stands for the truth. In his third question he indicates: "No, I didn't say that in my second question, I said if, if there is a contradiction".
I submit that I did not hear my hon. friend use the word "if' at all. He made a flat accusation against the Minister which proves that in the third question the Leader of the NDP was misleading the House. He was not using the subjective at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Let's check the "blues".


Martin Brian Mulroney: He was not using it, and start telling the truth in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: The Secretary of State for External Affairs being absent, Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to his Parliamentary Secretary. A week ago, the Minister announced in the House his willingness to send a mission of Canadian Parliamentarians to Haiti. Is the Parliamentary Secretary now in a position to confirm first, that such a mission of Canadian Parliamentarians would be welcome in Haiti, second, that its security will be assured, and above all that its members will be entirely free to meet the main leaders of the Comite d'entente democratiquel


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question. It is clear that, before its departure, the security of the mission will be assured. And as one of the conditions which 1 listed publicly at the time, the quality of the report will depend on the quality of the people we are able to meet. That is the reason why meetings will take place soon to try and identify, together with Committee members, the people we want to meet, in order to establish advance contact with them in Haiti. Mr. Speaker, everything possible will be done for the Committee to publish its report by March the 31st, in the best interest of all Canadians and the whole community which is watching us.


QUERY WHETHER ARRANGEMENTS MADE TO HOLD TRULY DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS IN HAITI
André Ouellet: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has just confirmed that there has been no contact with the Haitian authorities, with general Namphy, and that there is no certainty as to a visit of Parliamentarians.
I now ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government of Canada, this Tory Government which has refused to recognize the elections of January the 17th, has since demanded from the general or the Haitian authorities to re-establish the former Conseil electoral provisoire to hold in Haiti a truly democratic election?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is presuming much from the work of the Parliamentary Committee. I must advise him that yesterday, we established contacts with the Embassy over there in order to ensure that the Committee will work in the most serene climate.
As to drawing conclusions about the possible recommendation my honourable friend has in mind, we will have to operate within the Comittee and draw our own conclusions.

February 2, 1988
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We have a report today of a request from St. Pierre and Miquelon for the Government of France to send the French navy to protect the French in their overfishing off the south coast of Newfoundland. Has the Government warned France that such action would not be tolerated by this country and that it would be a serious act of belligerence in view of France's declared intention to violate Canadian fish quotas?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a very serious error for Canada to react in the way the Hon. Member appears to react to reports of statements by local politicians from St. Pierre and Miquelon on the occasion of their visit to France. There is no indication that the sentiments expressed by Mr. Marc Plantegenest and Senator Pen are in any way indicative of the views of the Government of France.
I would conclude by indicating the Government's desire to see France return to the table so that an appropriate and lasting solution might be negotiated to the problems of the boundary of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the ongoing quotas accorded to France as a result therefrom.


REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION OF BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the last time the same individual asked France to send a warship, which was in 1985, the French sent one and it was there for two months patrolling around St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Why does the Government not show some capacity to act and do something to tell the Government of France that its uncivilized attitude about this boundary dispute will not be tolerated, and that its good relations with this country will be spoiled if it does not do the civilized thing and bring the boundary dispute to international arbitration?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to uncivilized attitudes. I would suggest that the attitude he brings to this House will in no way enable us to reach in a civilized fashion a solution which will bring lasting benefits to the people of Newfoundland, the people he represents, and the fishermen in particular.
This Government has taken firm but fair and even-handed measures over the past year to attempt to secure a negotiated solution to this problem as we continue to seek such a solution while standing vigilant for the interests of our fishermen, and while ensuring that fishing conducted within Canadian waters is conducted according to our regulations.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON ONTARIO HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Government just released the Ontario Free Trade Agriculture Study in which it is claimed that free trade with the United States would not be in the interests of the farming communities, and in which special reference is made to the horticultural industry which is of great concern to my riding, the largest apple producing area in Ontario. Has the Minister had a chance to see this report? If he has, what is his reaction to such a statement?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question and his interest in this subject. I must indicate that I have not had an opportunity to read the report or to study it in detail. However, I have been advised that the Ontario report is a report about which one should not be all that surprised, coming from the Province of Ontario which has always looked negatively upon the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
Indeed, I am advised that the Ontario report is an overreaction and is extremely negative. It is filled with gloom and doom, and indeed is outdated. We of course will be issuing a report ourselves. It will be up to date, it will be realistic and, naturally, it will reflect the very positive aspects the trade agreement carries to agriculture.
I think what is important is what farmers are saying about the trade agreement. One hundred thousand grain farmers are supportive of the agreement, 80,000 beef farmers are supportive of the agreement, and 60,000 hog farmers are supportive of the agreement. It is important to find out what the producer groups are saying. The bottom line is that they accept this agreement and look upon it very positively.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Considering the surplus situation, is the Minister willing to eliminate this discriminatory practice by reinstating the right of older workers to receive full unemployment insurance benefits when they are looking for work?

Will the Minister tell the senior workers of Canada why they cannot benefit from unemployment insurance when they are looking for new jobs?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the purpose of Bill C-50 was quite clear: to prohibit the drawing of unemployment insurance benefits when an individual is simultaneously drawing income from a pension fund. I feel the Government's position has been very clear in this respect, and 1 do not think it would be either useful or necessary to change the legislation again, since it is eminently fair and meets the objectives we were trying to achieve in adopting Bill C-50.


POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING ACT MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, older workers in Canada who heard the Minister's reply must be disappointed.
Two weeks ago, 450 workers were laid off at Vickers, 200 at Hygrade, another 200 at Canadian Steel Wheel and CIP, and
1.000	at Firestone. Plants are closing throughout the country. Two hundred workers were laid off this morning at Weston. Fifty per cent are older workers, who are not entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits while they are looking for work.
Considering the principles of social justice, could the Minister inform the House whether he would at least amend the legislation so that all older workers who lose their jobs as a result of a plant shutdown or lay-offs would be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits? It is not their fault if they lose their jobs. This is not early retirement. The plant has closed down. Does the Minister have enough compassion to help these people?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member does not understand the principle of unemployment insurance. In his enumeration of a number of lay-offs-just the same, we have a surplus of $1.5 billion-the Hon. Member demonstrated the difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. Under the Liberal Government, people received unemployment insurance benefits and did not enter the labour market. Under this Government, we have one million jobs and
220.000	more people on the labour market and several hundred thousand fewer people unemployed. That is the difference between the two Governments.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. There have been two more deaths in Israeli-occupied territory and the violence continues to escalate. The situation cries out for a long-term solution. I understand that the Prime Minister has indicated his sympathy for an international peace conference on the Middle East.
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows. Is the Prime Minister willing to use his good offices to expedite the holding of such a peace conference on the Middle East?


Hon. Pat Carney (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated to the House on January 22 that the Government is willing to explore ways in which Canada might contribute to some kind of solution acceptable to all parties. The forthcoming visits to the region by the seven members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade will have that purpose in mind. I believe that will respond to the concern expressed by the Hon. Member.


MEASURES TO EXPEDITE HOLDING CONFERENCE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House what additional steps have been taken and what additional consultations have been entered into for the purpose of expediting, as I described it earlier, the holding of an international peace conference on the Middle East?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Hon. Member that we already participate in the region through our peace-keeping forces and through development assistance. So we are already contributing to a climate conducive to peaceful negotiations. That is the type of role that Canada has played in the past and is willing to play in the future.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Almost three years ago the all-Party committee on equality determined that it was sexist and discriminatory to have parental leave provisions accessible only to a mother and not to a father. Yesterday in the House we saw the Minister try to

February 2, 1988
Oral Questions
dodge the issue of parental leave by suggesting that it was a single-issue situation that he had to study.
Can the Minister explain why he has failed miserably in his responsibilities as the Minister of Employment? Why did he not remove the discriminatory conditions attached to parental leave when the suggestion came from the all-Party committee?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am not used to waiting for the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to make a decision. She will see today that that is true.
I met Mr. Mclnnis yesterday. It was a very good meeting. I said yesterday that all the questions referring to parental rights and the Charter of Rights have to be dealt with very carefully. It is my intention to bring to the House some amendments to the legislation to deal with that. I said, and I repeat, it is a very delicate operation.
In the meantime, I looked very carefully at the case of Mr. Mclnnis. I am delighted to tell all my colleagues here today, and I hope that I will have the collaboration of Members on the other side of the House, that I will soon introduce some amendments to the legislation which will permit Mr. Mclnnis, and any other person in similar circumstances, to obtain the money he deserves to have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member will agree with me that it is a complex issue. When we had to deal with the issue we dealt with it quickly. We only had the first question yesterday.


AMENDING LEGISLATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact yesterday was not the first time that there was a question on the issue. As a matter of fact I introduced and put into motion a Private Member's Bill. As a matter of fact my Party, when the committee on equality was travelling across the country, made such a recommendation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jelinek:: Your Party did nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton East please put her question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think it is terrific that in fact a truck driver who came to Parliament was able to effect that kind of a change. I think that we should all congratulate Mr. Mclnnis, specifically when we are dealing with a situation in which a woman dies in childbirth.
I would like to ask the Minister whether at the same time he will commit to change a law that is discriminatory by its very nature. It does not take a woman dying in childbirth to permit both parents to participate in the process of nurturing a child.
Is the Minister prepared to move an amendment similar to the Private Member's Bill which I have already drafted which would permit either parent to take advantage of parental-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: In rising to restore order I may have cut off the last part of the Hon. Member's question which, to the Chair certainly seemed to be a serious one. I invite the Minister to reply.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to be lectured by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I would be very happy if, as the New Democratic Party did yesterday, she would offer the collaboration of her Party to go through the legislation quickly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Absolutely.


Benoît Bouchard: It is interesting to note that that Party, which was in power for 20 years, did nothing when there were fathers who needed money 20 years ago and 10 years ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will be well aware that the economy of Metro Toronto is booming but outside Metro Toronto the economy is anything but booming.


An Hon. Member:: Ask about Oshawa.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He will also know that on March 16 the Prime Minister said that we are in the process of building two Canadas, one which is rich and promising, and one which is underdeveloped and underemployed.
Knowing that a drop in interest rates would reap a considerable amount of benefits in the regions of the country will the Minister explain why he is following the advice of the central banker who is concerned about inflation and who says that he cannot reduce those interest rates? Why does the Minister of Finance not step in to take steps to reduce those interest rates to bring some prosperity to the regions of Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must acknowledge the fact that last year the unemployment rate dropped in each and every province of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 2, 1988

Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: While there are parts of the country where the unemployment rate is too high, we have seen a good deal of progress, and that is witnessed by the overall creation of jobs, in excess of 1.1 million since we have been in office, so we are making good progress. The Hon. Member also has to acknowledge that the over-all record is what is important here. The over-all record of the economic policy of the Government has been a good one.
The point that I would make to the Hon. Member is that regional development is a fiscal measure. It is not a monetary measure. This Government has introduced a number of initiatives in regional development policy, for example, the Western Diversification Initiative, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and in northern Ontario. We are in the process of consulting the Province of Quebec. We have maintained the regional investment tax credits. There have been many other initiatives that we have taken to address the very point that he is talking about.


UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the Minister of Finance that the latest unemployment figures from Statistics Canada tell us that unemployment has increased in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. That is the reality in the regions of the country. The situation is getting worse in 1988. That is why I repeat my question to the Minister of Finance.
Why is it that he refuses to take a major step, have interest rates reduced, in order that some of the prosperity that we see in Metropolitan Toronto can be experienced in the regions of the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to use selective statistics. I want to go through not just month over month statistics, which is what the Hon. Member has just used, and look at what has happened since September, 1984.
In Newfoundland the unemployment rate is down 5.8 percentage points; in Nova Scotia, 2.8 per cent; Prince Edward Island, .5 per cent; New Brunswick, 3.7 per cent; Quebec, 3.2 per cent; Ontario, 4.1 per cent; Manitoba, 1.9 per cent; Saskatchewan, 1.5 per cent; Alberta, 3.4 per cent; and in British Columbia, the Hon. Member's own province, 4.6 per cent. That is progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF LABOUR OF DENMARK
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Henning Dyre-mose, Minister of Labour of Denmark,


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOW SULPHUR WESTERN COAL-PROPOSED USE BY ONTARIO HYDRO
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister heads an action committee aimed at increasing the use of low sulphur western coal in eastern Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House what progress, if any, the action committee has made in convincing Ontario Hydro, which is the greatest source of acid rain in Ontario, and the owner of Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Government itself, to reduce their acid rain emissions by increasing the use of low sulphur Canadian western coal rather than using the American coal with the high sulphur content that Ontario Hydro is presently using?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to that intelligent and thoughtful question. Considerable progress has been made. As the Hon. Member has indicated, there is an action force composed of myself, the Premiers of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and a secretariat has been formed to look at ways and means in which we might be able to bring western coal into Ontario at a reduced price.
The result of the secretariat's report is that there is a recommendation for some $10 million to $15 million in research and development activities, plus $70 million to $80 million worth of pilot projects which we could undertake to bring down the cost of coal thereby making it more competitive with the supply from the United States.
The Province of Ontario has indicated its willingness to comply with the reduced emission standards, bearing in mind that there would have to be some changes made in the furnaces and in the burning process, and all of these things are very actively under consideration.
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS

February 2, 1988


CONTRACT RECIPIENTS-ALLEGED APPROACH BY CONSERVATIVE PARTY FUND RAISERS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it concerns yet another report in the media of questionable fund raising by Conservative organizers aimed at Public Works contract recipients.
In an article dated December 7, 1987, in the Edmonton Sun, one contract recipient stated about these fund raising efforts, "The letters were not too subtle in suggesting that because I had received a government contract I should be contributing to the federal Conservative Party".


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am having some difficulty understanding how that question is in order. It is clearly not something for which the Ministry is responsible. Perhaps the Hon. Member could rephrase his question.


Don Boudria: Did the Minister of Public Works inform the Prime Minister of these serious allegations, as he should have? What concrete measures does the Prime Minister intend to take to end this kind of intimidating practice?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would have been appropriate for the Hon. Member to give notice of this particular question. It is very narrow. I know nothing of it. But I will give my undertaking to report back to him.


REQUEST FOR RCMP INVESTIGATION
Don Boudria: My
supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Given that in the past the RCMP have investigated similar situations, will the RCMP launch an investigation into these very serious charges that go right to the integrity of this Government once more?


Mr. Speaker:: I am having considerable trouble accepting that as being a question which is in order.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries, who must be aware that there has been an oil spill from a capsized barge in Rosario Strait just south of British Columbia.
Is the Minister in a position to tell the House what action, if any, the Government of Canada has taken with respect to this serious spill?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, indeed there has been a sinking of an American owned barge carrying Bunker C fuel, some 12 compartments, and I believe 1.6 million litres of heavy Bunker C oil. This occurred some 50 kilometres east of Victoria, well south of the Canadian boundary.
The Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries, and Department of the Environment people have been in contact with their U.S. counterparts. The salvage operation is under way.
I can indicate to the Hon. Member that the Environment Canada oil spill tracing model has been applied, and it has determined that any leakage from this barge would not enter Canadian waters nor pose any problem at this time to our Canadian fisheries resource.


POSSIBLE EFFECT ON FISHERY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Would the Minister not agree that even if the oil does not reach the Fraser River that it could get into the food chain, and therefore affect Canadians through fish and shellfish?
Could the Minister indicate to the House what, if anything, the Government is doing with the support of the American Government to stop these types of spills in the future?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member might know that there is a joint Canada-U.S. marine pollution contingency plan involving appropriate agencies of both Governments to deal with any sinking of this type.
I repeat that the sunken barge is located well within U.S. territorial waters. We are working closely with U.S. officials to see that this barge is raised as quickly as possible. The salvage team is on site. At the present time there is no evidence of any potential risk to Canadian fisheries resources. All but one of the compartments on this barge are sealed and the contents are not being released into the environment.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period. A single question from the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent.


AIR SAFETY
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State
February 2, 1988

(Transport). According to a Canadian Aviation Safety Board report released over the weekend, incidents involving loss of separation or near misses increased by 100 per cent in 1987- 54 incidents in 1986 against 109 in 1987. Is this increase in collision risks not the result of the Government's cut-backs which led to a considerable reduction in the number of air traffic controllers? So my question is this: What measures does the Government intend to take to reduce such collision risks before it is too late?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of greater awareness of a job well done, and of consciousness to be able to report incidents which may occur en route.



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.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Hon. Members will recall that we disposed of the Liberal amendment to the motion on Bill C-84 just prior to the luncheon break. Some time ago there were discussion among all three Parties about the need for two technical amendments to the Bill.
I know that the procedure would be unusual, but I think Your Honour might find unanimous consent to deal with those two amendments at this point before we return to the main motion. I wonder whether Your Honour would seek such consent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to get the ball rolling, or just to clear the air, we will be having a House Leaders' meeting in a matter of minutes. Perhaps this is something we ought to discuss there and come back to it later.
At the moment I will say that we are not prepared to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary who just raised this matter said that there had been consultations among the Parties. I have yet to be informed of these consultations, and I will have to come back to the Hon. Member on this matter in due course.
Immigration Act, 1976


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to deal today with Bill C-84. First of all, if I may, I should like to repeat what many of my colleagues have already said. We are not debating this Bill simply as a fillibuster to paralyze the Government, but rather to make sure that the Canadian immigration policy is worthy of us.
Unfortunately, instead of educating Canadian men and women on this issue and eliminating the abuses of our immigration system, the Tory Government is going to the extreme. Last summer, the Government got scared and recalled the House to deal with an emergency situation. It was just an excuse, as we very well know, because Bill-84 has never been a priority of this Government. Since then, apparently, it has survived this wave of panic.
Mr. Speaker, the Government seems to be a little more flexible now concerning this Bill since a number of amendments proposed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs have been accepted by the Minister.
On the other hand, I should like to congratulate the Standing Committee for an excellent job and the unanimity which its members have demonstrated in their recommendations.
Although a number of amendments from the Senate Committee have been accepted by the Minister, other priority elements have not. Those are the points I should like to deal with today.
The first recommendation which was turned down by the Minister deals with the provisions of the Bill which would make it possible for a Minister or the Government to turn refugee ships around. Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be unfair to treat people arriving by ships differently from those arriving by planes. For one thing, they would receive a better welcome. How could a Government decide the future of people on the basis of their means of transportation? Contrary to the Bill, the Senate proposes to lead the ships into port rather than turning them around. This would make it possible for Canadian authorities to help genuine refugees on board while the captain would be liable to a fine or prison term for his criminal acts. This certainly would be a stronger deterrent. Indeed, I do not believe that simply turning a boat away will prevent traffickers and smugglers from trying their luck later. We therefore believe the Government should accept that recommendation. They could thus penalize the culprits and extend to people on board the legal safeguards provided by the Act, because actually, turning the boat away without looking at and assessing the condition of people on board is utterly inexcusable.
A second recommendation made by the Senate Committee was that we should not make it a new offence to aid or abet genuine refugees who do not hold valid visas. It is unacceptable in my view that we try to punish those who help people in need. Church people, priests or nuns for instance could be

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
charged with civil disobedience for helping people who are fleeing torture, threat and assassination in their home country. I would never have believed, Mr. Speaker, that this Parliament could enact a clause that is so offensive and backward. Canadians stated publicly they were ready to break the law if necessary to help those people who need such help. Such legislation is unworthy of us Canadians-people in Canada are much too fair and equitable to do that.
There is another problem in the area of security. Although the Minister stated a person is deemed to be innocent until proved guilty in our system of law, the Minister seems to take the opposite view when refugees are involved. The Government want to ensure that anyone who is suspect of being a security risk should be entitled neither to the refugee status determination system nor refugee provisions. I believe Mr. Speaker it is important to base ourselves on something more than mere suspicions under that system. We should not detain or turn back people on that kind of suspicions. Solid evidence is needed.
I would like to address another sensitive aspect of Bill C-84, that of search and seizure. The Minister stated he would like to have search warrants both in daytime and at night. He implies Senators opposed warrants being issued after 4 p.m. on the grounds that it was night time. But the Senate said nothing of the kind. It merely suggested it would be better if search warrants were issued during the day. Therefore the Senate recommendations will not prevent the Government from enforcing a warrant at night if conditions called for it.
Once again, the Government is going too far. Why provide for powers which could lead to abuses when our laws already show moderation, tolerance and intelligence? We do not want to take away from the Government the tools it needs to protect our boundaries. We want to improve existing mechanisms, but we do not want provisions which might violate the rights of Canadians.
It is important for everyone to realize that we really wish to achieve the stated objective which is to reduce abuses. We have never said that all those who claim refugee status are legitimate refugees. There have always been and always will be abuses. However, is that a good enough reason to punish the great majority of refugees who have legitimate claims? Why punish innocent people who have nothing to do with the ones who abuse our system? We have to try to be fair.
Canadians have always been proud of their refugee system, and it has evolved over a long period. Moreoever, our system is admired by many countries, even though there is room for improvement in our legislation. Our welcoming attitude to refugees can be cited as an example internationally. Why should we relax our efforts? Too many people are suffering hardship and need our assistance. Why should we close our doors to them, Mr. Speaker?
We know that Canada accepted over 60,000 Vietnamese some time ago, but that did not provoke a campaign against refugees and immigrants. However, it now seems that a single
ship bringing in perhaps 200 refugees created a panic in Canada. I have to ask myself some serious questions about how the Government reacted to this incident.
I am quite willing for us to adjust the existing system, but let us do so logically and fairly. Canadians should be informed about the issue. They should be informed fairly and told how refugees contribute to make this a better country. We all know that most of those who come here as refugees do not take jobs away from Canadians. On the contrary, many of them do the work that most of us refuse to do.
The recommendations of the Senate Committee provide the means to make our system fairer and more equitable. We should consider these recommendations and accept them.


Mr. Marchi:: Speaker, I listened attentively to the words of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Outrement (Mrs. Pepin) on a subject about which she cares and knows a lot. She pointed out a number of different things, including security, provisions for turning back a boat and the very onerous clause creating a new offence for those Canadians and organizations who wish, as they have in the past, to aid refugees and provide them with assistance.
On the whole question of the constitutional and charter challenge that will probably come from a number of lawyers across the country, one aspect that we in the House and the Senate experienced before our committees was that most legal experts, if not every single one, who appeared before the committee said that a number of provisions are unconstitutional and there will be court challenges based on the Charter as soon as the Bill is proclaimed law.
If the Government is now proposing that this is the answer, that this Bill is a cure for all problems concerning refugee determination, and if the courts will place a judgment on this legislation, what are the thoughts of the Hon. Member on the very likely possibility that this matter will be struck down by the courts, because a number of provisions, for example, the turning back of a boat and the security aspect, will be deemed unconstitutional? If this legislation is struck down by the courts it will, in effect, paralyze the whole policy. Rather than bettering a policy which needs reform, the situation will be even more chaotic. What then will happen to the confidence of Canadians who thought that the Government and Parliament were taking care of this very urgent problem?


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better to improve the Bill at this point. If the legislation is challenged in the courts, it will be up to a judge to decide, and then we often depend on their interpretation of the legislation.
I think we should spend a little more time on improving the legislation here in the House, in order to prevent situations
February 2, 1988

similar to what happened last June, with the refugees who arrived by ship.
I have more than twenty-three ethnic groups and a number of refugees in rny riding and am in touch with them regularly. I can assure you that the way the Government reacted last summer created a panic situation, and it also completely changed Canada's image abroad. People were coming here to a host country, where they knew their rights and freedoms were respected. Now most of them are wondering what kind of country we will have once this legislation is passed.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Flon. Member for Outrement also correctly pointed out and compared the situation of the two past summers, when 300 refugees came by boat to our shores, to a situation only a few short years ago in 1979 when the then Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Clark, followed by the Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980, took what was probably the most significant initiative that created the most pride in Canadians, by accepting almost 106,000 Vietnamese boat people. The Member referred to that leadership, integrity and education program under which 50,000 refugees from Vietnam were sponsored by communities, including churches, organizations and individual Canadians, and approximately
50,000	people were sponsored by the Government. That was a classic example of a true partnership that worked.
Given that past governments have reacted in a noble and progressive manner, what are the Member's thoughts about why the Government did react by creating, suggesting and fabricating an emergency situation and a crisis? How does the Member view the situation where you have one government accepting 106,000 people in a two year period and another Government creating a crisis because 300 individuals entered our refugee determination system?


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the arrival of a hundred refugees was perceived as an emergency and even created a panic situation is rather difficult to explain when, as my hon. colleague pointed out, we realize that Canada has already received more than 60,000 Vietnamese.
If we take a closer look at the situation and analyse it carefully, the impression we get is that the Conservative Government wants to change its policy and have a big stick like the legislation before the House today.
The perception of our country as a host country and as a compassionate country has changed. As I said earlier, the refugees and immigrants in my riding feel the situation has become most disturbing. Most of them are worried, especially since the Government is playing a game with words. It says there are genuine refugees and phony refugees. The word refugee implies that the person is at risk. There are no genuine refugees and phony refugees.
So all this did the rounds across the country. In many cases, the media tended to make matters worse, so that 200 new
Immigration Act, 1976
arrivals created a true panic in a country that is simply huge. We could have easily taken these people in with a lot less ruckus then we did. And I think this has tarnished Canada's image. The Government must adopt legislation that is far more humanitarian, in order to change the perception of Canada now held by other countries, including Europe, and especially in those countries where human rights are threatened. The Government must change this perception because I must admit, I was not very proud to be a Canadian.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) a question concerning those who help refugees.
What 1 am concerned about are the 23 refugee aid groups that she spoke about in Montreal with whom she is in touch. If a refugee came here from El Salvador, did not try to evade immigration officers but simply reported in as a refugee claimant, and was helped in doing that by a Canadian, there has been great concern that those Canadians would be quite unjustly subject to punishment for doing something that is considered a good thing to do now, and in fact was part of the reason why Nancy Pocock received the Pearson Medal for Peace a few weeks ago. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what those refugee aid groups in Montreal think of the Government's assurances that they will not be prosecuted?


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, they are not very reassured now, I can tell you, since they know that Canadian men and women who would help refugees to come to Canada would be held criminally responsible.
I think that many have said publicly that anyway they are willing to break the law if that piece of legislation is accepted; that would not stop them from helping the refugees. And I think it would certainly be a shame for our country if the Government were to enforce such a legislation.
I believe our refugees feel threatened and are very much concerned and I think that is going to change our image as a friendly and humanitarian country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with this very important piece of legislation which is now before the Parliament of Canada, Bill C-84.
Mr. Speaker, you are certainly aware that our Party is against this Bill which was introduced last summer by this Tory Government as a response to a tragic situation.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
There was in this Bill a violation of human rights, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was also a violation of the United Nations Charter. In fact, it is a very discriminatory and reactionary measure.
M. Speaker, we have before us now a few amendments which have been proposed by the Senate of Canada. I support these amendments because they would make of this Bill something better and more efficient for Canada.
It may seem unusual for NDP members to speak positively of the Senate of Canada. The Senate is certainly not a democratic institution. Its members have been appointed by several Prime Ministers such as Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Clark and the current prime minister (Mr. Mulroney). As I said, this is not a democratic institution. In spite of that, the many senators who are clever and well intentioned have put together a Bill which is better than that of the federal Government.
[English)
I think more than any other Member of this House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has led a campaign against this very regressive and oppressive legislation introduced by the Conservative Government. Starting last August, at a time when I and others were on the special committee studying the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord, the Hon. Member was leading the fight against this repressive piece of legislation. It is very unfair to both legitimate refugees from many undemocratic countries, and to Canadians who help refugees. It violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and the UN convention on refugees.
I have not taken part in this debate before today. I was not part of the committee as I was tied up in other work of this House, like yourself. However, I understand that when the committee held hearings most of the witnesses were opposed to the sweeping nature of this legislation. 1 also understand that when the Senate held hearings, it heard some 37 different witnesses and all of them except the immigration staff criticized and opposed the Bill. After those hearings, the Senate committee made 13 different recommendations and those recommendations are what we are talking about today.
Like yourself, Mr. Speaker, my family came from other parts of the world to settle in Canada. In my case, my ancestors came from enlightened and very democratic countries; on my father's side, from Sweden, on my mother's side, from Great Britain. They, along with many other people, created this great country. One reason they came here was that Canada was very tolerant of different ways of life, different languages and different
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have two official languages in Canada. We have several cultures. On both sides, it is a society which is quite tolerant. It is a true mosaic of people from the four corners of the world. Now, we have a mixture, a truly distinctive Canadian society.

I do not think it is in the traditions of Canada to have this kind of repressive legislation before us today. When the Senate made its recommendations, it talked about a number of changes which should be made and I want to commend those changes to the House.
Amendment No. 1 would clarify the purposes of the Bill as opposing clandestine entry rather than smuggling. This amendment goes in the right direction. It more clearly defines what the purpose of this Bill should be so that fewer legitimate refugees are caught in a trap, through no fault of their own.
Amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3 restore the right of a person being accused of being a security risk to hear the case against him or her, except where the judge decides that that would endanger national security or the safety of persons. This is a very important amendment with respect to civil rights or civil liberties. A person accused of being a security risk will have the right to hear the case being made against him or her. Without that right we are almost living in a police state. You can be accused of something and you do not have the right to hear what it is of which you are being accused. Innocent people can be caught in that net and be denied refugee status where they would normally qualify as legitimate refugees.
Amendment 4, which talks about the right of claim to refugee status, restores the right of a person accused of being a security risk to have his or her refugee claim determined nevertheless. This would live up to Canada's obligation under the U.N. convention relating to the status of refugees and entitle the person, if deported, to United Nations assistance in finding a safe country other than the one which he or she had fled.
While on this particular topic, I remember stories of a shipload of Jewish people coming to Canada from Germany in the late 1930s before I was born. They were to land in Montreal but were turned back by Canadian officials. That was a different time and perhaps a slightly different issue, but I think it indicates the consequence of lack of tolerance, the consequence of people being unable to explain their case, and the consequence for people who did not have a fair hearing in this country. They were sent back and many of them met their death in Nazi Germany.
It is very important that the legislation before the House today be drafted in such a way as to ensure that people coming to this country as refugees are not sent back to certain death in the countries from which they have come en route to Canada.
Amendment 5 deals with ships which are turned around. It requires that a ship suspected of bringing in illegal refugees be brought to port in Canada and that the occupants be dealt with in accordance with Canadian law. It is very important that they be dealt with in accordance with Canadian law. It is my understanding that amendments to this effect were moved in the committee by the spokesperson for our Party, the
February 2, 1988

Member for Spadina. There are violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights, of some pretty fundamental justices and liberties, in the Bill presented before the House.
Amendments 6 and 7 deal with aiding and abetting. They restrict these clauses by targeting only those who intentionally encourage false refugee claims or who assist clandestine entry into this country. This ensures compliance with Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is an effort to target more effectively those people who intentionally encourage false refugee claims. This is an effort to target people who intentionally abuse, corrupt, and destroy the system for people who legitimately come to this country because they face persecution in their own country.
Amendments 9, 10, 11, and 12 deal with search and seizure and forfeiture. They ensure that search and seizure and forfeiture are allowed only on reasonable grounds and with reasonable procedures in keeping with Section 8 of the Charter of Rights. This is a very important series of amendments which would harmonize this legislation with the Canadian Charter of Rights and the Canadian Constitution as they affect those who live in this country. I do not think that is asking too much in terms of the amendments which the folks in the other place are suggesting to the House of Commons.
Finally, Amendment 13 would provide for independent review of the detention of persons held for identification or security purposes. This would ensure compliance with Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Charter of Rights.
That is a very quick summary of the 13 amendments being suggested by the other place. 1 argue that those amendments are not radical but very reasonable. The ladies and gentlemen of the other place are not usually known as radical or revolutionary people. They are usually considered fairly moderate and sometimes rather conservative. They are noted for their sober second thought. Usually when they recommend something to this House their recommendation is made after a great deal of consideration and usually with tremendous moderation. If the Senate, after hearing witness after witness, church group after church group, and civil libertarian after civil libertarian, can make these kinds of recommendations, then surely to goodness the House of Commons and, in particular, members of the government Party can accept these recommendations from the Senate of Canada to improve Bill C-84 which is before the House today.
I would like to remind us all that this country has a very tolerant past. This country has been very generous and benevolent. This country was built by people of many lands coming to Canada and working together to build a tremendous society and a tremendous country. We have two great languages and many great cultures. These people together have built a great country along with the indigenous aboriginal people who were here before peoples from other parts of the world arrived.
This piece of legislation would turn back the clock. It is the kind of legislation you would expect from President Reagan in
Immigration Act, 1976
the United States or Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, but it is not the kind of legislation you would expect from the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with the history which it has had.
Throughout its history of leaders, from Sir John A. Macdonald to John Diefenbaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has been very progressive with regard to refugees, immigrants, or building a society based on tolerance. It is only the most recent Conservative Party members who have tried to turn back the clock on the progressive tradition of that Party which now forms the Government of Canada.
I am sure that if John Diefenbaker were in the House today he would be making speech after speech about how regressive, conservative, reactionary, and restrictive this Bill is. Mr. Diefenbaker was from my home Province of Saskatchewan. He built his reputation on defending the underdog, on standing up and fighting for the rights of ordinary people who were being discriminated against, on fighting for ordinary Indian people and for the right to vote, for decent lives, and decent services. John Diefenbaker would not tolerate for a minute this kind of reactionary Bill.
I also suspect that many in the Cabinet, if they were Prime Minister, would not tolerate such a Bill as is before the House today. I am sure that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) were the Prime Minister of this country or the Minister in charge of immigration he would not be introducing this Bill in the House today. I noted that he is not returning to Manitoba to seek the leadership of that political Party there. Therefore, we will not have to grant refugee status to Mr. Filmon. That aside, I am sure that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare were the Leader of the Party or the Minister in charge we would not have this regressive Bill because he is more in the tradition of John Diefenbaker and progressive prairie populism.
I ask the members of the Conservative Party to join with us, the Liberal Party, the Senators, the people of Canada, and the churches of all faiths, all of whom have said that this Bill is much too regressive. This is not the Canadian tradition, it is not the Canadian heritage. If we had this kind of philosophy many years ago we would not have in Canada many of the Canadians we have today.
I want to conclude by reminding people that over the years we have taken in people from many very regressive regimes.

Mr. Speaker, I know there is a great deal of oppression in the world. There is a lot of that going on in Africa, for instance, and one example is the present situation in Zaire, a political dictatorship where human rights are violated. Zaire is the former Belgian Congo. It is one of the great countries of Africa, where there is now a lot of discrimination against a large number of people.
There is also discrimination in Haiti. President Duvalier was a dictator as his father was before him, but now, although he is

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
no longer in Haiti, the situation is such that human and civil rights are non-existent. There was a phony election in Haiti where the principal candidate was not even part of the process.
There is repression in Haiti and there is also the situation in Central America, where in many countries, people who were strongly in favour of a democratic system and freedom of expression, association and rest, are now confronted with a repressive situation. There is also the situation in South America, in Chile. Several years ago, I remember we had a meeting here in the parliamentary restaurant with Mrs. Allende. Her husband was the President of Chile and had been democratically elected, and after only a few years, he was assassinated. Now we have a repressive regime in Chile, Mr. Speaker. We often meet men and women who want to come to Canada to live under a democratic system and start a new life. We are not the only country with a humanitarian tradition in this respect. There are many others. Nevertheless, I hope Canada will remain open and maintain its traditions and heritage. 1 hope it will maintain its humanitarian system for all refugees throughout the world.
I urge my friends in the Conservative Party to remain true to the traditions of John Diefenbaker and many other "progressive" Conservatives, to stand up for civil rights and civil liberty and make sure that the Bill that is passed by the House of Commons respects the Charter of Rights in this country and respects the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct a statement made by the Member who just spoke and point out that the United Nations Commission for Refugees has not opposed this legislation.
Second, I want to point out, as reported on page 12001 of Hansard, that the Hon. Member's leader said on that day, speaking of the terrorist who had come to Canada:
Why has no action been taken to ensure that this person is removed from
Canada?
I want to tell him that press reports today state that this terrorist has now claimed refugee status in Canada. I remind the Member that when the boat landed in Nova Scotia last summer his leader said that if they are not refugees, send them back. As a matter of fact, the Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said: "If they are not refugees send them back".
This legislation is dealing not with refugees but with fraud artists. 1 would invite the Member to correct the misstatements he has made in the House so that the Canadian people who have watched this debate will understand that we are dealing with detention and those people who are an affront to the law.
I hope he would agree that these people ought to be dealt with in terms that this legislation has outlined. His Party cannot
have it both ways. On the one hand they cannot say "send him back" and at the same time deny us the legislation that would allow us to send them back. They cannot have it both ways.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we are not asking to have it both ways. We are saying that we want to respect the great traditions of this country in treating refugees and immigrants fairly. We want to respect the tradition of the Conservative Party of Canada. I mentioned Mr. John Diefenbaker.
The legislation before us today is very repressive. We feel it is a violation of the Charter of Rights and a violation of the United Nations Convention on Refugees.


Benno Friesen: Not true.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member says it is not true. I suggest that that is his opinion, not mine. It is not the opinion of most groups that appeared before the committee.
I remind the Hon. Member that most churches in this country that appeared before the committee of the House or the other place opposed this particular legislation as going too far and being too restrictive.
I know that I am dealing with a man who is very active in the Christian community. I am sure he realizes the role of the churches in terms of refugees and the position the churches, including the United Church, the Catholic Church and many others have taken in promoting the amendments to this legislation.
Many of them also took the position that Bill C-84 is a violation of the U.N. Convention on Refugees. I think we should be reflecting in the legislation the position of the churches and many of the civil libertarians as well as the position that has been basically the tradition of all three Parties in this country.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a question further to the question that was asked by the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I have heard him make that very misleading statement many times in which he very carefully-and he is skillful-isolates the fact that the United Nations representative for the High Commission for Refugees in fact did not say that Canada was violating the convention.
What the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta knows, of course, is that the UNHCR always has to deal in a friendly way with every Government because it has no power to enforce that convention. Therefore, it never uses such blunt language as to say, "You are violating it". But what the Hon. Member knows is that the U.N. did ask the Government to allow refugee status hearings even for somebody accused of crimes such as war crimes, subversion and so on, so that if the person were found to be a refugee he could be given time to find a third country rather than be deported to the one that persecuted him.
February 2, 1988

What I want to ask the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is, does he consider that in the case of somebody who perhaps in fact has committed some crime in his previous country but asks for refugee status in Canada, that person should be allowed to have his refugee status examined? If he is found not to be a refugee, then of course the action proceeds on the charges against him, and if he is found to be a refugee does the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville consider that it would be fair that the charges against him would be tried, whether he is a criminal or subversive, but that if he is found to be criminal or subversive he should be allowed a reasonable chance with the help of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to find a third country to which he could go rather than the country that persecuted him? That is what the UNHCR asked. 1 would like to know whether the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville thinks that that would be fair.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe it would be fair. I agree with what the United Nations is saying.
While I am on my feet, I want to finish my answer to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). My seat mate from Winnipeg just handed me a letter from the Anglican Church of Canada. It is a letter written to all Members of Parliament from Archbishop Michael Peers who is Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. He is recommending a resolution to the Parliament of Canada, which I want to read in response to a question put to me a few minutes ago. It says:
"That this National Executive Council requests the Primate to express to
the Government and the people of Canada its deep concern that significant
sections of Bills C-55 and C-84 as presently drafted:
a)	do not satisfy our international obligations to protect refugees and uphold procedural safeguards;
b)	violate sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
c)	do not meet the stated objectives of our immigration policy 'to fulfill Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and persecuted'."
This letter is from the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to all Members of Parliament. It lobbies for the amendment suggested by the Senate of Canada and it lobbies in a very diplomatic way against the regressive and reactionary Bill presented by the Conservative Government, a Bill that violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and the UN convention.
I recommend this letter to the House. I am sure that is why you are jumping to your feet now, Mr. Speaker. It is to say: "Yes, this is a good letter and we should accept it".


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I will be very brief. There have been discussions among the Parties, and I appreciate the co-operation of my colleagues.
Immigration Act, 1976
We propose to move two further amendments to the Bill amending Clauses 11 and 16. I would seek your consent to move and have the House vote immediately on the following motion: I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That clause 11 of Bill C-84 be amended by striking out line 2 on page 13
and substituting the following:
"exigent circumstances" mean circum-"
I also move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta:
That clause 16 of Bill C-84 be amended by striking out line 16 on page 24
and substituting the following:
"82.1(2), 83( 1) and 91.1(1), and any such power,"
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. Members have heard the suggestion of the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, we might want to clarify this for the House. It is my understanding that we have given unanimous consent to the introduction of those two amendments which will perhaps be debated by Members if they so desire. Is that the ruling of the Chair?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thought we agreed to a motion to add these two amendments to the motion moved by the Government with respect to Bill C-84 so that the two amendments the Minister of State has just offered would be dealt with in the same way as the other amendments contained in the Government's motion which we are currently debating. In other words, it is as if the two amendments the Minister just moved were a part of the motion of the Government in the first place.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are content to add those two amendments to the message if the Table finds that to be in order, yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I agree that consultations have taken place and in the spirit of co-operation and in an effort to advance the processing of this Bill, we have agreed to introduce these. I would like to think that the Government would show its appreciation by not moving the previous question.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. I do not want to be difficult, I am just interested in the procedure. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) will soon be taking the floor. Is it the case that the Hon. Member

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
for Davenport will be speaking to the main motion and that after that debate is completed, we will then be able, if Hon. Members so desire, to speak to the two new amendments?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) that one of these amendments for which we have asked unanimous consent was an amendment the Senate had wanted to be included. Through some oversight, it got lost in the message that was sent to us in the House. We are accommodating the Members of the other place by including it. The other amendment restricts the Bill even further, something which I think has the approval of Members opposite. I take the words of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) to mean that this is part of the main motion and it will not be debated separately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed then? Is it part of the same package that the message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I had proposed a way of treating these amendments, but I was just informed by my hon. colleague, our critic on this issue, that he has already spoken on the main motion and he therefore would not otherwise have the opportunity to speak briefly on why he thinks these amendments are worthwhile. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member from our Party as well as the New Democratic Party critic a few minutes to explain why they are willing to accept these amendments. We do not want to take away the turn of the Hon. Member for Davenport. He is next, but I wonder if the House would agree to allow the two critics for the opposition Parties a few minutes to explain their acceptance of these amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what you have just witnessed is an interesting exercise on the part of the Government to improve this piece of legislation six months after it was introduced as an absolutely urgent matter which required the recall of Parliament on August 11. We are now dealing with what would seem to be the final stages of the debate on this Bill in the fourth year of the Government.
Six months after the Bill was introduced, the Government still finds it necessary to rush in on a Tuesday afternoon to present amendments that it deems to be necessary through a delayed acceptance of suggestions that had been made to the Government both by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on behalf of the Official Opposition and by the Senate. Perhaps this is an indication that at this rate, in another six months, we might have a piece Of legislation that will be acceptable to Canada and in accordance with the the basic principles contained in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is a sign of immense incompetence on the part of the Government that we are here, six months later, struggling along with a piece of legislation which could have been passed in a matter of weeks if it had been introduced with measures that would not be, in most legal opinions and in the judgment of refugee communities, repugnant or could not be eventually challenged in the higher courts. That would have made this whole exercise unnecessary and even a farce. That is the basic point.
I imagine it really upsets most Canadians to hear backbenchers of the Tory Party rising during the period preceding Question Period to lament the fact that this Bill is still being debated in the House. That is the highest level of hypocrisy accompanied by incompetence that has been witnessed in the House for a long, long time.
A few minutes ago the Minister of State rushed into the House to introduce two technical amendments, at least what he thinks are two technical amendments. But he admitted in his own words that they are in part a reply to the suggestions made by the Senate. That is an admission that the Bill is still far from being the type of Bill that ought to be leaving the House in order to command the respect of the Canadian people and the respect of our courts.
What we have here is an exercise in incompetence for which only the Government can be held responsible, not the members of the Opposition for debating it. We are not compulsory speakers in the House of Commons. We do not come here just to speak in order to see our name in print the next day in Hansard. We come here when we are hot under the collar, as we were in August of 1987 and as we are six months later today because we still find that some measures in this Bill are offensive.
The Senate has performed an outstanding role in examining Bill C-84 in its traditional and thorough manner. It has come to the conclusion to which Senators of all Parties, which in this case means Liberals and Conservatives, have agreed upon. Not one Conservative Senator disagreed on the package that has been sent to us here today for debate-not one. That is the reality.
The Senate is unanimous in saying that this Bill still needs to be amended. Yet some back-benchers of the Government, which is so-called Progressive Conservative, have the nerve to get up to complain that we are still debating it. We have to debate it because of its contents. What the Senate is saying is that this law must be improved on a number of fronts. Other speakers before me have already outlined them. I am not able to say something that is new on how the recommendations of the Senate run. They cover a wide range of clauses, and others have done better than I have done. The fact remains that there is here a principle to make laws that are good and that cannot and should not be challenged in higher courts. The Hon.
February 2, 1988

Member for York West made this point, as have others. It is an important point.
We want to make a contribution to the debate on this Bill in a manner that will achieve two things. One principle is that we want to ensure that our immigration laws are not abused. There is unanimous consent to that. The second principle is that we want to pass a law that will not be challenged in the higher courts and that will not therefore slow down, almost impede or bring to a grinding halt the whole legislative implementation of the laws that the House is debating right now. We are trying to improve the quality of it now so that it will work later on. That is the point.
The nature of the amendments is quite clear in the submission of the Senate. In his intervention a few days ago the Hon. Member for York West dealt with them in a very clear manner. He put on the record his thoughts with respect to turning back a boat, something which the Government wants in the present legislation as proposed.
The alternative we are advancing is that, instead, the law be such that it permit the Minister to escort these boats into port. That is a sound and convincing argument. I recommend that Hon. Members read page 12303 of Hansard for January 26. At that page Hon. Members will find the intervention of the Hon. Member for York West who said that the Senate articulated the recommendation that rather than turning back a boat it be escorted into port. We think that there are some very basic good and solid reasons for doing that.
If we want to punish the smugglers of human misery, as the Hon. Member for York West pointed out, then we should bring the boat into Canadian harbours and confiscate it, sell it and punish the captain by imposing a fine upon him or by placing him in prison. Why does he say that? Because this is a lesson which will not be forgotten for a long, long time. That is the reason. In doing so the word will spread on the international circuits among potential captains and boat owners that when one comes close to Canadian waters or touches them then they are in for a rough time and that one may lose one's shirt. Is that not the point? Is that not the reason we want to do it?
For the life of us it is very hard to understand why the Minister of Immigration cannot see the merits of this measure that was proposed, expounded and advanced by the Opposition back in August and again put forward and advanced by the Senate as a whole. It is extremely difficult to understand why this is not being accepted.
On January 26 the Hon. Member for York West concluded with this observation. He said that the discouragement is greater if we bring the boat in and then punish the culprits. He pointed out that we would be more wise since we would be able to question the captains. He also pointed out that we could try to break down the rings and the networks that are operating throughout the world. These are three solid and good reasons which the Hon. Member put forward. Why turn back the boat? This is something that escapes our ability to understand.
Immigration Act, 1976
Another point made by the Senators, which deserves our attention, has to do with the question of punishment of those who aid and abet refugees. You have heard it I suppose, Mr. Speaker, more than you would like to, and I do not envy you. It is your task to hear at times things over and over again. Your Honour has heard some pretty solid arguments in the House and in the Senate about the notion that the law should not punish organizations and individuals who help refugees.
It is more than individuals and organizations with whom we have to be concerned. I say that because in the offices of Members of Parliament in many cities in the exercise of our daily duties we inevitably come into contact with people who are here as potential refugees. They come to our offices seeking advice. If we were to deal with them, we could be in breach of the law as proposed now. There must be a dozen Members of Parliament in the House now who, over the years, have spoken or been spoken to by individuals who would like to be considered and accepted as refugees and who have been helped with information and advice. All of a sudden when this law is implemented anyone who in the future comes in touch with and offers advice or answers to a person who would like to declare himself or herself as a refugee in Canada might be in trouble with respect to the law.
That is not a fair measure, and it is not a measure that can be considered lightly. I notice that on the same day the Hon. Member for York West made a reference to Nancy Pocock from the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees in dealing with this issue. The present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) says that he has to reject the notion that this particular clause be deleted from the Bill, and in his release he states that this amendment would constitute a reversal of the policy upon which the Immigration Act of 1976 was based. That is incorrect. It is not so. The Immigration Act of 1976 does not advance the notion in this forceful and authoritative manner that it does now that anyone who is involved in assisting and in dealing with refugees is in breach of the law. Otherwise, I think many of us would have been in trouble a long time ago.
Instead, what we do support on this side of the House is the amendment by the Senate which would limit criminal prosecution to those who intentionally encourage false claims, and to those people who assist clandestine entry. That is a line that has been drawn by the Senate, which is a very fine line and a very important one. It deals with false claims, and it deals with the matter of clandestine entry. I think that that would be safe ground and also fairer ground on which to base the spirit and the operative part of the proposed legislation.
On those two grounds alone there is reason enough to rise in the House and to speak out. There is still time for the Government to accept these interventions on our part. At the rate that the Government is doing so, it may be some time before this will happen. Until then, Mr. Speaker, all I can say to you is that it is not right for the Government to blame us for the fact

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
that a Bill introduced in August is still here. There are Bills which travel through the House fairly quickly and with a lot of co-operation. If this Bill is still here after six months the only one that can be blamed and ought to be blamed is the Government and those who propose it.


Sergio Marchi: I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for his reassuring words, words that we heard from him only a few short months ago when this debate was present before this very Chamber in the hot days of summer. His interest perhaps was not only derived from the two boatloads that arrived on our shores, but certainly that interest and passion emanates from long and hard work during the 1970s and early 1980s when he was a very active member of the standing committee on immigration at that time.
The Hon. Member for Davenport correctly pointed out that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy when members of the Government rise during Statements Pursuant to S.O. 21 prior to Question Period and suggest that somehow the Opposition is delaying and filibustering this legislation, and that this emergency Bill is still very much alive in our Chamber as of February, 1988.
As was pointed out in part by the Member, the truth is that this question and the report from the other place that we are debating today did not come exclusively from Liberal Senators, but it was endorsed unanimously by all Senators. In fact, some of the Senators from the government side were more passionate and emotional in the disdain in which they held this piece of legislation, and that triggered a number of discussions, perhaps behind the scenes as well as in front of the committee with the Minister, that helped this report and allowed the Government to recognize that it did go too far.
At no time did the Government push the Senate committee to deal with it more quickly. At no time did the Government ask its Senators on the government side to expedite matters, as they did in the committee. Therefore, there was not the political will or the political necessity for that to happen. Now that we have had the time to reflect over the several months that have elapsed since the summer, I think the Government got the message that it had erred, that this Bill was overkill, and that Canadians were looking at this in a progressive and moderate manner, something that the Government was not doing.
In addition, Members of Parliament from the government side have also been debating this Bill. Government Members have also been standing up and asking questions. This is a debate. It is a discussion. If we are not to discuss and debate in this Chamber, and if it is not for the Opposition together with members of the Senate, including government Senators, to try to push this Government a little more close to some degree of progressivity, then who should do so?
On that note, I wish to ask the Member for Davenport what are his thoughts, in terms of the whole question of leadership and being at the leading edge of educating and coming to grips
with this very emotional yet significant issue, rather than simply waving hands and calling those people illegal migrants and suggesting that somehow Parliament has to come together because there is an emergency and impending crisis. The Hon. Member was a member of this Chamber and a member of a preceding Government that had the example of the Vietnamese boat people and partnership between community and Government at its best, but in addition to that there were other programs that complemented that particular exercise. What does the Hon. Member think of a Government that can and is able and wishes to lead and create a country in a direction that is better for humankind and for the international phenomenon of refugees, as opposed to a Government that runs from the issue, looks at the polls, and has the knee-jerk reaction that we saw in the summer months?


Mr. Caccia:: The example of the boat people is a very good one. On the over-all question of leadership, this afternoon, February 2, six months after the introduction of this Bill, we were treated to the spectacle of the Government rushing in and asking that this Bill be given two additional amendments. After this Bill had been introduced in August of last year, debated on second reading, sent to committee, having heard all the witnesses, having heard the views of the Opposition, having it reported back to the House of Commons, having debated additional amendments, having a debate on third reading, a discussion in the Senate, hearings in committee of the Senate, receiving it back from the Senate, the Government is still thinking over and wondering what to do to improve this Bill after six months.
Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? What an immense sign of incompetence. It is not even a question of leadership. It is a question of not knowing how to run the business of the nation. That is what it tells me, if on February 2 the Government has to rush into the House with two amendments to a Bill which was introduced six months before and after all the phases of hearings and debates on the amendments.
It would be nice to be able to discuss leadership. The Government does not have the faintest idea. We find incompetence in the way it managed the trade negotiations with the United States. We find incompetence in the way that it dealt with the United States on acid rain. It is an empty cupboard. We also find incompetence with regard to toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. The Government is in the fourth year of its mandate. If its Members were to think back to 1983, they would find that if they managed to do anything in this Parliament it was because we prepared the ground for action in a number of fields.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: Otherwise, they would not even know how to move the wheel ahead. However, when it comes to new measures or new programs, what do they do? They rush into the House of Commons, as they did today, saying: "Just a
February 2, 1988

moment. Please allow us a few minutes to introduce two further amendments".
Is that a sign of competence in the Government? The Hon. Member for York West was trying to tell the Government something about leadership. For heaven's sake, there is no question that if the Government is leading us anywhere, it is leading us to disaster. It is leading us to economic union with the United States. It is leading us to a weaker federal Government so that eventually we will have 10 republics trying to rule the country. It is leading to devolution whereby Ottawa will have less and less power than the provinces, and we will have in a way a checkerboard Canada as we see already in the environmental protection legislation.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Which you were not able to get through Cabinet.


Charles L. Caccia: For weeks the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has postponed his appearance before our committee. I want to tell him that what we are witnessing there is the emergence of the Meech Lake virus whereby each province will have different standards of environmental protection. We will see the same situation with other measures.
If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, what kind of leadership the Government is giving or where it is trying to lead us, I would say that it is leading us in the wrong direction, and that is why we want to call an election pretty soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to indicate that the period provided for questions and comments has now terminated.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 York East (Mr. Redway)-Hazardous substances-Dioxin in paper products-Chlorine bleaching process; the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris)- Fisheries-Canada-France dispute-Position of Newfoundland Government/Request that Government halt talks/State-ment made by Minister of fisheries; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Cape Breton Development	Corporation-Industrial	development
division/Query concerning consultations.
Immigration Act, 1976



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 motion of Mr. Lewis:
That Bill C-84 be further amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 2 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
""exigent circumstances" mean circum-"
And
That the Bill be further amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 16 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"82.1 (2), 83( 11) and 91.1(1), and any such power,"
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has said a number of times this afternoon that if the Government wanted it could have passed this legislation. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp):
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the motion of the Minister of Employment and Immigration 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 motion of Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Friesen, in relation to further amendments proposed to the said Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fewer than 15 Members having risen, the motion is adopted.
Motion (Mr. Friesen) agreed to.


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


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in the debate on the government motion in relation to Bill C-84.
As all Hon. Members surely remember, in the middle of our summer break we were summoned back to Parliament to deal with a national emergency. The national emergency at that time was that a boatload of people were entering Canadian waters and in fact had arrived at our shores seeking refugee status. This became quite a topic during the summer months, and the Government immediately called Parliament back to deal with the matter. It stated at that time that a real national

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
emergency existed and that it required proper legislation right away to deal with the perceived threat of waves of would-be refugees coming to Canada.
Here we are well into the new year, 1988, and we are still debating a Bill dealing with that so-called grave national emergency.
Part of the reason we are still dealing with the debate at this stage, and why the Opposition has been so concerned about it, is that the legislation the Government introduced at that time was so seriously flawed that every group in the country which dealt with questions regarding refugees was opposed to what the Government was doing. Amnesty International, the Canadian Bar Association, church groups, and humanitarian groups from coast to coast were raising serious concerns about the legislation. The Canadian Bar Association raised legal concerns. It felt-and it still feels it today-that despite some of the amendments which the Government has now allowed to its original legislation, the legislation is so seriously flawed that the courts will have to throw it out. It contravenes our Constitution and its Charter of Rights.
The Canadian Bar Association claims that in numerous instances in this piece of legislation proper due process will not be provided to people who come to our shores and attempt to land as refugees. The church groups also point out that what this legislation does is to destroy the tradition we have been trying to build as a haven for those who seek to escape political, religious and racial persecution in their home countries. While we as Canadians take some pride in our image of being decent, caring people, it is certainly true that in the past we have committed what I would call acts that besmirch that image. Members, particularly colleagues of mine in the New Democratic Party, have raised during this debate the case of the group of Indian refugees who came to Canada around 1914 and who were sent back to India. Some died at the hands of the Government of India of the day. We all know of the case of the ship St. Louis which, with around 900 European Jews trying to escape what they knew was coming in Europe, set forth to find a safe haven across the Atlantic. They were turned back by numerous countries, including Canada. They returned to Europe and very few of those 900 European Jews survived. They were caught in the Holocaust and died in Nazi concentration camps. That situation was something that we as Canadians could have prevented, except that our political prejudices and fears at the time entered into the picture and we denied people access to Canada.
It is not with total pride that we as Canadians can look at our record. We have to recognize that we have made mistakes in the past, mistakes that have cost people's lives, people who otherwise would have made a tremendous contribution to our country and the well-being of it. Instead, our own prejudices at the time made them face certain death. Let history ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again, that people who seek
entrance to our land, many of whom are not white Anglo-Saxons but Hindus, Pakistanis, blacks from Africa or people trying to escape from the insanity of the Middle East, are welcomed into our country. Let us make certain of that because history will also judge us as we judged the Liberal Government of the day which turned back the boatload of European Jews.
The Government called us back last summer in order to deal with Bill C-84 and this great national emergency as the Government described the situation. The Bill has too many overtones of what the Government did in 1938 when it turned back the boatload of European Jews. There are too many overtones of racial and political prejudices here.
What we are debating today is the Government's response to the Senate. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have no great love for that institution called the Senate. I think a non-elected body of essentially politically motivated people, a body consisting of political appointees, should not have the power to prevent legislation from passing. Unelected people, while they definitely play a role in a legislative process, should not have the final say in things. They do have a role to play and I think the Senate has played its role in its report on Bill C-84. 1 would never stand here in my place and describe the other place as being filled with men and women who are wild-eyed radicals seeking to undermine the security and the well-being of the Canadian state. I do not think I would ever describe hon. Senators in those terms. That is why I think the recommendations which the Senators have made through amendments to the Bill surely must be seriously considered. These are recommendations made by men and women in the other place who are concerned about the security and well-being of the Canadian state but who are also concerned that proper due process is followed, that we maintain our international commitments signed with the United Nations, and above all, that we live up to our commitments found in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hon. Senators have pointed out, as members of the Canadian Bar Association and various other legal experts have, that Bill C-84 is seriously flawed. It contravenes our commitments to the Charter of Rights. It contravenes our commitment as a society to due process of law, and it contravenes our international commitment to the treatment of refugees. As such, it is sad indeed that the Government on the whole has rejected these well thought out amendments which the Senate in a unanimous report has passed back to this House. Not even Conservative Senators in the other place rose and objected, argued or voted against these recommendations, not one Conservative Senator.
We come back to the questions of where is the crisis, where are the solutions. This Bill is certainly not an acceptable solution. Most probably the courts will strike down the Bill. What are we doing here debating this Bill? Is it the concern of the Government to push this Bill through? I suspect that first and foremost the decision made last summer was for political reasons. The Government now would just like to pass this Bill,
February 2, 1988

make it into law and have the courts overturn it, and that some future government can set about enacting a law that is workable, reasonable and compassionate. The Bill we have today will not do that. I suspect the Government is not very much interested in this matter anymore. Hopefully, in its own thinking, the Government has fulfilled its political objectives last summer when it tried to appear tough. A political knee-jerk reaction existed last summer. I do not think that speaks well of the Government. The Government lost faith and credibility at that point, and today we are cleaning up the mess.
I can stand here and read into the record various quotes from individuals. I could put on the record the words of the executive secretary of the Council of Christian Reformed Churches. 1 am certain that the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) would be aware of that gentleman because many of his constituents belong to the Christian Reformed Church. In a telegram dated January 27, 1988, that gentleman said this:
Government motion on C-84 inadequate and unacceptable relative to
Canadian Charter and UN Convention. Senate amendments apply. Please
enact these.
We see the limitations of this legislation. We see the incompetence with which the Government has handled the situation. We saw the political knee-jerk reaction last summer which brought us back here, and seven or eight months later we are still debating the issue. We will end up with a mess which I suspect will make us a laughing-stock the world over.
It is not that Members of Parliament have failed to point this out to the Government. The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, the majority of which is made up of Conservative Members, reported to the Government, but that report has not been acted on. In fact, the Government has done the unprecedented and refused to respond to the report. Government Members themselves are not happy with this legislation and recognize its faults. Yet the Government is still insistent on continuing with it.
The Senate made several important amendments and I wish to touch on those briefly in the few remaining moments of my time. One of the important amendments in essence ensures that in the process to determine who is a security risk, those who are found to be a security risk cannot be precluded from making a refugee claim. This is important because the original legislation does just that. Without that opportunity, many of these people will be sent back to their place of origin where they could very well lose their lives.
Another important amendment deals with turning ships around. Under this legislation when the Government and its agents suspect there is a boatload of would-be refugees in international waters, it can send the Navy out there and turn that boat around and prevent them from landing. That notion has some serious flaws. First, there might be some genuine
Immigration Act, 1976
refugees on board. Their only means of getting to this country is through this kind of exercise.
Second, if we are concerned about trying to stop the unscrupulous from exploiting immigrants, let us say in Europe or other places, by selling them tickets on an old boat to come to Canada illegally and sneak into the country, you want to get them into port so you can seize the ship and arrest the crew. That is how you stop those illegal enterprises which exploit immigrants and would-be refugees. You do not just turn them around somewhere on the high seas. That does not make sense.
Third, most illegal immigrants come here not via boat but via air. Certainly we are not going to turn airplanes around in mid-air.
Another amendment which I think we should support deals with the question of aiding and abetting refugees. This is a silly part of the legislation. The Government is making it a criminal offence for anyone to help a refugee who does not possess proper papers, a visa, and so forth. For heaven's sake, in most cases people who are genuine refugees are escaping from their countries because they face physical threats from the established authority. They are not going to get exit visas. Yet we would make church and other humanitarian groups liable to criminal prosecution if they aid refugees. Surely that is crazy. There are many other parts of Bill C-84 that just do not make sense, and I suspect the courts will strike them down.
You are indicating that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I hope I have been able to enunciate some of the areas of concern I have about C-84, and I certainly wish to entertain questions at this time.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member finished his well thought out speech with a prediction which matches the evidence that both the House and Senate committees studying the Bill received from expert legal testimony, that this Bill will be struck down by the courts. We are not talking about one clause which is more or less controversial. We are talking about a variety of clauses which are very questionable from a constitutional standpoint and that of the Charter of Rights.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he predicts will be the response from the Canadian public to this situation. We have to keep in mind that the Government is trying to promote this legislation as a cure-all, the answer to the problems in the refugee determination system. However, if it is struck down by our courts, not only will we be unable to see a resolution of the problems, the situation will become worse than it is now. We will have a paralysis of policy. What does the Member see as the problem for the Government, which basically will have misled Canadians and ushered Parliament to pass legislation which contravenes the number one law in this country-our Constitution?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. I think the reaction of the Canadian people will be plain, downright anger that they

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
have seen the Government bungle it again, that it said it had the answer to hold back the waves of would-be immigrants who would invade the country and swamp us all.
The first time this piece of legislation comes before the courts the courts will shoot it down. Our whole immigration and refugee determination system will be thrown into more massive confusion. There will be more bungling, more uncertainty, and there will be more anger expressed by the Canadian public. I think Canadians will learn that the Government cannot organize itself out of a wet paper bag.
Certainly the Government's performance on Bill C-84 strongly suggests that the incompetence which led to this piece of legislation and the pig-headedness of the Government in insisting on going through with it despite the best legal warnings in this country show that the Government does not know what it is doing and the Canadian people will hold it accountable for that.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I was not surprised when the Member put on the record the fact that not a single Conservative Senator spoke in support of the Government's position because had three Conservative Senators from Manitoba whom I know very well, Senators Roblin, Nurgitz and Spivak, supported the Government's proposal I would have believed that they had deserted the principles for which they stood for many years.
The Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) has suggested on a number of occasions that the churches which have expressed their opposition to this Bill did so before they understood all the details of it and that some of them have changed their minds. I would like to ask the Flon. Member for his views on a letter which every Member of Parliament received from the Primate of the Anglican Church, Archbishop Michael Peers, dated January 15, 1988, in which he said in part:
I am writing to you and every Member of Parliament to urge your support of the amendments to Bill C-84 which have been put forward in December, 1987 by the Senate of Canada. As the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada I ask your serious consideration in light of policy positions and special resolutions of the National Executive Council of the Anglican Church of Canada that have urged corrections to the hastily drafted "emergency" legislation.
He goes on:
Many other church and humanitarian organizations have also urged corrections.
I point out that among the many churches is the Mennonite Central Committee.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That's not a church.


David Orlikow: The Minister says that the Mennonite Central Committee is not a church. I am sure he is right, but I am also certain that it has a very close association with many of the Mennonite churches.
The Archbishop attaches to his letter, which went to every Member of Parliament, a resolution passed by the National
Executive Council of the Anglican Church in October, 1987, which says in part:
That this National Executive Council requests the Primate to express to the
Government and the people of Canada its deep concern that significant
sections of Bill C-55 and C-84 as presently drafted:
a)	do not satisfy our international obligations to protect refugees and uphold
procedural safeguards;
b)	violate sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
c)	do not meet the stated objectives of our immigration policy to fulfill
Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees ....
Would the Ffon. Member care to comment on that very clear statement by the Primate of the Anglican Church?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has a minute and a half to answer that question.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for that question. First, I am not surprised that the Primate, Archbishop Peers, made that statement. I knew the Archbishop when he was a constituent in Regina East before being named Primate. I have had numerous discussions with him and know him to be a very decent human being who is genuinely concerned about the well-being of the community as a whole. It is not surprising to me that the Christian churches, through the Inter-Church Committee, have expressed themselves so strongly and publicly on this issue.
The Inter-Church Committee and many other Christian organizations attempt to create in this country a Christian society that has compassion, a society which opens its arms to those who are persecuted throughout the world. They strive to see the very basic and strong Christian principles embedded in our society. They view this piece of legislation as going against the image of the type of society which they would like to see Canada become. They look with horror at the attempts to destroy the basic principles found in our Constitution, our Charter of Rights, and our international commitments. That is why I am not surprised that the comments of the Primate are strong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) will have the floor.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is sitting down there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Sergio Marchi: However, the Hon. Member for York East has been agitating and dying to ask a question. I will yield the floor to the Member for York East to give him the opportunity to pose his question if so instructed by the Speaker. If there are no other Members who wish to speak on the main motion, I would like to have a few minutes in order to address the motion which the Government brought before the Chamber.
February 2, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would Members rather that I not see the clock and go ahead with comments by the Member for York West and the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who will have equal time?


Sergio Marchi: I do not want to undermine Private Members' Hour between five o'clock and six o'clock. 1 would be pleased to make my comments on the two new government amendments following the debate in Private Members' Hour.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better to do this after Private Members' Hour.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, these are not government amendments. I want the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to understand that. These are amendments that were brought forward from the Senate which they inadvertently left out of the message which they sent to the House of Commons. We are accommodating the Members from the other place and I want the Member for York West to understand that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nickerson that Bill C-211, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this Private Members' Bill, I understand that it is an issue in which my northern colleague has had some interest for a number of years. Having read all the background debate and considering what the Hon. Member is proposing, 1 must say first that while I appreciate that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation may not serve the interests of some northern fisheries as well as he would like, I find it difficult to support this particular Private Members' Bill. Let me explain why.
One of the problems is that this corporation deals with a vast geographic area including Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Therefore, there it probably has some difficulty in working as effectively for all regions as it might. However, I cannot agree that a Bill which would do away with the essence of that corporation would indeed solve the problem. That opinion was obviously shared by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Binns) who also felt that while there might
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
be some serious issues that could be redressed by the corporation, this Bill would not serve to do so. He felt that eliminating the mandate of the corporation would not serve the interests of any of the regions with which it dealt.
Unless there has been a change since the beginning of 1988, neither the provinces involved nor the Governments of the Territories have requested a change to this Act. Therefore, support for this Bill would be unilateral, without having the concurrence or involvement of the other jurisdictions in drafting changes they would like.
As someone from the northern territories, it seems we are always raising the issue about being consulted and playing a part in the drafting of legislation which affects us. Therefore, certainly the consultative procedure that should take place in any changes to this corporation is very important.
While the Bill attempts to address certain problems, I am not sure they concern the corporation. In my view, the problems relate more to such issues as the distances from markets in many cases, which result in great difficulty in selling products that originate a long way from the market. I suggest that changing the corporation process does not mean it will change the price that buyers will pay for the product. Since the markets now utilized by the corporation would be exactly the same as those of the independent fisheries, I fail to see how changing that will necessarily make for a better system for the fishers. The primary concern is how we can sustain the industry and make it better.
A very interesting edition of Northern Perspectives of November, 1987, dedicates an entire issue to Arctic fisheries and the need for some new approaches to Arctic Fisheries. I want to mention a couple of points made in some of the articles. For example, one article informs us that in the northern territories particularly there is a large supply of fish which are underutilized in the inland fishery and that it is the high cost of production relative to the market-place that limits the development potential. I know from my own region that there are many production problems. More processing on site would effectively increase the marketing potential. A fishmarketing corporation does not necessarily impinge on that.
Another article which addresses Arctic fisheries points out that many of the limitations on the development of Arctic fisheries has not been with respect to supply or the availability of markets, but on the investors' estimates of profitability. In other words, if the investors do not think it will make money they will not invest, which is understandable. We want to develop those markets and we believe that there is a potential for them, but we suggest that this will not be accomplished by doing away with the essence of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Several recommendations have been made by the Senate committee. Indeed, I believe that one major initiative is now taking place, which will hopefully address some of the problems at least for the northern and Arctic areas. These are problems which the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
February 2, 1988
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
Nickerson) knows firsthand, some of which he knows better than I.
The draft fisheries policy now being prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Arctic marine conservation strategy which is being disseminated now by the Government for discussion, really provide the kind of framework for the study of this issue and for the utilization of fisheries products in consort with development, conservation issues and economic development aspects.
I believe this would be one of the most effective ways to address some of the issues of northern fisheries in particular, without taking the more heavy handed method, as 1 see it, of attempting to change the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act which may have a negative effect for those other sectors that the corporation serves under that Act.
I believe there are consultative processes now in place that may very effectively address some of the problems which the Member has attempted to address with this Bill. For that reason, 1 do not support the Bill. I believe there are many more effective ways to address the problems in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). Before doing so, however, it is incumbent upon the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 61(3), to inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, during this debate I have been accused many times of persistency. Some people have even gone so far as to describe that as obstinacy. For that i make no apology because it has been my observation over many years in this place that persistency pays off, especially when you have right on your side, and know' that what you are doing is right and will benefit the people of Canada. In those circumstances I have found that persistency pays off in the end. i am sure it will in this case.
Since this Bill has been under debate we have heard the voices of reaction raise up. We just heard one from the other side. The Hon. Member who just spoke did not let her lack of knowledge of the fishing business interfere with her ideology.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has been doing quite a lobbying job because it has a lot to fare in this issue. It has a rather cushy deal going for itself. The fishermen must sell to the FFMC at its prices. It has no competition and is beholden to no one. It has been trying to protect that rather cushy deal and has been doing much lobbying. It has even got some fishermen to sign papers saying that they are not in favour of this Bill, can you believe that? The people who did that were on the fishermen's advisory committee. They are put there by FFMC people themselves. We know what side their bread is buttered on.
I have not heard any real argument against this Bill. Everyone on the other side of the House has said that if this
goes through, it will gut the FFMC. It will not. The FFMC will still continue to exist, but this will make it competitive.
If we can agree with a Crown corporation like Petro-Canada, and some of us do and some of us do not, we can agree with having a Crown corporation in competition with other companies in the petroleum business. There is nothing really wrong with that. It keeps Petro-Canada relatively honest-not entirely honest but relatively honest. In this case, though, there is no competition whatsoever. There is nothing by which to judge the FFMC in this area. There is in the other part of Canada that is not under government monopolistic control, the Great Fakes area where there is free enterprise and business is just a-boomin'.
I would like to say a few things that are of special interest to fishermen in the Northwest Territories. First, I would like to read into the record a telex sent by Mr. D. R. Stewart, the President of the Northwest Territories Federation of Fishermen. It was addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) here in Ottawa. The text reads as follows:
This is to inform you that our N.W.T, Federation of Fishermen strongly
support Dave Nickerson, our M.P., concerning his Bill C-211.
There, Sir, you can see that the fishermen of the Northwest Territories support this issue in its entirety.
In the Northwest Territories, there are special concerns, there is no inter-territorial market to speak of. We cannot sell fish locally in any quantity. It has to be exported.
There is a speciality product in the Northwest Territories. The quality of the fish, especially for smokers, is far superior to that found in southern lakes, and it should be marketed as such. It should be marketed at the premium prices that premium quality fish should command.
We have to get our fish directly to market. The way it is now, it is first caught on the lake, hauled in fresh to the plant, frozen, shipped to Winnipeg and kept in a warehouse in Winnipeg for six months or a year. Then we try to sell it to someone, but no one wants to buy that kind of fish. That fish ought to be on a table in a restaurant in Fos Angeles, Chicago or New York the day after it is caught. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation cannot see that. However, there are people who are willing to make the investment in this business so that that can happen, but they cannot do so because the FFMC is blocking their way.
We suspect that northern fish is used to subsidize southern fish. The argument goes like this: The FFMC says, "You want some of that good quality northern fish? Before you get that, you will have to take some of the inferior stuff'. I have every suspicion that that accusation is correct.
To give credit where credit is due, some of these things have been recognized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has promised to consider the possibility of exempting the Northwest Territories from the monopoly. It only provides about 10 per cent of over-all sales of FFMC, so when this Bill
February 2, 1988

gets into committee after second reading, that is something that can be looked at.
1 would like to look at the principles involved in this matter. The principle contained in the present Act is that the freedoms of individuals, whether they be fishermen, dealers in fish or retail or wholesale merchants, are restricted. We should not do that, but we have in the case of these people. Their freedom and liberty has been restricted by an Act of Parliament.
I know that in the North and in many provinces, we can have a viable fishery. It is something that can be commercially operated at a profit and everyone can do well from it, just as they do on the Great Lakes. However, there is the Government's view that it is some kind of social scheme. People are administering grants, but we do not need to give grants or subsidies. We need to open up the markets and let the Fishermen sell the fish to those new markets for the high prices it will command.
In this country, people should be free to take up the profession of fish dealing if that is what they want to do. It is unthinkable to me that we should restrict anyone from going into that profession.
Finally, I want to bring to your attention, Sir, the great debate that is occurring throughout Canada on liberalizing trade. There is a big debate about the elimination of unnecessary restrictions to interprovincial trade, whether it be in beer, wine or any other commodity. We have entered into a free trade agreement with the United States. We are looking at removing restrictions under the GATT. Let us do the same thing for freshwater fish. Let us have liberalized trade in fish. Let a fisherman have the opportunity to sell his fish to whomever he wants. Let us pass this Bill at second reading stage so that it may have the further consideration in committee that it deserves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Immigration Act, 1976
I do not see five Members rising. Therefore, the motion is negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Nickerson) negatived.




[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 motion of Mr. Lewis:
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate again on the basis of the motion the Government tabled earlier this afternoon. The first part of the motion deals with the technical definition of the term "exigent" when a warrant does not have to be obtained by immigration officials in their search of any records, documents or premises.
The Government has now amended the clause so that the word "include" reads "mean". That obviously makes more precise the definition of the word "exigent" so that it clearly means circumstances in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant under subsection (1) would result in danger to human life, safety or the loss or destruction of anything liable to seizure.
I think it should be pointed out that our Party's position has been to suggest that warrants ought to be obtained in the same way they are obtained under other aspects of Canadian law. As we stated during the debate, we believe that the Government tried to go too far. It has tried to make Immigration officers into Rambo-like creatures who would go across the country and on mere hunches and suspicions enter and ransack any premise to confiscate any document without good cause. It was our position therefore to try to bring some moderation and some clarity to the situation and to have the Government recognize that the provisions by which individuals obtain the necessary search warrants is a system that is working and working effectively. At the same time it protects those rights and privileges that we have as citizens.
We accept this part of the motion in so far as it defines more precisely the circumstances under which a warrant would not be authorized or asked for, that is to say, in the case of life and death and perhaps lots of important materials. This part of the motion grew from discussions in the other place when it was deliberating this Bill in committee. It began as a point raised by Liberal and government Senators alike. Perhaps it is the

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
fruition of the sober second thought which some Members of the Government have called into question. This is a clear example, as is the report of the Senate, from which we will derive benefit. It is a by-product of democracy at work.
The second part of the motion introduced by the Government only a few short hours ago is the more important of the two. Under the legislation which is before us a Minister would have not only the power to turn back the boat, something with which we disagree vehemently, but he would have this power as well as being able to delegate it to his officials and other immigration officers. Our position throughout the debate has been that to turn back the boat is incorrect. It is incorrect on a number of grounds.
The Government must recognize that any boat coming in would not have on board a cargo of wheat or a cargo of steel. We are talking about boats coming into our waters carrying human cargo. There are human beings on board these boats. Obviously and logically there should be some procedure by which we can ascertain who is on board and how many people there are. We should be able to ascertain what are the ages of the people on board and the condition of their health. We should know from where they are coming and if they want to make an application in the process that is offered.
One of the reasons we have argued that the boat should be brought into port is that it is a human response to human beings who deserve at the very least our attention and due process. In this way there will not be a double standard by which people coming in by boat will be refused access into the refugee system and those arriving through our airports will have full access to that system. What we have suggested is that turning back the boat would not only disallow due process to human beings but it would also create the unfortunate situation whereby the mode of transportation will dictate the treatment which a potential refugee will receive.
That is simply unacceptable. If we have one way of proceeding with one refugee application, then the response to all applications should be consistent. It should be uniform. We cannot allow a piece of legislation to say, in effect, to one applicant, "You came in by plane. You are allowed to make a refugee application. Here is the paper and there is the office". We cannot then say to another would-be applicant in the same breath, "You have come in by boat, therefore you do not have the opportunity to make an application". However, it is most likely that that person will not even see the Canadian shores. Thus it is wrong from a human perspective. It is wrong from a procedural perspective as well. It is also wrong from the point of view maintained by this Party that such a provision will not realize the premise or the objective of the legislation which, in the Government's words, is to discourage abuse and to stop manipulators trafficking in human flesh.
We have argued that if we really want to discourage these traffickers then one does not do so by very weakly turning back the boat. Any captain smuggling human beings would obviously have cash on delivery. He would have the money
even before his passengers were on board. Therefore, any captain will say to himself, "Well, I have a 50/50 chance. There is a 50 per cent chance that 1 will get into the country and a 50 per cent chance that I will not. Therefore I will simply go out a little further, dump my cargo overboard or bring it to another part of the Canadian coastline, perhaps undetected, or even deposit these human beings on someone else's shore in another country". It really does not make any difference to the captain because he will have collected his profit already.
We have suggested, as has every single witness who came before the legislative committee of the House of Commons as well as those who appeared before the Senate committee, that if we want to discourage these kinds of traffickers, then for goodness' sakes let us escort them into port. Let the Coast Guard officials bring them into a port of our country. Let us discourage any would-be smuggler from ever coming into Canada again by making a clear example of the captain and the crew that we have under supervision. Once we have them in port we will be able to prosecute such individuals under the law. If they are found guilty, then they can be fined or imprisoned. We can also confiscate the boat and sell it if the individual is found guilty.
We have said that that would send the clearest and strongest message to any other captain who might be loading a boat to make a similar run. If the news were to get back to a port that a captain was fined or he and his crew were imprisoned, that his ship was confiscated, then I believe that that would discourage others from leaving for Canada. Yet if the captain of a second boat heard that the worst thing that happened to the first crew was that they were simply turned around, then I think that that captain would proceed.
We have suggested that if the Government wants to convince Canadians that it wants to stop abuse, then it must follow up with procedures that will allow one to realize that goal rather than playing and indulging in public relations gimmickry which does nothing to discourage people. It somehow satisfies the appetite of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who can say to Canadians, "We are turning back a boat," as if that would really buy him the popularity which he seeks.
On the strength of the testimony received in committee, we in the Liberal Party believe that Canadians are much wiser than the Government gives them credit for Canadians will understand, as I have understood, that there are ways of discouraging abuse and further trafficking, and that turning back a boat does not in fact do that.
By having the crew and the captain in our port, we will be able to interrogate those people. We will ask them, "How much money did you charge? How was it organized? Who else is involved? How extensive is the ring? Where else does the network plan to hit? When? How many people?"
February 2, 1988

Therefore, as a country we would be much wiser and have at our fingertips more information with which to combat and stop the disgusting network of human beings taking advantage of serious situations in the world, and trying to strangle the individual into coughing up their last dollar saved in order to give them misleading information about the promised land.
If we were able to bring the boat in, as a country we would be one step closer to breaking down this illegal, immoral human trade. Yet the Government wants to wash its hands of the whole matter and turn the boat around, as if that would allow us as a country to protect ourselves better. If the boat is turned around, who is to know that the next day another boat will not dock in Vancouver, or the day after in Toronto?
If we send a concerted message that we will deal with those people in the harshest manner possible under due process of the law, and if we send a message that we want to break down this network and get at the epicentre and paralyze it in order that this business would come to an end, then we will be respected. People will say that Canada is taking serious action to stop this type of business. They will be looking for other markets but not Canada.
This would also send a message to other countries and our allies that this is the answer. If Canada imposed this type of tough response, and if that was complemented by other countries doing likewise, then we would be able to overcome this problem on a world-wide basis, rather than having countries turning back boats only to see different boats landing at different times in their country.
How many times can the Government recall Parliament in the middle of the summer and get away with it? How many times can the Government create a crisis? How many times can a progressive and important policy such as the immigration policy afford to be undermined by a Government that is not serious about stopping the problem that it talks about?
Therefore, we are saying that now is our window of opportunity. Now, when the public has focused its attention, because there are many competing issues, is the time for Parliament to deal with it swiftly and correctly rather than in a number of years having Canadians say, "I thought you took care of that. Parliament was recalled on an emergency. You passed legislation that you told us would solve the problem". What is the Government going to tell those Canadians, and why it did not pass the legislation that it should have? In a sense, we are trying to avoid a problem that I envision if this legislation goes through.
The specific motion before us again came from deliberations in the other place. It came from discussions with the Minister and with his staff at committee and after committee. In the report, Senators, including Senators from the government side, vehemently opposed the concept of turning back the boat. But they said that if the Government is to persist with this clause, if the Minister is inflexible, as he was during the summer months, at the very least the power of turning back a boat
Immigration Act, 1976
should be vested solely in the Minister and/or his Deputy Minister.
As the legislation presently stands, it would allow the Minister to delegate this very regressive power to various deputies and officials of the Immigration Department. In its wisdom, the Senate decided that, if this clause is not removed from the Bill, which it hoped the Government would do, then at least the authority under which this can happen should be restricted.
1 believe that that amendment proposed by the Senate and introduced today is the lesser of two evils. We hope that in the dying days of discussion here in the forum of the House of Commons before this Bill gets sent back to the Senate, the Minister and the Government can reach out for the consensus that exists in the House and across the country to change this clause. 1 am hopeful still that the Minister will extend the flexibility that he has shown in recognition that they have erred in a number of important clauses, in order that when it goes to the other place they will have one less thing to worry about.
In the likelihood that they do not, I believe that the House should approve the idea suggested by the Senate that the power to turn back a boat only be vested in the Minister and his Deputy Minister. First, because it is a power that should not be taken lightly. We should not have an immigration official in Nova Scotia, Victoria, or Toronto making that decision. The Minister might not be there. He might be in Cabinet or have other pressing matters to deal with. Immigration officials should not be allowed to make a decision that can affect human beings.
We are suggesting that, if anyone, the Minister should at least be the one to say yes or no to turning back a boat, not only because he is the most important official of the entire Department, but also because he would be politically accountable for what would be a very important decision. Any official out there could be lost in the woodwork, could state that he or she is not politically responsible to the House of Commons, they were doing their job, or there was a communication breakdown. We do not want those excuses when we might have human blood on our hands. At least let us make this decision politically accountable to the electors of this country, as it should be.
From the vantage point that the decision would be very important, we believe that this amendment would be worthy of the support of this Chamber. In closing, I hope that this will not be made necessary if we change the clause regarding turning back the boat, as suggested by the Senate report.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to explain what has not been dealt with until now by the Government's motion and by the comments of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). I fully agree with the comments made by the Hon. Member. I would like to add a couple of comments of my own on each point.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
The first part of the motion is:
That of Bill C-84 be further amended in Clause II by striking out line 2 at
page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
""exigent circumstances" mean circum-"
In other words, on page 13 we have this section: "For the purposes of subsection (5)", which is the one going before, "'exigent circumstances' include circumstances in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant under subsection (1) would result in danger to human life or safety or the loss or destruction of anything liable to seizure". What they are talking about is subsection (5) in Section 103.02. This is a general section which allows officers to seize a boat or to seize anything, and subsection (5) says that an immigration officer or a peace office may exercise any of the powers referred to in subsection (1) without a warrant, if the conditions for obtaining the warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain the warrant.
My Party and I do not agree with this section. We think it is excessive, and therefore we do not agree with this subsection. However, since our objections have been overridden by the Government and Parliament, and the objections of the other place have been overridden by the Government, there is this one very small change to which the Government has agreed and with which my Party and I agree. In other words, it is a question of limiting the scope of this subsection which says that they can take the action without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances that would not make it practical to get a warrant.
The way they had written it first was broad enough to drive a herd of elephants through. They said that exigent circumstances include circumstances in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant would result in danger to life or safety or destruction of anything liable to seizure. Now they limit it to say that exigent circumstances mean those circumstances. They cannot use any other circumstances. If they cannot prove that delay to get a warrant would result in danger to human life, or that it would result in danger to human safety, or that it would result in the loss or destruction of anything liable to seizure, anything that they have a right to seize; if they cannot prove one of those three points, then of course they cannot act without that warrant.
It seems like a very reasonable point, and I am glad that the other place pointed out the utter folly of opening it wide open by saying: "Well, it just includes those reasons, but of course a judge would have to say, if the question came up, that it could go far beyond those reasons". This is a small improvement on an otherwise bad clause, but the clause is going through, so I am glad to have the damage limited a little bit in that sense.
The other part of the motion is more important. It reads:
That the Bill be further amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 16 at
page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"82.1(2), 83(1) and 91.1(1), and any such power,".
Standing by itself of course that does not mean anything to anybody. However, when we look at page 24, we find that this is the section which gives the Minister or the Deputy Minister the authority to delegate their power to officials of the Department and, in the middle of a long paragraph that delegates that power, there are certain exceptions made, certain actions for which the Minister or Deputy Minister are not permitted to delegate their power. Only the Minister or the Deputy Minister may do the things listed here. There is a number of them, but in the line we are dealing with it is 82.1(2), 83(1), and now they are adding 91.1(1). In other words, this limits the authority of the Minister to leave an important decision to a lower official.
When we turn to 91.1 we find that it is in fact a very important decision. This decision, 91.1, is the decision to turn back the ship. I think all the people who have spoken against this Bill, either when it was in the House or when it was in the other place, would agree that this is a good amendment.
The clause itself is an outrageous one, as has been said by everybody who has spoken to this during the past-half year and more, except of course for the Minister and his officials. They are the only ones who defended it. The clause says that the Minister has the power to turn back a ship at sea.
I won't repeat what I have said in the House, what many others have said in the House, or what the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has just said. I won't repeat how bad that clause is, but bad as it is to have the danger to the passengers, bad as it is to have the failure to punish the captain, this amendment can limit the damage that would be done because only the Minister or his Deputy can do it.
Pardon me, I have been mistaken. It is not the Minister's Deputy. Only the Minister can do it. If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within our territorial waters is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of the Act, and so on, he may, after having regard to the safety of the vehicle and the convention and the vehicle's contents, direct the vehicle to leave, and so on.
If that were left as it had been and any minor official could have that power delegated to him, and if there were disaster because of it, or if the law were made ineffective because people were turned away and slipped back again the next night, and if that were done by a minor official, the Minister could escape responsibility; perhaps fire the official but the Minister would escape responsibility and the public would have no real recourse, legal or political.
However, with this amendment nobody in the land except the Minister will be able to order a ship to be turned back. If the Minister does that, he knows that he will be subject to very close public scrutiny for what he has done. He knows that if the law is mocked because the captain just goes away and tries again, or he knows that if there is evidence that passengers have been harmed as a result of that turning away of the ship, then he pays the political price for it as a Minister. He is
February 2, 1988

publicly accountable for what he has done either to the passengers or to the law in that case.
Therefore, I am sure that the Minister will be very careful about what he does. It is even quite possible that he may not use that power. Unfortunately, that still does not deal with the point that we have been making, that it will be better to arrest the ship or whatever is the naval term, or seize the ship at sea by the power of our Coast Guard or whatever we need, and the captain and the passengers, and bring them into port. If the captain is believed to have done wrong, charge him and try him according to the law, and the passengers should be dealt with according to our law as those who have come to the country. Perhaps some of them will have come without proper visas and so on. Perhaps some will claim refugee status.
That would have been a much better way of dealing with it, but the Government has consistently refused to carry out effectively what it said last summer was absolutely urgent and necessary. It could have had that law passed through both Houses and proclaimed law last August if the Government had seriously carried out what it said it intended to do so, which was to enact a measure to discourage this kind of dishonest action by a captain. It did not seriously intend to do that. The public begged and urged the Government to do that, but it would not. That chance is now being lost by the action of the Government. Nevertheless, the folly and the potential active harm is limited because the Minister will know that he and no one else is answerable to the public.
There is one further piece of harm though, which even this amendment will not prevent. This law has already sent a contrary signal to many other countries and Governments in the world. There were Governments, especially in the southwestern Pacific, which had been turning ships away. The Vietnamese boat people ships, in particular, were turned away, let go adrift at sea, and they were pushed off the beach. Canada was in the lead of the western countries which rebuked them for that and said the action was inhuman. Civilized people do not treat boat people like that. We urged them to stop the practice. We even offered at that time to take the burden of some of those refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees was very thankful for Canada's strong voice saying it is wrong to turn ships away at sea.
Now Canada has said, according to the Government, that it has changed its mind. Canadian people, to whom the Nansen Medal was awarded, have not said that. Every public delegation and every non-departmental delegation which spoke on this spoke against turning away the ships. But the action of the Canadian Government now sends a message, whether to the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, to Singapore, on to whoever it is in the southwestern Pacific, saying that Canada has reversed its position. It is now decided that civilized nations like Canada can and will turn ships away at sea.
Immigration Act, 1976
The misfortune is that even if the Minister, or perhaps another Minister who follows him or has more sense than this Minister, never applies that clause and never turns a ship away at sea, the example is set by that clause, by its adoption in this House last year and by the motion that the Government wishes to have adopted now. It is a very destructive one and will seriously damage the whole work of refugee protection throughout the world, not just in Canada.
I regret very much that the Government has been so hardhearted and willing to contradict the stand that Canada took as recently as two years ago over the wrongness of turning away ships. But at least, as I say, the potential damage is now to be restricted by this amendment. I would assume that the House will be adopting the last motion unanimously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, both the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) and I were trying to get the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I already asked whether the House was ready for the question. The Hon. Member for Regina West-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, maybe it is easy to miss me, but the Hon. Member for the Yukon was on her feet.


An Hon. Member:: She was not.


An Hon. Member:: The question was called several times.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that there was some sort of agreement among House Leaders prior to the Hon. Member coming into the Chamber that both the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) would be heard on the motion of the Minister of State and that we would then put the question. If there is unanimous consent to hear the Hon. Member, fine. We have all evening.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was on my House Leader's list.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Government does very much want to proceed with this legislation and we would like to see a vote right now. But I was not in my place to hear the suggestion that there had been an agreement. To the best of my knowledge I must tell the Chair there has been no agreement that the list would be finished.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
There was general agreement that the list was petering out, but by no means was there an agreement that the number of speakers would be curtailed. We have to so advise the Chair.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry there appears to be some misunderstanding with respect to the agreement we reached earlier this afternoon. That agreement was simply to allow the critics for the two opposition Parties to speak on the last motion, which we did not have to allow but we did. If we had not made that agreement, the critics would not have been able to speak on that motion since they had already spoken on the main motion. We agreed to treat the motion as if it had been part of the main motion in the first place.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is correct.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I must say that we did not have to deal with this motion, and one would have thought that there would have been some forbearance on the part of the Government with respect to a motion to extend the hours of sitting. If that was not the case, we will remember it for another occasion.
I do want to say that there has been some misunderstanding with respect to the agreement reached earlier. I respectfully say to you that if your reason for not recognizing the Hon. Member from Saskatchewan, who is seeking the floor, was that there was an agreement to stop the debate after the two opposition critics have spoken, then I respectfully submit that the grounds for your decision are not accurate. I ask you to take my comments into account.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have no problem with that.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm what my two colleagues have indicated. The agreement was to allow the two critics to have an opportunity to make some remarks on the main motion and that we would then follow the normal procedures of this House in terms of Members speaking.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have spoken yet on the main motion. I do have some matters that I want to raise as a result of my own experience and what I have learned from Canadian history on this issue.
A little study of Canadian history shows that Canadians for about the last 200 years have aided and abetted people on numerous occasions getting into this country who claim to be and turn out to be refugees. There were a few-there will always be some who get through the net for a while-who turned out not to be refugees. Our history tells us that Canadians without or in spite of the federal authorities'
approval have helped refugees. That has occurred on countless occasions in our history even before Confederation.
People who came to this country in its earliest days were escaping from dictatorship, privation, starvation, imprisonment, and constant fear for their lives. I suppose what we call a refugee today would not be the same in the terminology used then. However, they were refugees of some kind from regimes under which they could not live in peace and with some degree of security and opportunity. Over the years hundreds of thousands of Canadians have gone to extraordinary lengths to help those people without the support or approval of federal authorities. I think about the underground railroad from about 1850 to the middle 1860s when churches and individuals aided and abetted the smuggling into this country of blacks from anywhere and everywhere in the U.S. It was smuggling, in many instances, at great peril to both the smuggler and the person being smuggled. In those days they did not suffer the approbation of the federal authority or what passed for any kind of immigration appeal board. No one in this House would now denigrate or decry the efforts made by those people in that operation.
Let us come to later years. I remember as a youngster in what was then and is still called today a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant family, hearing the grown-ups talk about all those bohunks who got into this country during and following World War I right up to the beginning of World War II. Those people came here from many parts of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. Thank goodness! Some of the children and grandchildren of those so-called bohunks occupy this Chamber. Had we a law in place such as is proposed by the Government, they would not have made it.
We were called back here on August 18 for a so-called national emergency. Some 157 people showed up in a boat off the coast of Nova Scotia. Did the people of that province rise up in arms and say "You cannot let these people in"? No, they welcomed them, made them peanut butter sandwiches and tea and coffee and gave them shelter. That seems to me to be the state of mind and attitude of the people of this country. Yet the Government reacted with the typical 19th century mindless, inconsiderate attitude which has existed among many previous federal Governments in this country going back well over 100 years, to our everlasting shame. I suppose it is because of that everlasting shame that so many Canadians remember and do not want to repeat the same errors of omission and commission.
A boatload of Sikhs arrived off the shores of this country about 80 years ago. It caused an uproar. Our national authorities said those people could not be admitted. They had been escaping oppression, some of it under British colonial rule, and of course some 80 years ago we were still something of a British colony. There was much official approbation about allowing these Sikh refugees in, and refugees are what they would be under today's terms given the conditions under which
February 2, 1988

they were living 80 years ago. About 30 years later a boat carrying over 900 Jewish refugees arrived off Canada's shores. We turned them away.
There are some very old teachings in Christianity about sanctuary. It applies even to our actual physical church buildings in which one can seek sanctuary. Sanctuary can take a variety of forms for a variety of reasons. I think this country was victimized by what could at best be called panic button pushing last August because 157 Tamils arrived off our shores from Sri Lanka, via West Germany, or anywhere else. The response of the Government with this legislation flies in the face of the activities of hundreds of thousands of Canadians for something over 150 years, the provision of sanctuary. They provided succour in aiding and abetting those people to enter Canada. Three or four generations later many of their great grandchildren and great great grandchildren are honoured citizens of this nation. To bring in a law in this day and age that makes people who are active in helping refugees from many nations guilty of aiding and abetting the entry of those poor souls into our nation flies in the face of our history and I strongly and profoundly believe flies in the face of how most Canadians sincerely and strongly feel about this matter.
Of course, there will be a few, a very small few, who will abuse and misuse our generosity, our humanitarian instincts, our traditions, and our history. There will be some, no doubt about it, but 1 would rather take a chance on the few who would abuse our hospitality and sanctuary and err than penalize the vast majority who are entitled, under all the international agreements to which we are party and under our own history and activities as Canadians for over a century and a half, to the fullest consideration under our law.
Our law has gradually become more generous as time has passed. For many years we have been generally in concert with the United Nations Declaration on Refugees and Human Rights. We have been ahead of most countries, even with some, and behind a few others. However, generally speaking we have a reasonably good record. I think that is mainly because the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not want to repeat the terrible acts of omission and commission carried out by governments of the day in previous times in our country.
I do not think any Hon. Member of this House wants to be a party to retrogressing to the attitudes and states of mind which prevailed on earlier occasions. Surely we can do no less than to extend the fullest process to anyone and everyone who comes to our shores claiming refugee status. Our laws must provide to the fullest extent for complete hearings, even when there is doubt, just as we treat our veterans of four wars.
If there is any doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the veteran. If there is any doubt with regard to those who want sanctuary in our nation but we cannot prove differently under the rule of law, the benefit of doubt must go to the person to
Immigration Act, 1976
whom we are giving sanctuary until they themselves, by their actions and deeds, prove otherwise. Surely that is the least we can do in a society which claims to be civilized and humanitarian, which claims to adhere to international agreements and treaties.
I am endeavouring to be non-partisan because 1 think there are many people of all political stripes in this nation who feel as do you and I, Sir, about the people who seek sanctuary, who are escaping from things about which our forefathers knew but which we do not comprehend. Our forefathers were able to get here by one means or another, and I like to think that the generations in this Chamber and the generations out there younger than us will remember that because they learned of it from their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.
Everyone who came to this country since 1982 could, I suppose, in the vernacular of the day when I was a child, be called bohunks regardless of from which country they came. My grandfather came out of the pits and mines in Wales. He was poor and ended up working on the CPR tracks in the interior of British Columbia in 1902. I suppose you could call him a white Anglo-Saxon bohunk, the terminology which we used in reference to people who came from central and eastern Europe in the twenties and thirties and the fifties and sixties. It is interesting to study history and consider who the people are who make up this nation, from where they came, and what they contributed.
In the name of humanity, in the name of Christian ethics, in the name of mankind, even if we err and let some slip through the net who could be terrorists, I would rather err on that side than take a chance of excluding 156 of 157 Tamils who are not terrorists and do not have a criminal record. I would rather take a chance on a handful slipping through and taking advantage of our system than condemn thousands and thousands by withholding from them a Christian, civilized, and democratic right to sanctuary, decent treatment, and the fullest benefit of our laws and society.
The Government has risen to temporary and so-called public opinion against people who would abuse our system to get ahead in the line-up. There are ways of correcting getting ahead in the line-up. You do not stop the whole darn line-up just to satisfy a small minority in this nation who have some ancient, archaic, and out-moded idea about the purity of the Canadian system. If it were not for the contribution to this country by people of every race and religion known to mankind, our nation would not be as good as it is.
1 ask that the Government go back to the drawing board and reconsider what it is doing. I am the last one in this Chamber to express any sympathy for the other place. I have been one of those, since I was much younger, who believe it should be abolished, that it is an anachronism of the 19th century. However, I will give members of that place credit, along with many Members in this Chamber, for standing up against a bad piece of legislation and for trying to make a bad piece of

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
legislation better. I hope the Government will accept that and accept many of these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize Members for questions and comments or further debate I would like to recognize the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the House Leaders and 1 think you will find general agreement to the following proposition:
That the vote on the business before the House be deferred until 6 p.m.
Wednesday, tomorrow:
That it has been agreed that there will be no quorum calls by Members of
the House during the process of the rest of debate;
That there will be no need to force a recorded division;
That it has been understood that that recorded division will be at 6 p.m.,
Wednesday, and;
That when no other speaker seeks the floor the House will be adjourned
until 2 p.m. Wednesday next.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what the Deputy Government House Leader said does reflect the understanding we reached in the discussions a few minutes ago. However, I want to add one suggestion. If the business before the House tomorrow afternoon, that is report stage of Bill C-60, concludes before six o'clock, such that there is a vote on that report stage before six o'clock, then the vote on this measure be taken immediately after the vote or votes on report stage of Bill C-60 so that there will be no hiatus between the end of report stage of Bill C-60 and six o'clock.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 am amenable to that suggestion. In order that we do not keep anyone else on tenter hooks during that period, I suggest that if there is a time gap the Government would not intend to call any more business other than Bill C-60 and we could agree to postpone that vote until six o'clock as well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to lend our support for this request for unanimous consent to enable the vote to be deferred. However, I feel moved to indicate that earlier today we also agreed to provide unanimous consent for the Government to introduce two motions that it felt appropriate. We all agreed to do that.
I want to say that it is unfortunate that we are debating this tonight as a result of a Government initiative, going against the traditions of this House as we normally do business. It is unfortunate that the Government decided to move in this way, in terms of encouraging more co-operation from the Opposition in the future.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to debate the main import of the motion that has been proposed by the Government. I want to support the comments made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) in expressing regret at the fact the Government has decided to prolong the sitting of the House tonight rather than carry on as normal.
I am concerned about that because 1 think this is bad legislation. Rather than listening to what the Senate and people from this Party and the Official Opposition have been trying to tell the Government, it is determined to barrel through. While 1 do not know its agenda, it seems to want to barrel through with a proposal that will prove unworkable, unconstitutional, that will ultimately sour relations with many countries in the world and certainly offend many well-meaning Canadians who are concerned about Canada's role as a safe haven for victims of oppression in different parts of the world.
Let me remind the House that the kind of efforts that have been made to scare Canadians and make them paranoid about refugees coming to this country are entirely unjustified. There has been absolutely no evidence that people who have claimed refugee status to come into Canada have turned out to be threats to the national security of this country. In fact, it is remarkable the degree to which refugees who, having found a safe haven, have settled down to become productive members of our society, often under difficult circumstances because of the difference between their homeland from which they were forced to flee and this country.
This legislation is reprehensible because of the degree to which it will make Canadians criminals. Even if the Deputy Attorney General is required to sign a process against people who are deemed to have been assisting in the illegal entry into Canada of people claiming to be refugees, most refugees apart from those who are well heeled financially are probably breaking some law. They arrive here without papers from their home country because of an oppressive Government that will not give them travel documents or permit them to leave the country legally. If they do not have travel documents they cannot get a Canadian visa.
If they went to a Canadian high commission or embassy in their home country they would immediately be marked by the secret police of a dictatorial government in their homeland as someone trying to buck the regime by leaving. We saw the example of a person in El Salvador who sought a visa and was subsequently killed by the death squads before she was able to leave and come to Canada with the Canadian permit she was able to get. The act of seeking the paper was enough for her to become a marked woman and, as a consequence, she was killed.
Canadians who respond to that kind of situation will be subject to prosecution. Whether or not that prosecution takes place, nevertheless it will have a chilling effect on those Canadians who may wish to reach out and seek to give sanctuary to people coming in.
February 2, 1988



Mr. Speaker, I have had some experience in these matters, because during the sixties I was directly involved in a program to help Americans who were refugees because they were dodging the draft in their country during the war in Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, some of these Americans were risking very severe penalties, because they were already enrolled in the Armed Forces and subsequently deserted to come to Canada. Fortunately, the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time, Mr. Mitchell Sharp-in fact, I discussed the matter with him recently-had established at the beginning of the two World Wars, when Canada was at war with Germany and the United States had not yet entered the war . . . What did the Americans do about Canadians who left Canada to go to the United States, after breaking the law in this country and deserting from the Canadian Army? The United Stares took them in. Mr. Sharp decided that in this case the Government would do likewise.
Nevertheless, when I was helping these people who challenged U.S. policy, I was uneasy, even if I was not breaking the law. When I went to the border to help someone cross the Canadian border to enter Canada legally, after they had first entered Canada illegally as visitors intending to stay in Canada, I was worried. It was a scary experience.
Now suppose we tell priests and members of religious communities and all those people who want to help: You will be subject to severe penalties. You will be committing a crime by helping refugees. In that case, the safe haven now afforded by Canada will disappear.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Senate Committee's report where it says, in summarizing the testimony given by the vast majority of witnesses who appeared before the Committee, and I quote:
All of the witnesses before the Committee agreed that abuse of our immigration laws must stop. However, they pointed out that the drastic measures in this bill will not affect only those who would come to abuse our refugee system. For example, any person approaching our borders without proper documents-whether, engaged in a fraudulent scheme or fleeing from persecution and danger-would be subject to the same measures.
So here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. A Canadian who helps and provides a safe haven for one of these refugees may incur sanctions under the Criminal Code of Canada, no matter whether the individual has gained fraudulent entry into Canada or whether he will simply not flee from persecution and danger.
This individual might be detained for a month without his case being the object of impartial review ...
Now it would be seven days.
If he was engaged in resistance against the government of the country from which he fled, he might be detained longer and described as being a security threat.
No change, Mr. Speaker, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service might decide that this individual who claims refugee status is indeed a threat against the security of a government. Then one of the reasons why this individual fled
Immigration Act, 1976
from his native country is that his security was threatened and the government of his country treated him as if he was a threat to the security of the country. Had the individual been engaged in resistance against the government of the country from which he escaped, he could be detained much longer and considered as being a security threat here in Canada, never mind the fact that there is no proof that these refugees-as a class-who came to Canada, and we did welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees over the past forty years, are a threat to Canadian security.
Again I quote the Senate committee:
Canadians who assist people arriving in Canada without the necessary documents would be subject to prosecution, including those doing humanitarian work by looking after refugees, the very field of activity where Canada has gained international recognition.
Mr. Speaker, our international reputation will be tarnished as a result of Bill C-84.
As well, I am worried that a lot of what we are talking about is not necessary. Earlier today, I pointed out that there was a consensus that had emerged about how Canada's refugee determination process could be tightened up and accelerated so that false refugee claimants would very quickly find themselves sent back to their homelands at great cost. They would have paid refugee or immigration counsellors, they would have paid for their flights, they might have sold their farms or businesses but then found themselves a month or two later on their way back to their homelands, much the poorer for the experience of having tried to enter Canada by declaring themselves refugees and having their claims determined to be unfounded.
Word gets out pretty quickly. There would be articles in the press and electronic media in those counties indicating that 200 or so refugee claimants were returned from Canada. The message would pass through the village market-places, the cities and towns, the clubs and sporting events, "Do not try to come to Canada if you do not have a case". We would very quickly see that particular source of refugee claimants dry up. People would no longer try to avoid the rules or jump the queue in that way.
In addition, I think we need to be talking quite seriously about the whole question of immigration levels. We know that Canada is one of the most desirable countries in the world. In many ways, it is even more desirable than the United States because Canada has a much better network of social security and because people see that this country does not have the negative downside which is the underside of the American dream.
Could I ask for order, Mr. Speaker, from my hon. colleagues?

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If Hon. Members wish to have conversations, could they please have them behind the curtain? I am referring to both the Hon. Member's colleague and the other colleague. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor for debate and cannot seem to hear himself speak in the Chamber. If the Hon. Member does have something to say, could he say it behind the curtain?


Mr. Lesick:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Of course, I always respect opposition Members whenever they do speak, but whenever one of their Members comes to speak to me regarding an important matter, I would hope that he would remove his earplugs so that he could hear himself better than he hears us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would appreciate some decorum. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I am very concerned about the whole question of levels of immigration. One of the reasons people have tried to use the refugee process rather than normal immigration channels is because those normal immigration channels have been plugged. Levels of immigration are far below the targets set every year. The targets themselves are inadequate. Net immigration for Canada is far below what we need for the potential we have in this country. Frankly, with the potential Canada offers, I believe that we ourselves are in danger of giving offence by not bearing our share of those persons who wish to come here.
The immigration policy is now putting so much emphasis and person power on encouraging entrepreneurial immigrants that the brothers, sisters and friends of the people who live in my constituency who do not happen to have those advantages cannot get into Canada. Some of them wind up saying they are refugees because that is a way they have found to get into Canada when they cannot come in the front door. I am afraid that that is one of the realities of the situation now.
If we could just take some of the resources that go into the refugee process and use them to encourage, in a way that is fair and open, the necessary increases in immigration and in services to immigrants once they have arrived here, we might be in a healthier situation than the one we are in right now. Unfortunately, the Government has not been prepared to do that. As a consequence, we have instead Bill C-84.
I must ask myself what in fact is the agenda the Government is pursuing. It is trying to make Canadians believe that there is an absolute fleet of boats waiting to come to Canada, so they will cut it off. The total number of boatloads of people seeking to come to Canada in the life of this Government has been two.
Whether it is Sikhs from India or Tamils from Sri Lanka, there certainly is a case for considering that those persons may in fact have some legitimate claims as refugees. Those claims can and should be determined quickly so that if people are
eligible to stay, they may stay, and if they are not eligible to stay, they will be sent back to their homelands.
It is worth noting that Punjab in India which I visited last March is in a state of governor's rule, rule by the central government, and there are some dreadful atrocities taking place there. It is a very unhappy place. We know that the Indian Army has been involved in Sri Lanka and as well there have been acts in Sri Lanka which appear to be violations of human rights directed against the Tamil population. There is a war-like state in portions of that country because of the situation between the Tamils and the majority population. It is not necessarily easy for any of us to reach a snap judgment and say, "Well, anybody who is a Tamil coming into Canada is obviously not a refugee, or anybody who is a Sikh coming into Canada is obviously not a refugee". To some extent that depends on the rules and on their interpretation which is why we have a refugee determination process.
It is clear that situations change over time. For example, a Palestinian who sought to come into Canada as a refugee six months ago might not have been acceptable at that time. It might be that under the refugee determination rules which are in force now Palestinians seeking to enter Canada today would be considered eligible since conditions have changed in a regrettable way in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. I do not know. I think we need to have some kind of flexibility about all of this. If it is felt that the level of refugees coming into the country is totally excessive, then I believe we have to consider that. But that is not the case now. We are talking about perhaps 10 per cent at the most of the total number of immigrants coming into Canada. I believe that is a tolerable level for a country which has been as open hearted as Canada has been.
I just had some new cards printed up for use in my constituency. They state, "Member of Parliament, depute, deputato", which represents three of the linguistic groups in my riding. They are also in Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic. We know the situation in Lebanon which is from where most of the population of Arab origin in my riding come. We know the situation in Vietnam and that so many people fled that country to come to Canada as refugees. It is worth noting that a significant number of the Chinese who are now here in Canada were also refugees either from Vietnam or in certain cases from the People's Republic. This is the ethnic mix in just one central city constituency.
My forebear back in the 1820s was subject to oppression by the British who brought Protestants into Ireland to take the best land. They sucked the country dry at the time of the Great Famine. In the 1840s Ireland was actually a net exporter of food. Yet the people were starving to the point where the population fell by 1 million or more in the course of 10 or 15 years. Eventually, my ancestor had a fight with his landlord and came to Canada the next day. The rest of the family followed. They made a great contribution to Canada.
February 2, 1988

When 1 was a young boy growing up in Toronto in the 1940s there was talk that I deplore about what were called displaced persons, DPs, refugees. The Reichmanns might have been considered DPs or refugees. Frank Stronach, the owner of Magna International, might have been considered that as well.
I asked myself if someone had helped Frank Stronach into the country, would he or she now be subject to the penalties that are to be found in Bill C-84? The answer is quite probably yes.
If someone like Frank Stronach came today from Africa or from Asia and could not obtain direct transit to come into the country or could not afford it, then could he come into Canada as a refugee under this Bill? The answer is no. That is why when the vote is taken tomorrow my colleagues and I will oppose the Government's rejection of the Senate amendments on Bill C-84. I plead with the Government to review the situation to try to make a decision on the basis of consensus rather than on the basis of confrontation.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who has a great deal of experience in his constituency and in some of his previous work in the matter of immigration. I think his comments are quite relevant to the basic problem that is before us.
One of the points that he made is that this Bill is likely to offend many other nations. I can think of various ways that it might offend either the nation from which refugees come, the nation to which a ship is returned, the nation owning the ship or other nations which are concerned with helping refugees.
I am wondering if the Hon. Member will explain a little further. I know that he is actively concerned with matters concerning the external affairs of Canada. He has been on parliamentary delegations and visited places such as India. Can he tell us what he thinks will be the offensive impact of Bill C-84 on some of the other nations with which we have to deal, whether they are nations in the western hemisphere, Europe, Africa or Asia?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for his question. 1 would say that we are talking about two groups of nations. One group will be delighted at this legislation, or will at least tend to support it. The other group will be offended.
Which are the countries which will be delighted by this legislation? I think that General Pinochet will be delighted by it. I think that General Mobutu will be delighted that Canada will not serve as a haven for refugees from his oppressive regime in Zaire. I think that President Botha of South Africa will be pleased with the legislation which, among other things, may make it harder for members of the African National Congress to come to Canada. I could go on and on in terms of citing repressive and oppressive regimes around the world which, if they notice what Canada is doing, will note that for once Canada is lining up with their views of the world and not with the view that has been traditionally taken by Canada.
Immigration Act, 1976
Who will be offended by this legislation? I think that groups such as the Red Cross in Geneva and world-wide will be offended by it. I think that Amnesty International, which has been fighting for human liberties and rights around the world, will be offended by it. I think that the various Helsinki watch groups, remnants of which still survive in parts of the Soviet Union and some of the eastern European countries, will be offended by it. I think that those countries at the United Nations which have looked to Canada to provide leadership in the field of international human rights will be deeply offended by this legislation. They will see that far from adding to the solution of human rights problems that Canada is in a small way becoming a part of the problem.
One of the most dangerous features of this legislation is the following. Canada, through Bill C-84, is setting a precedent which will reinforce certain countries in western Europe which have been unduly tightening their refugee legislation and which may encourage other countries that have not done so to do so in the future. In other words, legislation such as this feeds on itself. In other countries there are immigration bureaucrats who will say to their ministers or legislators, "Look, Canada saw that it had to bring in Draconian legislation, we had better do the same thing. Canada is turning people away. If we do not do something then all of the people that Canada turns away will come to us". We will feed paranoia rather than aid generosity.
There are a great many countries around the world which traditionally have been generous and looked to Canada for leadership. They will be offended by this Bill.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there are 102 countries that are signators to the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. Since the Hon. Member feels that the Canadian legislation is so terrible, can he tell us what other countries in the world are more generous in their refugee policies than is Canada?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member might have asked his question of one of the specialists in this particular area, such as my colleague from Spadina. I do not pretend to know the answer to that question. What I do know is this. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that his adherence and allegiance to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms somehow stops at the ocean's edge and does not apply to persons who come here seeking the protection of Canada as refugees and does not receive the protection of Canadian laws and of our Constitution because one happens to be the wrong colour, comes from the wrong place or does not have enough money to take a direct flight into Canada, then I find that a very reprehensible kind of situation. I believe that Canada has to make laws concerning refugees open and generous. We can afford to do that.
Traditionally, we have provided leadership in this area to other countries. We should continue to do so. I believe that our Charter of Rights should be respected in legislation. We should not leave it to the Supreme Court to tell Parliament

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
that we erred on Bill C-84 against rights and liberties that are guaranteed in the Constitution.


William Lesick: I have listened to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and he has mentioned many things that I question. He stated that the western European nations are listening to their bureaucrats. He has not offered any proof of that, he has offered only a comment. I ask him to offer proof that the bureaucrats of western European nations are throwing true refugees out of their countries, and that the members of their Parliaments are listening to the bureaucrats.
1 am wondering what all Canadians are feeling, not what the world is thinking about Canada, and about how the countries of the world are asking if Canadians are doing the best for true refugees. Of course, we are. We are known for that. But we have to put a stop to those who are coming in here illegally, and those who are sneaking into this country. They have to bear the price of their follies, whether it is the fact that they paid too much money to get someone to sneak them into this country illegally, or whether it is the fact that they were stopped and asked, "Do we know if you are a criminal? Do we know if you are a person of good moral stature who should be living in this country?" We are a sovereign nation.
I would like to ask the Member for Ottawa Centre to comment on this, not from his point of view, but to sit back and answer truthfully as to whether he feels that the majority of the people of Canada are willing to let everyone in and hopefully no one will be a criminal, and hopefully no one will kill or do any harm to anyone in this country, but let us accept all of them, and hopefully we will eventually eliminate those who should not have been here in the first place.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I remind the Hon. Member that in my comments I pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence that people who have come into Canada as refugees and stayed here are security risks or criminals. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. 1 would point out to the Hon. Member that the question of coming in as false refugees is a question on which there was agreement on all sides of the House. We do not think that thousands of people should come in from Portugal or Brazil because immigration counsellors have led them on and told them that there is a way that they can get into Canada.
We have suggested, together with the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, and Rabbi Plaut in his report, means by which those people could be quickly turned around and discouraged. The word would get back and very quickly that flow would be choked off. 1 do not believe there was a problem with that, except that the Government refused to listen to those particular questions.
When the Hon. Member asks whether I think that people who come illegally into this country should be turned back, he does not realize how far he is going over the line. It is impossible for a person who is oppressed in Central America or in
Chile to come to Canada with a visa and with all of the legal requirements. The bulk of legitimate refugees who are in transit around the world are guilty of some illegality or another because they could not move if they sought to act legally.
Therefore, the Hon. Member is saying, and with Bill C-84 the Government is saying, that all of those legitimate refugees will effectively be forced to endure oppression in their homeland because they will not be able to come to Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-84 and the amendments put forward by the Senate. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) had an opportunity to correct some inequities in Bill C-84. For the benefit of those who are following the debate, Bill C-84 is the refugee legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before us reflects the hard-nosed attitude of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who put it forward-it reflects his heartless character. And I will tell you how the legislation led to a couple of further actions by the Minister of Employment and Immigration that clearly prove his lack of understanding and his lack of a humane approach to problems.
It will be remembered that the same Minister of Employment and Immigration put a tragic end to the Katimavik program for the young. The Minister could have said: 1 am curtailing the program, but I am replacing it by something just as significant. But with his obstinacy, his whip-wielding, headmaster attitude, he turned a deaf ear on representations made by the young, Members in this House, even senators, and Canadians generally-he refused to do anything, with the definite purpose of showing who was the headmaster. He clearly showed that although he has an angel face and the outward look of St. Peter, he actually has a heart of stone.
The second remark deals with the second legislation and the Minister's behaviour toward workers, middle-aged workers hurt by unemployment insurance cuts. And no later than noon today, Mr. Speaker, in answer to my questions the Minister said he did not mind if a middle-aged worker that lost his job, for example with Weston and Hygrade, was not entitled to UI benefits because he was getting a pension-that it was all the same to him, there was nothing he could do. His mind is set, he gives nothing.
And today, on the refugee legislation he has the same attitude, the same rigid approach, a basic lack of humane approach to and understanding of individuals.
February 2, 1988

Mr. Speaker, it must be mentioned that we have been recalled in August by the Minister. The Government recalled Parliament in August because it believed a boat load of refugees was coming. It requested guns, planes, F-18's that went hunting over the sea for a ship that would be coming with ten people aboard. All they found was a way to spend taxpayers' money, to have us sit here in August, but he is no better off than before he put the legislation foward. This is nothing but a scenario for prodding the people so they would oppose and fear refugees.
Mr. Speaker, the people in Quebec and Canada are humane people. People in Quebec and Canada are generous. They proved it in the past, and they still are proving it today. Just as the Canadian and Quebec people, Members of the Opposition feel that we should try to stop the illegitimate refugees who are abusing the system. But we should make sure we deal with the real culprit. I suggest that the amendments proposed by the Senate made that possible. The approach of the Minister is, whenever he believes a ship has illegitimate refugees on board, he should order the ship to leave or not enter Canadian waters; according to the Senate's proposal, which is similar to that put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), who is doing a fantastic job on this issue, the Minister should say simply. Well, let us take this ship into port. Let us arrest and punish the culprit who has exploited these people. But because of his attitude, the Minister is jeopardizing the lives of the passenger by turning the ships around; the Government is waiting for someone to die in Canada or abroad to become sensible and change the legislation, as it did in the case of paternity leaves.
Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that this logical, sensible and humane approach sought to discourage those who were taking advantage of people's kindness. Concerning the bill as introduced, my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) was right to mention Nelson Mandela, a South African individual who is fighting to promote equality, eradicate Apartheid, a sort of racism based on colour ... As recently as this morning, during Jean Cournoyer's radio program heard in Quebec, someone mentioned that a person was treated like an animal because of the black colour of his skin. This individual would like to flee his homeland to come to Canada because his life is at risk. Well, the Minister of Employment and Immigration-not with the support, 1 am sure, of a great many Conservative Members who are people of conscience-would return this individual who does not meet the criteria. As a terrorist, he is unacceptable. Yet, it is only someone who wants to fight for his rights. If the Minister of Employment and Immigration had been faced with such a situation, he might have reacted more violently than Mr. Mandela did in his own country. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this Bill is that it does not make any distinctions in dealing with those who abuse the system and illegitimate refugees. It is like taking a canon to kill a fly in a room where there are 100 people. Everyone will be killed because of one fly, because of one little problem.
Immigration Act, 1976
There is another aspect. I believe that the Minister is determined to show that he is a proud man who does not give in to pressure, but in fact, he is gaining nothing. In real life, there is nothing to gain by thinking that you are right and everyone else is wrong, because the Official Opposition is not alone in denouncing the Bill introduced by the Conservative Government, and the Senate is not alone either. I believe that everyone knows that I do not hold the Senate in such a high esteem, but the Senators have played an important role in this issue and they are earning their pay. They are paid to study the Bills passed by the House of Commons and to return them to us. The Minister has to recognize that the Senators have done a good job because he was forced to accept amendments on points he had not noticed before. This shows that the Senate did a good job. Then, there are all the groups concerned, all the church groups, whether they are Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, all the pressure groups, all the people who work closely with refugees, because a refugee is not someone who has just won $100,000 in a lottery. He does not behave the same way as other people. He is fleeing his country because he is being threatened. He might have suffered for years. He might have seen his father and mother getting killed, he might have children, brothers and sisters, but he was able to escape.
We are not talking about someone who happens to teach the children of the Prime Minister. If someone else than Mulroney had been elected, that teacher would not be here. But as he teaches the Prime Minister's children, he has his papers. However, he was not being threatened in France. A refugee is someone who has to use desperate means and rely on other people who want to help him. I read in the speech made by my colleague that if such people succeed in escaping by boat, they will be refused and returned to their country of origin. However, if they succeed in finding a plane, it is a different matter and their claim will be considered. Have you ever seen such stupidity or such a double standard? "If you are a good refugee, you will come by plane, but if you are a bad refugee, you will come by boat."
Before pushing this Bill through, I believe that the Minister of Employment and Immigration should reconsider in view of the three major blunders he has already made, first, as concerns young people by cancelling the Katimavik program, then in the case of older workers by cutting back unemployment insurance benefits, and now in the case of refugees. With respect to immigration and refugees, I think that he should heed to the advice and listen to the suggestions and comments of my colleague for York West (Mr. Marchi). I think that in his comments, recommendations and claims my colleague is advocating control measures. Of course, he is suggesting an approval, but also some assistance and more humane measures instead of shooting or striking the first ones to arrive on the spot. The Senate has proposed or recommended that those who are really guilty should be punished and those who deserve help should obtain it.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I hope that some Tory members are compassionate and not merely interested in financial matters. I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is only interested in financial matters, that the dollar and not the human being is essential for him. 1 call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) who is the member for Roberval and was a school principal. Perhaps as a school principal he had to be tough. He belongs to a generation where the strap was still in use. Nowadays, things have changed. We now communicate and exchange. The most brilliant children in school are perhaps the most boisterous ones. They used to be those who worked hardest, but things have changed.
Today, some people will make their mark, will innovate, because they wanted to do so and went ahead. They did not fall in line and stick to the rules. And I think that if we consider history, there were many refugees in Canada who were troublemakers. The past is a warrant for the future. Something happens all of a sudden because the Minister of Employment and Immigration thinks all refugees coming to Canada are bad people. That is false. If the Minister is heartless, insensitive, I dare hope that some of the 210 Conservative Members will prove to be humane. I am sure Conservative Members have one or two refugees in their ridings; we all have some. Before voting against the amendments and passing the Bill, they should sit down with those refugees and ask them: "Now, tell me how it was. What did you go through in your country and why did you not stay there? Why did you choose to come in as refugees and not follow the normal immigration procedures?"
After hearing the story of those people, perhaps Conservative Members will see things differently and ask the Minister to change his position and accept my colleague's amendments. Mr. Speaker, I hope this will happen in the next few days.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what my colleague the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) had to say. He gave a very capable and emotional speech on the refugee Bill. In the course of that speech, he stated the case very clearly and he based his argumentation on proposals which have not only been made by numerous groups across the country but which also meet the recommendations of our party as well as those of Liberal and Conservative senators alike who have urged the Minister to change the Bill, to make those changes which the Senate has recommended in order that the Bill comply with the Canadian tradition, the Canadian Constitution and the Charter.

On that note, quite a number of significant and outstanding legal experts have suggested that this piece of legislation is seriously flawed from the point of view of the Constitution and the Charter. They have advanced the notion that if this were to go ahead on the day of proclamation, there would be a number of court challenges the very next day. They even went so far as to predict that certain clauses of Bill C-84 would be struck
down by the courts. One can just imagine the situation that that will create for a Government which is proposing this as the answer to all the ills of our refugee determination system. Paralysis will take place and our refugee policy will be thrown into chaos.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart) could share his thoughts not on the here and now, but what this law will do, if it is struck down by the courts, to the confidence of Canadians in the system. Does the Hon. Member not believe that there is also an international component that Canada, rather than being the leader in this field, will now be a follower and an instigator for other countries to pass the same law? Does the Hon. Member not agree by pushing this Bill through that he will be undermining the international strength and resolve needed to try to have an international solution to what is essentially an international problem?
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right about the consequences of this Bill not only on boat people but also on Canadian men and women and on the officers who will have to enforce this Act with such harshness and distrust. We see more and more examples of that in Quebec. Hon. Members know that in my province, ordinary citizens are now suing police officers who show brutality or treat people too harshly. The officers who will enforce this Act will have to abide by what the Minister is telling them: "All the people who pretend to be refugees are suspect. You don't need any warrant, you don't have to see any judge, just arrest them now, interrogate them, use force to intimidate them and make them talk."
One day, it will be too much and we will have to change things. The Government does not understand this message.
On the international scene, Canada is recognized everywhere. In every place we go, as members of parliamentary groups, we are welcomed as peace-loving, generous and open people. They know in other countries that despite differences of opinion between Canadians who speak French, English or other languages, people here love to live together, whatever their origin or their race and whether they were born in Canada or come from other places.
I think that the Winter Games and the sharing of the flame all over Canada by people of all origins and all provinces are proof of our pride and our sense of belonging. And that represents an asset the world over where other countries, perhaps owing to their history, are inclined to act more harshly with one another. Perhaps such a behaviour, such an attitude on the part of Canada might encourage certain individuals who are like our Minister of Employment and Immigration, a man who is wont to take a hard position with respect to these people. We will end up by pushing them back, we will force human beings throughout the world to suffer in their own
February 2, 1988

country instead of letting some of them come here, not to mention others who have managed to make changes.
I should think that the two questions asked by my colleague. . . but 1 have hope and I have confidence in Quebecers and in Canadians. At the next election they will know what to do with these people. Because at first blush, the way the Minister of Employment and Immigration brought in his Bill he had Canadians and Quebecers believe that those people were coming here to steal their jobs. Well, you can fool Quebecers only once. Lie to them once and it is over! But they could see right from the outset that the Conservatives were taking a false approach. They will have their say at the next election. Once a Liberal Government is back in office I am sure we will restore justice with respect to these pieces of legislation, we will eliminate that aspect, and Canadians will again be known as generous, warm-hearted and peace-loving people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Flon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris).


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that I have to speak on this Bill today because it is the first Bill that was brought before the House of Commons since my election on July 20, 1987.
This Bill was brought before the House as a result of the calling together of the House in an emergency session last summer. Unfortunately for me it was my first experience with the parliamentary process. 1 found it to be a most cynical approach and attitude by the Government toward a situation which occurred involving people coming ashore in the Province of Nova Scotia. The Government thought that it had on its plate an issue through which it could fan some flames in favour of itself and its own purported attempt to take action on what the Government said was a very serious problem.
We were called back and presented with this legislation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spent a fair amount of time during that period trying to convince the people of Canada that this was a most serious problem and in his greatest attempt at sincerity he talked about how his Government would take action in this national emergency. It is now almost six months later and we are still debating this so-called emergency legislation.
It is of great sadness to me as a Canadian to have a Government with the kind of majority which this one has abusing that majority in the face of widespread, virtually unanimous, disagreement and opposition to the kinds of measures that it has taken under this legislation.
Within a matter of days after the legislation had been tabled in the House groups and individuals in Canada who understand international affairs and understand the situation in which people from other countries flee to Canada spoke out against it. There are also groups which support international
Immigration Act, 1976
citizens in their efforts to seek refuge from countries, regimes and governments which do not respect human rights.
Soon after the introduction of this legislation we saw a remarkable thing in this House and I was proud to be a part of it in this respect. I saw principled men and women in this House, men like the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who took it upon himself the challenge of fighting against the Government, of meeting with groups and individuals who were interested and concerned with what the Government was doing. He spoke out fearlessly on this issue and has tried, unfortunately, without success to convince the Government that it had done the wrong thing. We have seen since then a Government determined in its cynicism to bluff its way to the bitter end on this debate.
We have seen committees of this House and the other place listen to witnesses for many long days on this issue. If there was some sort of national debate about it, if it was a matter of controversy on which men and women of conscience disagreed, we would have had a very different debate and a very different set of hearings than we had.
What did we have? Almost unanimous opposition to the measures taken by the Government and its willingness to ignore the human rights of international citizens. I say almost unanimous because there were some people who spoke at these hearings in support of the legislation. They were the very senior civil servants in the Department of Employment and Immigration. They were doing what their political masters on the other side of the House told them to do. Not one citizen of this country came forward in support of this legislation. Not one, except those who were forced to do so because of the political opportunism of the Government last summer.
As a Canadian I am ashamed to see that the Government has chosen to ignore those citizens and organizations of this country who seek to hold out their hand to these international citizens seeking refuge. My riding does not have very many immigrants, certainly not very many refugees, but I have not had one phone call or letter urging me to support the Government's position on Bill C-84. I have not had a group or individual visiting me on Parliament Hill to suggest that I should support this legislation. Even though there are not pressure groups composed of immigrants or former refugees who are urging me to oppose it, we do have in my riding citizens and organizations who are concerned about what the Government is doing and have urged me to speak out against the legislation and in support of the Senate amendments.
These groups consist of the Roman Catholic Office of Social Action, the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association, the St. John's Oxfam Committee, the Latin American Support Group, the Institute of Social and Economic Research, Amnesty International Group Sixty and others. You will find those groups repeated in every city across this country, not to mention the towns and villages where such

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
groups exist who are concerned about human rights and about Canada's reputation in the world for recognition of the international human rights of refugees.
1 have also received from the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada a representation on the measures proposed by the Senate to amend Bill C-84. That church has a history of involving itself in refugee and other international issues. The concerns expressed by the national Executive Council of the Anglican Church of Canada are that the Bill does not satisfy the international obligations of Canada to protect refugees and uphold procedural safeguards. They are concerned that this legislation violates sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are concerned that it does not meet the stated objectives of our immigration policy, which is to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees and uphold its humanitarian traditions with respect to the displaced and persecuted.
Why is it that the United Church of Canada and the other organizations I mentioned have spoken out with one voice against the Government's action, but the Government has not listened? It persists in putting to this House legislation unacceptable to the people of Canada who have studied and understand the issue, who have a concern for Canada's role in international affairs and its obligations to those seeking refuge. The Government persists in its desire to have the power to turn ships around at sea. The Government persists in denying those who claim refugee status the opportunity of a hearing if it has decided that they may be or are accused of being a security risk.
Many people can be abused in very strange circumstances involving international intrigue. Governments of other countries can very easily put forward evidence for the purpose of attempting to get another Government to deny someone entrance or even a hearing to determine whether or not the status of refugee ought to be considered. The Government has insisted on maintaining its stance that criminal prosecutions be maintained for those who encourage or assist people who are attempting entry into this country without the right kind of papers.
The Government's response to the Senate amendments is totally unacceptable. It fails to take into account the concerns raised by the witnesses before the hearings and in this place on many occasions, and is sending us down a road which can only lead to the deterioration of our regard for human rights.
I will end where I started by saying that it is a very sad occasion for me to have to speak on this legislation. It is the first Bill I encountered in this Parliament, brought in in a very cynical way, and it will go out in the same way. The Government will persist in the face of reasoned, impassioned and caring opposition and concern for the human rights of Canadians and those seeking refuge from other countries.
[DOT] <1930)


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) for his compassionate comments on this subject. I am glad that he has taken note of the response of the people in his riding. Last summer we heard some rather excited comments from across the way about how people were insisting that we should do something quickly, get rid of those people quickly and so on. They claimed they were acting for the strong expression of the will of the people in putting forward this Bill.
When the committee held its hearings on this Bill in August, and when the other place held its hearings in the fall, those great crowds of people demanding harsh action did not show up at the hearings. The Hon. Member has said that no one in his constituency has asked him to support the Bill but people have asked him to oppose it.
He mentioned that there are not many immigrants in Newfoundland. However, can he tell us whether any of the people of Newfoundland have had experience in helping refugees, whether they came by ship or plane, whether they came by direct and official means or unofficially? I know there was the case of the boatload of Tamils a year ago last summer, but I am wondering whether his fellow residents in St. John's East have actually met refugees and helped them and whether their experience has been favourable or unfavourable.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Other than the aboriginal people of Newfoundland, the Innu and the Inuit, we have all been immigrants to Newfoundland over the centuries. In the last number of years we have received a large number of refugees coming off airplanes in Gander. These are individuals from the East Bloc countries, some Cubans, some Poles, Rumanians, and East Germans who, with increasing frequency, deplane in Gander and seek refugee status. As the Hon. Member mentioned, we also had the experience of the Tamils who were found floating in Placenta Bay two years ago.
There are also some people who sought refugee status in Canada and ended up in Newfoundland. I met a young man several months ago who had been in a refugee camp in China. He came from Vietnam many years ago and was doing very well in St. John's. He had learned to speak English very quickly. He was a young boy of 17 or 18.
1 have a constituent who is working very hard to bring other refugees to Canada because of his conviction about the need for Canadians to share with others some of the wealth that they have obtained from our standard of living and to help individuals from other parts of the world seek refuge in this country.
Although my experience in this area has been limited, it has been very positive. People who are here seeking refuge expect that Canada will recognize their rights, and I hope that the Government will not discourage individuals who look to Canada for leadership. I hope the Government will not
February 2, 1988

indicate to these people that Canada and Canadians are not able to recognize their international obligations. However, to conclude, my experience in this has been positive.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member has just quoted from the letter which the Anglican Primate has sent out. Other members of his caucus have quoted from the same letter, expressing concerns about the provisions in this legislation which would empower the Minister to turn ships away.
The fact is that nine years ago when the crisis with the boat people from Vietnam existed, which crisis lasted a year or a year and a half, the Anglican Church did nothing to help. As a matter of fact, it opposed sponsorship during that period of time and did nothing to help in a tangible way in that large movement of refugees which turned out to be a very legitimate cause for concern by the people of Canada. As a matter of fact, last year the Anglican Church sponsored only 300 refugees in spite of what the Primate said in his letter expressing great concern.
How does the Member account for the fact that when the Vietnamese crisis existed, the Anglican Church did nothing to help tangibly and last year sponsored only 300 refugees, and is now all of a sudden expressing great concern about this particular legislation? Can he tell me how he accounts for that?


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to defend the Anglican Church as an institution. However, if the Hon. Member is right, and 1 have to assume for the moment that he is, then it must be obvious to him that the Anglican Church has listened to its people and is now doing what its people wanted to do as opposed to the Government which has had an opportunity in the last six months to learn what the people of Canada think about this legislation and is still persisting in doing what it is doing now. If the Anglican Church has listened to the cry of humanity and learned, why does the Government not do the same?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am disappointed to have to participate in this debate in this way. By "this way" of course I mean that this is the last speech I will be able to make on this legislation. The Government has decided once again to use the strength of its majority to curtail the voice of parliamentarians on this issue. It has used its strength to muzzle Parliament on this issue.
I believe that that is unfortunate for us all because this legislation with regard to immigration and refugees is fundamentally flawed, fundamentally unfair, and fundamentally unjust. I believe that this issue should be taken to the people of Canada in the form of a referendum or plebiscite to learn how they feel about this legislation. I suspect that the reaction in my constituency is similar to that in every constituency across the country. It is overwhelmingly against this legislation.
One might legitimately ask why I say that, what evidence I have to make those comments. I read the transcripts and
Immigration Act, 1976
studied the reports of witnesses who appeared before both the House of Commons committee and the Senate regarding this Bill on immigrants and refugees. I noted an interesting theme. All of those individuals or organizations with considerable experience and expertise on immigration and refugee matters advised the Government not to proceed with the Bill in its present form. The only exception was the witnesses who came on behalf of the Government.
Dozens of individuals and groups, representing hundreds of thousands of Canadians, spoke against this legislation but the Government chose to ignore their suggestions and pleas.
Some of these groups include the Bar Association of Canada, which represents the entire legal profession, the InterChurch Committee on Refugees, which is made up of some nine major denominations of Canada's largest churches, the Canadian Congress of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Civil Liberties Association of Canada, the famous Rabbi Gunther Plaut, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the B'Nai Brith group, the Coalition for a Just Refugee and Immigration Policy. They included the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.
It is also interesting to point out that among these groups was the employment and immigration union representing those men and women who worked for the immigration office. They spoke against this Bill in many cases, saying that as practitioners in the field who would have to administer this Act, they are against some of its major clauses.
One must ask who favours this legislation. As I look about the country, other than a handful of members of the Conservative Party who are represented by Members in the House, I have not found anyone who supports the legislation. That in itself is condemnation of the Bill, without going into the specifics, as we have.
It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize that the Bill in its present form violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada's Constitution. To make matters worse, the Bill violates the United Nations convention on the treatment of refugees. Why would parliamentarians pass legislation that violates our own Constitution and a convention of the United Nations? I have yet to hear why the Government would be encouraged to do that.
I recall a number of occasions when you, Mr. Speaker, spoke of your origins, and, I suspect, reminded me that at the turn of the century when Canada was settled by hundreds of thousands of people from western and central Europe, many of them were fleeing persecution of one kind or another. That is a theme that western Canadians in particular know very well. We know the history of the Mennonites, Hutterites and Doukhobors. We know the more recent history of the Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, Iranians, Afghans, the boat people and Chileans.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
What would have happened if the native people of Canada had a similar immigration policy as this after they came to North America via the land bridge tens of thousands of years ago? I suspect that many of us would not be here today.
I vividly recall two events in our recent past. In 1939, Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution in Europe came to Montreal on the ship St. Louis, where the immigration authorities of the day, with the support of the Government of the day, turned the ship back to Europe. Evidence indicates that most of those people on that ship died at the hands of the Nazis. That was a black day in our history which we never want to repeat.
The House will know the story of the Kamagata Maru in 1914. At that time we had a very racist immigration policy which was not entirely above board.
At that time the Government used subtle ways to have a racist immigration policy. The Government of the day did not want East Indians to come to Canada as settlers and therefore had a policy which only allowed people to come to Canada on a steamship that sailed directly from one port to Canada. The Government knew that no steamships came from India.
However, an enterprising individual from Hong Kong obtained a Japanese freighter in 1914, and 376 Punjabs, mostly Sikhs, sailed aboard that ship for Canada and entered the Port of Vancouver. Their entry was essentially legal, which frustrated the immigration authorities. Rather than allow those Sikhs to enter Canada to become citizens, the ship was held in the harbour for two months. The Royal Canadian Navy cruiser Rainbow was brought into the harbour on July 20 and encouraged the Kamagata Maru to sail back to India where many of those people were killed because of rumours about their political and religious beliefs. Again, it was one of the darkest days in our history.
This Bill contains a clause that provides that someone who believes that a ship may contain illegal refugees can order that ship to be turned about. How does one determine whether the people on board such a ship are legal or illegal refugees, whether they are fleeing persecution, or people with no homeland? Yet we are being asked to pass legislation that contains such a vague clause giving that kind of authority to immigration officials.
That is why the men and women of the Employment and Immigration Union came to the committee. They wanted to know whether they will be expected to carry arms on board a ship where someone may have the impression that refugees are on board, to seize the ship, search it and turn it about? They did not receive an acceptable response to those legitimate questions. My colleagues and I want no part of legislation that will do what we did to the Kamagata Maru and the St. Louis. We want no part of legislation that has tinges of racism attached to it. I do not think there is any overt racism, but many people in my constituency have wondered about it.
When I last visited the immigrant centre in my constituency, a number of people wondered if the same concern on the part of the federal Government would have been there if the Tamils who arrived on our East Coast unexpectedly had not been of a visible minority, if they had been people from Poland, from the Soviet Union or from other countries-


Benno Friesen: How about Portugal?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend asks about Portugal. I have heard him say that we should deport those people, that they are here illegally and that thousands of them should be deported back to Portugal because they are Jehovah's Witnesses. I resent that type of intervention. Quite frankly, I believe-


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order just to keep the record accurate. The Hon. Member has never heard me say that the Portuguese should be deported, but he has been quoted in the Vancouver media as saying that if the people who came last summer were not refugees, we should send them back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order, that is debate. If the Hon. Member would like to be recognized during the question and comment period after the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has finished his remarks, I would be delighted to recognize him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your wise, as usual, intervention. It was not a point of order, but as my hon. friend has indicated, the case has been made by many of his colleagues that all of these thousands of refugees who are in Canada illegally should be deported. He himself may not have stated that, and if that is the case, I take it back.
I do not think that there is any question that if a person who claims to be a refugee with no homeland enters Canada and is found not to be a refugee, that person should not be permitted to stay. However we want to give people a fair hearing. We want to treat people fairly. This Bill does not do that.
Under this Bill, if a ship were seen approaching the shores of Canada, someone would determine that that ship has illegal refugees on board and then presumably naval gunboats would force that ship to turn back. That is not the kind of country Canada has become.
When one looks at our history as a nation, one finds that our tradition has always been one of welcoming people who experience persecution in their homelands. Many various groups have made up the Canadian mosaic. In fact, many of those groups originally fled their countries of origin because of religious, political or ethnic persecution. I, along with most if not all Members of Parliament, are proud of that tradition. We want to maintain it.
We want to send a very clear signal to people around the world that if they are legal refugees and face persecution at home, whether they are from the Punjab or from Iran, they are
February 2, 1988

welcome in Canada. It is for that reason that all of these knowledgeable organizations have opposed this legislation. That is why I am proud to be associated with the New Democratic Party, a Party that also opposes this legislation.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party has raised the spectre of racism. We are accustomed to that here since his colleagues do that periodically, particularly the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
I must admit that when my constituents call me on the subject of refugees, it is sometimes worrying that those calls might be inspired by racism. However, I am glad to say that I think there is some very empirical evidence to show that they were not.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) will know that one of the concerns on the West Coast has been the influx of visitors from Fiji who are of the same racial origin as the people who have come to British Columbia from other parts of the Third World and are good citizens of British Columbia. However, I do not think that I received one single call to my office complaining about the influx of so-called visitors from Fiji. Why was that? It was because there had been a military coup in Fiji. The people of B.C. understood that when a coup takes place, there are refugees.
The Hon. Member wants to imply that racism is behind the legislation. I hope he would give serious thought to the fact that it has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with maintaining the integrity of the system.
As the Hon. Member's colleague from Ottawa Centre said just an hour ago, there are people who have used the refugee system to bypass the immigration system. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre alleged that this was because the immigration system was plugged up. I believe that was the word he used. In effect, he gave credence to the term "jumping the queue".
I hope my friend from Kamloops-Shuswap would think very carefully before he imputes motives of racism to this legislation or to any other legislation this Government puts before the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to respond at any length to this intervention, but I am not particularly pleased to have to say that I too received many phone calls during the time of the emergency recall of Parliament to deal with these Tamils. I spoke with one of my constituency assistants who was on the receiving end of those calls, a young woman of the Sikh faith. I am afraid that what that young woman heard from a variety of people was not the most pleasant of experiences.
My friend says that there is not a certain element of racism attached to the views that are being expressed in the House by certain Hon. Members. I do not think he is right. I noticed that he used the phrase "influx of Asians". I believe that is
Immigration Act, 1976
what he said. He said that we on the West Coast are faced with an influx of visitors of Asian origin.
That reminds me of the reports we heard when those people landed on the East Coast of Canada. The reports indicated that they were herded into buses. We do not herd people into anything, we herd cattle into cars, trains and trucks.


Benno Friesen: With respect, I did not use any of those inflexions, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let me finish, Mr. Speaker. With our choice of words, we often betray what we are really saying. Journalists do not use the word "herd" to talk about other people getting into buses.
I do not want to suggest any motives on the part of my hon. friend, but I think we must be careful in the way we use words. When we talk about the influx of visitors from Asia, we could talk about the entry of visitors from Asia or the immigration of visitors from Asia. I think we have to be very careful that the use of certain terminology does not suggest to sensitive people something that we do not intend. That is the only point I wanted to make.
This is a very, very serious matter. I do not think we want to discuss whether or not this legislation is racist. I simply want to say that our past immigration policies have been racist. Our past policies in terms of refugees have been racist. Let us hope that we have erased that type of legislation from our books now and forever.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there was a large influx of people at Expo 86. I suppose that had overtones, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has a question or comment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has talked about some of the immediate encounters within his constituency relating to some of the refugees. I am wondering whether he has any general comment on how people of his constituency receive refugees. Do they have refugees in his constituency? How do they respond to them? Are they friendly to the refugees or unfriendly? Do they find that the refugees are good people or undesirable people?
I heard comments from many other places in the country, almost always favourable, about refugees, by people who had done a great deal for them. These were in places such as Fort Erie in southern Ontario, the towns of southern Quebec, places in Alberta, Winnipeg and even nearer to the American border than Winnipeg. I am wondering if the Hon. Member can tell me about his constituency, having in mind particularly that part of the Bill that we are opposing that makes it a crime to help a person come into Canada even as a refugee without a visa.

February 2, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to that question. I am pleased to say that the generosity expressed by individuals and groups, associations and agencies from the area of Kamloops-Shuswap welcoming refugees has been quite outstanding. The community welcomed large numbers of refugees, particularly during the period when the boat people were welcomed to Canada.
I am particularly thankful for the role that the churches have played. Most of the churches played a significant role and went to great lengths not only to welcome the refugees but to ensure that their lives in Canada, particularly in the beginning years, were meaningful and positive.
1 am pleased to say that with very few exceptions all of the people that were welcomed as refugees over the last eight years that I am familiar with, and since 1 have been a Member of Parliament for that length of time, have all become integral and very positive citizens of the community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.04 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, February 3, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers