1988-01-27

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend a plant in my riding which employs 1,200 people is going to close its doors. This weekend the Minister who is responsible to help save that plant, is off fiddling in France. He didn't even have the courtesy to respond to a plea that I made to him last December regarding the retraining money. He put $6.5 million aside for retraining monies when it was going to go to an American company. Now it is going to go to the workers, it is only $545,000. It is peanuts.
I am a member of the Opposition. I know that there are at least two interested parties who would like to buy Firestone. 1 have personally seen a guarantee for a $30 million offer from a bank here in Canada, yet the Minister refuses to take seriously the possibility that Firestone may be sold, and he continues to bow to the will of Firestone in the United States to refuse to sell that company.
I am asking the Minister, as a Member of Parliament who is concerned about saving those jobs, to return from France to deal with the issue in the City of Hamilton, to take seriously an offer which could be up to $30 million for that plant in the city of Hamilton, and not to put out the kind of garbage that I received this morning in the form of a letter which basically said that he has written off not only the Firestone plant in Hamilton but the whole city.
I want answers from this Minister, and I want answers from this Government. Stop fiddling in France and come home and do your job.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, hear these "flop-flips". After months of stonewalling Bill C-22, opposition Members of Parliament now rise in anger over recent drug price increases, even when they know that a quick passage to Bill C-22 would have established the Drug Price Review Board which would have monitored the cost of drugs.
And take the case of Mahmoud Mohammad, the Palestinian terrorist now living in southern Ontario. Wasn't it just a few short months ago that opposition Parties were assailing the Government over Bills C-84 and C-55, legislation designed to remove quickly those refugees who entered Canada by way of illegitimate means?
The current opposition squabble over the Mirabel land sales is another example. If only one Member on the opposition side could experience having his land and way of life expropriated so unceremoniously, I am sure they would be singing a different tune today.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, good opposition is hard to come by these days. I know the people of Alberta have taken note of these Liberal-NDP flip-flops. I know that the rest of Canada has too.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, once again it is necessary to stand in the House and point out how the federal Government is neglecting its responsibilities to our native people. In Manitoba those bands involved in negotiations over treaty land entitlement are feeling extremely frustrated with the ongoing inaction of the federal Government. This weekend native leaders from the bands involved met in Thompson, Manitoba, in my riding of Churchill, to discuss their strategy for getting the Government to act.
Agreement has been reached between the provincial Government of Manitoba and these bands. Despite repeated requests on the part of the Manitoba Government, there still has not been action by the federal Government. Realizing that what is left to be negotiated lies with the federal and provincial

January 27, 1988
Governments, the bands have set a deadline at the end of March for this matter to be settled.
Last March the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight) refused to sign a land entitlement agreement to which the provinces and the bands had agreed. The Province of Manitoba is still trying to meet with the appropriate officials of the federal Department of Indian Affairs in order to meet the deadline. Repeated attempts have been made by the provincial Government to get negotiations moving, but all to no avail.
I have written the Minister of Indian Affairs a number of times and have raised this issue in the House. It is time for the Government to fulfil its obligations to the native people. Justice is being denied to the native people, and I believe that justice is long overdue.

[ Translation]


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, this week the socialist Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) announced in Quebec that his Government would cancel New Brunswick's frigate contract.
We did not need help from a socialist to seal the fate of the Lauzon shipyards: they have a promising future in Quebec. They were standing idle and without contracts when we took over in 1984. My Government found an excellent buyer for the shipyards and they now have orders totalling close to $600 million and extending well into 1991. Through assistance for specializing and equipment upgrading, we managed to convince Marine Industries to buy and operate the Lauzon shipyards. Their future as provincial shipbuilders is now guaranteed.
There is no need for the Ottawa Centre socialist to cloud the issue, and the contradictory statement of his boss, the socialist leader, does not shed any light because he happens to be the man who once said he would have military equipment imported into rather than produced in Canada. How could he possibly build frigates under NATO programs since he wants Canada to withdraw from NATO?
Mr. Speaker, that was yet one more proof of the inconsistency of meaningless statements made by these socialists.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I once again rise to draw the attention of the House to the very serious situation taking place at the St. Regis reserve near Cornwall, Ontario.
Canada Customs officers at the Customs office in St. Regis have been unable to do their jobs properly for the past two years because they have been expected to turn a blind eye to the taxation laws at this particular Customs crossing.
I call on the Government to establish a parliamentary inquiry into the problem at the St. Regis reserve. I urge the Government to act now and remove the Canada Customs office from the reserve and put it permanently in Cornwall. The 14 male and 4 female Canada Customs officers are all in a very dangerous position and fear for their safety due to the contraband and drug smuggling going on through the border at St. Regis.
The Government has known of this situation for the last two years and has done absolutely nothing. I believe that if the Government does not act now, immediately, and if the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) does not act today, there is a very real possibility that serious injury will result.
1 call on the Government to exercise responsible behaviour in the situation and to move forthwith with a parliamentary inquiry.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Toronto's bid for the 1996 Olympic Summer Games received a tremendous boost from the federal Government with yesterday's announcement of a $2.4 million commitment of support.
Toronto has the facilities, the organizational talent and enthusiasm to make the Olympic Summer Games an outstanding success, and following on the heels of the anticipated success in Calgary next month this could do much to enhance Canada's reputation as a host for international sporting events.
Our sports and cultural facilities are first-class and we can offer accommodation that is second to none. The cosmopolitan and multicultural nature of this world-class city will serve to make the many athletes and spectators from all over the world feel at home in Toronto.
January 27, 1988

I call upon all Members of the House to join with me in sending a strong message of support to the International Olympic Committee on behalf of Toronto's bid for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON ENERGY INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has now released its study on energy and the trade deal and it proves that Canada has lost tremendous freedom as a country under the deal, just as New Democrats have said.
If this sell-out deal is accepted, no export taxes on energy will be possible, no export bans to the United States could exist even if we are desperately short at home, and no lower Canadian price for energy could exist which is financed by an export tax. Meanwhile, the United States would keep its power under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to cut back and control Canadian oil and gas exports to the United States. The United States could use the national security clause to cut back our electricity exports.
So much for fairness. Canada got hosed on energy. Canadian provinces have lost key power over their resources, and Canadians have lost much economic freedom.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, recently when New Democratic Party Members voted against the Supplementary Estimates and the allocation of additional monies, they voted against the grant of $93 million for price stabilization of agricultural products; against a $63 million increase of supply earmarked for the individuals drawing Old age security; against the $65 million to be used for the payment of Guaranteed Income Supplement; against the additional funds of $456 million earmarked for regional industrial expansion; against $111 million to meet the operating expenses of VIA Rail.
Moreover, they voted against the allotment of $84 million for spouse allowances. Socialists keep talking about regional development, about the lot of farmers, about research and health care. Their negative vote has shown their true colours. Who can have confidence in them after such a stand? Who can take the risk of voting for a NDP government? Who can
risk the future of his children, his family and his parents by entrusting the future of the Canadian society with socialists?


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AWARD OF ALL-NEWS TELEVISION CHANNEL LICENCE TO CBC- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, we live in a society where the separation of Government, church and the media is vitally important to the traditions that we have built over the years. This morning, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), in a complete abdication of her responsibilities, put an end to one of those traditions.
This morning the Government of Canada, through the Minister, announced that it has quashed and put on hold the decision to grant a licence to CBC for a 24-hour news channel. The Government is admitting today that it has no broadcast policy for Canada, and the Minister is admitting that she has lost control of her department and has abdicated her responsibilities in favour of the back-benchers and caucus meetings of the Tory Party of Canada.
The Government has now served notice to every broadcasting network and radio and television station in Canada that they may, through independent means and under independent test, get a licence from the CRTC, but if they are not in good favour with the Government of the day, particularly the Tory Government, that licence can be revoked. That is a breach of the concept of separation of Government and media in Canada, a dangerous breach. The Minister of Communications ought to have the courage to repudiate it and, if necessary, to resign her position to protect that tradition.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, do you and the people of Canada know that at this time it is not against the law to use a child in the production of pornography? The lack of action by the previous administration on this issue was absolutely shameful.
Bill C-54 hits hardest at pornography showing violence, the degradation of women, and the sexual exploitation of children. It is about time that those in society who make personal gain

Oral Questions
from the portrayal of physical and moral abuse of others are put behind bars, and for a long time. A great many of my constituents have contacted me urging speedy passage of Bill C-54. Today I urge all Hon. Members to join me in ensuring that this Bill is passed soon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, for a week the Prime Minister has refused to tell the House whether or not he was aware of the letter from Mr. Gorman to the Minister of Energy alleging that the Minister had violated the law. When the Prime Minister restored the Minister of Energy to his Cabinet, did he know about the full contents of that letter or did he not?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, 1 did
not, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


QUERY WHETHER MINISTER TOLD COMPLETE TRUTH TO PRIME MINISTER, AND WHEN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, nothing this Prime Minister says would surprise me. In the circumstances, however, only the Prime Minister can tell us when he was apprised of the full text of the letter and what he did about it. Recently, he said he was proud of the fact he had brought the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources back into Cabinet. If that is the case, why doesn't he tell us what he knew at the time?
Does he expect Canadians to believe that for over two years, the Minister failed to read a letter, a page and a half long, in which the Commissioner of Elections advised him he had violated the law?
Does he expect Canadians to believe that during that period, the Minister did not find time to advise the Prime Minister of the full contents of the letter?
Does he expect Canadians to believe that for more than two years, this letter lay undisturbed under a spare shirt in one of the desk drawers of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?
Mr. Speaker, did the Minister tell the Prime Minister the whole truth or not? And when?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as the
second question is concerned, namely, when was I apprised of the full text of the letter, the answer is when the letter was published in one of the papers.
As for the other questions the Leader of the Opposition seems anxious to ask, he will address these questions at the appropriate time to the appropriate person. I gave him a straight answer when he asked when I was apprised of the text of the letter.


MINISTER'S NON-DISCLOSURE OF LETTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, several cabinet Ministers have had their ethical standards called into question during the life of the Government.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: So have you, John.


John Napier Turner: Some of those Ministers may have done nothing legally wrong within the narrow context of the law. Yet every time the Prime Minister himself compounds the problem by not being totally forthcoming with the people and this House about what is going on.
If it was a bad judgment call, say it was a bad judgment call. If it was carelessness, say it was carelessness. If it was totally improper, say it was totally improper. Do not consistently and repeatedly try to defend the indefensible. That is what we are saying to the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Grise:: Oh, sit down!


John Napier Turner: In the circumstances will the Prime Minister admit that it was wrong for the Minister of Energy not to immediately reveal to the Prime Minister the contents of that letter from the commissioner? Will he also admit it is wrong in those circumstances, that information having been withheld from the Prime Minister, for the Minister to remain in his Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in past days and again today the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, while dealing with a sensitive human matter, has made reference to several Conservative cabinet Ministers who have resigned. That is true. In light of that, he might care to make reference to certain Liberal cabinet Ministers who resigned, including himself. He resigned, to the best of my knowledge, without providing an explanation to the House or the country as to why.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Unbelievable!


Martin Brian Mulroney: release issued that day. My right hon. friend who asks for understanding for people in public life should indicate a iittle more understanding himself for other Members of the House of Commons.
With respect to the conduct of the Minister of Energy, when he was apprised of the fact of an investigation pursuant to the federal Elections Act he did what was entirely proper and submitted his resignation. The investigation went on for two months, and an officer of Parliament reported that no charges should be laid against the Minister.
If my right hon. friend has questions about the composition of the letter, or questions about that judgment, the officer of Parliament signed the letter and I assume the House would be willing to interrogate him. The Government will be happy to have the committee consider this matter, and all relevant information can be discussed.
However, if my right hon. friend is asking me whether 1 believe in the circumstances, the decision having been rendered by an independent officer of Parliament, I did the right thing in inviting the Minister to rejoin the Government of Canada, on the basis of information I had and in light of the decision of that independent officer of Parliament, my answer is yes.


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know if the Prime Minister means that hiding the contents of the letter from the people of Canada and the Prime Minister himself for a period of more than two years is commendable behaviour by the Minister. The sequence of events as related to us by the Minister has it that upon receiving the letter he only skimmed rapidly through it, then placed it in a drawer under one of his shirts before going to the Prime Minister's Office where he was summoned, and where obviously he did not spill the beans.
Will the Prime Minister now agree that by hiding the letter in his drawer under one of his shirts, instead of disclosing its contents to the Prime Minister, the Minister has in fact lost his shirt and lost the confidence of the people of Canada and should be dismissed from his position?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the slurs of the Hon. Member are being recorded, the hon. gentleman can be assured that one day those words will be read to him. He will want to be very careful about the proces d'intentions that he is making in respect of another Hon. Member.


John Napier Turner: What kind of threat is that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is a statement of fact. The hon. gentleman indulges in slurs, in the proces d'intentions, in maligning character, and he objects to the fact that I find that offensive.
Oral Questions
I find his conduct offensive. I find it indulging in character assassination, and so do the people of Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're offensive.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member of Parliament stepped aside from cabinet responsibilities, sat on the sidelines and watched the interrogation go on for two months. He received a report saying that no charges were going to issue against him. My hon. friend seems to suggest that it is not a human reaction to take pleasure in the fact that one is not going to be charged and to proceed with one's normal parliamentary life. To not understand that, I think, is to not understand human nature.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's your human nature, that's the problem.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This may be a deficiency but we happen to believe in the presumption of innocence. When an officer of Parliament, charged with the conduct of an inquiry, and who alone has the responsibility to make a determination as to whether a charge should or should not be made, comes to the conclusion that a charge should not issue, surely all Members of Parliament will want to give the Member the benefit of the doubt.


QUERY WHETHER TIME HAS ARRIVED TO RELIEVE MINISTER OF HIS DUTIES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the problem is a lack of openness. We know now that the Minister doesn't have time to read important correspondence. He claimed he quickly glanced through the letter and slipped it in a drawer, under one of his shirts. Yesterday, to excuse the inexcusable, the fact that he failed to advise the Prime Minister of this letter, he simply said: Why should I have?
In the light of these facts, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not believe the time has come for him to act responsibly and release the Minister from his duties, which would give the Minister time to file his correspondence and straighten up his drawers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, these comments are grossly unfair, and I may draw the attention of the Hon. Member to the fact that a mechanism exists that would allow Parliament to conduct a full investigation. That mechanism is a parliamentary committee. We are quite prepared to have the appropriate committee consider this matter and hear testimony by Mr. Gorman or other officials with his responsibility.
Finally, I would like to remind my hon. friend who since last Thursday has been accompanying his questions with the most derogatory remarks, that a Member of the Quebec Liberal caucus, the Hon. Pierre de Bane, said that the attacks on Mr. Masse were not justified and undermined the basic principles of our legal system. I suggest you listen to your caucus colleague!

January 27, 1988
Oral Questions


RETENTION OF MINISTER IN CABINET
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. However, 1 want to say at the outset that the comparison he made between the resignation of the Leader of the Opposition when he was a cabinet Minister at a time that had absolutely nothing to do with scandals, and resignations of members of his own Government that had everything to do with scandals, is outrageous. All Canadians will feel that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: There are two issues involved in this matter. One is to get an explanation for Mr. Gorman's unusual decision, on the surface, and the other is the Prime Minister's responsibility for ensuring that Ministers of the Crown not simply adhere to law but adhere to moral standards that go beyond law as the Prime Minister himself has often underlined. Since he now knows of the contents of the letter that the former Minister received, does he believe that a member of a Cabinet should be someone who is accused by a senior officer of the House of breaking the law, and should that member remain in the Cabinet when he did not inform the Prime Minister of the reception of such a serious letter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has perhaps put his finger on the problem. He is right. There has been an accusation in that letter to which he refers. That accusation was prepared in a statement that otherwise indicated no charges should be laid against the Minister.
The accusation was made by Mr. Gorman. Only Mr. Gorman can explain why he made those references and then concluded that no charges ought to be laid. In light of that, 1 think it is important as parliamentarians that we pursue the parliamentary opportunity of interrogating those who made these decisions, to call him before the House to explain why.
If my hon. friend has any problem with that decision, as he clearly does, the question ought to be put to the man who made that independent decision, and I would support him in that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that, since I suggested precisely the same thing last Thursday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It happens to be the case that I suggested last Thursday that Mr. Gorman be asked to appear before a committee to explain the decision. I hope we will have the occasion to experience that.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONTACT FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ELECTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the Prime Minister concerns his responsibilities. Does he not think it appropriate, now that he knows the contents of the letter and that the Minister did not reveal the contents to him, that he get in touch with Mr. Gorman and ask him why he reached the very serious judgment he did, that the Minister in fact broke the law? Why does the Prime Minister not do his job under the circumstances?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has again, with uncanny accuracy, put his finger on another part of the problem. He says the Prime Minister should get in touch with Mr. Gorman. Nothing could be more inappropriate for the Prime Minister, the Leader of a political Party, to get in touch with an independent officer of Parliament.
The independent officer of Parliament, who responds to Parliament, should be asked to come before a parliamentary committee to provide the explanations as to why he indicated that no charges should be laid against Mr. Masse and then put in that comment which Le Devoir properly referred to this morning as une lettre empoisonnee which violates the fundamental rights of a Member of Parliament and a fundamental right of any Canadian.
[ Translation]


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL ASK MINISTER REASON FOR HIS SILENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is suggesting now that this letter has violated the Minister's rights. He has completely changed his approach concerning this issue.
My question is simply this: Does he intend to ask point blank the Minister why he kept silent about this for two years, yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 have absolutely not changed my position. Quite the contrary! The letter in question does not mention any charge. It does not recommend that a charge should be laid. Quite the contrary! The letter comes to the conclusion that no charge should be laid.
This notwithstanding, the letter clearly mentions an hypothetical situation which only the commissioner can explain.
In view of the fact that the commissioner is an independent officer of the Canadian Parliament, he is entilled, I think, to appear before the Committee to explain the reasons why he signed this letter which is ambiguous, to say the least.

January 27, 1988

Meanwhile, I urge the Hon. Member to grant his colleague and former Minister the benefit of the doubt, as all Canadians do!


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AWARD OF ALL-NEWS TELEVISION CHANNEL LICENCE TO CBC- GOVERNMENT POSITION-REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, we just finished a press conference with the Minister of Communications. I will direct my question to her. The decision to put off to the end of November the all-news network awarded to the CBC seems to be an interference with a process of Government. Canadians will resent that the Minister indeed has killed all chances of having the All-News Network.
The Government, in a scandalous and, I suggest, shameful interference, has destroyed for all intents and purposes, any public broadcasting network-


Mr. Speaker:: There has to be some sort of reasonable limit on the pejorative words used in the preamble. I am sure Hon. Members would know that. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Given that the Minister has lost control of her department and it is now being run by right-wing Tory backbenchers who are telling her how to run her Department, and by a Prime Minister who cannot stand bad news from the free press, will the Minister not resign?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, no, I will not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Because of the confusion which resulted from the wording of the decision regarding the appeal period, that question being raised with me by the CBC and others, I sought advice from the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice, on the question of the appeal. 1 was advised by the Minister of Justice who said: "1 have concluded that the 60-day period within which the Governor in Council has jurisdiction to review this decision of the Commission commences on the day that the licence referred to in the decision issues and takes effect, that is September 1, 1988".
I felt that in this time period it was both fair and appropriate that the Government advise the President of the CBC of the concerns we have at the present time.
1 wrote to the President about those concerns, namely, the degree to which the proposed licence might contribute to
Oral Questions
excessive concentration in the field of news programming. I said that this concern might be addressed by an alternative service embracing both the private and public sectors of the Canadian broadcasting system.

Second, an opportunity to get involved in a major expansion of the news broadcasting services.


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out that questions that are, by their very nature, inquisitive of a wide ranging set of factors invite fairly long answers. I think it would be better if the Minister waits for the second question and summarizes what it is she has to say.
1 am sure that before Hon. Members call for order too quickly, they will keep in mind that the question put is on a complex matter and the Minister should be given some latitude in answering.


FRANCOPHONE EQUIVALENCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I might suggest that the Minister table the agreement, the decision and the opinions which she has, so that we may share their contents with her.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister. Two reasons-concentration of media and lack of attention to the French language equivalence-were put forward by the Cabinet to the CBC to withhold the decision concerning the All News Network.
My question to the Minister is this: Concerning the French language equivalent, is she or her Government prepared to make available the necessary resources-money, equipment, human input-to set up a French network equivalent to the English only All-News Network?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I indicated there was another reason why I wrote to Mr. Juneau.
Second, would it be proper to get involved in a major expansion of the news broadcasting service in one of the official languages, without at the same time meeting the needs of the other linguistic group.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 think it is very important to have a balance between our two official languages in the area of broadcasting as with all the other policies.
I gave this advice to the President of the CBC.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 27, 1988
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, an hour ago at the press conference the Elon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier would not join with me in calling for the Minister's resignation. 1 am glad to see he has changed his mind.
1 would like to ask the Minister a question. If she cannot defend a CRTC decision, a decision of an independent agency, where the merits of the application that was approved were clearly superior to the merits of the application that was denied, if she cannot defend this decision against the goon squad in her own caucus-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn McDonald: -how can she usefully serve as Minister? Should she not now do the honourable thing and resign?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one thing we do believe in doing is following the dictates of the law. That seems to be beyond the sensibilities of the Member who has just spoken. We have advice from the Department of Justice as to the procedures to be followed, but it is terribly important that we recognize the concerns that do exist. I mentioned one, the concentration. I just want to say as well to the Hon. Member that we also have a concern about services in both the French and English languages in this country.
[ Translation]
I said that it was important to determine whether it was necessary for such an important federal Crown corporation to get involved in an endeavour of this magnitude before taking steps to meet the expectations of both our major linguistic communities.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder that the Minister is not so interested in concentration of media when it comes to newspapers and crossownership issues. I would like to ask why she misled the press conference earlier today and came up with a false issue and stated that Francophone taxpayers would be required to pay for this service when that is contrary to what the CRTC said, that the money would come from advertising and subscribers? Why is the Minister setting the Francophone community against the Anglophone community in this case? Why does she not respond to the needs of the Francophone community, but act immediately now on the application which has been fully justified before the CRTC for the All-News Channel?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to send a copy of the ruling of the Department of Justice to the Hon. Member so she will understand when the appeal period exists. I also want to say to her that as a Government we have recognized the needs of the French-speaking communities, in the Province of Quebec and all across the country. We will be seeing, through the introduction of our official languages legislation, just how important this is not only in the Province of Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada.

[ Translation]


THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. This Government promised early retirement to correctional officers after 25 years of service. I have been pleading with the Minister for nearly two and a half years. He did express his good intentions, but we have yet to see any concrete results. As a matter of fact, 1 introduced in the House a notice of motion which will force the Government to come clean. Can the Minister provide us today with a progress report on this question?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can advise the Hon. Member that I am, of course, as the Minister responsible for those officers, very much in favour of early retirement for those people, given the very difficult and stressful job they have. I am hopeful that legislation will be brought forward in the very near future which will assist them in this regard.
[ Translation]


QUERY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL INTRODUCE LEGISLATION
Robert Toupin: The Minister is aware of the problems of our correctional officers. Good for him! Can the Minister give us a specific date when the Bill might be tabled? Can he also tell us whether he has secured the funds required from Treasury Board?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister responsible for the legislation when and if it is brought forward, but I can say that I am hopeful that it will be brought forward in the very near future. Certainly I am strongly supportive of it, given the difficult task these people have and which they perform so well.
January 27, 1988


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AWARD OF ALL-NEWS TELEVISION CHANNEL LICENCE TO CBC- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The only thing more shameful than the Prime Minister's performance in this House today-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -was the performance of the Minister of Communications in defending the indefensible. 1 ask the Minister whether or not she realizes, in the face of the decision she has announced today on behalf of the Government of Canada, that the Government is in effect sending a signal to all electronic broadcasters in this country, both radio and television, that notwithstanding the independent judgment of a CRTC, which has an arm's length relationship with the Government, notwithstanding those decision-making powers, if those broadcasters do not behave, if they do not keep on the good side of this Government, licences that may be awarded by the CRTC will be taken away by the will of a Tory backbencher.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Does the Minister of Communications realize, as the Minister responsible for broadcast policy, that the decision taken today will be interpreted by Canadians and by broadcasters as a warning that if they do not behave and manage to engender and keep the good will of the Conservative backbench-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think we got that question earlier. The Hon. Minister will reply.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Hon. Member, but there was no decision taken today. I stated and read into the record, and 1 will outline to the Member again, that the appeal period takes place in the 60 days following September 1, 1988. That is when any decision will be taken by the Government. So I am just advising the Hon. Member that we did express two concerns that we had about this application. One had to do with concentration, the other with the lack of services in the French language.
It was very interesting to me to note that the other day in the debate on official languages in this House, the official spokesperson for the Liberal Party on communications, speaking of telecommunications and broadcast policy, said as reported at page 12252 of Hansard:
It is very important that this country have a stamp and footprint across this
land that states that English and French wherever you may live should be
available and the potential to understand the information that is being
disseminated should certainly be the primary concern.
Oral Questions
What we are hearing today is that the Liberal Party, in its expressions to the country, has said that concerns about the French language are no longer of interest to it. That is what they are really saying.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this Party is concerned about the bilingual nature of the country, but we are also concerned about the independence of the media and that it not be brought to heel by the Government.
As the Minister of Communications, if she is not prepared to defend the principle of the separation of Government and media in this country, and the independence of the CRTC, then will she do the honourable thing-because I know that this is very tough for her today-and resign, instead of making a mockery of her position?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 suppose because the Liberals are a little slow in understanding things that I will have to say twice what 1 have already said once in this House.
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to resign. I wish that the Hon. Member who has just spoken would understand that. 1 also want him to understand that the concerns we have expressed and that 1 have conveyed to Mr. Juneau are very real concerns. They happen to be concerns expressed by people across this country about concentration, particularly from our colleagues in the Province of Quebec and French-speaking persons elsewhere in Canada about the lack of adequate services in the French language. That will continue to be a concern.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Recent press reports indicate that there is a pest known as the Russian wheat aphid that has spread rapidly from Russia through the Mediterranean countries, South Africa, into Mexico, and reached the southern part of the United States in 1986. In two growing seasons this pest has now reached the northern states with which we share a border.
Taking into consideration the future impact that this could have on wheat production in Canada, with crop losses in the U.S. reported as high as 100 per cent, would the Minister indicate to this House what measures his department is taking to monitor and control this very serious threat to Canadian wheat production?

January 21, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the question of the Hon. Member. I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member did not ask for my resignation. That seems to be quite topical today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: I also have received representations from my colleague, the Member for Mackenzie. 1 want to tell the House and the grain growers of Canada that 1 certainly share their concern, particularly in view of the fact that the Russian aphid has been in the United States for four or five years, and it is moving to the north. There are indications total crop losses could indeed reach 100 per cent.
Because of my concern over this potential problem, 1 have already instructed my Deputy Minister to move immediately on a task force basis to obtain as much information as possible so that if the Russian aphid does move from the United States into Canada, which we certainly hope it does not, then we will be in a position to have a safe and an effective control for that particular pest.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A number of times over the last couple of years the Prime Minister has insisted that his cabinet Ministers maintain the highest moral standards.
Does he believe that it is acceptable that, over the last two years, the Member for Frontenac, the Minister of Energy, did not tell the Prime Minister anything about the letter that he had received from Mr. Gorman?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have responded fully to that question. The letter in question was referred to by my friend, the Leader of the NDP, as an unusual letter, as it is indeed. I have indicated what, in the circumstances, justice would require be done with it.
I responded fully and completely to all of those questions.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister believe that it is acceptable behaviour by any of his cabinet Ministers not to fully inform him of a decision that is made by someone of the rank and position of Mr. Gorman?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 was informed of the decision by the Secretary of the Cabinet. The decision was that no charges were to be laid against the Member. That was the decision


Sheila Maureen Copps: He committed an infraction.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In respect of an opinion, in respect of a surmise or a point of view-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It wasn't a surmise.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -that may or may not have been contained in the letter-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I thought you didn't read it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I think that it might be important to interrogate the signatory of the letter.
The only manner in which this can be done, inasmuch as the signatory is an officer of Parliament, and you would resist with the utmost vigour any attempt by me as Leader of the Party or Leader of the Government to interrogate him personally, is to call him before a House committee to ascertain any relevant facts in this and related cases.
We are fully happy on behalf of the government Party to indicate that we would consent to this type of procedure. I hope my-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will you appear?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 am attempting to respond to my hon. friend, yet the Member for Hamilton East persists in her comments.
I would be happy-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will you appear?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -if the House desires-


Mr. Nunziata:: Touchy, aren't you, Brian?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in view of those affectionate remarks from the Member from Toronto, I think I better sit down. It is getting dangerous.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be helpful when questions are being asked and answers are being given if other Members await their turn.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it concerns the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel. For the second time in two days Canadians have learned that their tax dollars have been wasted to supply junkets around the world for the chosen few.
January 27, 1988

Yesterday it was three officials of the Canada Lands Company, and today we discovered that $15,000 from the agricultural renewal program was spent on a trip to Israel to investigate how to breed and raise Holstein cows that can live in the desert.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister when will he put an end to the orgy of spending that has been going on, perpetrated by his Government against the people of Canada? When will he do the right thing and call a Royal commission of inquiry into the management, operation, and disposition of properties by the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel? Why will he not do it now?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first the Hon. Member has criticized the administration of Mirabel Corporation, then he has been contemptuous of the policies of the Government for that particular area, and now he takes issue with the plight of the farmers of that area.
Let the record show, and let the people know that those Hon. Members have no regard for the welfare of the farmers of Mirabel.


QUERY REGARDING PERSON INTENDED TO BE PROTECTED
Don Boudria: Given his answer, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
The day before yesterday he told the House:
We have put in place a procedure to allow those people who had their lands
expropriated unfairly to purchase their lands back on a fair and equitable
basis.
How can the Minister make that statement and the one we heard today when Canadians know full well that 40 per cent of the lands ended up in the hands of speculators, a great many of whom are Conservatives? Why does the Minister continue to protect his predecessor? Who is he trying to protect: the Prime Minister, the Member for Joliette, or both?


Stewart Donald McInnes: I think what the people of Canada want to know is that $250,000 was paid to the President of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michel Robert, for services during that particular Government's era.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Stewart Donald McInnes: Pierre Brien, the Vice-President of Mirabel and ex-provincial Liberal candidate for Anjou, took two trips in 1984 on behalf of the corporation in order to stimulate economic activity, without result.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer the question.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Jacques Corriveau was given an untendered contract for $29,000. Of course, Mr. Corriveau is now one
Oral Questions
of the vice-presidents of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party.
I think that that is what the people of Canada want to know.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. From the time that the formation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was announced on June 8, 1987, to about December 31 of last year, $75 million worth of projects had been approved, projects under ACOA's administration.
Of this amount $6 million was approved for projects in Newfoundland and Labrador. At the same time Nova Scotia received $45 million, including $35 million for Cape Breton, and New Brunswick received over $20 million.
Could the Prime Minister explain why Newfoundland and Labrador has been short-changed in this way? What does he propose to do about it?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is very selective in the numbers at which he chooses to look in terms of what the Government has done for the Province of Newfoundland. Maybe he is forgetting the earlier energy accord that was reached with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He does not mention that.
He should also look at the rate of unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador which is still high but has come down a tremendous amount since the Government took office.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has been set up in Atlantic Canada to be dealt with by Atlantic Canadians in trying to address the fundamental problems of the economy in Atlantic Canada. We are going to work with Atlantic Canada. We are going to work with Atlantic Canadians. We are going to give the agency a chance to work, and hopefully we will see good results in that area of the country.


EQUITY BETWEEN PROVINCES
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister is ignoring the fact that there is also an accord in Nova Scotia and all kinds of other government programs. This is the principal agency which the Government says will look after regional development.

January 27, 1988
Petitions
In view of the concerns Dr. Savoie expressed in his report about the potential problems of political control of this agency, which have been ignored by the Government, will the Minister not admit that in the past and in the legislation that has been proposed he has failed to put sufficient safeguards in place to ensure equity among the provinces in regional development programs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that Atlantic Canadians can be sure of, and that is that while my socialist friends in the NDP go into Quebec and say that they will take away the contract from the New Brunswick shipyard, this Government will not take that contract away from Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: 1 can tell the Hon. Member that the rhetoric of the NDP does not hold at all in Atlantic Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of various municipalities in Prince Edward Island.
They are protesting that the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return. Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws. The United States obtained everything that it wanted in key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services, and investment.
Whereas the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement on October 4, 1987. As in duty-bound your petitioners ever pray.
1 have two petitions which I will table under the same heading.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have seven petitions which I should like to table today. It is my duty to do so, because these petitions were signed by Canadians who would like to make their views known.
The petitioners state that whereas 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, auto trade, financial services, and investment, and whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and responsibility of tabling a petition which points out that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States and that, in fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of his bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
Furthermore, the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities among the regions.
Given all that, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada to decide in a general election whether or not they want a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which indicates that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, and that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities among the regions.
The proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
The proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective in the negotiations, but threatens a loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.
January 27, 1988


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by constituents in Thunder Bay-Atikokan, residents of the West Fort area, the Ogden east end area of Thunder Bay, and the community of South Gillies, a rural community southwest of the City of Thunder Bay.
These petitioners are very concerned about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They are concerned that it threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively, to develop our energy resources, et cetera, et cetera.
They complete the petition by calling upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition duly certified by the Clerk from a number of Canadians living in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec who complain that the Government without any mandate from the Canadian people and having promised that it would defend Canadian sovereignty during the negotiations on free trade has, in fact, undermined Canadian economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership.
The Government has also failed completely in the major objective of the negotiations, which was to secure access to the American market. The deal threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national election.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions. It was not signed strictly by members of the Canadian Labour Congress, it was signed by Canadians from other parts of this country. It expresses their concern with the fact that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine its ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
The petitioners also believe the proposed deal will deny Canadians secure access to the U.S. market which was the key objective in the negotiations. They also believe it threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
The people who have signed this petition call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade arrangement during a national general election.
Order Paper Questions


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the duty and honour to present a petition signed by Canadians from Thunder Bay, Ontario, who are concerned that the trade deal negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty and thereby Canada loses its power to determine its own economic and social policies.
These petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada to reject or accept this trade agreement during a national election.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 207 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to have Question No. 207 deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

GRANTS AND/OR LOANS TO HURTIG PUBLISHERS


Mr. Shields: Since April 1968, have (a) grants (b) loans (c) loan guarantees (d) contracts been provided by the Government to Hurtig Publishers of Edmonton or other Hurtig enterprises and if so, how many and, in each case (i) on what date (ii) in what amount (iii) for what purpose?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendments 8 and 13(e) made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, but disagrees with amendments 4, 5(a), (b) and (c), 6(a) and (b), 9, 10. 11, 12 and 13(a) because this House believes they contradict the principles of the Bill for the following reasons:
Amendment 4 would exclude only criminals and war criminals from the refugee determination process, but would allow terrorists, spies and subversives to pursue a claim to refugee status, notwithstanding the fact that Article 33 of the UN Convention would permit the removal of these latter individuals to their countries of nationality or permanent residence, even if they were determined to be Convention refugees.
Amendment 5(a) would eliminate the authority of the Minister to direct a ship to leave or not to enter Canadian waters. This amendment would reopen a significant gap in Canada's ability to control its borders.
Amendments 5(b) and (c) arise out of Senate amendment 5(a), which is not acceptable, and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendments 6(a) and (b) would reverse the policy on which the Immigration Act, 1976 was based, which policy was not changed in the Bill as passed by this House. The amendments jeopardize the possibility of successfully prosecuting persons who profit from organizing illegal migration and from counselling fraud among refugee claimants.
Amendments 9 and 10 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to act quickly to search for evidence of major offences under the Immigration Act, 1976, in exigent circumstances, where lives are at risk or where evidence with respect to those offences may be lost or destroyed.
Amendments 11 and 12 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to execute search warrants which have been duly authorized by a justice of the peace, by denying explicit authority to break open containers where it is reasonably believed evidence will be found and by limiting the authority to execute these warrants at night.
Amendment 13(a) would reduce the initial period of detention without review from seven days to forty-eight hours, which would allow insufficient time for the gathering of information to substantiate allegations or to identify the individual, particularly when large groups of undocumented persons arrive at one time.
And that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendments 1, 2(a), 3, 7 and 13(b), (c) and (d), but would propose the following amendments:
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 (I), 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 )(c), (f) or (g), and
(b)	that an additional period of detention is required to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention."
Amendment 13(c) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 23 to 47, on page 21, and substitute the following:
(2.1)	Where the Minister has issued a certificate under subsection (2), the Minister may amend the certificate to which the detention relates to include any matter referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (ii), following which the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention.
(3)	Where a person is detained under subsection (1) and the Minister has not issued a certificate under subsection (2), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith after the expiration of the period during which the person is being detained and that person shall be brought before an adjudicator at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the reasons for continued detention shall be reviewed."
Amendment 13(d) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 48 to 50, on page 21, and lines 1 to 18, on page 22, and substitute the following:
(4)	Where an adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (2) or
(2.1)	is satisfied that reasonable efforts are being made by the Minister to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (ii), the adjudicator shall continue the person's detention.
(4.1)	Every review under subsection (2) or (2.1) of the detention of a person suspected of being a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19( l)(e), (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.
January 27, 1988
[Stage Direction]
(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)."
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We do not deny the Government's ability and right to introduce any legislation for debate that it wishes, however, I think it should be pointed out that there was a House Leaders meeting yesterday. The Government indicated the order of procedure for today which did not include Bill C-84. The Government has also changed the legislation to be considered for the rest of this week.
In the interests of working together to make sure that we deal with the legislation of the House in an orderly manner so that Members are in a position to be here and also serve on their committees, which they have to as Members of this Parliament, it is important that the Government not change the legislation of the day at the last possible moment in such a way that it hampers the ability of Members of Parliament to act. It also takes away the whole concept of House Leaders getting together to try to make sure that we as Members of Parliament know what is going on, and thus are able to work on legislation in a way which benefits not only ourselves but other Canadians who are interested.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I hear my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I think the record of this Government in trying to facilitate the work of all Members is comparable to any other in history. In fact, it is certainly better than most.
The House Leaders' meeting, as my friend suggested, occurred yesterday afternoon at about 3.30 p.m. There was a sense of anticipation of a different order for today. Members will recall that when the House Leaders' meeting was taking place Bill C-84 was before the House.
Members will also recall that the Speaker ruled last summer that the matter contained in Bill C-84 was pressing and urgent. The House was called back from summer vacation to deal with it. There was some hope in the government caucus that because we are now dealing with amendments proposed by the Senate which were laid upon the Table last year in the month of December that all Members would have had a
Immigration Act, 1976
chance to review and think about the amendments. The government response has been presented to the House. It would, indeed, have facilitated this very urgent matter if we had concluded it yesterday. We then could have proceeded with the planned Bill.
As the House will know, many Members wanted to speak on the Bill. I do not know how many have the intention to speak today, but this is an urgent and pressing matter. It deals with the security of the nation, the issue of detention and a problem which is not disappearing but is growing. It has been the subject matter recently of many front page stories. Members, I know, have been studying this issue for a number of years. We all have opinions and some of our opinions are widely different.
1 do not know what is being gained by the Opposition in filibustering such an urgent matter. I think it is time for the House to decide and time for the House to send the matter back to the Senate. Hopefully the Senate will agree with the will of the elected people of the country and take our suggestion in return. The Government Order for today, because of the urgency of the matter, is Bill C-84.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). 1 want to point out that the legislation which is listed in today's Projected Order of Business is Bill C-33. As I understand it, we were only advised in the last hour or so that the order of business had been changed. If it was the Government's intention to change the order yesterday at the close of business, debate closed on this Bill at 5 p.m., there was plenty of time to advise Members of the House. I understand that was not done. There would not have been time, however, to print a corrected version of the Projected Order of Business which Members receive in their offices first thing in the morning.
I would like to comment about the urgency of this matter. 1 understand that the Government Leader in the other place, after the tabling of the Senate report which followed some two months of study and the appearance of many witnesses before the Senate committee, congratulated Hon. Members for their expeditious treatment of the matter. There does not seem to have been on the part of the Government House Leader the same sense of urgency.
I would like to mention, in reply to the Member who spoke about filibustering this important subject, that the Government's response to the Senate report was only given to us yesterday afternoon by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). This is a complex subject which deals with many legal and constitutional matters. It is only appropriate that Members of this House be given an adequate opportunity to debate this Bill prior to sending it back to the other place.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the issue, but the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, tried to indicate that we were filibustering Bill C-84 and that the

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Government was surprised that debate took place yesterday. He indicated that the Government somehow expected that Bill C-84 would be dealt with yesterday. That is obviously not the case. The Government itself has scheduled Bill C-84 for debate on Thursday and Friday of this week. Obviously it expected the debate to continue.
I do not understand what the Parliamentary Secretary was getting at. Obviously, the Government did not expect the motion to be passed yesterday afternoon, an hour after the various House Leaders had met. It knew the debate would continue. The Government had planned to debate the motion later this week.
The point is that that motion was not the business planned for today. It does not help the House when legislation is changed at the last minute, causing problems for all Hon. Members and especially those who have very heavy committee assignments.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill had to be rushed through the House of Commons and that it was pressing legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary well knows that it was not the Government's intention to have the House sitting on January 27, 1988. Indeed, it had proposed that we extend the Christmas break until February. I do not see how the Government can be in that much of a rush with this piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. As Flon. Members know, of course, it is the Government's prerogative to decide the order of business and the Government may change without any notice whatsoever the Projected Order of Business we receive every morning.
Yesterday during debate on Bill C-84 there was an amendment moved by Mr. Marchi which the Chair took under advisement. The Chair is now ready to rule that the amendment is indeed in order, so the Chair will put the amendment to the House. Mr. Marchi, seconded by Mr. Berger, moves:
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""
Debate will now resume on the main motion and on the amendment of Mr. Marchi.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with the question of filibustering, I think you would find the Government willing to forgo further government speakers since the opposition spokesmen have already voiced their
opinions on this motion and have expressed their parties' positions. I think we could shorten the debate if the Opposition would be agreeable to holding a division this afternoon. We could deal with the legislation here and now and send the message back to the Senate.
If the Opposition is not disposed to do that, I would be prepared to speak. I see that the spokesperson for the Liberal Party is saying no. I take that to be a signal that we are to carry on this afternoon at least.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. It is correct that I signalled no on behalf of my colleagues, but in no way should the record show that that means that there is any filibustering as suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that was a cheap shot. If he has thoughts and wishes to deposit upon the floor of the House of Commons, I would welcome his doing so. Otherwise, he should sit down and allow other members from my Party and from the NDP who do have worth-while recommendations on this very sensitive Bill to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair must find that a matter of debate and give the floor back to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I did not notice any cheap shots going across the floor.
Yesterday, the Minister tabled a motion which was in fact a message to the Senate responding to its message to the House about Bill C-84. In that message, the Minister pointed out that the Government was prepared to accept some of the amendments the Senate had proposed and to reject others. In fact, the Government has accepted almost 50 per cent of the Senate's amendments, but we certainly will not accept all of them.
I was present yesterday when the opposition spokesmen addressed the House and I think it is now time to underscore the Government's position on this matter. First, we must underscore the fact that Bill C-84 is not immigration legislation. I heard an awful lot of language in the opposition speeches purporting that Bill C-84 deals with immigration. In fact, it does not even deal with refugees, it deals with fraud in the refugee system. It is detention and deterrence legislation. I think it is important to clarify for Canadians that we are not dealing with immigration legislation, even though many people may have confused those two issues.
There was a time when we did not have to deal with this matter at all when we dealt with immigration. I was a member of the Green Paper committee which sat in the summer of 1975 and toured across Canada debating the 1977 Bill which became law in 1978. I think there are only three Members left in the House now who sat on that committee, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and I.
January 27, 1988

The 1977 Bill did not deal extensively with fraud in the refugee system, because at that time very little fraud went on. In fact, there was very little refugee movement at that time. There were fewer refugees around the world and there was much less international movement. Finally and much more importantly, society at that time was much more orderly and held a much more law-oriented view of a process like refugee determination.
Since mid-century we have been seeing the results of a new definition of morality. I remember going to the University of Washington in the 1970s and watching the tumult on the university campus. Everything was being challenged. The most popular philosophers of the day were Sartre, Camus and Marcuse. Those philosophers had at least one thing in common. They had an existential view not only of life but of the individual, of man, and expressed the importance of the individual and his right to self-expression as the most important thing in life to that person and, by extension, to society. Self-expression and self-authentication were the most important things. To that extent, there was no longer any inherent or absolute morality.
Tangentially, this meant that every law not only could be challenged but had to be challenged. If we were to disagree with a particular piece of law we would be dishonest to ourselves if we did not challenge it. We would be denying our own morality if we did not challenge what we thought was wrong.
There accumulated a whole generation of people who challenged everything. They challenged the law, the authority and the Government. I am not saying that some of that was not necessary. It was necessary to make some improvements, but it became a point of morality and of personal integrity to act in that manner.
When I was on the campus of the University of Washington, I saw a crowd of students and off in the distance a police car. I watched the crowd pick up stones and throw them at the police car. The policeman had not arrested anyone. He had not even challenged anyone. However, it was just because the police car was there that it had to be challenged. I remember sitting in the library watching, I am sure, off-campus people coming through and pushing books off shelves. They were wantonly destroying university property. I remember them challenging the administration just because the administration was there. It was not that what the administration had decided was going to radically affect everyone's life. It was because the university administration was there and everything it decided had to be challenged.
We educated a whole generation of students that if we did not challenge everything we were being untrue to ourselves. A mentality developed which said that disobeying the law was a point of morality. For example, burning draft cards in the U.S. was a point of morality because it offended a government
Immigration Act, 1976
regulation, a government administration. Police were pigs. Authorities were the establishment. Government was authority and automatically wrong. Universities at that time cultivated a culture whose raison d'etre was to oppose. Individual morality was more important than community values or the rule of law.
I raise that because the people who went to school in those days have now become professionals. In some cases they are lawyers. They may be teachers or doctors. They have come through the system with a mind-set and a way of looking at the world that has its own repercussions. That philosophy is now an international commodity. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) may laugh but it is true.


Cyril Keeper: What have you got against universities?


Benno Friesen: I used to teach at a university so it cannot be all that bad.
We are now at the point where that kind of mind-set is an international commodity. On every front when it comes to refugee policy, or immigration policy for that matter, we see this kind of mentality. It manifests itself in declarations made by bogus claimants. It does not matter what you say, just as long as it might be acceptable and will get you into the country. Lying becomes a way of life if it will help you get into the country. The incidents of the last few weeks ought to underscore that.
We are redefining what constitutes a refugee. That redefinition is not supposed to be done by Canadians, it is supposed to be done by so-called refugees, you see. If you are facing economic deprivation in your country, then you are no longer dealing with refugees in a political sense. You have economic refugees and you are redefining for Canada what constitutes a refugee. If you have committed a crime, a capital offence in your country and are therefore afraid for your life, then you are entitled to call yourself a refugee because if you stay in your own country and the law has its way, you might be either incarcerated or face capital punishment. You are entitled to call yourself a refugee.
The decision is no longer supposed to be made by the Government, it is now supposed to be made by the refugee. We are seemingly supposed to accept holus-bolus that if someone comes to our borders and says "I am a refugee", the Government and people of Canada are automatically supposed to say, "Okay, if you say so, we will accept the fact that you are a refugee". Or, if a lobbyist makes a representation on behalf of a refugee or a group of refugees, we are supposed to accept that lobbyist's word that this person or this group are refugees.
If there is one phrase which has recurred over and over again in these debates and in committee hearings and in Senate committee hearings, it is: "You will be sending genuine refugees back to a hostile country." That is the recurring phrase. I am asking, how do you know that they are genuine refugees? Unless they have gone through the refugee determination system, how do you know in advance that they are genuine refugees?

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is a former Minister of Immigration and I think he will understand the complexity. I think he would agree that it is understandable that people might want to prejudge who is a refugee and who is not, yet that cannot be the final judgment.
The NDP is always worried about our sovereignty. If Canada is going to express itself as a sovereign nation, Canada has the right to determine who is a refugee and what definition we use. Is it going to be decided by law, or on a whim? Are we going to decide by an equitable and universal standard, or are we going to let every interest group decide who is a refugee? Is it going to be decided by a refugee determination process, or is it going to be determined or predetermined by a particular lobbyist?
1 suppose we might say that is the process we are going through right now. We are defining the nature of a refugee, and what I cannot understand is that certain lobby groups and special interest groups, while they may have good intentions and the best interests of people at heart, feel they have a right to determine ahead of time who is a refugee.
The most important quality of a refugee determination system is fairness. It seems to me that to be fair it must be even-handed. In order to be even-handed it has to be done by law. We cannot have individuals, just because they feel harassed by an economic situation, deciding on behalf of the Government and people of Canada ahead of time what constitutes a refugee or deciding that they in particular are refugees. It must be defined by law, otherwise we live by exceptions.
As I said at the outset, we are dealing here with legislation that deals with deterrence and detention. As I also said at the outset, there is a kind of new morality out there that says it is okay to circumvent the law. In fact, in some cases it is a point of morality to circumvent the law. However, we are saying it is not okay to try and beat the system. It is not okay to organize fraudulent claims. It is not okay to bring boatloads of people into the country clandestinely. That is simply an effort to beat the immigration system by declaring themselves refugees. That is not okay.
The people of Canada have a right to decide who is a refugee. In order to be fair, the decisions must be made through a legal process, a refugee determination process which is fair. There are those who have decided that morality and ethical superiority legitimizes a fraudulent process of bringing people into the country. The Government has the right to say that it is unfair to the rest of the population to allow that to happen.
Therefore, I give notice that the Government is taking charge. The Government is going to determine what is right for Canadian people. The Government is going to be as fair and humane as possible to every genuine refugee. We will not tolerate fraud. We will prosecute those who deal commercially
in human misery. We are determined to make the system work so that genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution and have lost their freedom can find haven in Canada as 500,000 have since the end of World War II.
Those who apply legitimately at our borders will get a fair hearing and, I might add, will not have to face the stigma of a label which has become anathema to a broad section of our society. There are thousands of people across Canada who now equate refugee with fraud. That is unfair to the refugee. It is our determination to restore dignity to the refugee, to ensure that when he applies honestly and legally to become a refugee in Canada he can do it with the dignity God has given him and which the Canadian people will respect.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat taken aback by the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary who said, toward the end of his speech, that the words "refugee" and "immigration" have adopted a bad name in this country. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do some soul-searching if he really wants to find the answer. He can start by looking at the record of his own Government.
A number of months have passed since the debate last summer and we can remove ourselves from the very heated and emotional exchange which Parliament witnessed. Why did the Government try to communicate to Canadians that the arrival of 300 individuals on our shores constituted a crisis and emergency?
We remember that only a few short years ago, led initially in 1979 by the then Prime Minister, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and followed up by the Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, we in this country accepted a plea from the international community to pitch in and help with the Vietnamese boat refugee crisis. In two years we accepted 106,000 individuals into our country. I know that the Member will say that they came in in an orderly way and that we went to them. The fact remains that those Governments, in partnership with Canadians, had the progressive will to accept within our society 106,000 people who are all integrated into the main stream of Canadian life as we speak today.
If 300 people constitute an emergency and a crisis, how would the present Government or Governments of the past have been able to lead Canadians to help out 106,000 people above and beyond all the other programs of the Department of Immigration at that time?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the most successful refugee program conducted in recent history was carried out under the Clark Government in 1979. It was successful because it was carried out partly by the Government and partly by the private sector. Social agencies, service clubs, and churches all across Canada sponsored a number of these people equal to the number sponsored by the Government. It was the finest display of government-private sector cooperation that we have seen in many years. That is why it
January 27, 1988

worked. It was an initiative of the Conservative Government carried on by the succeeding Government. It was successful because the refugees came into the country in an orderly process, were sponsored in an orderly way and, therefore, cared for in an orderly way.
If the Member wants to do some research, he would find that the refugees who were sponsored by churches, service clubs, and other such agencies made the most successful transition into Canadian society of any refugees who came into Canada. It was a very good program.
He asks why the matter of 300 people coming in by boat is a panic. In itself it is not. However, the day after the Amelie discharged its passengers on the Nova Scotia coast that made television news and front page headlines and pictures in Bangkok. I do not have to draw pictures for the Member. It so happens that Thailand is sanctuary for one of the largest refugee populations in the world.
Three hundred is not a panic, but there are 15 million refugees in the world and another 60 million to 70 million economic migrants, all of whom have now heard about Canada as a safe haven. It is a panic if the signal has gone throughout the world via electronic media that simply by chartering a boat you can land on the shores of Canada and beat the system. That becomes a cause of concern.
I think the Hon. Member knows that most of the people who came on the Amelie spent a number of years in Germany. Some of them were already declared refugees. He knows that the United Nations Commission on Refugees says that if you have already determined refugee status in a country the next host country does not have to accept you as a refugee. If they had gained refugee status in the Federal Republic of Germany, how could they be declared refugees from there to come to Canada?


Sergio Marchi: That is why we have a process.


Benno Friesen: He says that that is what the process is for. I thought that they had already gone through the process and were already declared refugees in Germany. It seems to me that that is the nature of the fraud with which we are dealing. They give the impression that they have been fleeing from oppression, when actually they are coming from a very hospitable country which, incidentally, harboured 100,000 refugees in 1986, with a bill of $ 1.3 billion U.S.
West Germany has been very kind to refugees. I might add that it is because of the experience of West Germany, France and other European countries, and the fact that they have been facing this kind of abuse, that they have restricted entry into their countries. As as result of that, those who want to migrate around the world and look for a best haven have seen Canada as a good place to go. That is why this legislation is necessary. There are many people, such as the captain of the Amelie, who are willing to take money from those who are suffering
Immigration Act, 1976
anguish, and truck in that kind of human misery. That is why it is a serious issue.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that when the original Bill was before the House earlier it was condemned by organizations, including church organizations, community organizations, ethnic and labour organizations representing millions of people.
The Mennonite Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican, United and Presbyterian Churches, the Quakers, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Labour Congress are just a few of the organizations that found unacceptable the Bill that was debated months ago. They called for its withdrawal or at least for major amendments. They are reacting in exactly the same way, with exactly the same answers to what is before us today.
I have a document prepared by the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. It is a document with the heading "Some Human Rights Aspects of Current Refugee Concerns" for discussion at consultations between non-governmental organizations and the Department of External Affairs in preparation for the forty-fourth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which will be held in the next couple of months.
In the section entitled "Human Rights Agencies Must Act to Ensure Refugee Rights", they state:
It is a matter of deep concern for this department-
The Department of External Affairs.
-to launch a centre which focuses on Canada's interest in human rights
overseas into the same parliamentary session which could pass refugee related
Bill C-84 at home.
They say that this Bill, the one the Government is still trying to enact:
-is a flagrant attack on fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada.
I say to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that he does not only have to explain, account for and defend to opposition Members what the Government is proposing to do-of course, he will say opposition Members of Parliament are raising objections and opposing this Bill for partisan political reasons-if he wants to deal with the real concerns of people, he must deal with the objections raised by all these very responsible organizations that do not take stands because of some political whim, but take a stand after they have given careful consideration to the facts and have listened to people from ethnic communities, the refugee community and the Government. They are as opposed to this legislation now as they were when it was originally brought in.
In fact, the Government has rejected all the serious amendments put forward for consideration by the other place. It simply said no and will continue to do exactly what it proposed in its original form. It is to those people that he should explain the Bill. He should go to his own community and explain it to

January 27. 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
his own church and other organizations in British Columbia that are opposed to this legislation.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the Member will not presume to instruct me about the Mennonite Church. 1 have a fair degree of familiarity with it. As a matter of fact, I will be speaking to a group of them in a few weeks and will raise the matter with them, just to clear the record.
1 suspect that the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry recognizes the names of many of these organizations that the Member has listed, because I am sure he met them either in groups or individually when he was Minister of Immigration, and was opposed by them just as much as they oppose this Government now. This tends to underscore what I said before, that there are groups that oppose the Government simply because it is the Government. If they are not drafting the legislation, it will be bad legislation.
The Hon. Member says that these organizations represent millions of people. I am sure they represent many people, but I can tell him as well that they do not necessarily represent the rank and file of the people whom they purport to represent. Simply because they have official positions in a particular denomination or a particular organization does not automatically mean that they represent the rank and file of those people. For example, I know that almost 50 per cent of the Members of the New Democratic Party across Canada support free trade, but that does not matter when the New Democratic Party speaks of free trade in the House.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to begin my remarks by recalling for a moment the short exchange that took place between the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), our immigration critic, and the Parliamentary Secretary, about the movement of refugees in the early part of the 1980s.
The common popular term or expression to identify those 100,000 people was "boat people". The reason they were called boat people is that they fled in small boats, such as sampans and other flimsy vessels, a country where there was violence, torture and intimidation. They crossed the China Sea to Thailand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and other islands. They crossed the borders. They did not have documents, they did not have visas and they were not certified by a Canadian embassy office in Hanoi. They were escaping with their lives in the hope for a better future.
One of the most important issues raised by the Canadian Government at that time, at the United Nations and other places, was the support of a convention against countries like Malaysia and others stopping the boats from coming in. We said that this contravened the entire principle of the refugee system, which is that people should not be prejudged and turned away simply because they are on a boat. They should be given the right to land, to have their claim examined, and then to be moved on. One of the trade-offs, I remind the Hon. Member from Surrey, was that those countries said, "Yes, we
are getting all kinds of people and we cannot handle them". So countries like Canada, the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany said they would help take the load. That began the movement of boat people.
In principle, what is different between the circumstances in 1979 and 1980 and what we are facing here? There is one difference. They are coming directly to our borders rather than stopping on the way, but they are still boat people. They are still fleeing terror and intimidation and they are still arriving without support and visas. But they are coming here for exactly the same reasons. How can the Hon. Member from Surrey say with pride that that is what our Government initiated when his Government of today is rejecting exactly the same principle?
He made another comment. He said that the initiative by the Government of the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was a great example of partnership between the church, service clubs, communities and the Government. I agree. The very same groups who were partners in 1980 this Government wants to charge with a criminal offence in 1987. How can the Government justify that contradiction? How can the Government say with any kind of honesty that the groups it encouraged to work with it, helping to settle refugees in 1979, all of a sudden are now "special interest groups" who are trying to flaunt the law? The groups who were successful in working with the Government, co-operating to find a humane way of dealing with a vast movement of people, are now all of a sudden nothing but fraudulent manipulators trying to beat the system, according to the Hon. Member from Surrey. They cannot have changed all that much in five years. The Member knows they are the same people. I worked with them. They opposed the Government to begin with because they dealt with the Department of Employment and Immigration which was continually opposing their interests. One of my objectives as a Minister was to try to turn that attitude around, to help make them partners, as opposed to having a Department of Immigration with its prime interest being to keep people out rather than bringing them in.
I want it to be said on the floor of this House that I respect the Inter-Church Committee, and the B'Nai Brith and the various refugee organizations, because they are doing something that is very much in the tradition of Canada. That is, to reach out and give of one's self without any ambition for personal redress.
There was an interesting time lapse of seven months since the emergency crisis of last summer. The Senate played a valuable role in exercising its responsibility as a Chamber of sober second thought. It took the legislation and gave it the time this House was not allowed to give it because of Government closure. What did the Senate find? It found some very important things. First, and I want to emphasize this, it found that this legislation contravenes the Charter. Let us recall the
January 27, 1988

words of the Hon, Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) that we must obey the rule of law.
The rule of law applies as much to Government as it does to individuals. Governments cannot wilfully change the rule of law. They cannot go against rules they have accepted simply because it is in their political interest to do so. Time after time before the Senate committee there appeared totally independent commentators, such as Professor Beatty of Toronto, Professor Gibson of Manitoba and Professor McKay of Dalhousie University. I do not know what their partisan associations are, 1 do not know if they have any, but I do know them by reputation as being good legal scholars, and each of these gentlemen said that Bill C-84 is contrary to the Constitution of Canada.
As legislators we have a responsibility to try to uphold the Charter and the Constitution, and not let laws pass that deliberately and explicitly contradict the Constitution. I ask the Member from Surrey if that is not in keeping with his admonition to obey the rule of law? If there is any suggestion that this legislation is about to commit, in a sense, a most wilful act, because Government itself, which is supposed to be there to protect the law, is deliberately going to contradict the law, surely we in this Parliament, whether in the other place or in this Chamber, have the right to oppose it to the last ounce of our energy. We cannot let Governments break the law. The Member from Surrey is an accomplice of this Government in breaking the law.
How can a Government which loves to parade itself as being the upholders of law and order wilfully break a fundamental law of this country? And how can it do so with such audacity. It is saying it is doing it to protect Canada. We all know that what in fact it is proposing in Bill C-84 will do nothing at all to rationalize or expedite the refugee determination procedure.
What is the Government going to do the day this law gets passed, if it ever does, and all of a sudden it is faced with a series of court challenges against the Charter? Will that expedite the process? Will that make Canadians able to organize the procedures in a more effective way? Can they do that if in fact the whole system is gummed up for years in the courts? The Government has been told what is going to happen. There are all kinds of individuals and organizations which are prepared to take it to court because it would not listen. Is it somehow going to make it easier in dealing with a real problem to totally and completely bollix the system for years especially when, as we all know, there is an alternative?
There is another choice. It is not a matter of the Government saying it will deal with the refugee problem and everyone else saying: "Leave it alone". When I was the Minister in 1980, I established a commission to look into the problem of refugee determination. There were a number of recommendations that were then followed through and the system was refined. That was followed by the Plaut Commission and by a report from a committee of this House that again recommended a series of steps to refine and facilitate the system. There
Immigration Act, 1976
was an all-Party agreement that was rejected by the Government. It was not a matter of the status quo versus some kind of enlightened change. It was a series of changes which had the endorsement of all the groups which are now protesting. It was accepted by all the legal fraternity and sororities. It was a consensus of how to deal with the overload. The only people who objected were the officials and the Minister of the Department of Immigration.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think the Hon. Member is speaking about Bill C-55 and not about Bill C-84. I think it would be helpful if he spoke on Bill C-84.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is not a point of order. It is a silly intervention, that is all. We are talking about the Government's attempt to wreck the refugee determination system. What we do know very clearly is that there was a willingness to co-operate. The Senate hearings are full of proposed amendments put forward by the Bar Association and others. The Senate itself, supported by both Liberal and Conservative Senators, made a whole series of recommendations, not to reject the Bill but to have it conform with the rule of law in this country, and the Minister rejects it again.
What is going on here? I think what is happening is not some isolated incident in dealing with the refugee problem. It is part of a general pattern in which this Government is taking on to itself a form of autocratic power. We see it in the pornography Bill and in the immigration Bill. We see it today on the decision to reject the recommendations of the CRTC on broadcasting. There is an increasing sense of divine right.
The Government thinks because it has 209 seats, because it has a powerful political majority, it can do what it wants. It can throw away all the rules and tramp across the country with hobnail boots and step on whomever it wants, especially if they are victimless refugees and there are no constituents out there to support them. The more helpless the people, the more the Government likes to trample upon them. It does not trample on the big corporations of this country, but boy they like to do it to people who have no ability to fight back. It is the worst example of a bully. The Government is becoming a political bully in Canada. As a result, it is destroying a spirit of tolerance and openness because people are becoming afraid.
That is not necessarily endemic of the Conservative Party. I think of people whom I used to admire from afar in this House; for example, Jed Baldwin, Gordon Fairweather, John Diefenbaker, and Arthur Maloney. They were Progressive Conservative Members of the Parliament of Canada who stood up for individual rights. They fought against Government abusing its power. They stood for a tradition of Progressive Conservatism which welcomed dissent and did not try to clamp down on it. They did not use the arguments that we have heard from the Hon. Member that because someone challenges a law and a rule, somehow they are a social or community pervert or misfit.

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
The Hon. Member stated that he was upset when he attended the University of Washington and saw' students demonstrate. What were they demonstrating against? They were demonstrating against a legal system that suppressed the rights of blacks for 200 years. That is what they were rioting about back in the 1960s. They w'ere protesting against an immoral war that their Government had carried out against the wishes of its own people. The riots were not because it was a fraternity party, it was because they felt that the Government was abusing its power.
Surely that goes back to the basic, fundamental natural law of a democracy, the right of people to oppose an autocratic Government. Yet there is a mind-set developing here that the Government, because of its huge majority, is acquiring a right to dictate and determine what the rules and laws will be. Of course, as we have seen in things like Meech Lake and free trade, the Government wants to entrench them in order that future Parliaments can never change them. The Government Members want to entrench their interpretation of society. They are welcome to it. The Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta has a view about morality and law and order. That is his business, but I ask him to be consistent. I ask him to at least be honest enough, if he is talking about a rule of law, to explain to me why the Government, of which he is a Member as a Parliamentary Secretary, is clearly contravening the Convention on Refugees established by the United Nations? It is clearly contravening the Charter of Rights of Canada. It is clearly going against basic principles that this country has recognized for decades about search and seizure, about the right to be heard in front of a proper tribunal, and have independent judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals in order that they will not be subject to political influence and manipulation.
Why is this Government, and why is he as a defender of the rule of law, tolerating, accepting, and becoming an accomplice in that type of violation of principles that his own Party and his predecessors have fought in Parliament to obtain? That is really what is happening in this country.
The Government is making this type of law dealing with refugees. I can tell the Hon. Member that in this case it will not work. Does the Hon. Member really think that by turning away a smuggler's boat that that will deal with the problem? The Hon. Member is somehow equating the types of larcenist individuals who are immigration smugglers with people who read Jean Paul Sartre and Camus. The fact of the matter is that there are larcenist people in the world, and there always will be. But if they are going to hire a boat and send it to a shore and then simply be turned away, the captain of that boat will find some way to dispense with that human cargo. He will already have his shekels and the money in his pocket. If the boat were confiscated, brought in, and the people in the boat were allowed the right to at least enter into the determination system to see whether they are legitimate refugees, then they would lose something valuable and all of a sudden we would have a deterrent to the smugglers and all the rest of them.
There is one basic thing that the Member does not understand. No one is trying to prejudge who is a refugee. But on the other side, the Government should not prejudge who is not a refugee. The Government should not prevent those who may have legitimate rights from coming to the border to apply for application. The people who are escaping torture in Central America or in parts of Asia have exactly the same type of problems in their own communities as they did in Vietnam in the late 1970s, or in parts of eastern Europe earlier than that, or in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. They are exactly the same problems. But the Government is reverting to where this Government was in 1930 when a boat of Jewish refugees who were trying to escape from Germany was turned away.


Benno Friesen: This Government?


Lloyd Axworthy: This Government is doing exactly the same type of thing in this Bill. There is not one whit of difference in principle in what the Government is doing. It is taking this country back 50 years.


Benno Friesen: Who did it in the 1930s?


Lloyd Axworthy: This country did it, and a Liberal Government did it, and I am ashamed of that. One of the things I tried to do as a Minister of Immigration was to rewrite that history. We tried to do that. Because a Government 50 years ago made a stupid and immoral mistake, this Government in 1988 should not repeat it. If the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta did not like what happened back in the 1930s, why is he becoming an accomplice to the same type of transgression in 1988? If he thought it was reprehensible then, it is more reprehensible now. Surely we have advanced our civilization, our openness and toleration for rights since that time.
I say to the Hon. Member to look at his own words and his own speech. He should look at what he believes, in terms of the rule of law, and ask himself why he is part of a Government that is contradicting everything for which he says he stands.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Member made a speech that could be used anywhere in the House. All that has to be done is change the names around a little and it is one that could be sold. The Hon. Member admired John Diefenbaker, Jed Baldwin, and others in the Party. I do admire Bob Andras, Donald Macdonald, and Martin O'Connell. I do not know if they would feel very comfortable in that caucus right now.
Since the Member has been fairly loose in rewriting history, 1 have to put on the record the fact that the Conservative Members on the committee in the other place did not vote for the amendments of that committee. None of them did. I want that put on the record because of what the Member has stated.


Lloyd Axworthy: If the Member will look at the record, he will see that I did not say that they voted for it. I said that they supported those amendments. If one looks at the testimony, and the statements by Senators Spivak, Nurgitz, and others, it
January 27, 1988

is clear that on that committee they did not vote against it. Presumably if they did not like it they could exercise their right, as members of the other place, to vote against it. In fact, they went along with that recommendation of the committee. I think that is to their credit and honour. I would only hope that Members of that same Party in the House of Commons could repeat and duplicate the same type of understanding and acceptance that their compatriots and colleagues in the other place have shown.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today. I think it is a very significant debate. It clearly exemplifies the inability of the Government to use its mighty majority to "Rambo" its way through policies that are obviously not supported by many Canadians. Quite frankly, if they were supported by a massive number of Canadians, Canadians who took the time to contact their Member of Parliament, or to lobby, then they would have gone through a long time ago. If there had been clear support, and if it had been clearly justified, it would have gone through. However, the opposite is the case. It is now over five months since the so-called emergency was declared and we were brought back to Parliament to debate the matter.
During the short time available to me 1 want to talk about the specific amendments which the other place has offered us, as well as my feelings about Canada and what we have been through in our very short life as a nation. Let me start about 80 years ago when we as a country turned away a boatload of Sikh refugees. I am not going to get into the game of which Party was in power, but we as a country, around 1908-1909, turned away a boatload of Sikh refugees who had arrived on the S.S. Kamagata Maru on our West Coast. They docked at Vancouver, were quarantined by the Canadian Government, and eventually sent back. When that boat got back to India, its original departure point, some of those Sikh refugees were killed by the British police.
Some 30 years later another boatload arrived. That one contained 900 Jewish refugees from Europe who attempted to enter Canada as a means of providing themselves with a safe place to live, one free not only from persecution but from death. I was ashamed last summer when I visited the memorial to the Holocaust in Israel to see the photographs of the people on the St. Louis that we as Canadians-and I emphasize "we as Canadians" because we tolerated the decision of our Government; it was our Government-turned away from our shores. We said to these human beings, "We don't want you". They eventually lost their lives to Nazism. We had a chance to take them in, to protect them, and to give them a new start.
Canada has recognized as its only honorary citizenship an individual who helped Jews escape from Europe by giving them passports to his country. We have honoured that man because we now recognize the goodness which was done by him in helping the Jews of Europe to escape.
Immigration Act. 1976
In the last year we have helped to wipe the slate clean. We have allowed two boatloads of would-be refugees to land on our shores and to enter the process available under the law of Canada. Ironically one of those boatloads was from the same country which we refused more than 80 years ago.
As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg'-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) so aptly pointed out, the Government wants us to turn back the clock. It wants to get us back to the point where we can stop those people who, for whatever reason, find themselves wanting to leave their country and wanting to come to Canada and find the only option available to them is a marine mode of transport. So what if we have the same number arriving at Mirabel on any given weekend by regularly scheduled airlines? So what if we have others from Central America, perhaps not as large in number, arriving by automobile, bus, or train via the United States of America? No, the Government is targeting this one mode of transportation because it is more visible and brings out a certain reaction in a certain element of society.
This is why we in the New Democratic Party have aligned ourselves with all major church organizations-not individual congregations but the governing bodies of the churches-the Law Society, and other groups and communities across Canada which have evolved around support for immigrants and refugees, which have helped them to become part of Canada and have helped to bring them to Canada. They have offered a Christian hand of fellowship or brotherhood to people whose life is not as good as our life is in Canada. That is why we opposed the original legislation.
1 compliment the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for the work he has done, not just in the past five months or the last year but over many years, in terms of fighting for refugees and immigrants, fighting for the process which is so needed in Canada to ensure that our laws are adhered to and that human rights are recognized as an ultimate priority. This is why we moved amendments. This is why a number of us spoke during the various stages of debate. This is why we support the amendments which have come to us from members of the other place.
While we in the New Democratic Party may have a specific view about the over-all value, if not the existence of the other place, we recognize that under Canadian law it exists and has responsibilities which its members have clearly taken seriously. They have listened to thoughtful Canadians, the same ones from whom we heard in committee and the same ones we quoted in the House. They have come to the same conclusion, that a number of elements within the Bill violate the Charter of Rights and go against the spirit of what Canada has evolved to be. They have sent back to us a check-list of amendments and have said: "If you change this, this, and this, we will find the Bill acceptable and, if we find the Bill acceptable, Canadians will find it acceptable". It is a modification of the process to ensure that the benefit of the doubt is given to those who come to our shores, to ensure that they are not turned away before they have a chance to state their case, and to ensure, on

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
the other hand, that those who are not bona fide or are attempting for the purpose of monetary gain to violate the spirit and the law of the land are not allowed to do what they do-a balance, Mr. Speaker.
What have we had through the whole process? We have had the all-Party committee. We have had the Plaut recommendations. We have had the spirit of this House in terms of the two opposition Parties and individual members of the Conservative Party. We have also had the other place. Conservatives, Liberals, and those with an independent label in the other place have come together and said that the Bill must be changed. The primary thing is to make sure due process is followed, that individuals are not turned away on the high seas or left to the whim of the master of the vessel and those who pull his strings. They should be given a chance for a legal and fair hearing so that we in Canada under the powers we have assigned to our bureaucracy can judge them according to merit to determine whether they are bona fide and to determine if for some reason they are coming to Canada under pretences which would show they would not be good citizens.
We are quite willing to take somebody who has a little bit of hard cash so that he or she can start a new business.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Like half a million.


Iain Francis Angus: Like half a million. I come from the area where the phrase "What's a million" was coined by C. D. Howe many years ago. Up North it is like pocket change.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to take those who can buy their way into the country, but we are not as willing under this legislation to take those who find themselves for political or religious reasons having to escape a country. That is what a refugee is, someone who is seeking refuge. He or she is doing it because of the kind of Government he or she is living with and in a lot of cases Governments tend to be dictatorial.
Then there is the problem of violence. If you happen to be a labour leader in Central America, you are not exactly the most loved person. In the case of Canada people will complain about the Bob Whites, the Dennis McDermotts or the Shirley Carrs because of their involvement in society and with workers striking for legitimate rights. In Central America labour people fear for their lives because of the undemocratic nature of the Government of the day. There is documentation to confirm it. A lot of evidence about labour leaders being shot, tortured and beaten is available. No matter what the Conservatives think about Shirley Carr, they would never go that far-and I am not even suggesting they would even think about it. As a comparison to other societies where things happen, that is very real. People need refuge. Sometimes we do not quite understand the politics of a country.
Do any of us really understand the politics of India between the various groups with religious overtones and geographic
relationships? I know from my trip to Israel this summer that the fundamentalism of the Jews in Israel, the fundamentalism of the Arabs in Israel, of the Arabs throughout the Arab world, is part of that volatile nature of the state. Who are we, predominantly a Christian society, to pass judgment on why people may feel they have to leave a country because of oppression? How difficult is it for us to judge specific merits if the authorities of a country we have to go to are the very people from whom people are running and who are forcing people out of the country if they want to remain alive? We need a process that will ensure that the laws of Canada apply and that the rights of individuals apply.
I agree that the current situation of five years to get some kind of decision is intolerable. Of course, there can be abuses. We on this side want to see that situation changed. That is why my colleague has argued for the implementation of the standing committee report based on Rabbi Plaut's report. We want very speedy process, one that will allow a reasonable period of time for determination, not giving the would be refugee a foot in the door that he or she has now in becoming totally involved in society, but one that allows for fair process.
This is a very important Bill. It is a Bill we want to see debated because we believe that the more people understand the specifics of the legislation and the specifics of the problem the better chance there is of the Government not turning the refugee clock back to 1938 or to 1909. We need to move forward and in a way to ensure that those who are forced to flee their countries can find refuge in Canada according to our laws, laws which should be just and fair. It should not be trying to play off refugees against immigrants as has been happening over the last four or five months, suggesting that people are queue-jumpers and they have to be dealt with. We know there is no queue. We had not even met our immigration targets in a number of years. Nobody has been displaced.


Benno Friesen: What are you saying?


Iain Francis Angus: If there is any responsibility on the Government, not just the current Government but the previous one, it is the allocation of resources to ensure that staff are there to do the processing to ensure that all of those who apply as immigrants can have their requests processed fairly quickly within reason. The same thing should apply on the refugee side.
I would encourage the Government to reconsider the amendments which the other place has offered. They are printed for all to see so I will not go through them. 1 have made my points on this Bill.
I thank the other place for its careful consideration of the legislation. 1 think what the Senators have done is to give added strength to the work of the two opposition Parties in this House, reflecting a concern over the kind of refugee policy which the Government seems determined to implement even if it does mean lengthy court challenges and possible violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quite frankly, I think it will be a sad day for Canada should this Bill pass.
January 27, 1988


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague for his comments which have opened up some aspects of this discussion which are not possible for everyone to deal with in a 20-minute speech. I think it is very important that he has opened them up. One aspect particularly that he developed is the situation of trade unionists, co-operative leaders and other community leaders, school teachers and so on in El Salvador or Guatemala, Central America. The operation of the death squads subsided a little for a while but it is now on the increase again both during 1987 and into 1988 in both countries. Because of that terror, organized with guns provided by the United States, many of the people of both countries have fled, and particularly those who could be identified as grass-roots or community democratic leaders. He has made that point. However, 1 would ask him to extend the point a little further, if he will, as to how it is that those people, if they attempt to enter Canada, fall afoul of Bill C-84 or the other legislation which is the companion piece to it, Bill C-55, because many of them may arrive at Fort Erie, at ports of entry nearer to Thunder Bay or to Winnipeg or wherever, without a Canadian visa, a visa permitting them to enter into Canada. This is particularly important because of that clause in Bill C-84 which the other place sought to amend with the support of all the public representatives except, of course, the immigration officials.
These people who come to a port of entry with any assistance from a Canadian are considered to be entering illegally under the Minister's interpretation and therefore the Canadian is subject to a couple of years in prison or a bigger penalty if there is a larger group involved. 1 would ask the Hon. Member to comment on why it is that last year we did have thousands of such people coming to our border, the U.S.-Canadian border, without adequate documentation, or perhaps people in similar situations coming by air or even by boat without adequate documentation.
The question is, how does the Hon. Member respond to the position taken by this Government and by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that those people must be kept out and that Canadians who help those people are penalized, even if it just means bringing them to a port of entry and saying to the immigration officer at the port of entry: "Here is a Salvadoran without a visa but who is in danger in his own country and is not allowed to stay in the United States and therefore is claiming refugee status"? How does the Hon. Member justify the person coming without a visa to Canada?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank my colleague for the question and it is very apt because there is a very active Central American support group in Thunder Bay. Lloyd Jones who has been working very hard for many years providing support for refugees has raised this matter with me.
If for some reason you, Mr. Speaker, were a resident of El Salvador and thought that the death squad was about to show
Immigration Act, 1976
up at your door, usually in the middle of the night, you would take off. You would try to get out of the country.
It is a little difficult, when fleeing a country, to go by the Canadian Embassy in order to get a visa. When a refugee has escaped his country, he faces a catch-22 situation. He cannot go back to get a visa because someone will be watching the compound and noting who goes there, and if he is on a list, he will not be seen after he comes out. Because of the involvement of the United States Government in sponsorship, funding and weapons procurement, it is difficult to follow the suggestion of stopping off in Minneapolis and going to the consulate there to try to get a Canadian visa. The United States is not necessarily a safe haven. There has been at least one case in the last three or four months of an individual being refused at the Canadian border, sent back to the United States, a so-called safe haven, and then being deported by the United States back to the Central American country.
The intention of the amendment from the other place is to provide for a process whereby someone coming to a Canadian border, whether by car, on foot or by plane, can get documentation and have a review to determine whether or not he is a bona fide refugee. The amendment seeks to provide for that rather than having someone arbitrarily saying to a refugee: "No, you go back, we do not want you". Sometimes the answer depends on what side of the bed the border guard got up on that morning. We must have a legal process that is very quick in its response but is also very humanitarian.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the scenario the two Members from the New Democratic Party have drawn of a person who fears for his life in El Salvador wanting to come to Canada. Perhaps the Hon. Member could tell me if it is not true that the U.S. Government has agreed with Canada that any Central American in the United States who has applied for transit papers to Canada or has an application in process to come to Canada will not be acted on by the United States. I think he will find that that is true, and since it is indeed true, why would it be more advantageous for someone coming to Canada to apply for refugee status-I will wait until the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has finished coaching the Hon. Member from Thunder Bay. Since the Hon. Member made such an informed speech on the subject, I am surprised that he needs coaching from the Hon. Member for Spadina.
Be that as it may, why would it be necessary for a refugee to come to a Canadian border point to see an immigration officer? What service could he get there that he could not get from an immigration officer at any consulate in the United States, and there are about a dozen or more consulates?
As a matter of fact, when the Mennonites appeared before the committee, they testified that they do not bring refugees to the Canadian border if they can possibly help it because they prefer to go through a consulate in the United States since it is better for the refugees. If it can be done at an office in the United States, the refugees can complete the process and be

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
prepared for both education and work with a work permit already in place as soon as they arrive in Canada. The Mennonites felt that that was better for the refugees. Why does the Hon. Member say that it is better to come to the Canadian border than to go through the process at a consular office?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member used the term "transit papers". To me, a transit paper is a document that allows an individual to go from border A which in this case would be the Mexican-U.S. border, to border B which would be the Canada-U.S border. Without having heard of transit papers in that context before, 1 must make that assumption. That means that a refugee must get transit papers at some place other than the United States or Canada, and that means that unless he can get them in Mexico, something that I doubt, he has to try to get them in the country from which he is fleeing. Again, my argument stands. In the middle of the night, a refugee will not shop around for papers, he will get out.
The Hon. Member should know that the consulate offices in the United States are heavily loaded with work. We have heard complaints that people cannot get work permits through the consulate office in Minneapolis without waiting for about four or five months. It is my understanding as well that there are quotas assigned to the offices. They can only process a maximum number of refugee applications or immigration applications each fiscal year, so that obviously has some bearing on the situation.
Perhaps the Mennonite community is able to work through its own church network to accommodate that process, and that is great. Yet there is a whole other group coming through the U.S. because they cannot afford to go around it or over it. They rely on volunteers to drive them a couple of hundred miles here and there, so it is just not a good process that is available to them.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that the Hon. Member is not his Party's immigration critic, I would like to commend him most highly for his eloquence on this subject.
One of the concerns we have put forward is that the Government wishes to convince Canadians that if this legislation is passed, the backlogs, the problems, the frustrations, and the loopholes in the refugee determination procedure will be over. From our viewpoint that is very dangerous because that will not be the result. One of the reasons for that is the traditions of this country as referred to by the Hon. Member and others. Another reason is the legal implications.
Every legal expert who appeared before the legislative committee of this House which studied this Bill, and every legal expert before the Senate committee which dealt with this Bill, overwhelmingly suggested that various clauses of the Bill run counter to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, if it is upheld after a court challenge it
will in fact paralyze the policy and create havoc. The logical result is that Canadians will then really lose confidence in the system. In fact, there will be a hemorrhaging of confidence because of the strategy pursued by the Government to the effect that this Bill would be the cure.
1 was wondering if the Hon. Member could perhaps comment on the legal ramifications of drafting legislation not in keeping with the law of this country as he sees it from his vantage point?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for his kind words and his question. Not only am 1 not the critic, I am not a lawyer either. A lot of us in this House are not lawyers, yet we draft legislation which becomes the law of the land.
There has been a fair bit of comment about the relationship between the clauses in this Bill and the Canadian Bill of Rights. There have been a number of legal rulings handed down that make it clear that components of this Bill are not in conformity with current law, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Without getting into the specifics of that, I think if the Government wanted to ensure that it was right and the critics are wrong, and prevent a haemorrhaging of confidence as the Hon. Member suggested, it has the responsibility not to proceed with the Bill, not to send it back to the other place, but to submit it directly to the Supreme Court of Canada with a request for an early ruling. In that way we would have time to modify this legislation should the Supreme Court agree that it is in violation of existing law.
My understanding is that if this Bill passes into law and an individual is found in breach of this law and goes through all the procedures available, we are talking about two, three or four years, I am not sure, before we get a decision. The Morgentaler case, the decision on which will be announced tomorrow, is a case in point. For how many years has that gone on? Therefore, I encourage the Government to send this Bill over to the Supreme Court now and get a legal opinion.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my comments I would like to address myself to some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), who spoke earlier this afternoon. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for this legislation and presumably should know whereof he speaks.
First, I take particular offence at the manner in which he misrepresented the arguments of honest people who are advocating a long-needed change to our refugee determination system. During the course of his remarks he referred to the fact that we are redefining what constitutes a refugee. What does he mean by that? He went on to explain that anyone, presumably, is entitled to call himself or herself a refugee. The decision would no longer be made by the Government. He asked questions. Are we going to let every interest group decide who is a refugee? 1 think I am quoting him correctly.
January 27, 1988

Why do lobby groups and special interest groups feel they have the right to determine who is a refugee?
That is a red herring and completely beside the point. There is no debate about the definition of a refugee, either in Bill C-84, or in Bill C-55. The definition of a refugee is found in the UN Convention of 1951. That is the definition used by Governments around the world to determine who is and who is not a refugee. Therefore, it is incredible that the Parliamentary Secretary would stand in this House and impute motives to well-meaning, honest people who have been advocating changes in our refugee determination system, and cast aspersions on their arguments.
He referred time and time again to special interest and lobby groups. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), referred to this aspect of his argument. At some time there was an honest attempt to make common cause with people who work with and are knowledgeable about refugees. That is an effort which was started when the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was the Minister of Employment and Immigration and continued in the first days of this Government. However, since the election of 1984, and particularly since last spring when the Government tabled Bill C-55, all pretence at making common cause with these groups has fallen by the wayside.
Who are these interest groups and lobby groups? Are these people who would subvert the Government of Canada? Are these people who do not have Canada's best interests at heart? I imagine the Member is referring to someone like Rabbi Plaut, the author of an important report on our refugee determination system who himself was a refugee and should know something about what it is like to be a refugee and about the standards which our country should adopt in trying to determine who is a refugee.
Perhaps he was referring to someone like Nancy Pocock who is a member of the Inter-church Committee for Refugees and was featured in a television report around Christmas time. She has devoted many years of her life to helping dispossessed and needy people, refugees who find her home in Toronto a haven where they can go when they arrive in Canada to meet friends, learn about a new country, establish themselves, and get support and aid from Canadians. On the television show prior to Christmas about Nancy Pocock it was said that refugees fleeing from Latin American countries are given her name and telephone number. She may be the only person they know when they arrive in Canada but she is someone to whom they can turn for the help they desperately require when they arrive in our country. Are these the interest groups and lobby groups which the Hon. Member denigrates in his comments?
With regard to the numbers of refugees who are apparently coming to Canada, in his comments today the Hon. Member referred to 15 million refugees in the world. He has come down somewhat in his estimates since the debate last August when I
Immigration Act, 1976
heard him refer, on a number of occasions, to the five billion people in the world. He was suggesting that if we did not drastically revise our laws we in Canada were in danger of having some five billion people come to our shores. Today he is down to 15 million refugees. I suggest to this House that that is a gross misrepresentation of the actual situation.
I participated in a conference in Montreal in early December organized by the Canadian Human Rights Foundation on the issue of human rights and the protection of refugees under international law. We were reminded at that conference that most refugees are not coming to Canada or the United States. Only a small fraction of the 12 million to 15 million refugees in the world are trying to make their way here. Resettlement is an option for only a small portion of refugees.
Canada has many means to restrict the flow of people who come to our shores. The obligatory visas which are required for people from practically all refugee-producing countries is perhaps the most effective power which the Government has at its disposal to keep refugees away from our shores. That is not to mention, of course, the factor of geography. Canada is not on the border of any refugee-producing country. Therefore, it is impractical and impossible for most refugees to make their way to Canada.
West Germany had some 100,000 refugee claimants in the last year. Pakistan has probably two million or three million Afghan refugees on its border. Mexico has hundreds of thousands of Central American refugees, and Mexico is not exactly a wealthy country. How many Iranian refugees are on Turkish soil today?
Therefore, I find it reprehensible for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to stand in this House and defend the legislation before us on the basis that there are some 15 million refugees in the world, and imply to Canadians that if we do not pass this legislation there is a possibility that these 15 million refugees will actually come to Canada.
I find it reprehensible also that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) have constantly harped on the danger of a public backlash against refugees. We hear that time and time again from spokespersons for the Government. There have been no attempts by the Minister to put the matter into perspective. There has been no attempt to compare Canada's situation with that of other countries as Rabbi Plaut did at the conference which I attended. He compared the number of refugees received by Canada to that received by a tiny country like Costa Rica. 1 believe that Costa Rica has had more refugee claimants in the past several years than has Canada with its great size and wealth.
I take offence also at the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration in reference to the actions of the western European countries. I do not think that we have to set our standards by those of European or any other countries. Canada's situation is

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
far different from that of many other countries. Over the past five or ten years, and certainly in the period since the end of the war to 1983-84, Canada established a reputation in the world in the area of refugee policy and resettlement of refugees. The Canadian people were awarded the Nansen Medal in 1985 by the United Nations because of the generosity that Canadian people have shown to refugees. How can the Parliamentary Secretary stand up in the House and justify the reprehensible actions of the Government and this illegitimate piece of legislation by referring to the situation in European countries? Should Canada not be standing up and saying that we will not follow this lead and will not decrease the safe havens that are available to refugees? Should we not be saying that we will not reduce or seek to limit our obligations but will stand up and demand that other countries respect the rights of refugees under the UN Convention?
O)
As my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), has suggested on a number of occasions, we could even take the bold move of suggesting to the United Nations that a conference be called to deal with this issue, which is again totally in line with the kind of leadership role Canada has played over the course of the past 35 to 40 years.
As 1 said in debate on this Bill several months ago, it is ironic, when we are considering Bill C-84 which would turn boats away from our shore, that we were awarded the Nansen Medal. I believe Nansen was a Norwegian explorer and humanitarian who, in the period after the First World War, began giving documents to displaced persons, refugees I believe from the Austrio-Hungarian Empire that disappeared as a result of the First World War. These documents came to be known as Nansen passports. Of course, the Nansen Medal was named after this individual.
Is it not ironic that in 1985 the people of Canada were awarded for our generosity to refugees a medal which was named after a person who gave visas and documents to undocumented refugees, yet in 1987, the Government proposes legislation that would put undocumented refugees in jail?
I want to deal briefly with another aspect of this legislation. Comments have been made about the aiding and abetting provisions of the Bill that would result in Canadians who are involved in church groups, humanitarian organizations and other groups like Amnesty International which help refugees, being put in jail for aiding the illegal entry of refugees or undocumented persons into Canada.
I also want to point to an aspect of the Bill that relates to the Government's power of search and seizure, which was commented upon by the Senate. Clause 103.03 of the Bill states:
For the purpose of exercising the authority under Section 103.02, an immigration officer or a peace officer may, with such assistance as the officer deems necessary, break open any door, window, lock, fastener, floor, wall, ceiling, compartment, plumbing fixture, box, container or any other thing.
The Senate recommended that this provision be struck out because it argues that this kind of provision, which is similar to the powers in the Narcotics Control Act and Customs Act is excessive in relation to immigration matters. Yet the Minister of Employment and Immigration yesterday rejected this particular recommendation from the Senate. Canadians should know that this kind of provision can be used against them.
In conclusion, I hope other Members will join in this debate so that we may study the many contentious provisions of this Bill. Rather than playing some kind of ping-pong with the other House, as we have on other occasions, perhaps cool heads will prevail in this House and appropriate attention will be paid to some of the very sound recommendations made by the other House. Perhaps we will be able to arrive at a consensus, such as the suggestion during one of the previous confrontations with the other House of a conference between the two Houses to ensure that Canadians have greater respect for the laws that are passed by this Parliament.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) for his presentation in this matter which, as always, is a very thoughtful one.
I would like to ask him if he would comment a little further on a point that he touched. He spoke of the irony of having a law passed to make it an offence for Canadians to assist an undocumented refugee to come to Canada. The irony he referred to was in relation to the Nansen Medal given in the name of a person who had saved lives by giving documents to undocumented people.
He is speaking of a humanitarian tradition in the Nansen Medal and humanitarian action by people, many of whom are associated with explicitly humanitarian groups such as Amnesty, the churches and so on. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has gone on record many times saying, in effect, to the witnesses before the committee in August: "Oh, you are good people. We do not intend to prosecute you". He never defined whom he would not prosecute, but he was addressing certain people there. He meant, "You are the type we will not prosecute".
The recommendation from the other place is that the decision to prosecute should be limited by requiring the written authorization of the Attorney General. The recommendation following that of the Government was for the Attorney General or the deputy. However, it is not clear yet what is the application of the Minister's statement that "you would not be prosecuted because we know you are doing good work".
I would like the Member to comment on two aspects of that. First of all, has he a comment on the quality of the law, perhaps even on what might be the quality of the law in the eyes of the Supreme Court in light of the Charter, quality of the law which can only be administered by having someone say, "Oh well, certain people would not be prosecuted because we know they are good people"?
January 27, 1988

Secondly, can the Hon. Member comment on whether he thinks it would be possible to define the law so that it would not be necessary to use such unlimited discretion as the Minister has suggested?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member was asking me about the question of equality of the law, whether prosecuting only some people under the law as opposed to others would somehow violate the equality provisions of the Charter. 1 think that was the gist of his question. I would really hesitate to offer an opinion immediately without having had the opportunity to reflect on it.
The second part of his question is whether the law can be more closely defined. It seems to me that this is exactly what the other House did when it said that what the Minister is really aiming at is to try to prohibit the clandestine entry of illegal immigrants or migrants, if you will. When a person working with a humanitarian or refugee aid group helps a person by bringing that person to the border, to Canadian immigration officials, whereupon that person would claim refugee status, there is no attempt to hide or circumvent Canada's laws and regulations. What those people are simply doing is knocking on our door, asking for protection. As I understand the United Nations Convention we have an obligation then to examine whether or not that person has a legitimate claim. It would seem to me that it would be a very easy way out of the problem if we made it a practice that we seek to prohibit the clandestine entry of illegal immigrants.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) who not only spoke passionately today about what he holds dear, but has certainly given his strength and commitment throughout the process, going back to the summer and, of course, before then.
To a certain degree, 1 suppose above and beyond the technical aspects of the debate, the legal ramifications, in part we are talking about a piece of legislation that, to a certain degree, will reflect a certain temperament of our country. In the end, it will also be a fight and struggle for Canadian public opinion. Canadians will ultimately decide what aspect of this debate should merit their support.
When we talk about the piece of legislation in that perspective, we are talking about Canadians having to decide between a political Party that wishes to turn back boats indiscriminately as opposed to escorting them in. We are talking about a choice between locking people up and detaining them on suspicion and hunch as opposed to a discreet way of doing it. We are talking about the option of putting people in prison or fining them for aiding the plight of refugees as opposed to rewarding them because they are assisting the Government. I suppose we are talking about whether we will have immigration officers running around like Rambo, breaking down doors and entering any premises, again simply on a hunch. We are talking about those two sides of the equation, and I was
Immigration Act, 1976
wondering, from that perspective, because of the temperance and moderation Canada and Canadians have displayed in the past, if the Hon. Member for Laurier could perhaps address some of his comments on that subject?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in order to have a rational debate, we have to debate fact, not fiction, which suggestion has been offered up time and time again by members of the Government and by the Minister in a rather underhanded attempt to manipulate the public. The Hon. Member referred to public opinion. How can we have an educated public when the Government of this country is disseminating false information? We had an example of that in the speech of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) yesterday in which he said, as reported at page 12299 of Hansard:
The Senate also wants to limit the powers of search and seizure to day-time hours and to confine warrantless search to instances where lives are at risk. If we accept the amendment, we will seriously hamper the ability of our officers to apprehend and prosecute those who organize groups of illegal migrants. Transborder schemes would be conducted mainly at night so the perpetrators could escape Canadian jurisdiction if something went wrong.
This proposal means that in winter months when darkness comes early-
The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) knows about that. In Labrador winter comes earlier than it does in the capital.
-the time of day during which effective action could be taken would be greatly reduced. What could we say about the North where sometimes there is one hour of daylight a day?
Just think, there would be only one hour of daylight in order to conduct searches. Well, of course, that is not what the Senate said at all. The Senate proposed an amendment that a warrant issued under Subsection 1 shall be executed by day, and it continues to say, unless the Justice of the Peace by a warrant authorizes execution of it by night. The Minister says he would have no power to execute a search warrant at night if he accepted the amendment of the Senate. But that is not what the other place said at all. It said that if it is necessary, if a case can be made to a Justice of Peace, a search warrant could be executed at night. So we have another example of misinformation put forward by this Government continuously to the Canadian people.
I can only go back to the remarks I made previously, that a person who is supposed to be in a responsible position, by virtue of that position has a duty to pay careful attention to the words and the facts he puts before this House, and I am referring, of course, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen). He stood up in this House and talked about the millions of refugees who could end up on Canada's shores if we do not pass this legislation, without attempting to put Canada's situation into perspective. He attempted to compare our situation to that of other countries without providing Canadians with the information of various types of controls the Government has at its disposal such as visas. How can we expect the public to be informed? How can we expect to have an intelligent debate?

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate once again. This legislation has been with us for some time.
I want to say up front that the manner in which 1 would characterize the Government's actions with regard to Bill C-84, legislation to amend the refugee determination process, is that the Government is being opportunistic with this legislation. It is playing petty politics and seeking to stir up favourable public opinion. It is making a cheap grab at headlines and simply going for quick results in the public opinion polls. I see the actions of this Government with a very jaundiced eye.
Those statements can be backed up quite convincingly. On the one hand the Government has chosen the option of playing politics with the refugee determination process. On the other hand, there is the option of the status quo, leaving things as they are, and doing nothing. The Government has accused the Opposition of advocating this. I wish to look at those two approaches to the refugee determination process. I also want to examine the notion of whether there is any other way to come to grips with this problem.
First, 1 have stated that this Government is playing politics with the refugee determination process. It is trying to whip up public sentiment and gain public favour by appearing to be the strongman with regard to the refugee determination process. I came to that conclusion for the following reasons.
I remember the time last August when the media were full of people approaching Canada by boat. Concerns were raised about whether someone was going to get into this country illegally, or whether someone was going to get into this country illegitimately, or through the back door. Among immigrant communities the fear was raised that while they were waiting for years to have their relatives come into this country to reunify their families, others were simply chartering a boat, jumping on it and being able to come into Canada without any difficulty whatsoever, and that this was somehow a major loophole in our law. This was on the television screens and whipping up public feelings of unfairness.
The Conservative Government was at the bottom of the public opinion polls, and during the summer recess it broke an agreed upon calendar that was negotiated as part of parliamentary reform that the House would not be sitting in July and August. The Government tore up that calendar, threw it aside, and made a grab for the headlines. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced that there was going to be an emergency recall of Parliament in order to put a stop to this abuse of Canada's refugee determination system and our immigration laws. So the Prime Minister made this grandstand.
The irony of ironies is that as this grandstand was made, a number of weeks later when Parliament still had not been recalled journalists and other people began to ask questions.
The House Leader of the Government was asked why Parliament still had not been recalled for this so-called emergency. The response was that government Members were working on other things and they were too busy to have written the letter to the Speaker to ask for the emergency recall of Parliament. What a farce. There was this great emergency and they did not have the opportunity or the time to sit down and write a letter.
Eventually the letter was written, unfortunately. Parliament was recalled in August, 1987. Presumably this emergency legislation had to be put in place immediately in order to deal with a crisis. Did it get passed? Did it become the central focus of an emergency parliamentary session? No. Not at all. We are still dealing with the legislation today and we are into 1988. The year 1987 has come and gone. The headlines and the television screens of 1987 are in the past. And we are still dealing with this legislation.
The Government had a summer session of Parliament. In fact, it became the fall session and then the ongoing session. We dealt with all sorts of legislation touching many subjects. What an emergency. The Government breaks the calendar that was established through negotiations in this House as part of the parliamentary reform system, an emergency session is called, and that session deals with a variety of legislation. It never comes to grip with the legislation that the Government said was an emergency and had to be passed within hours, days, or weeks. Clearly that was no emergency whatsoever. It was a publicity stunt, a grab for the headlines, and an attempt to stir up public emotions and gain favour.
The Government has been playing politics with the refugee determination system. It has been playing politics with many Canadian families of various ethnic origins who are recent immigrants to Canada, for example, the Portuguese, the Filippinos, and people of all racial origin who have become Canadian citizens and who are working very hard to bring their family members to this country in order that they can live as one family rather than having some relatives in this country and brothers and sisters in another country. The Government is playing with those people's feelings. They were saying to those people who have been waiting for years to bring their son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father to this country, "Here are those people chartering a boat and entering Canada instantaneously".
Even while the legislation was introduced, the Government promised that it would ease up on the family reunification process. It would make it easier for families to be reunified and for relatives to come into this country in order to ease the frustration of the members of the ethnic communities in this country. Has the Government done anything substantive in that area? The Government has changed a few regulations, for which it deserves credit. But by and large the members of the ethnic communities in my riding are still waiting in frustration for their relatives to be allowed into this country and for their families to be once more unified.
January 27, 1988

I challenge the Government, which promised a more generous attitude toward family reunification, to live up to that promise and make it possible for relatives of Canadians to join their family members. If the Government were sincere in its approach to the whole refugee determination system, it would act expeditiously with regard to a more generous approach on family reunification.
I characterized the Government's approach to refugees as cheap politics. Tit for tat, the Government has characterized our position as a "do nothing" approach, an approach where we would simply stay with the status quo. In fact, some Members on the government side have suggested that we would not have any real control over the determination of refugee status and the entry of refugee claimants into this country, and it would simply be at the pleasure of the persons who decided to call themselves refugees. They have suggested that if anybody outside the country were to put on the hat and say "I am a refugee", given the position of the Opposition they would just waltz into the country; there would be no controls. That is the image which the Government has been seeking to propagate in terms of the position or posture taken by the opposition Parties.
Is the only alternative to the Government's hand-fisted approach to refugee determination a wide open, no control, status quo approach? I should like to suggest that it clearly is not, even though some government Members would like to convince the public that it is.
Rabbi Plaut, for example, has conducted a thorough and comprehensive study of the refugee determination system and has offered an alternative way of handling the whole question. A parliamentary committee studied the refugee determination system, found it wanting, and offered positive alternatives as to how the system could be reformed. Clearly there are alternatives to the hand-fisted way in the which the Government is approaching the refugee determination system. It is not a question of either accepting the Tory way or no way. It is not a question of accepting the Prime Minister's way or there will be no controls with regard to refugee status. Clearly the Government has been seeking to propagate that false alternative.
The refugee determination system needs to be reformed. People on this side of the House clearly recognize that. When it takes up to five years for a decision to be made with regard to refugee status, there is something wrong with the process. Clearly the process becomes open to abuse and one which invites abuse. The refugee determination process needs a complete house cleaning. It needs to be re-thought from top to bottom.
I want to come to what I think is the central point of the debate on Bill C-84 to amend the refugee determination process. The Government is playing politics with the issue, is seeking to curry public favour, and is accusing the Opposition of having a status quo policy or a hands-off approach to
Immigration Act, 1976
refugee determination. Those are not the only alternatives. In fact there is a middle way, a way of facing up to the challenge by providing genuine leadership which would reform the refugee determination system so that it combines human rights and fairness-fairness with regard to the process by which people enter the country and become Canadian citizens and respect for human rights, respect for the Canadian tradition of generosity when it comes to people whose lives are in danger. This is the balance which must be struck. On the one hand we must respect the human rights of global citizens who come to our shores and indicate that their lives are in danger, that they need sanctuary, protection, or a haven. We must respect their human rights and their right to a fair hearing. At the same time we must respect the sentiment of Canadians that nobody should be able to abuse the refugee determination system as a way of coming into Canada through the back door, as a way of jumping the queue, as has often been said on the other side of the House, or as a way of getting in here as a quick fix. Canadians have a right to demand that fairness apply with regard to entry into this country. We must combine those values and concerns, and that is a challenge of political leadership.
Governing a country is not an easy process. If it were, I guess the Conservatives would be in office longer than we expect them to be. Governing is a difficult art. It requires the balancing of legitimate concerns. If it were simply a one-way street in which all we had to take into account was one set of priorities, maybe the Conservatives would still be at 60 per cent of the polls. We recognize that running the country is a difficult process and that the concerns of people must be balanced.
The first thing the Government should do in turning around this legislation is to change its strategy. It should accept the challenge of political leadership and accept the challenge of combining a concern for human rights with a concern for fairness in the process of entering the country. If it did that, perhaps it would not have to worry about its position in the polls. In fact, Gregg, a famous Tory pollster, has said in public-and it has been printed in the newspapers-that what Canadians want is leadership based on principle and based on compassion.
The Government has also failed to live up to its own past history. When it came to the boat people coming out of southeast Asia, we had a very admirable program. Canadian families from one coast to the other were able to sponsor boat people and to assist in their settlement in the country. They made it a successful program. It solved a refugee problem and allowed all Canadians to live up to and participate in the humanitarian tradition of which the country is duly proud.
The Government has failed to live up to its own past behaviour and has sunken to a new low. It has also failed to meet the challenge of leadership on this planet in another sense: as long as we have great disparities in incomes, conflicts, and a lack of democratic procedures in the world, we will have a surplus of refugees. The Government ought to look at

January 27, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
international development in order to come to grips with the whole question of refugees, not just bring in a Draconian piece of legislation.
In summary I want to say that when I look at the piece of legislation I see a Government which is playing politics with the refugee determination process. It is trying to play the tough guy. It is trying to be John Wayne and hopes to have the same popularity as the movie star had. What we need is real political leadership, not playing at politics.
I have indicated that there are real alternatives. Rabbi Plaut studied the question in depth and found ways, as did the parliamentary committee, to combine our concern and respect for human rights with our interest and respect for Canadian public opinion when it comes to demand for fairness in the process of entry into the country.
It is time for the Government to turn around, withdraw the legislation and accept the challenge of providing real political leadership in Canada rather than simply playing to the nearest camera.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). I congratulate him on articulating a number of different fronts which 1 believe his Party and members of our caucus have come to maintain. I think within the Member's remarks he hit the nail on the emotional head. One of the most offensive parts of Bill C-84 is the provision that now creates a new offence for those who aid and abet and genuinely assist refugees coming into Canada, namely, the churches, the many volunteer organizations, the immigration assistance and relief agencies, your average Canadian, and those who have been engaged, not in this past summer but for years, in trying to enhance the plight facing so many people. That perhaps typifies what is wrong with this legislation. That one clause says it all.
If you were to canvass Members of this House, including government Members, and you asked them whether they actually agreed and applauded the creation of this new offence, I am not sure that you would get an honest response. If this law is brought against a priest, he could face a fine or a prison sentence for having helped a refugee from Guatemala who may not have had the proper document upon entering the country. But the Government has said, "Do not worry. We are not going to charge a priest. We will not put in prison a priest who may have helped a refugee".
You simply cannot go on what the Government's intentions are or what the Minister of the day believes he will do. We must be guided and concerned with what is available under the law. If the Minister, as he has done, suggested to Canadians that he will not prosecute a priest, a nun or a layman who assists a refugee, then our question has been consistently, why create legislation and a law if you do not want to execute that law at some point?
Based on that comment, I would like the thoughts of the Hon. Member concerning the creation of that new offence. Will he also comment on the Government's suggestion that it will not bring the penalty into force, in certain circumstances?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I must say the question is very topical. We have had discussion in this House about the danger of people breaking a law and then not being charged, this whole business about creating a new offence and then the Minister saying, "I won't charge you because you are a good person. It is not you whom I intend to charge". That is a dangerous step to take. We want the law to be respected. We must draft good laws. If we draft crude laws and have to be very delicate in the way they are applied, then we are going down a very shaky road. The Government has already started down that road. The legislation before us today is legislation that many groups in Canada and many legal scholars have said with good reason that it would not stand up to the Charter of Rights. Clearly what we want is a Government that will draft good legislation, that will create good laws and that will live by laws. The first law is the most fundamental of all, namely, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When a broad section of legal opinions says to the Government that the legislation it has drafted will breach the Charter of Rights, the Government ought to go back to the drawing board and find a way to draft legislation that will respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have seen the red light that tells us, "Don't race through here because if you do you are liable to have a terrible accident and lives may be lost". Clearly the Government is making a significant mistake in creating this new offence. People will be put in jeopardy. Church members working with refugees, particularly those who are these days working with people from Latin America, should not run the risk of facing new penalties with the simple assurance that the Minister does not intend to prosecute them.
Clearly it is not adequate to put a very heavy law on the books and then for the Minister to say, "I don't mean to apply it to members of churches who are doing humanitarian work. I just want to apply it against the bad guys". The Minister must draft legislation that will protect human rights and will not put people who work with the churches at risk. Legislation must not put at risk Canada's reputation as a country which allows sanctuary for those who are genuinely fleeing dictatorial regimes whose own lives are at stake.
The answer to my colleague is simply that the Government is making a fundamental mistake. We hope that if this debate continues long enough perhaps the Government will wake up. We know that there are noises being made by the right-wing back-benchers of the Tory caucus. Perhaps the humanitarians on the back-bench will rise up in anger and tell the Prime Minister to wake up and tell the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to back off and bring forward good legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are only 30 seconds left. Shall we call it six o'clock?
January 27, 1988	COMMONS DEBATES 12357


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.	Immigration Act, 1976 The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).

Thursday, January 28, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers