1988-06-17

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 13, consideration of second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments by the Senate to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof; and the amendments of Mr. Marchi (p. 16341) and of Mr. Friesen (p. 16354).
Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek Your Honour's advice on procedure so that I will not make a mistake and thereby delay


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Speak to Nelson Riis. We are only here to govern the nation.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Not for much longer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps if Hon. Members would let the Hon. Member for Spadina and the Chair work this out it would be to the general advantage of all.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have two amendments that I wish to move to the main motion. I did not have the opportunity to move them previously since there was the amendment of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), to which I moved a subamendment.
Last week the House gave unanimous consent to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) to move a motion including certain other amendments which could not have been incorporated into the Minister's response because they were not amendments to the Senate amendments, they were further independent amendments. I would like to know how I should proceed.
One of my amendments is an amendment to the Minister's response. One of my amendments would be in respect of the
new amendments. I would like to know whether I should ask that they be moved at this time or whether there would be a later time that would be more appropriate. I would also like on that occasion to ask for unanimous consent as was given to the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to debate the amendments that we have tabled. We have not seen the amendments to which the Hon. Member has referred. Perhaps if he wants to table them-and I will be guided by you, Sir- then we can look at them and Your Honour can rule as to their admissibility. We could perhaps during that time take a look at the amendments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to table them. I did, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested yesterday, send copies of them over to the Minister's office. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary has not had an opportunity to see them yet. I would be very happy to table them now, if that would mean that we could later consider how to handle them.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that there may be some disposition in the House to co-operate here.
Let me just begin by answering the question that the Hon. Member for Spadina has put to the Chair. I will then comment on the helpful suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
First, in answer to the Hon. Member for Spadina, as debate continues on the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment and the Hon. Member for Spadina obtains the floor on debate, then he will be in a position of course to move the amendment to that particular amendment.
With respect to the other matter, if the Hon. Member has consent, of course it could be done.
It seems to me that it might be appropriate to put this matter down for a couple of minutes until everyone takes a look at the form of the amendments which the Hon. Member is proposing. Then I have to advise all Hon. Members that it can all be done by consent at this time, which might, quite frankly, be of assistance to the Chair. It might be in the interests of general convenience.
I suggest that the Hon. Member have a further discussion and come back to the Chair. In the meantime I want to say the following to the Hon. Member for Spadina and other Hon. Members.

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
The Table Officers have considered the two amendments to which the Hon. Member for Spadina has made reference. I wish to advise the Hon. Member that the procedural advice that I have received is that they are acceptable.


Benno Friesen: I am sure the Hon. Member wants to speak to his subamendments, and he could do so at this time. We could carry on the debate, whether it is on the Hon. Member's subamendments or the debate in general, in order that we can conclude the debate, as I think there was general agreement to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to read too far the mood of the House. I suppose 1 should ask if there is consent to have both of the amendments put at this time. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina) moves:
That the motion of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration be amended in the proposed amendment to insert a new Clause 32 into the Bill, by adding immediately after Section 123 the following new Section:
"123.1. Should Bill C-84, entitled an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be assented to during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament and section 16 of that Act comes into force before this Act, then, on the day on which this Act comes into force the reference in section 123 of the Immigration Act, 1976 as amended by this Act, to paragraphs 19(1 )(E) and (2)(A), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01 (1 )(E)(iii) and subsections 82.1(2) and 83(1) shall be read as a reference to paragraphs 19(1)(E) and (2)(A), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01 (1 )(E)(iii) and subsections 82.1(2), 83(1) and 91.1(1)."
And:
That the motion be amended in the proposed amendment to Senate amendment numbered 4 by deleting in subparagraph (iii) all the words after "(2)(C)" and substituting the following therefor:
"who the Minister has certified constitutes a danger to the public in Canada; or".


Mr. Speaker:: Those are the two amendments. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Spadina on debate on both amendments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, to put it mildly, the first amendment is a technical one. It relates to that part of Bill C-84 which is not before us at the moment but is connected with Bill C-55. Bill C-84 has a provision empowering the Minister to turn away ships at sea under certain circumstances.
In the amendments being brought to Bill C-84 there is an amendment that would restrict the Minister from delegating that power. In other words, there is Clause 123 in the present Act which states, in effect, that the Minister may not delegate to any lower official powers under certain sections of the Act, and it lists those powers. The amendments to Bill C-84 would restrict the effect of that power, that is, restrict the Minister from delegating the power to turn away ships.
My Party and I are in agreement with that restriction. We are not in agreement with giving the Minister the power to turn away the ships, but we do at least agree that it should be restricted, if it is there, to the Minister only, for the reasons that the Senate and the Minister have agreed upon.
However, it has been pointed out to me from legal advice, and I say that only because it is obvious that I am not a legal expert or a lawyer, that the power to turn the ships away will come into effect when Bill C-84 is passed. But if that comes into effect after Bill C-55, then that restriction of the delegation would be cancelled because there is a section in Bill C-55 which provides for another restriction of the power of delegation, but not for that one. In other words, the restriction would not be in effect, even though that restriction was intended by the Senate when it considered that Bill and agreed to by the Minister in responding to the Bill.
The amendment that I am proposing, which I hope will be found acceptable by all sides, states:
"123.1. Should Bill C-84, entitled an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be assented to during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament and section 16 of that Act comes into force before this Act,-
In other words, if Bill C-54 were to be passed soon and Bill C-84 subsequently.
-then, on the day on which this Act comes into force the reference in section 123 of the Immigration Act, 1976 as amended by this Act, to paragraphs 19(1)(E) and (2)(A), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01(1 )(E)(iii) and subsections 82.1(2) and 83(1) shall be read as a reference to paragraphs 19(1 )(E) and (2)(A), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01 (1 )(E)(iii) and subsections 82.1(2), 83(1) and 91.1(1)."
I apologize, Madam Speaker, for the number of numbers and brackets, but this appears to be the legal situation that we have. I have sought the advice of the parliamentary staff on this matter, and received it, and I am grateful for that. I have sought advice of the Journals staff on this matter, as a matter of form, and received it, and I am grateful for that.
To simplify it for Hon. Members who may not have had the opportunity to follow this through in detail before now, it is the intention of the Senate and the Minister, agreed to, certainly by my Party and I believe by the other opposition Party, to restrict the power of the Minister to delegate authority to turn away ships. Even though that authority will lapse six months after Bill C-55 comes into force according to the amendments that are being considered, this particular aspect of it, this restriction of the delegating authority, would fail to operate from the time that Bill C-55 is declared until that lapse. Therefore, during that time the power of delegation of the Minister would exist. The Minister could delegate to lower officials the decision to turn away ships. Since that is not the intention of the Senate, nor the intention of the Minister, as I understand her amendments, I would hope the Minister would find this subamendment acceptable.
June 17, 1988

If I may, I will proceed to the second amendment. In the Senate's amendments, there is an amendment concerning the relationship of the process for dealing with refugee claims and the process for dealing with a perceived security risk. What the Senate proposed was that there be a section created which says that among those who will not be allowed to make the refugee claim is (A) described in paragraph 19(l)(c) or (B)(iii):
... a person described in paragraph 19(1 )(e), (f) or (g) or 27(1 )(c) or (2)(c), if the Minister is of the opinion that the application of sections 45 to 48 and 70 and 71 to that person would be contrary to the public interest;-
It is those last words I propose to change. My motion would read:
That the motion be amended in the proposed amendment to the Senate amendment No. 4 by deleting in subparagraph (iii) all the words after "(2)(c)".
That is to say: " ... if the Minister is of the opinion ..." The Minister has made a variation in the following words. Instead of saying "that the application of Sections 45 to 48 and 70 and 71", the Minister's amendment reads: "If the Minister is of the opinion that it would not be in the public interest to have the refugee claim determined under this Act". The Minister's words and the Senate's words have the same effect, but I am concerned with the ground upon which such a determination would be made. In Section 19(1 )(ii)(B) the ground for rejecting the claim depends on it being a person who the Minister has certified constitutes a danger to the public in Canada. I think that is a much more objective ground and, in that sense, a much more reasonable ground, upon which to base such an administrative decision. If the Minister has certified that a certain person is a danger to the public in Canada, there are limited provisions for having that decision reviewed by the Security Review Agency. There are some opportunities for the intervention of the normal procedures of justice such as habeas corpus and the right to counsel, even though the right to counsel is limited by the option of an in camera hearing from which counsel would be excluded. Nevertheless, the charge of being a danger to the public and the necessity of being able to show someone, such as a judge, the evidence of that danger, is a suitable limit on the power of either the Minister or the officials. It is the sort of limit that, for centuries, we have sought to develop and strengthen in our democracy.
Therefore, I believe the words used "who the Minister has certified constitutes a danger to the public in Canada" are acceptable words, but the words used in paragraph (iii) below: " ... if the Minister is of the opinion that to admit that person would be contrary to the public interest", is so undefined, so subjective and so general that I believe we should not allow that to creep into our law.
Parliamentary democracy in England became well established about three centuries ago when people decided they would not allow the King to use arbitrary power. They would not allow the King to just say, "I do not like him, so off with his head", or, "I do not like him, so kick him out of the
Immigration Act, 1976
country", or, "I do not like him, so remove him from office". There were military battles fought in England to establish the principle that even the King, or in this case the King's Minister or the Queen's Minister, must show some reason and not just use a blanket phrase such as "contrary to the public interest".
I believe that at the same time, three centuries ago, in France, the phrase used when the King was giving carte blanche to some servant to go and get rid of someone, was simply "reasons of state ". If the bearer has done what he has done through "reasons of state" then, of course, he is not to be accused or prosecuted even if he murdered someone. We rejected that three centuries ago. We did not want that in England and we do not want that in Canada.
Reasons of state or simply reasons of public interest are not good enough when a matter is very serious, and this is very serious. There could be a person with a legitimate refugee claim. He could also be a person who, because perhaps he came from a dictatorship such as Chile, was accused of having done subversive acts against the Government of General Pinochet. That is one of the causes referred to here. If he falls under certain clauses and the Minister says it would not be in the public interest to have his refugee claim processed, it could not be processed. What 1 am saying is that it is not enough for the Minister to say: "General Pinochet does not like him and neither do I". That is not in accordance with our democratic rules. It is also not in accordance with the UN convention with respect to the status of refugees which we signed 20 years ago and which the Government still boldly claims to support. If that person fell under the displeasure of General Pinochet or some other tyrant, he should be judged not according to whether the Minister does not like him, but according to whether it can be shown he is a danger to the public in Canada; not in Chile, not in Vietnam, not in the Soviet Union, not in Mozambique, not in South Africa, but in Canada.
This introduction of the phrase "the public interest" at this time is of particular concern because of a case that hit the newspapers a few weeks ago in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was reported to have influenced the Minister and the Department of Immigration to exclude a Sikh refugee claimant by the name of Santokh Singh Bagga on the grounds that to allow him to make a refugee claim, to allow him to have his refugee claim heard, would be contrary to the public interest in Canada. In that case it was reported and never refuted that that person had received a security clearance from CSIS. It had been alleged by officials of the Government of India that they had no complaint against him. Yet the Minister, in correspondence with his colleague, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, alleged that this person was wanted in India on suspicion of certain crimes. In other words, there was no agreement among our officials as to whether there was substance to the Minister's vague allusions. It was clear that, according to our existing law, the Minister had no right to ask that the opportunity of making a refugee claim and having it heard should be withheld from Santokh Singh Bagga.

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
It appears that the object of this change would be to give the Minister the power that he then undertook to use-although he did not rightfully have such power, and I believe that matter may come before the courts but I have not heard that it has as yet-the power to finger any refugee claimant that he did not like and say it would be contrary to the public interest to let that person make a claim. I believe that would be a very undemocratic precedent to establish. It would not only damage the cases of certain refugee claimants but it would also undermine a fundamental principle of Canadian law that a person should not be hurt without being accused of something to which he could answer. In that case the Secretary of State was also quoted as complaining about the fact that Sikhs had been given refugee status in Canada.
It would appear that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs had this clause to use he might simply ban all Sikhs from making refugee claims in Canada. There might be others, perhaps the Bangladeshis, the Chileans or the people from Mozambique. We do not know, but if the Minister said, "I don't want any of those people making refugee claims", their stories would simply not be heard by the refugee process in Canada. That would be a very unfortunate law for Parliament to enact and it might very well be challenged in the courts.
My concern at present, however, is with the responsibility of Parliament. I am asking that the words in subparagraph (iii), "if the Minister is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest to have that claim considered under our present law", be replaced by the words, "who the Minister has certified constitutes a danger to the public in Canada".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there any questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak once again on Bill C-55 and have one more chance to show my opposition to government policy that I believe betrays one of the oldest Canadian traditions, a tradition of welcome to people who have been persecuted or oppressed in another country. This tradition goes back to the earliest arrival of non-indigenous people in Canada. It goes back to the arrival of the Huguenots in New France. The United Empire Loyalists came to Canada fleeing from the excesses of the American dream. We have a history of receiving blacks fleeing from slavery in the United States and coming through the underground railroad. We have members of the historic peace churches, the Mennonites, the Doukhobors, the Hutterites who came to Canada, sometimes by a very circuitous route, to escape the enforced militarism of various European countries. They wanted a new way of thinking and did not want to be bound by old European ways of thinking which prescribed how everybody should think.
Since the Second World War we have had refugees from war-torn Europe and from behind the Iron Curtain. Over
400,000 of them have come to Canada since the Second World War. In the last few years we have seen a great many refugees coming from Southeast Asia. Particularly in recent times, because of our traditions, refugees have wanted to come to Canada from Latin America. Two years ago the Canadian people were awarded the Nansen Medal for receiving refugees from other parts of the world. But this is not the only tradition in Canada. There is a counter tradition, a tradition of ethno-centrism, of xenophobia, a fear of the stranger. That goes back to the roots of our human psyche for all of us, an intolerance of differences, a preference for the known and for the comfortable, which sometimes degenerates into bigotry.
As individuals, political Parties, societies and churches, I suppose we all share both traditions. We have on the one hand a tradition of openness and hospitality toward other people. On the other hand we have this bigotry and intolerance, which every so often crops up and sometimes dominates our lives and society. Every so often I find myself betrayed by something that comes up, some bigotry or intolerance within my own life that makes me ashamed when I recognize it later on.
The question we have to decide when we are making conscious policy decisions, when we sit down to make rational decisions about the direction in which our individual lives should go or the direction in which our nation should be going, is which tradition do we follow? Certainly when we look at the situation of people coming to Canada claiming refugee status we know there is a problem.
Speaking on this issue the Minister told us that some 60,000 people are now waiting to have their refugee determination status clarified. It is time there was some clarification. There have been royal commissions and committees of this House which have looked at this issue. Recommendations have been made which, if followed, would have resulted in clarification and a fair and speedier process, preventing the backlog from continuing to build up, a process to ensure that everyone would have a full hearing and the right to appeal. We do not have that in Bill C-55. We have a Bill that follows the tradition of fear and intolerance. That is why we are so opposed to it on this side of the House. In attempting to meet a real problem as we all recognize, it resorts to fear and intolerance, and there are measures in this Bill that will destroy the openness that we in Canada have come to see as a hallmark of our society. The tradition we wish to enshrine is one of openness and of welcome to refugees.
Carlos Fuentes in his book The Old Gringo said:
A muckraking reporter needs a robber baron as God needs Satan.
In the same way democratic socialists sometimes find it handy to have a right-wing ideologue as a convenient focus for our remarks. Sometimes we are even tempted to create straw men so that we can attack the straw men, but when it comes to Bill C-55 we do not create a straw man. We have a genuine
June 17, 1988

right-wing ideologue who has stated the policy very beautifully, I am referring to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Last week, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), in response to a comment made by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), said, as reported on page 16348 of Hansard:
The Member began, for example, by saying his forbear came here in 1S48 as a result of the failed revolutions in Germany. I understand that since my grandparents and great grandparents came from much the same kind of background.
However, he went on to say that the refugees today are the same as those in 1848, as if nothing has happened in the world since 1848 that would change the outlook or behavioural practices of people wanting to come to Canada.
Let me list just a few of the concepts which have now formed the behavioural patterns of people. For example, nihilism, which basically says it does not matter since nothing matters anyway. So you can do what you want. It is all a black future. There is no good consequence of anything, anyway, so go ahead and do what you want. There is existentialism, which makes everyone's individual outlook paramount. There is no uniform absolute. Nothing is clearly right or wrong.
Therefore, the expression of your own particular authenticity is the most moral thing you can do. There is no absolute morality so it does not matter if you incite violence or peace in its own self. That is a very popular concept.
There is dialectical materialism. It began to be popular around 1848 but was not pervasive at that time. But for the last 150 years witness eastern Europe and the effect of dialectical materialism, where the state is supreme and individual rights are nothing. They have value only to the extent and to the degree they support the state. How about situational ethics, again where nothing is right or wrong except the situation in which you happen to be. It depends on the situation.
Finally, the Marxist theology of Latin America which espouses violence for their cause. I want to remind the professor that when we have that cauldron of beliefs in the system, the thought forms of people coming to Canada have changed in the last 150 years, and Canada deserves some protection from people whose thought forms have changed, if they no longer hold to absolute rights and wrongs.
The key issue here, of course, is the Hon. Member's final statement. He said that people have changed in the last 150 years and that Canada deserves some protection from people whose thought forms have changed if they no longer hold to absolute rights and wrongs. I believe that we in Canada need protection from those whose thinking has not changed in the last 150 years, those who believe that their own way of interpreting right and wrong is the absolute law of the universe.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta listed five different concepts that he felt were dangerous to Canada. I am not sure how he sees Bill C-55 preventing these concepts from coming into Canada. Some have already sneaked in over the border from the United States. Perhaps we have to do something to tighten up the free trade agreement a bit.
The Hon. Member talks about nihilism, existentialism, dialectical materialism, situational ethics and Marxist theology. We do not know how Bill C-55 will keep these things out, but the point is that the statement made by the Hon. Member gives some idea of the thinking of some Conservative Members, at least, as to the reason behind Bill C-55. It is to
Immigration Act, 1976
keep out people who do not think properly. It is a question of ideology rather than of refugee determination.
I know that the Hon. Member has never had a dialectical thought in his life, so I will not talk about dialectical materialism. I will not ask the Hon. Member to tempt himself with the thought of nihilism, to look into the abyss and see nothing there. Just this morning someone defined a nihilist as a Conservative who looks into the by-election opportunities in Lac-Saint-Jean, sees that there is nothing there and is tempted to despair. I will not ask the Hon. Member to be tempted by nihilism or dialectics, but I would like him to think existentially for a moment.


Benno Friesen: Oh, no.


James Douglas Manly: Yes, think existentially, because existentialism is not a philosophy that began with people like Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre. Existential thinking, as the Hon. Member will know if he thinks about it, goes back at least as far as the Bible.
An ancient creed like the one found in Deuteronomy 26-


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


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You couldn't even spell existentialism, let alone Deuteronomy.


David Kilgour: It is not a spelling point of order, it is simply to ask what possible relevance do the Hon. Member's musings on existentialism have to what we are talking about this morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will show a little bit of patience, and that the Hon. Member who is speaking will make the link.


James Douglas Manly: You are absolutely correct, Madam Speaker. The link was established first by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta who said that we had to beware of people who came to Canada espousing existentialism, and that some thought forms had changed in the last 150 years so we had to be very careful about these people coming here as refugees. I am now asking him to think about refugees from an existential point of view.
I am pointing out that existential thinking as a way of thinking is something that goes back a long time. I referred to the creedal formulation that is in the 26th Chapter of Deuteronomy, and the Hon. Member is very familiar with that. The ancient Israelites were told to begin their creed with this statement: "A wandering Aramean was my father; and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there".
The beginning of this creed was a remembrance of the experience as refugees. Again, there is the statement in Exodus: "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt". Here we begin with a reference to an existential understanding of the situation.

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This just underscores what I have felt for a long time. Israelites and Mennonites are about the same.


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Member is absolutely correct. The history of the Mennonites of being forced from one country to another and finally finding refuge in Canada is so important to this whole debate. The commandment that you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him for you were strangers in the land of Egypt means that you shall not wrong a refugee for you were strangers in Russia or wherever. Many people have different traditions in their own families and their own faiths. If they look back, they will see where they were strangers or sojourners or refugees. It is that kind of existential thinking that I appeal to the Hon. Member and to all Hon. Members to use. Let us put ourselves in the position of the refugees and look at Bill C-55 from that point of view.
What happens when we look at Bill C-55 from the point of view of a refugee? Let us look at it, for example, from the point of view of a Salvadoran who has escaped from the persecution, the oppression, the war and the death squads that exist in that country. In spite of the farce of elections that took place a few years ago there and the facade of a democratic Government, right-wing oppression continues in that country. We can imagine this Salvadoran making his or her way to the United States and living a precarious underground existence, knowing very well that if discovered, he or she could be deported. In 1982, for example, out of 12,000 refugees, or people who claimed refugee status in the United States, only 26 were accepted. The United States is not very hospitable towards Salvadorans. In the last year the United States has passed legislation which imposes very severe penalties upon anyone who gives employment or harbours illegal refugees.
Therefore, these people have a very precarious role in the United States and find their way to Canada. Once Bill C-55 is in place, instead of being able to come to Canada and have a full hearing they will be subject to a prescreening process. If it is determined that they came from the United States, there is a very good chance that the United States will be declared a safe third country to which they can be sent back. There is no guarantee.
The Library of Parliament studied this issue with regard to the safe third country, and said:
Even when the wording of the provision is finally settled, it will probably still be very difficult to enumerate or explain the factors that will underlie the safe country list or how those factors will operate in any given case. For example, what are the implications if the general human rights record of a country is a criterion? It is not immediately apparent how human rights would be relevant. Some countries have a general record that is good (or reasonably so) for the majority of their citizens, but poor in respect of certain sectors of the population. Turkey is a case in point-
Similarly, the general human rights record of a country in relation to all their own nationals might be excellent. The countries of Western Europe come to mind.
Yet, in the special case of non-nationals who happen to be refugees or refugee claimants, the attitude may be quite different. Again, certain incidents in Europe in the last five years will serve as examples of this. Yet the criterion of the human rights record would imply that all of those countries should be placed on the list.
The foregoing discussion illustrates the difficulties in establishing what a safe country is, in particular by referring to its general human rights record. If that is to be a criterion (a point not yet established at time of writing) its application may prove very difficult.
Especially in view of the difficulties just discussed relating to general human rights, a country's record on refoulement will, and should, be the factor most central to a safe country designation, yet how will that be assessed?
If individual examples of refoulement (probably indirect, but refoulement nevertheless) in relation to a country were sufficient to keep that country off the list, very few countries, even in Western Europe, would qualify.
We have again problems with what is going to happen. We have the concept of sending people back to a so-called safe third country, but what do we mean by that?
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has pointed out the bias in Canadian policy. I am not sure whether it is as a result of bias or just of mistake that this morning's headline in The Globe and Mail talks about a Mozambican terrorist who has been granted refugee status in Canada even though he was not on the United Nations High Commission for Refugees list of refugees. It appears that the appropriate consultation was not taken, there was not a CSIS clearance, yet this person has been granted refugee status in Canada. On the other hand, a Sikh, a non-violent person, has been denied refugee status by the direct intervention of the Minister.
The Inter-Church Committee for Refugees has written, again underlining the need for legislation which would provide access for all claimants to a full, fair, and independent hearing and a meaningful appeal. They say:
Legislation which compromises the level of justice accorded to refugees is unnecessary and should be resisted.
It is on that basis that we are resisting Bill C-55. It is not in accordance with the best Canadian traditions of openness and hospitality. It does a disservice to Canada and a disservice to refugees.


Mrs. Mailly:: Madam Speaker, we have a gallery full of young Canadians who have come to visit our Parliament and I would be very saddened if they went away from this place with the wrong impression which the Member is trying to give them of the legislation before us. First, we have before us a Bill on immigration-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has just accused the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) of trying to give a false impression, not of giving a false impression but of trying to give a false impression. I assume that she chose her words unintentionally and that she does not mean to accuse the Hon. Member of trying to give a false impression but that she disagrees with what he is saying. I hope she will correct that.
*
:
* [DOT]
June 17, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would not want any Hon. Members to jump to conclusions too quickly.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I do not want the young people to go away with the wrong impression which the Member was trying to give of this particular legislation.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. She has done exactly the same thing. She said he is trying to give the wrong impression. Would you please explain to her the basic rule of Parliament that we do not accuse a Member of wilfully misleading.


Claudy Mailly: The particular piece of legislation we have before us, Madam Speaker, is Bill C-55 with regard to immigration. We have this legislation because we have done precisely what the Member who has just spoken has recommended. We have put ourselves in the place of real refugees who are waiting in camps overseas in Asia and Europe to come to Canada and cannot do so because we have a backlog here of some 50,000 cases, 80 per cent of which turn out not to be real refugees.
We have brought forward Bill C-55 so that in the future we will not have such a backlog which keeps real immigrants from coming to Canada. In our country we have recent immigrant stock and we would like the families of these new Canadians to be able to come and join with them. That is why we have this legislation. We are precisely carrying out our traditional approach of openness to people who want to come and settle in Canada.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: That's not true.


Claudy Mailly: We are also carrying out our tradition of respecting the law. When people come to our country they find that we are a law-abiding people. They come here because they find here justice, freedom, respect for authority, and respect for individuals.
With this legislation we are trying to protect real refugees. There are thousands of real refugees languishing in refugee camps who want to come here but cannot because of the backlogs. We are trying to avoid having backlogs in the future. I cannot understand why the Member would want to give the impression that what we are doing is contrary to our traditions. It is right in the stream of our traditions. I do not understand why that approach is being taken. I would also like the Member to explain why he is confusing a Bill on immigration with a Bill on refugees.
These are two different areas. It is a package with which we are trying to approach the problem.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being eleven o'clock, under Standing Order 19(4), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 19, the Board of Parks and Recreation of the City of Vancouver will be celebrating a century of service and marking the 100th anniversary of Stanley Park.
The first resolution of the First City Council of Vancouver petitioned the then Dominion Government to grant what was at the time a government military reserve to the city for a public park. Ottawa consented to lease the park to the city for 99 years, and Lord Stanley of Preston, then Governor General of Canada, gave his name to the park with these memorable words: "To the use and enjoyment of people of all colours, creeds and customs for all time, I name thee Stanley Park".
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that Stanley Park is famous for its many features, from the zoo and the aquarium, to Lumbermen's Arch, Pauline Johnson's Memorial, the beautiful totem poles and, of course, the Lord Stanley Monument. But it is the park itself, an island of green shining like an emerald jewel in the middle of a large urban setting, which is the major attraction for tourists and citizens alike.
The fact that Stanley Park has retained much of its original natural and uncluttered beauty is a tribute to the people of Vancouver who have been vigilant over the years in their efforts to protect the park from overdevelopment and from commercialization.
I am sure I speak on your behalf as well, as a neighbouring Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, when 1 say that all of our constituents in Vancouver Quadra, Vancouver South, and other constituencies of Vancouver join me in congratulating the Vancouver Parks Board on its role in preserving Stanley Park over the last century and for future generations.


Mr. Speaker:: I just might say that there are times when the Speaker needs others to speak for him. I thank the right hon. gentleman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1988

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's announcement that Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain has countermanded her Trade Minister on the fur labelling issue which threatened the livelihood of tens of thousands of Canadian trappers and fur industry workers is welcome news.
This victory of commonsense will restore normal cordial trading relations between our country and Great Britain.
The diplomatic skills of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the parliamentary skills of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), who spearheaded the emergency debate in this House, played no small part in this achievement.
In addition, we must recognize the efforts of provincial and territorial Governments, native organizations, the fur trade itself, and the opposition Parties, all of which rallied to the defence of Canada's oldest and most honourable industry.



HON. STANLEY KNOWLES EIGHTIETH BIRTHDAY

Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the birthday of a very honourable gentleman, one Stanley H. Knowles. We are celebrating his eightieth birthday.
As a young boy, Stanley would not have survived if it had not been for the fact that his family discovered that goat's milk was good for his health. As a young child he suffered when his father died as a result of not having a pension, losing it during the Depression.
Stanley learned from his suffering to care for people, and learned something that we do not often say these days-he learned to love.
When Stanley grew up, he entered the ministry and responded to the social gospel. As a young man he saw senior citizens in poverty, without clothes, without the wherewithal to live a decent life. Stanley chose politics along with people like Tommy Douglas. He chose to follow J. S. Woodsworth. He brought integrity to politics. He fought for justice and achieved results.
He set an example for us all. At the foundation of all this was a very caring, loving personality. Stanley took time for me when I first came to this place where we are all so busy. It demonstrated to me how he is a caring person.
He took time for his constituents and did his case work himself. His files will attest to that. He persevered in the fight for decent pensions for seniors so that today seniors can live in dignity.
He has genuinely earned through a lifetime of politics the mantle of J. S. Woodsworth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Government must be convinced to designate the Rouge Valley System as a recreational park or to participate with the federal Government and make it a Canadian heritage park.
This is a unique wilderness area of over 5,000 acres stretching north to Markham and to the Bruce's Mill conservation area. It is rich in natural and historic resources. It contains the largest forest in the Greater Metro area and numerous species of plant, fish, bird and animal life.
The Rouge Valley is also equally rich in our cultural legacy with archeological remains of Indian settlements dating back thousands of years, along with the earliest evidence of European settlements.
We must protect the Rouge Valley System from becoming the exclusive domain of a luxury housing development, or even worse, a dump, as has been threatened.
With the world's environment at a crossroads and with the public's unprecedented support for natural heritage preservation, let us take a leadership role to protect the Rouge Valley System.




Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Science Council of Canada points out to Canadians that there is a need for urgent action to rehabilitate our waters. Shortages of fresh water and increasing pollution threaten our quality of life. The quality of drinking water is an acute problem in several parts of the country. Northern and native communities are particularly vulnerable.
Compare this assessment of water issues with the actions of the Environment Minister. This year alone he has cut 14 people from the Inland Waters Branch. He has also done away with the sewage treatment facilities construction program.
June 17, 1988

Last year he eliminated the water resources research program. What a sham!
While less and less has been done for water protection since the present Government took power, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) proposes to find billions of dollars for the construction of nuclear submarines. The priorities of the Government hardly reflect the priorities of Canadians.



HOUSING


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago representatives of the Co-Operative Housing Foundation met with the Metro Toronto and area Progressive Conservative Caucus.
They asked for more support for low income housing. Last week the Minister responsible for CMHC announced a substantial increase in rent supplement assistance for co-op housing projects.
Because of skyrocketing real estate prices in the Metro Toronto area, they also asked for short term financial assistance to help co-ops buy land on which to build badly needed affordable housing. Last week the Minister announced the establishment of a stabilization fund to be used for just that purpose. Thank you, Mr. Minister. But that was last week, now about this week.



FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, today reports from Britain state that British Prime Minister Thatcher will agree to drop the unjust fur labelling proposal. If these stories are correct, we have achieved a victory of significant proportions.
This is a story of co-operation. Throughout the campaign I and others have worked with numerous groups in Canada and Britain.
The emergency debate which took place in the House a couple of weeks ago gave a clear signal of parliamentary unanimity on this issue. The Indigenous Survival Institute, Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Georges Erasmus, the Fur Institute of Canada, the Governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, the British Fur Trade Association and British Labour MP, Gwenyth Dunwoody, all worked long hours to stop what would have been a gross injustice to aboriginal peoples and trappers in general.
While I am delighted with our achievement, we must not think that this issue is over. We must reassure people all over the world that Canada is a strong supporter of developing more humane trapping methods.
[DOT] (mo)
I call on the federal Government to increase funding for research aimed at creating more humane traps. We cannot rest in our struggle to preserve a way of life, an important cultural Canadian heritage in a substantial sector of our economy.



RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, let us fervently bless the Creator's name in memory of "Chamir", the late Chief Rabbi of the French-speaking communities in Canada, David Feuerwerker Z".T".L"., who died in Montreal as the Sabbath candles were being lit on June 20, 1980.
He is resting on Mount Zion beside the Righteous of Israel and all of us in the House of Commons and in Canada pray with the believers of the world who, without disctinction of race, colour or religion, venerate David Feuerwerker's memory by earnestly reciting the Kadish for the salvation of our souls.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I received another request to intervene, this time from the Golden Age Council of the Saint-Maurice Valley.
The Council rightly deplores the closing of local post offices, to be replaced by supermailboxes.
With the support of 75 golden age clubs and more than 15,600 members, the council prefers that the present post office structure be maintained. Closing rural post offices or using supermailboxes causes many complications for our senior citizens.
The solutions proposed by the Minister responsable for postal services (Mr. Andre) to remedy the Corporation's financial problems run directly counter to the objective pursued by a national postal system. A decent service for all citizens, that's what they want.
I call on the Government to spend the billions of dollars planned for the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines on improving our postal service instead.

June 17, 1988
Mr. Speaker, the Government's priorities leave something to be desired.



FATHER'S DAY


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 19, Canadians will observe Father's Day. Young children will deluge their fathers with hand-made cards, and hand-picked ties and socks. Older children will reflect on intimate childhood remembrances.
Father's Day observances appeared in several North American locations in the early 1900s. But the idea is generally credited to Sonora Louise Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington.
In 1909, inspired by her own father, Mrs. Dodd suggested to her church pastor that a special day be set aside to honour all fathers.
Through the intervening years the Father's Day idea has been officially approved by one U.S. President; turned down by two; thrown out by the U.S. House of Representatives on two occasions; and abandoned by the City of Chicago. Against these odds, however, Father's Day survives.
In 1988, 79 years after its first observance, Father's Day is officially celebrated in 20 countries as the one special day of the year when children honour their fathers for their loving care and devotion to their families.
May I wish all Canadian fathers a very happy Father's Day-especially my own Dad.



MULTICULTURALISM


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) during his appearance yesterday before the Justice Committee declared again his refusal to appear before the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been told about terrorist activities. He has also heard about the concerns of the Government of India. Obsessed with these matters he has only contempt for the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and its genuine concern about lack of respect in External Affairs for Canada's multiculturalism policy.
Canadians of many backgrounds have found the Department of External Affairs insensitive to the concerns of their communities, and unwilling to consider their desires. The Department of External Affairs has been far more sensitive to foreign Governments than to the needs of Canada's ethnocultural communities.
The Standing Committee on Multiculturalism is hearing representatives of Canada's Sikh, Armenian, Ukrainian, and Baltic communities. The committee is amassing evidence of insensitivity and worse on the part of the Department of External Affairs, and preparing for an appearance by External Affairs officials on June 28.
A Minister worth his salt would appear with his officials on June 28 and end this display of contempt for a standing committee of this House.




Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my best wishes to the Chinese community as it prepares to celebrate the Dragon Boat Festival tomorrow.
Since the drowning suicide of a patriotic poet statesman in 276 BC, it has become a day of commemoration, uniquely celebrated by offering some special rice dumplings wrapped in bamboo leaves, and by holding dragon boat races.
The Chinese have enriched Canada's multicultural life with their colourful celebrations, such as the Dragon Boat Festival.
I for one from Toronto, where we have a large active community, would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their tremendous contributions to our country and to Canadian society as a whole.
On behalf of the Government of Canada and my colleagues I would like to wish all the best to those of Chinese origin who will be celebrating tomorrow.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, for days the socialist Members have been abusing parliamentary procedure. They always use the same technique. First, they move a motion, for which the unanimous consent of the House is required. Then one of their own Members refuses to make the
June 17, 1988

vote unanimous. This has the effect of forcing a vote and wasting an hour and a half of the precious time of the House. They have used this tactic over and over again during the past few days.
Mr. Speaker, this is absurd, and I wish one of the smarter people in their group of anti-social excentrics would convince the others to speak to the substance of the legislation before the House. That is what we are here for. We are not in the House to obstruct systematically the business of this House. 1 hope the message will get through to the most intelligent person in their group, if that isn't too much to ask.



RECEPTION HONOURING HON. STANLEY KNOWLES AND HON. GEORGE HEES

Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing Question Period, I know Hon. Members will want me on their behalf to wish many happy returns to both the Hon. Stanley Knowles and the Hon. George Hees. The Hon. George Hees's seventy-eighth birthday is today, and Mr. Knowles's eightieth birthday is tomorrow.
In honour of this extraordinary event the Speaker is hosting, at 3 p.m. this afternoon in the Railway Committee Room, an appropriate reception for both hon. gentlemen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know you will indulge me some latitude in the rules if I echo your tribute to Stanley Knowles and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). A few moments ago I paid a tribute to the one hundredth anniversary of Stanley Park. These two gentlemen are almost as permanent, not quite as beautiful, but certainly as honourable.
1 want to wish both hon. gentlemen a tribute from our Party, our admiration, our affection, and our wishes for continued good years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will be delighted to accept your hospitality.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I wonder whether he would be good enough to ask the Prime Minister to deliver to Parliament a complete accounting of the amount of money the Prime Minister has promised to spend in attempting to buy a seat in Parliament for his school chum, the ex-ambassador to Paris, the unelected Secretary of State.
The Canadian people have a right to know how many of their tax dollars the Prime Minister has promised to spend to get the former Mr. Clean into the House of Commons. Is it S50 million, $100 million, $500 million, or $1 billion? Would the Deputy Prime Minister prevail upon the Prime Minister to render an accounting to Parliament?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather silly question. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is simply trying to play politics in his final act of desperation. I noticed yesterday he promised the candidate who is running for his Party a Cabinet position.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure what that does to the other people there.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that will not cost the country anything. I told the people of Lac-Saint-Jean that their choice was to have a Conservative Minister for four months or a Liberal Minister for four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LAC-SAINT-JEAN CONSTITUENCY-QUERY CONCERNING COST OF ELECTION PROMISES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met people from Lac-Saint-Jean, from all over the riding, and I was struck by their pride and dignity. They don't like to feel they are being bought, and they don't like to be told who is going to be their next Member. The people of Lac-Saint-Jean want to know, and they have a right to know, what price the Prime Minister will pay in his attempt to buy their votes.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to inform the House and the voters in Lac-Saint-Jean of the total amount of taxpayers' money the Prime Minister has promised to spend on

June 17, 1988
Oral Questions
the people in this riding in order to buy their votes, so the Prime Minister's close friend, his school chum, the former ambassador in Paris and now former Mr. Clean, will be elected.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, maybe the right hon. gentleman would do the Canadian people a great service if he were to explain to Canadians just what his candidate is running under.
As we know, on previous occasions in the House of Commons he stated that in politics pragmatism is everything. He said if one has to be a socialist, one has to be socialist; if one wants to do certain things, one may even have to be a communist; sometimes one may even have to be a Conservative; sometimes one may have to be Liberal, or even NDP to achieve certain objectives.
What is the hon. gentleman's candidate running as? A Liberal, a Conservative, a communist, or a socialist?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, our candidate, Pierre Gimaiel, the next Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, simply wants to represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean.


LAC-SAINT-JEAN CONSTITUENCY-ETHICS-COST OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister appointed the former ambassador to Paris to his Cabinet, he stated that the Minister would be asked to do some housecleaning, introduce a new code of ethics for his Government and put an end to Tory abuse. However, instead of getting better, things have gotten worse, and we are right back in the Duplessis era.
I therefore want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether trying to buy votes is part of the Tory Government's new code of ethics. Is the Lac-Saint-Jean by-election an indication of what the Tory Government's attitude will be in the next general election? In that case, how much will the Prime Minister's new code of ethics cost Canadian taxpayers in the next election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Leader of the Opposition's frustration about this election, because there are not too many Liberals who are supporting the Liberal candidate that they are running. As I understand it, the Premier of Quebec-


Ms. Copps:: You are going to find out on Monday.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: How about Premier Bourassa?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand that the Premier of Quebec-the Hon. Leader of the Opposition states that they
bought the Premier of the Province of Quebec too, and I think that he may want to reflect on that.
The fact of the matter is that the Premier of the Province of Quebec who happens to be a Liberal is supportive of our candidate. I understand that the former candidate is supportive, and other political Parties are supportive.
I can understand and appreciate the Hon. Member's frustration. Again, it is his final act of desperation. When we talk about who is being a populist, it is quite obvious that our candidate has popular appeal and popular support, and that will shown on Monday.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Immigration my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it concerns the admission into Canada as a refugee of an individual who is a high ranking official in a terrorist group responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent civilians in Mozambique.
Why did the Government of Canada allow Mr. Francisco Nota Moises into Canada as a political refugee when it knew that he is the chief information officer of Renamo, a reprehensible rebel terrorist group backed by the apartheid Government of South Africa, and when the Government of Canada knew that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees did not regard him as a genuine political refugee?
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the people of Canada why this particular individual was allowed to come to Canada as a political refugee?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will learn sometime that there is more to responsible parliamentary behaviour than reading or seeking headlines. His question is based upon a story in this morning's The Globe and Mail that is wrong in several particulars. Perhaps of most importance it is wrong with regard to the attitude of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which did indeed regard the individual in question as a convention refugee eligible for resettlement to Canada.
I think the Hon. Member will also know, when he goes beyond the headlines and looks at the facts, that this individual was sponsored by a Canadian church group, the St. Andrew's Catholic Church Refugee Committee in Victoria, British Columbia.
As are my colleagues in the Government, I am certainly prepared to answer questions on this and other matters. I

June 17, 1988

would hope that the Hon. Member would do a little more research and not rely simply on spectacular headlines.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT START DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the fact.is that this particular individual is a high ranking official with Renamo. The fact is that he continues to disseminate propaganda in support of Renamo while living and working here in Canada. The admission of this man to Canada could lead one to question the Prime Minister's and Canada's commitment to Mozambique, and the other frontline States in their struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
This gentleman has no right to be in Canada. He is persona non grata. When will the Government commence proceedings to have this individual removed from Canadian soil?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, on behalf of the Liberal Party, has come to a judgment without hearing, without process, a judgment that would be highly prejudicial to the rights of one individual in this country. Presumably, if they would act in that contemptible way with regard to one individual, so they would with all others. I hope that that lesson will not be lost.
The case has been referred to the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission. It is for the CEIC to determine whether there is any case for enforcement action. We believe that procedures should be followed and should not be catapulted over because a headline occurs in a newspaper.
With regard to the Government's position on South Africa, and with regard to the Government's position on Mozambique, I have had the opportunity to speak directly with officials of the Government of Mozambique. They know and appreciate fully the very positive support that is coming to them from the Government of Canada.


ROLE OF OFFICIALS IN ADMITTING INDIVIDUAL
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the same matter that has just been raised, the case of Francisco Nota Moises who appears to be undeniably a leading person in the Renamo organization, and continuing his active support of Renamo in Canada even though Renamo is known to be a terrorist organization acting against the Government of Mozambique, the Government which Canada strongly encourages, and acting with the support of the Government of Pretoria which Canada criticizes.
In view of the allegations that have been made that inadequate research was done by CSIS, in view of conflicting accounts of the status of Mr. Moises with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and in view of the fact that the Minister has oversight in the overseas offices of the immigration officers there who are subject to the head of post which is part of his Department, will the Minister report to
Oral Questions
this House on the status or the quality of the work that was done by immigration and other Canadian officials in admitting this man to Canada in what appears to have been an error?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I note and commend to the House the care with which the Hon. Member put that question. He said in a rather peculiar formulation, but I understand the difficulty under which he is operating, that the individual "appears to be undeniably ..." something. The difficulty is, of course, that there is some very real dispute about the facts. One of the allegations that is not a fact had to do with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. I have responded to that question. There have been some other matters raised. I indicated that the question will go to the CEIC.
The Member asked with respect to CSIS. The Solicitor General will naturally be looking into the question to see if anything occurred here that should not have occurred. Naturally, when a controversy of this kind arises, it is my normal practice to review procedures, which I will do in the normal way. I would imagine that kind of review will also be undertaken by, among others, the reputable church group in Victoria which was involved in the sponsorship.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to have all those inquiries made by the authorities and some report given to us on the result, particularly given the fact that it often happens that a church group asks for a refugee, perhaps a refugee from a certain country, leaving the selection to our officials, since our officials are considered to have more knowledge in detail than the average parish can secure.


REPORTED SUPPORT OF TERRORIST MOVEMENT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: My further question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since it appears that Mr. Nota Moises is continuing in Canada his open advocacy of Renamo, will the Minister tell us whether there is an inquiry being made as to what legal means are being used to prevent Mr. Moises from continuing support of a terrorist movement dedicated to the overthrow of a Government which is recognized by Canada? And what action is being taken to stop him from doing so, according to Canadian law?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take the Hon. Member's representations seriously and 1 will treat them that way. Because he has raised the question, I can certainly assure him and other Members that anything that is done will be done strictly in accordance with Canadian law. I do not think the Hon. Member would ask me to take any actions with respect to this individual which are not in accord with Canadian law.

June 17, 1988
16546______________________________
Oral Questions REQUEST THAT INQUIRY BE CONDUCTED


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have not asked that anything be done except according to Canadian law. According to Canadian law, if Mr. Nota Moises gave false information, or withheld relevant information, at the time he was admitted by our Nairobi office for landing as a refugee, he would then be subject to an inquiry to determine whether his status in Canada ought not to be revoked.
I would ask the Hon. Minister whether he and his colleagues will ensure that such an inquiry takes place according to the normal procedures of Canadian law, and that this House is advised of what action is initiated?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that, but for greater clarity, I will ensure that the relevant investigations are undertaken and I will find a way to report relevant conclusions to the Hon. Member and to other interested Members of the House.
I think it is very important, before we conduct some kind of inquiry based upon accusations in the House of Commons, that it be understood that some of the allegations made in that newspaper report were, indeed, false. The allegation regarding the UNHCR was false. I understand the individual did not seek or obtain political asylum in Canada. He already had asylum in Kenya. Indeed, the Kenyan authorities granted him a travel document which recognized his status as a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention. That happened in February, 1986.
He subsequently applied for permanent residence in Canada as a Convention refugee. There may well be other errors in the story that has given rise to these questions. I think Hon. Members would want us to act on the basis of facts, not allegations.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post, affectionately known as the Minister responsible for closing down post offices. Last week Canadians discovered that Canada Post had a plan to close down 5,221 rural post offices putting 8,200 women out of work. Another document has now been released which informs us that 734 urban post offices will be shut down.
I want to ask the Minister responsible for shutting down post offices if he will table in this House the complete corporate plan of Canada Post so that Canadians can be aware of the full intentions of the Government. Will he table that
document today? I also want to know from him why the Government persists with these plans that are most unpopular in both rural and urban Canada.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the only such plans exist in the propaganda of the unions and in the Member's empty head.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: The Member wants the corporate plan. He received the summary of the corporate plan. I refer him to page 18 of that summary which says:
The retail counter service objective is to develop an efficient, modernized, fully-rationalized network of retail outlets that will provide improved customer access, an enhanced corporate image and a better range, level and consistency of retail services in a cost-effective manner. This objective will be achieved largely by increasing the use of the private sector in providing retail counter services.
That is not secret. That is there in the summary of the corporate plan.


Don Boudria: The summary!


Harvie Andre: Would the Hon. Member start reading that rather than relying on these ridiculous outdated stories from Canadian Press which are based on a document which the reporter has been told has no relevance to what in fact is happening?


Don Boudria: I want to tell the Minister that a retail counter service objective does not a post office make, to use his own words.


CONVERSION OF POST OFFICES TO POSTAL RETAIL OUTLETS
Don Boudria: I want to ask the Minister responsible for Canada Post a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of Canada Post's so-called planning document for converting post offices into retail counters for selling stamps. Why does the Conservative Government want to convert or close down post offices in Rimouski, Sept-Iles, Shawinigan, Drummondville, Pontiac, Trois-Rivieres, Saint-Jean and, especially, the post office in Chicoutimi which serves part of the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): These newspaper stories which give rise to the Hon. Member's silly questions are based on a planning document, one of hundreds, the Post Office has. The story last week was based on data on the second last line. The story this week is based on the third last line. I presume we are going to have another story next week based on the fourth last line and the Hon. Member is going to stand up and ask his questions.
The Hon. Member gives me an opportunity to correct something I said to him last week. He talked about the
June 17, 1988

closures and dismissal of postmasters, most of them being women. I pointed out to him that last year 218 new postmasters were hired and said 80 per cent of them were women. I misinformed the Hon. Member. Ninety-two per cent of them were women.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT DOCUMENT BE TABLED
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Before the planning document was released, Canada Post denied the existence of a planning document for the privatization of urban post offices. The Corporation now denies the significance of this document, and the Minister is doing the same. Isn't it a time to let the public know what is going to happen to these post offices? Why won't the Minister table the document in the House?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out last week, the news story, based on a number of planning documents which have come into the hands of the reporter, stated that last year there were 269 rural conversions planned. In fact, there were 119. So that should be prima facie evidence that the numbers in here are not relevant to what in fact is happening.
The Post Office has stated explicitly in the summary of its plan its intention to open retail postal outlets because they are open longer hours and provide better service and more accessible service to the public. As the Hon. Member knows, in his own province when surveys by independent third party organizations have been taken of customers dealing with these retail outlets, the approval rating is very, very high. The customers like it. It is the unions that do not like it. The Member is representing union interests and not customer interests, nor the interests of Canadians who use the post office, in asking his questions.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the difference in the numbers between the planning document and what actually happened at Canada Post was a result of people protesting the closure of post offices rather than that this is not in fact a planning document.


WHITEHORSE POST OFFICE
Cyril Keeper: My supplementary question for the Minister responsible for Canada Post deals with the Whitehorse post office.
People in Whitehorse are worried about their post office. They have asked the Department of Public Works whether in the new federal building there has been a request for space for the post office. Public Works has said no, that there has been no request for space for the post office. People want to know whether it is the plan of the Government and this Minister to
Oral Questions
privatize the post office in Whitehorse. People want to know so they can express their opinions about the future of the post office in their community.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, without any notice from the Hon. Member I obviously cannot give him that kind of detail. He knows he should not be wasting the time of the House and should ask the Post Office that kind of information. It is within its responsibility as provided by Parliament.


Cyril Keeper: We tried that.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member says he has tried that. I will check to see if in fact he has asked the Post Office that particular question-


Cyril Keeper: She has tried that.


Harvie Andre: -because I do not believe very much of what that Hon. Member says.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is too close, and I would ask the Minister to withdraw.


Harvie Andre: I am not sure what I said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -that would cause him to make that request.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Just leave.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the Hon. Minister the Chair heard what he said and 1 think he is getting to the point where he is impugning the truth of what the Hon. Member said. It is too close for comfort and it moves toward disorder. I would ask the Hon. Minister to correct that.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, have no interest in creating disorder. I believe I said that I do not believe what the Hon. Member said.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: You cannot say that.


Harvie Andre: I have difficulty believing what the Hon. Member said. I do not think that is contrary to any-


Mr. Cassidy:: Withdraw. Don't provoke the House like that.


Mr. Speaker:: In the opinion of the Chair and in the context of the remarks it was close enough to an allegation to create disorder, and I would ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw.


Harvie Andre: I was just getting to that part of my comment, Mr. Speaker, when you interrupted me. Of course, I will obey the edicts of the Chair in this regard. I simply wanted the record to show that I did not use any language that is contrary to the indications in Beauchesne of what is appropriate in this House. Of course, I do follow the Speaker's request and withdraw.

June 17, 1988
Oral Questions
UNITED NATIONS	TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-
[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED NEGOTIATIONS ON FUTURE OF CYPRUS	EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Secretary of State knows, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in the process of arranging a meeting in Geneva next month to try to bring about a solution to the problems in Cyprus.
Two of the key issues in those negotiations will be the guarantee of minority rights and also the possibility of setting up a federal system of government. Canada has had a peacekeeping force in Cyprus since 1963. We have had a lot of experience with minority rights in this country and with a federal system of government. We have an international reputation as a peacekeeper yet we have always played a passive as opposed to an active role in these negotiations.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs give the House his undertaking that Canada will play a very active as opposed to a passive role in these upcoming negotiations with a view to bringing about a solution of the problems in Cyprus?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and his interest in a matter that is of great importance to Canadians, not simply because of the presence of our troops in Cyprus in a peacekeeping role.
We are encouraged by the interest being taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Certainly the Hon. Member would want the Government of Canada to support those measures fully and not to do things that might detract from the initiative of the Secretary-General. We will support his initiatives fully. If there is something more that we can do in the view of the Secretary-General that will contribute to a peaceful solution of a long-standing situation in Cyprus, then we certainly will co-operate fully with the Secretary-General of the United Nations with that in view.
The Hon. Member will know that every six months the question arises as to whether we should renew our presence of troops in the area. We have decided to do that. Last year we increased our commitment.
It would be in everyone's interest if Canada could contribute to a solution that would resolve the fundamental problem. We are very much interested in doing that in collaboration with the Secretary-General of the UN.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Since October when the Canada-U.S. deal was signed the value of the Canadian dollar has gone up from 76 cents to 82 cents. In the same period of time the value of our exports has fallen by 2.5 per cent. Last evening the spokesperson for the British Columbia lumber industry said that already $400 million had been lost as a result of that rise in the Canadian dollar.
Considering that the Government's own economic studies-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do you want a 50-cent dollar?


Lloyd Axworthy: -show that the marginal benefits of any trade deal will be a maximum of one-quarter of one per cent, will the Minister confirm that whatever marginal benefits are being proposed in the trade deal have already been wiped out?
Can the Minister tell us whether this topic of how the rising dollar will substantially affect Canadian exports is a topic that will be discussed at this week's Summit so we can get some remedial action to protect industries?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Vote Liberal for a 50-cent dollar.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I discern three questions in that presentation. First, the free trade agreement with the United States will secure access to the United States market. Therefore, the free trade agreement is good news and is in no way affected by the allegations of the Hon. Member.
Second, commodity prices have been rising and the Hon. Member knows this. As a result that situation has helped our export industries even in the face of a rising Canadian dollar.
What I finally have to say to the Hon. Member is that on January 16, 1986, his colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, stood up and criticized the Government for the dollar falling below 70 cents by saying it was bad economic management.


John Napier Turner: Different circumstances.


Thomas Hockin: Is he saying now that because the dollar is strong that is good economic management?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I detect in that answer three wrong assumptions and three wrong assertions. None are correct.
June 17, 1988


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: If the
Minister is replying in this case, will he answer the following question, Mr. Speaker?
The Export Association of Canada has already written to the Governor of the Bank of Canada pointing out that the value of the Canadian dollar has affected Canadian exports to the tune of 6 per cent over the past year. The trade documents themselves say that the impact of signing the trade deal will add another 4 per cent increase to it. We are now facing a minimum of a 10 per cent increase in the Canadian dollar which will have a devastating effect on our commodities as well as a whole series of goods and services.
Under that circumstance, what action does the Government intend to take? Will someone in the Government talk to the Governor of the Bank of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do you suggest pegging the dollar?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Attorney General wants to know what we are going to do. I presume that he is the Government at least for a few more months and the Government should have some answers. It is becoming a very serious problem for the export industry which will be accented and aggravated by the trade deal by a further rise in the Canadian dollar. What does the Canadian Government intend to do about it?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what the Canadian Government intends to do. We will continue to follow these policies which will produce record breaking productivity in this economy. We have the fastest growing economy among the OECD countries in the last two years except for Japan. Unemployment is at the lowest level since 1981. Our interest rates are around 9.5 per cent instead of 22 per cent under the Hon. Member's Government seven years ago. We will continue on that course. The Hon. Member has to make up his mind. Does he want the dollar to fall through the floor or does he want it moderating?


BY-ELECTIONS LAC-SAINT-JEAN CONSTITUENCY-ETHICS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean.
Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will remember that the theme of Mr. Bouchard's campaign in Lac-Saint-Jean was: The new political morality. After all the patronage, road
Oral Questions
repairs and expenditures announced in the past few days, could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House the difference between the new morality of the Tories in Lac-Saint-Jean and the old political morality of the Liberal Government?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the events around the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean, but I was not aware the socialists were campaigning. It sounds as if they were interested!
The Hon. Member's question referred to the by-election. I realize they are on edge. They are like the Liberals under their present Leader. You have a problem. Monday, Mr. Bouchard will be elected as the Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and we will be delighted to welcome him here in the House, as soon as he is elected next week, by the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and not by the socialists in Ottawa.


PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Minister of State that he can hardly say there is a difference between the old political morality and the new political morality. And I also want to inform him that the voters of Lac-Saint-Jean don't want to be bought.
My question is this: Could he explain the difference as it applies to job-creation centres, when the needs of one centre that caught the eye of the Tory candidate in the riding are immediately met with a government grant?
Could he table the criteria for this program in the House, with all the necessary documentation, to prove that the centre in Alma met all the criteria in a process that would normally take six months, and also to prove that this is not just a miracle that was cooked up to try and buy the voters of Lac-Saint-Jean?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, a socialist like him has a lot of nerve to rise in the House and talk about political morality, when a few months ago, when he was visiting Quebec, he said he would take the frigate contracts away from New Brunswick, just to get votes in Quebec. He should talk about political morality in this House!
Canadians are fed up with this socialist rhetoric about public morality, especially coming from the Hon. Member. His argument just won't wash. He has given all Canadians a demonstration of the socialists' morality by threatening to take contracts away from poor little New Brunswick and give them to Quebec, for purely political gain. You should be ashamed, sir!

June 17, 1988
Oral Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whomever is answering for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources today. In the election campaign of 1984 the Prime Minister promised all kinds of support for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and then less than a year later the Minister of Finance cut the research and development budget of Atomic Energy of Canada by 50 per cent or $100 million. To date, the Prime Minister's broken promise has cost AECL $60 million in lost research funds.
Because the company could not face another $25-million cut this year, the Government has reduced that cut to $11 million without any statement whatsoever about future financial planning for the corporation. Will the Government cease these devastating cuts and restore a positive outlook to the company so that its multiplicity of research and development projects can continue, so that Canada will not lose more top-notch scientists, and so that hundreds of other jobs will not be lost in addition to those that have already gone by the boards because of the lack of fulfilment of the promise of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry
and Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows or should know that AECL is a private company, despite the fact that there are government connections, and we have been very aware of the necessity of ongoing R and D in that particular company. It has had some difficulties with sales and the like, we realize that, and it is for that very reason that we topped up its R and D budget in just the last week or two.


FINANCIAL FUTURE OF CORPORATION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited performs research and development in many areas. In cancer research, the cobalt therapy unit is its project. That is known around the world. It produces two-thirds of the radio medical isotopes used in the world. Its energy research has been unsurpassed anywhere, and its problem solving in many areas of advanced technology is its trademark.
Why is the Government not serious about planning the financial future of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with all these major objectives in mind? Surely the Government understands that research and development are the engine that will drive industry and trade in Canada for years to come to benefit all Canadians. Why does the Government not do that?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is certainly aware of the good work done by AECL, and it is for that very reason that we have been supportive of it. We are working with AECL to try to deal with its issues, and it is for that very same
reason that we just finished topping up its budget, again reassuring it that it will be able to carry on with the very excellent R and D work that it is doing on behalf of Canadian citizens.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Sunday, six members of the Armed Forces at Gagetown engaged in field exercises were hit by shrapnel from a shell which fell 500 metres short. One was hit with shrapnel in the eye, another in the stomach, and a third had shrapnel hit in the back which destroyed his right kidney, part of his right lung, and part of his liver.
While the base officials have said that there will be an investigation of the incident, will the Government ensure that this investigation will not be an in-house whitewash but will be an open inquiry conducted by an outside, impartial investigator?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the Hon. Member's representation as just that and convey it to the Department of National Defence. I would not like, however, to carry the message that there is a suspicion that the Department of National Defence cannot be trusted to make an honest and fair evaluation or assessment of what in fact happened. I do not know on what basis we would reach that conclusion, but I will nevertheless carry the representation of the Hon. Member to the Department.


CONDUCT OF FIELD EXERCISES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I think it is always better if incidents like this are investigated in an impartial way. A week earlier another soldier was killed, leaving behind a wife and young children, when his armoured personnel carrier flipped over.
Will the Minister find out if this investigation will look into suggestions that these field exercises are being run like a U.S. Marine boot camp where soldiers are continually being pushed beyond the point of fatigue so that the human error factor is magnified and the dangers are increased? Will the Government ensure that the personal safety of armed forces personnel receives a higher priority than it appears to have received at Camp Gagetown in the past?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the representation or the opinion of the Hon. Member that the Department of National Defence personnel are not sensitive to the risks to
June 17, 1988

which members of the forces are exposed. Of course, preparing for war is a risky business. I do not see how one can-


James Douglas Manly: Preparing for war?


Harvie Andre: That is what our military does, it prepares for war. That is what having a military is all about. Nevertheless, the substance of the Hon. Member's supplementary question was a representation to ask for outside investigators. I will carry his representation to the Department.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Two years ago, Judge John White ruled that the use of funds deducted from workers' salaries at source under the Rand formula was unlawful. A year later, a second judgment ordered the unions to return the money to workers who so requested, if the money was not used for collective bargaining purposes.
We know that the New Democratic Party benefits, is in fact a "receiver" of money unlawfully collected from Canadian workers.
Mr. Minister, the unions refuse to stop this practice and give the money back to the workers. Do you intend to ask them to put those funds in trust, to prevent the socialists from being politically immoral, something they accuse us of being? This is important, because the workers want their money to be well managed and not used against us, to their own disadvantage.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that the $2 million union campaign against the Government has been challenged by some of its members. The Post Office has taken the matter before a court with regard to some of the advertisements which were planned by the union. Mr. Lavigne's case is now being taken to an appeal court. I am sure that we all await with interest to see how this is dealt with.
In the meantime I will pass on the Member's representation to the Post Office to see whether there is anything it is able to do.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I have in my hand a list of 66 Canadian cities where post offices will be closed over the next three years, including Sudbury, Timmins, Thunder Bay, Fredericton, Nanaimo, Barrie, Peterborough, Chatham, St. Catharines, Greater Toronto and Niagara Falls. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, since he has already given out thousands of dollars, if he would be prepared today to do something that would not cost the Canadian people a cent, namely to guarantee that at least the post office serving the people of Lac-Saint-Jean will not be closed, as suggested by the plan I have in hand.

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in its corporate plan the Post Office indicated that over the next eight years 6,000 new, additional post office outlets will be opened in Canada raising the current number of about 12,000 to about 18,000.


John Napier Turner: What number corporate plan is that, Harvie?


Harvie Andre: If the Hon. Member had been interested earlier this week she could have gone to the committee of this House which had Mr. Lander, the President of the Post Office, before it and asked that particular question. If she had she would have been told by the Post Office, as I have told the House on many occasions, that the plans of the Post Office are to increase the number of postal outlets from the current approximately 12,000 to about 18,000 over the next eight years.


CHICOUTIMI POST OFFICE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have in hand the secret plan which the Minister refuses to table in the House. The secret plan shows that we are going to be replacing post offices with so-called dealerships and we are going to be closing post offices in 66 cities across the country.
I would like to ask the Minister a very simple question. His Government has dropped millions in the last few days in a desperate bid to save a dying candidate who should go back to France where he can solve the problems that-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will the Minister, at the very least, promise that the post office which is currently serving the citizens of Lac Saint-Jean, which is scheduled for closure, that is the post

June 17, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Ernie Epp
office in Chicoutimi, will not be closed? Can we get that little promise from the Minister?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly in the House, and according to Beauchesne's that is supposed to be accepted, what the President of the Post Office has said on many occasions. I gave the document I had to the Hansard reporters, but the Hon. Member can read the summary of the corporate plan. She can read with her own little eyes in plain language that in fact post offices will be increased in number, not decreased, not closed. She should stop trying to scare the people of Chicoutimi. They are not going to lose their post office. They will have improved service.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the Minister confirm that the Government of Great Britain has now agreed to withdraw its controversial fur labelling proposal, a move which would have cost thousands of jobs of trappers and fur workers in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the British Government has in fact decided not to proceed with the proposed regulation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That owes a great deal to the initiative of Members in all parts of this House. I think all Members of this House would join me, if that indeed turns out to be the case, in expressing our appreciation of the sensitivity of the British Government to this very important industry in Canada and the effects that the proposed regulation would have had upon that industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and that will close off Question Period.


RAILWAYS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. A press report this
morning indicates the intention of the Government to abandon support in perpetuity for the Newfoundland Railway as promised in the Terms of Union with Newfoundland.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the accuracy of the press report? Is the Government planning to offer Newfoundland assistance for Trans-Canada Highway construction in order to buy its way out of the constitutional commitment? Will Newfoundlanders find the perpetual support replaced by one-time assistance for highway work?


Hon. Gerry St. Germain (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the excellent question of the Hon. Member, as indicated by the Deputy Prime Minister on June 10, discussions are still ongoing. There are discussions taking place on the issue. The moment the discussions come to fruition we will make the information available to the House.


POINT OF ORDER
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to the attention of the House a breach of the Standing Orders. Standing Order 99(2) reads as follows:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special
committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a
comprehensive response thereto.
On January 19 of this year the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry presented a report on the storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The title of the report is The Eleventh Hour. It contains 15 recommendations that deal with the nuclear fuel cycle. It is an important, in fact critical, report. I repeat that it was presented on January 19.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who asked me to raise this point in her absence today, has been informed by the clerk of the committee that today represents the 150th day that has passed since the presentation of this report.
At the time the report was presented the committee requested a government response. The arrangement for such a request was an innovation under parliamentary reform which was intended to upgrade and reinforce the real influence of parliamentary committees.
We in this Party participated actively in the parliamentary reform process. We believe in parliamentary reform and believe in operating within the rules of this House of Commons, unlike the Government which has no hesitation in suspending and throwing out the rules at the slightest opportunity.
June 17, 1988

The Government has not responded to the standing committee's report within the 150-day deadline. It has, therefore, breached Standing Order 99(2).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this is a valid point of order. The rules provide for no exceptions. Where a response is requested by a committee to its report the Government must table the response in 150 days. There is no doubt that this is the last day for filing such a report within the rules.
We are talking here about the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry entitled High-Level Radioactive Waste in Canada: The Eleventh Hour. Quite apart from the rules, this report should have an early response because of its importance. I regret to say that one can only wonder why the Government has not been able to table such a response in view of the importance of the subject matter of the committee report.
Equally serious is the seeming unwillingness of the Government to live within the rules. These are rules which I have often characterized not only as part of parliamentary reform but rules for which the Government takes credit for that reason.
We are dealing with an effort by the Government to suspend the rules, but at least in that case, which we do not accept, the Government is waiting until the House agrees, if it ever happens, to a motion to suspend the rules and do something other than is what is provided for in the rules. Here, with respect to the failure to file a response to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry, the Government is simply ignoring the rules, not even seeking and obtaining the agreement of the House in an effort to do something for which the rules do not provide. I regret very much that 1 have to bring to your attention this breach of the rules. I hope the Government will realize that it has the same obligation to live within the rules, unless and until they are properly changed. It has not done so. This is another deplorable act by the Government.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, if one were to examine the record 1 think one would find that in almost all cases the Government has met the deadline of 150 days. I am advised that this report is in the final throes of preparation and that it should be tabled in the House shortly.
At all times we have tried to meet this requirement. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of this report, we were unable to meet the requirements of the rules. I assure my hon. friend that it was not a wilful matter. It was simply that we wanted to get the best reply possible to a very comprehensive committee report. Therefore, I submit that it is correct that we are in breach of the rules, but I think it is the exception rather than the rule and I can assure the House that it will be tabled shortly.
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: I want to tell the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that the point is accepted by the Government. This has happened before once previously. I think it is fair to say, as the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has said, that it is an exception rather than the rule. However, I urge upon Ministers and all their officials to note that this rule is there with the consent and support of both sides of the House. I would ask that every effort be made to ensure that it is complied with.
I might also say that if it cannot be complied with for some legitimate reason, the appropriate step to take is to have some discussion with the committee that asked for the response. That is a fundamental courtesy. I would hope that that procedure would be followed.
I might also say for the edification of Hon. Members and the public that is listening, that while the rule does require a response within 150 days, the rule does not say anything about what the Speaker ought to do if that response is not made. Perhaps that is something that might be looked at by others at another time.
In any event, the matter that has been raised is legitimate. The Government has quite quickly and appropriately conceded that it is in breach. The word of the Minister is that the Government is working as fast as it can to deliver the report. I think that closes the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition from a number of Canadians, mostly from Salt Springs Island, who are concerned about the danger of accidents from nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships in Canadian ports. They point out that this is a threat to the environment and Canadian citizens. They call upon the Government not to purchase nuclear-powered submarines for Canada.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by almost 600 residents of the Borough of East York, the City of Toronto and the City of Scarborough in Metropolitan Toronto, emanating from the great efforts of Mrs. Mary Kierans and generally from the parishes of St. Dunstan, St. Bridgets and Canadian Martyrs.
It relates to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding abortions, and calls upon Parliament to

Questions on the Order Paper
define human life as being created at the moment of conception and to reflect that in any newly created law.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 with respect to the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. It is particularly apropos considering the number of Canadians who were previously supportive of that deal and are now turning against it.
These petitioners are from my area and from other parts of southwestern Ontario.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of the City of Thunder Bay which shows that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada, costing Canadian society more than $3 billion in direct health care or other support costs.
They further say that recent research findings, including those obtained in Canada, show the illness to be a biochemical brain disorder, in part caused by a genetic malfunction.
Whereas schizophrenic patients, relatives and friends desperately hope that a cure and method of prevention can be found as soon as possible, but Canada's research's efforts are very limited in this area, they call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in the future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Gilles Grondin: Madam Speaker, I too have a petition signed by many citizens, mostly from my riding, but also from neighboring ridings, who, considering that many chronically ill people in institutions are abandoned by their families, that the movement for the rights of the chronically ill wants to make the public aware of this indifference and that a date written on the calendar would help families remember their sick and plan visits to them, ask Parliament to designate the first Sunday after Easter as the day for the chronically ill every year in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 320, 330, 338, 342 and 345.
June 17, 1988


Ms. Jewett: Since September, 1984, has Air Canada commissioned public opinion surveys or polls concerning the sale or privatization of Air Canada and if so (a) (0 at what time (It) at what cost (iii) by which pollster were these polls or surveys undertaken (b) what were the Findings of the polls or surveys?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: The information requested is of a proprietary nature.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant): Since September 17, 1984, have Ministers of the Government discussed with any official or representative of any NATO-member Government the removal of any Canadian troops stationed in Europe and, if so, which Ministers and, in each case (a) on what dates (b) with (/) which representatives or officials of (It) which governments (c) what response was received?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Canadian Defence Ministers have held discussions with their NATO counterparts since 1984 as part of the defence policy review. The outcome of such discussions was reflected in the Defence White Paper. You will appreciate that national security considerations and the confidentiality of ministerial discussions preclude the provision of details of discussions with foreign governments.


Ms. Dewar: 1.	Since the tabling in November 30, 1987 of the Secretary of State's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Secretary of State regarding the Women's Program, have any women's groups received multi-year operational funding and, if so (a) what is the total number of such groups (b) what are their names (c) in each case, what is the length of the period for which the funding was received?
2.	Since April, 1987, have any publications received funding from the Women's Program of the Secretary of State Department and, if so, which publications and, in each case, what amounts did they receive?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1. (a) (b) and (c) Multi-Year Operational Funding. As indicated in the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Secretary of State, multi-year operational funding will be introduced into the Women's Program.
The 1988-89 fiscal year is a transition year for the implementation of the renewed Women's Program. Multi-year operational funding will be operationalized in the next fiscal year, that is 1989-1990. Therefore no multi-year operational funding has yet been awarded.
2. The Women's program has funded the following publications from April 1, 1987 to May 2, 1988:
June 17, 1988

Name of Publication	Amount
Editions Communiqu'elles	$ 4,265
Editions Communiqu'elles	$ 7,000
La Parole Meteque	$15,000
Briarpatch Inc.	$ 3,800
Perspective Newspaper	$24,500
Tiger Lily	$30,000
Women Healthsharing	$67,745


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Did the Minister of Energy travel to the North Pole on or about April 25, 1988, and, if so, what was the (a) total distance travelled (b) total cost for travel (c) cost for lodging (d) cost for hospitality, if any?
2.	What was the (a) name (b) function and purpose of each person accompanying the Minister on this trip?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In so far as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: 1. Yes, on April 25, 1988. (a) 8,800 miles, (b) $8,000, (c) $125 (lodging cost for one night for the Minister and his communications advisor), (d) None.
2. (a) Bob Evans, communications advisor, (b) Mr. Evans' function on the trip was to handle media relations between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the group of more than 30 journalists who travelled to the North Pole, including representatives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto Star, Pravda, Izvertia, Tass, Novosti, and others from the United States, Japan, Italy, France and several East European countries.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Was the Government notified of an intention of the Government of British Columbia to issue an exploration permit to Diamond Resources for their holdings on South Moresby and, if so (a) on what date (b) what employee or member of the Government was notified (c) was the notification made by (/) telephone (//) letter (iiz) meeting (iv) another means and, if so, which?
2.	Did the Government reply to the Government of British Columbia and, if so (a) was the response made by (/') letter and, if so, what was the text (ii) other means and, if so, what was the substance of the message (b) what employee or member of the government authorized the delivery of the message (c) on what date was the response (i) approved (ii) forwarded?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: 1.
Yes. (a) March 21, 1988, (b) Director General, western region, Canadian Parks Service, Department of the Environment, (c) (iv) by form letter.
2. Yes. (a) (ii) By telephone. When the federal parks official spoke to the B.C. mines official, it was determined that exploration drilling, not mining, was being proposed and that the exploration was to occur on valid claims to be excluded from the proposed parks and under provincial jurisdiction. It was also learned that it was to occur on an area of former mining activity and that there would be no new disturbance. On the basis of this and on the understanding that the
Immigration Act, 1976
application would be reviewed by other resource agencies and that in accordance with the B.C. Mines Act, special terms and conditions would be established on the permit, and a performance bond would be required to ensure there would be no significant environmental impact, the parks official indicated that he would not be submitting any comments. No approval for the drilling was given nor was it requested.
(b) Special Advisor, western regional office, Canadian Parks Service, Department of the Environment, (c) (i) April 13, 1988, (ii) April 13, 1988.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Employment and Immigration relating to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof; and the amendments of Mr. Marchi (p. 16341), of Mr. Friesen (p. 16354) and of Mr. Heap (p. 16534).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When debate was interrupted, there were five minutes left in the question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I simply want to respond to the comments raised by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) who said that I was trying to give the wrong impression about Bill C-55. To review briefly what 1 said in that speech, I talked about the two traditions that there are in Canada. There is a tradition of openness and of welcome to strangers and to refugees, and another tradition which, unfortunately, we share to some extent, of being more fearful and closed toward people with differences.
I highlighted the comments of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) in the debate last week wherein he talked about the need to protect Canada against people who had certain ways of thinking that had

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
arisen in the last 150 years and with whom he did not happen to agree.
I talked about the lack of access in Bill C-55 to a full hearing before a person is denied refugee status. I talked about the lack of an appeal process. I talked about the fact that we still have this possibility of sending someone back to a third country, and yet we do not have any real guarantee that he or she will receive adequate treatment in that third country.
The Elon. Member for Gatineau talked about real refugees as being those who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world and that that is where Canada should obtain its refugees from. The fact is that refugees do not originate in refugee camps. They appeal to some country for refugee status and are placed in camps. Canada in the past has often been able to pick and choose which refugees we wish to accept. But there have always been two streams of refugees who would come to Canada. There were those who would be in refugee camps where we would go and select certain refugees who had come to Canada. There were those who themselves would come and appear on our front doorstep as it were, claiming refugee status.
This is where the problem has been, when a number of people have claimed refugee status, some of them being bogus claimants, and we did not have an adequate system for dealing with that. Thus we have built up a backlog of people who are claimants for refugee status, some legitimate and a great many of whom we all admit are not legitimate.
What the Government has done over the last number of years, beginning with the Liberal Government, has been inadequate to deal with this situation. The Liberal Government appointed a royal commission under Rabbi Plaut to investigate this matter. He brought in a very good report in 1985. When the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration studied the report it brought in another report that contained some very good recommendations. They would have resulted in a much shorter, more expeditious process, but it would still have been a fair process for refugee claimants, a process which would have given them full access to a hearing within Canada. They would also have a fair appeal process.
The Government did not choose to act on that report. Instead, it brought in Bill C-55 which, as I pointed out earlier, does not have access to a full impartial hearing by a refugee determination board. It does not have any possibility of an adequate appeal. It is on that basis that the Government is really closing down this second stream of refugees so that it will be very difficult for people, particularly from Latin America, to come to Canada and claim refugee status. The great majority of refugees who come and present themselves to Canada asking for asylum come from Central and South America. I refer to legitimate refugees. We have had some bogus refugee claimants who have flown in here from other parts of the world. That issue needs to be addressed.
In trying to address that situation we have practically shut off this second stream of refugees. As the Hon. Member said, we should be getting all our refugees from refugee camps. That is one stream of refugees, but we still have to retain the openness of Canada to people who come to our doorstep asking for refugee asylum.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in this debate on Bill C-55 in order to speak with my colleagues in support of an amendment to the Bill as it has come back from the other place, and amendments from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), as well, which are very limited attempts in a Bill that is so bad in many sections. They are worthy attempts to try to restore something of the humanity that is required in our refugee legislation.
I note that the Parliamentary Secretary is present in the House. I trust that he will be with us a little while longer. I, too, would like to say something about the debate that took place here last Lriday in which he articulated some thoughts about the kind of supervision that we should be providing at the borders in order to be sure that we did not bring into the country and find settled among us as neighbours and eventually as fellow Canadians persons who might have one dangerous notion or another.
There was an exchange of views. In particular I am thinking of the response of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon), in which he suggested that what the Parliamentary Secretary was really suggesting would require thought police sitting at the borders looking for traces of nihilism, existentialism, particularly Christian existentialism, and persons who believe in dialectical materialism, and so on. That was a fair comment. It was a most appropriate response by my colleague to the suggestions of the Parliamentary Secretary.
I trust that he is listening since he has stepped out of the Chamber. I do not want to transgress the rules. However, I hope most devoutly that I have his ear since he and I are both, as it happens, of Mennonite origin. We happen neither of us to find our homes in Mennonite churches these days, having made other choices, as we are free to do in Canada. However, I confirmed with him earlier this day that his ancestors had come to Canada during the 1870s. His spouse's ancestors had come in before the Great War, around the turn of the century. That may perhaps give him a less keen appreciation of exactly what he was pointing to in his suggestions about people's ideas.
As I told him, I happen to combine the two traditions among Mennonites in Canada. My mother's ancestors, too, arrived in the migration to Manitoba in the 1870s. There, they faced the rigors of pioneering in the southern part of that province. My father's ancestry is that of the 1920s migration to Canada, refugees from Soviet Russia who were very happy to have escaped the Bolshevik revolution and what followed from it. They escaped with their lives although they were affected in health by the rigors of those years.

June 17, 1988

The fact of the matter is that it was a near thing that they got to Canada because, following the Great War of 1914-18, there was in Canada a fair amount of aversion to Mennonites. After all, they have a belief in conscientious objection. They do not want to participate in war. They seek alternatives to service in the army, navy and air force. That particular principle, the aversion to taking part in war and joining in the war effort against the empires of central Europe, aroused a great deal of reaction among neighbours of the Mennonites in Canada. It aroused a reaction which reached such a pitch that the Government of Canada decided to exclude Mennonites from migration to this country.
In the 1920s a new Government came to power after the unionist Government was defeated in 1921. The new Government happened to be Liberal and, to its credit, it recognized the need for agricultural settlers. It was busy settling the veterans and the soldiers who were returning from the front, but it also saw the need for other farmers. That Government decided to allow Mennonites to migrate, but it imposed a restriction which affected the life of more than one young Mennonite man for all his lifetime, and that was very much my father's experience.
The Mennonites who came to Canada in the 1920s were required to stay on the land. For many of them that might have been quite a satisfactory restriction of experience, and they may have been quite content to farm as their ancestors had done in the Ukraine, in East Prussia, and all the way back to Friesland. For others that was not something that was easily accepted. I know that my father would have preferred to have been an engineer, or work with machinery. In fact, after almost 30 years of farming in southern Manitoba he sold his farm and bought a welding shop in the Town of Carmen. He spent the last four or five years of his working life blissfully happy, overworked, and not charging enough for his labours, I am quite certain, but blissfully happy working with machinery and helping farmers with the repair of their machinery, and other welding work.
From the 1920s, the prejudices of the Great War, through to the experience of one Mennonite Canadian in the 1960s and 1970s we have the consequences of prejudice expressed in the law of Canada, the regulations, and the requirements laid on Canadians. I do not know if this particular requirement was legislated or made a regulation. The fact that the Government had made this a condition of the return to migration was sufficient for most of the Mennonites. They are honourable people, and if that was the commitment that they had given, then that was what they were going to do in Canada, or at least they would do so for 30 or 40 years and perhaps eventually, when there was no possibility of the farm being continued in the family, like my father, decided to do something else.
I use this particular experience at some length to illustrate to the Parliamentary Secretary that to suggest dangerous notions is something that he should be profoundly uneasy
Immigration Act, 1976
about doing. If his ancestors did not face that type of prejudice on the part of fellow Canadians, others of his ethnocultural community did. He should certainly know better than to suggest that Canada wants to put thought police at the borders to check people out to ensure that they will not be a danger to the country.
In this context, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has served up similar fears to us in the last month in reaction to another community in Canada, the Canadian Sikh community. I wish to say very carefully on that particular point that to have the law enforcement agencies of Canada ensuring that the law is not broken, to ensure by one means or another that Canadians are not involved in support of violence in Canada or elsewhere and that those who participate in violence are punished, are all necessary things for the appropriate agencies of the Canadian Government to carry out.
But to suggest that because someone has lived with terrible experiences or lived in terrible situations and has come to a certain view of the world, and that that person should not have the right to come to Canada or should be stopped from coming into this country, because presumably those ideas are so ingrained that they will continue to work in that person's mind and make him a threat to this country, is surely to misunderstand the psychology of practically all persons. It is to miss the key point that people are driven to desperate views of the world, to desperate measures by circumstances in which they see no other way of dealing with it.
In this country we provide constitutional means. We allow freedom of assembly. We allow freedom of speech. We expect persons to use those means to express their viewpoints. We are opposed to ostracizing any group. We are profoundly opposed in law to guilt by association. We want to allow people the opportunity to seek the objectives that they are prepared to state with clear face, without having to blush or be embarrassed about their goals. I mean by that goals that can be stated in a meeting without embarrassment. They should be able to pursue those goals by legitimate means, and we are not involved in questioning the thoughts or philosophies involved here.
I am sorry that I do not have the opportunity to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), who is, after all, an ordained minister of the Church of Canada, whether he had some further thoughts. He cited the Old Testament to splendid purpose in supporting the necessity to offer refuge to those in danger of life and limb. I would have liked to ask him what his further observations were on the attitude of someone who thinks that ideas must be kept out, and presumably that means keeping out persons who may hold these ideas, and that we might as a consequence see lives sacrificed. We might see a person suffering loss of limb or loss of life, as is all too possible in country after country these days, simply because we are suspicious of the ideas held by some persons or perhaps even political Parties in that country that they have come to in desperate response to the terrible circumstances imposed on them.

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will respond to those observations. I expect he is with us in ear as well as in spirit. He may have some observations of his own on the suggestion that it is bad ideas that we will keep out without regard to the persons who happen to hold those ideas, and that somehow human life, which I have no doubt he would hold very sacred, would be maimed or lost because he is preoccupied with ideology. That tells us a good deal about attitudes that are behind the Government's Bill.
Perhaps you will remember, Madam Speaker, that about 17 months ago I had to say something in the House that was not pleasant and which aroused a certain amount of reaction when the then Minister for Employment and Immigration made a free-time speech on television in the Province of Quebec in which he was celebrating his own area, very close to where the by-election is currently under way, and he spoke of a region in which people are rather untouched by immigration and some of the other world realities. I suppose there is some truth to that, perhaps there is a great deal of truth to that. I do not think it is the total truth for the Lac St. Jean-Saguenay region of the Province of Quebec. No part of the country is free of persons from other continents of this world who have come to find refuge. I know there are multicultural organizations in that area to which the Minister might have been sensitive.
When the Minister went on to talk about an area that was demographically pure in population he aroused terrible fears in many people. I know very definitely that for members of Canada's Jewish community these were reminders of what had been said in the Nuremberg trials. What is most distressing is that requests from the Canadian Jewish Congress to withdraw those statements were not acted upon. I do not know what was in the Minister's mind in refusing to do so, but the fact that he insisted on standing by those statements for some reason of lack of support for any withdrawal on the part of his colleagues in the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party, I find quite troubling, as I expect you would also, Madam Speaker, as someone who is very well acquainted with many members of that caucus.
The possibility of racism in Canada, supported and expressed in legislation such as this, is something people of many backgrounds across this country find intensely troubling. The woman who is now Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) cannot say that the constituency she represents in Metropolitan Toronto is free of the knowledge of the diversity of our country and the needs of people who are in danger of life and limb in other parts of the world. That makes it all the more distressing that she can become Minister, carry these Bills, and refuse to take up with her colleagues significant changes. Her comments in presenting the Bill are found in Hansard of June 3, 1988, page 16095. She said:
These two vital Bills, which I consider a complementary package, have been considered from every possible angle by parliamentarians, non-governmental organizations, legal experts, the media and many others. As a Government, we have encouraged the scrutiny and appreciate the efforts and sincere concerns of those who have contributed to the examination of these Bills.
She does not say that practically every person who appeared and practically every organization which made a representation to the committee-and I have this on the authority of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina-and he can correct me if I am exaggerating-was opposed to this Bill. Practically every presentation was profoundly critical of what the Government was doing. How can one, in all honour and with any kind of integrity, say the words I have just read and not recognize that this process of consultation was profoundly critical of the legislation and called for fundamental changes which the Government has refused to carry through? How is it possible for an honourable Minister to do that?
We have lost a great deal in time and we have suffered damage in the attitudes of Canadians by reason of what the Government has done. The Government promised a campaign against racism in the fall of 1986. One would expect that sometime in 1987 it would be accomplished. But instead of such a campaign being undertaken, there was a whipping up of feeling, after a ship of Sikh refugee claimants landed on the Nova Scotia coast. The Canadian Government whipped up that feeling and there were incredible responses. I lived in astonishment and distress for days having heard what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said in apparent acceptance of the Government's suggestion that these people should be sent away. It took days before he changed his stance. Such a yielding to racism in this country, may I say with care, is not surprising coming from someone who represents a Vancouver riding, because on the West Coast these feelings of concern about Asians coming to Canada have existed for a long, long time. I am sure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would eschew any such motive in himself, but that was just one demonstration of the effect of the Government's actions.
We have seen more than a year pass without anything like a campaign against racism. The present Minister for Multicul-turalism promised, trying for some support for the Government in the context of the upcoming election, whenever it happens to be, more money for multiculturalism, and a good chunk of that money, a couple of million dollars, perhaps, will be put into the area of work on race relations. This Government shamefully neglected race relations for most of the time from September 17, 1984. It left a couple of people in the area, but there was no program, no strategy, no resources to do anything. Now when the next election draws near, after the Government has done its damage with this legislation, it will belatedly spend some money in this area to try, if it can, to rescue things. It is terribly late to do that.
All those persons across the country who recognize what the Government is doing with Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, and who have been hoping that at some point the presentations by all those groups, by churches and by those concerned about
June 17, 1988

refugees from wherever they may come, those persons who want to work in the Canadian tradition that brought us the Nansen Medal, those who have been waiting for some evidence that the Government has changed its mind, will not be impressed by more spending on race relations. They want real action in which this Government will arrest the feelings of racism that exist in the country and return it to the traditions of openness about which my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Spadina and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), have already spoken so very well earlier this day.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I was a little surprised to hear the Member saying that the citizens of British Columbia for some reason are more racist than citizens of other parts of the country. I wonder if the Member could give us his reasons for stating that?


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. This is the sort of thing that should never be done easily or loosely. It always deserves to be done carefully. I speak, of course, from my background as a teacher of Canadian history, Associate Professor of History at Lakehead University, on political leave, and also as someone who has lived and taught in the interior of British Columbia. I want to be very careful because the feelings of prejudice and racism have existed in many parts of Canada. I respect the desire of my colleague from southern Ontario not to have anything said unfairly. I think the fact remains, perhaps because British Columbians live across the Pacific from Asia and because Japanese immigrants and, before that, Chinese workers who built the railway, settled there, may have had more experience with Asians on the Pacific coast. I think of a man who was one of British Columbia's Lieutenant Governors, James Dunsmuir, whose family owned large coal mines on Vancouver Island. The Dunsmuirs were capable of bringing in labour that could be discriminated against, as in law one could in British Columbia. They used that labour to break strikes by British-born workers in those communities, and that, of course, built up terrible feelings of resentment. So there are these factors in the history of the province to be noted.
If there is any question about the validity of suggesting that British Columbia may be more racist, it would surely be seen in the laws of the province that apply to citizenship and voting rights and so on. After all, these were laws that, for a long time, were left to the provinces to establish. The Canadian Government has not always filled areas of its own jurisdiction very well, and in matters of voting, when a province discriminated deliberately against Asians, denying them voting rights and citizenship, in those professions where one could not enter unless one were a citizen able to vote, this exclusion actually closed doors. This was discrimination in law, British Columbia style.
Immigration Act, 1976
The last thing anyone wants in these areas is to have any possibility of having an attitude of being holier than thou. I think one can quite fairly recognize in British Columbia's history the whipping up of feeling against Japanese Canadians particularly that led eventually to the action in 1942 of uprooting a community, seizing property, selling it off for whatever and relocating people into detention and work camps et cetera. Japanese Canadian redress is one of the final expressions of the racism that prevailed in B.C. to which a Canadian Government tragically yielded in the midst of war, or which, in retrospect, we would surely say was against racism, first of all the racism of the Nazi system.


James Douglas Manly: I have a brief comment on the same subject, Madam Speaker. I remember once when Robin Sears, who at the time was the federal secretary for the New Democratic Party, and a grandson of Colin Cameron, a distinguished Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, asked his mother what happened when his grandfather had opposed the expropriation of Japanese property and the expulsion of Japanese from the coast of British Columbia. She described how she and her sister were spat upon by other children in the community and that their father, Colin Cameron, lost the next election. There was a price to be paid at that time for standing up against racial intolerance. That is certainly not exclusive to British Columbia. I think it is probably a fact that people are most intolerant of those next to them.
I was brought up in a situation where there were no blacks. 1 never learned to be intolerant of blacks. There were very few Asians on the Prairies where I grew up. I did not have that kind of prejudice. We tend to have prejudices built into us when we are face to face with a situation. I think what the Hon. Member is saying is that we have to stand up against it.


Mr. McCurdy:: I am here!


James Douglas Manly: We have blacks next to us now, Madam Speaker, but not in sufficient numbers, I might add.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: We have prejudices that have built up. We have to learn to overcome them and have policies that stand against them rather than go with the flow of prejudice.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) want to respond?


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I will cheerfully accept someone else's question or response. 1 appreciate the comments from my colleague.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the historical perspective which the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) has given, but I understood the Member to

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
say that currently, today, British Columbia citizens are more racist. He was not talking about 1942 or 1932. Could he give some proof of that?
The trouble I have with that type of interpretation is that if we take the attitude as Canadians that, yes, racism exists in Canada but it is off in British Columbia or somewhere else, we tend to neglect looking in our own backyards. I did understand the Member to say that the citizens of Vancouver specifically were potentially more racist than citizens in other communities. I would like the Hon. Member to clarify that point.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question she put temperately and with care. What I said was one of those asides. It came in the course of observations about reactions of various persons, specifically the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition who, for some days anyway last summer, left us with the impression that he was in support of sending shiploads of Sikhs back to wherever if they arrived on our coasts. I find that troubling. I speak for Canadians,we do not want any Party including the governing Party to be committed to any such view. Having expressed concern about what seemed to be his acceptance of the kind of campaign being whipped up by the Government, a concern I will say from which he did withdraw-he did not hold with that stand in the long run, it was just that period of time-what I said in passing was in recognition of the fact that he is of course the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra.
Given B.C. traditions of the past, this perhaps was not quite so surprising given whatever he may have been hearing in his constituency office, but it might be worth recognizing that even in these days the maintaining of human rights in the Province of British Columbia is difficult and it is made more difficult by reason of the Government's lack of support for it. After all, the Human Rights Commission in that province has been abolished. If that does not suggest in the ruling Social Credit Party circles some kind of lack of respect for human rights of varying sorts-I recognize the commissions do not just deal with complaints of racism-then I do not know what would.
I do know from conversations with Mr. Azis Khaki, who heads the Committee for Racial Justice in British Columbia, that that committee is currently making an effort to ensure that all of us are sensitive to ethnocultural and racial diversity and that our actions reflect those needs in the Province of British Columbia. That is a task for all of us and one in which the New Democratic Party in British Columbia joins, having of course in its membership a black member, a south Asian, and a native member in the caucus to reflect the province and to ensure that the New Democratic Party recognizes the need for action.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the reason I asked the specific questions of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) is that we have to get back to the main point, it being Bills C-55 and C-84. I see this not on the basis of a particular political philosophy, but it bothers me when I hear Canadians say we have racism, but it is somewhere else; "We have racism but it is not in my community. It is out in British Columbia" or somewhere else. It is quite clear that racism exists in every community. As Canadians I think all of us have to recognize that the existence of racism is not isolated to a particular part of the country. It is not isolated to British Columbia, albeit there may be certain government policies of the B.C. Government that may not work to reduce racism. But it disturbs me when a Member suggests that a particular part of the country is more racist than another part.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: There are all kinds of studies to confirm that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If there are studies that confirm it, maybe the Member can table them. That is the question I asked the Member from Thunder Bay-Nipigon. Specifically, he referred to Vancouver when he said that Vancouver was more racist than other communities.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is not the question at all.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member over there was not here. I heard it. I wondered whether there were some specific studies referred to today to outline that. I am not familiar with them. Maybe I should reconsider my position. I do not think any community is blameless.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: He did not say that either.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unfortunately, when we tend to point the finger at somebody else we reduce the capacity to look within ourselves as Members of Parliament. Every person in this room is probably carrying a certain amount of prejudice-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Table those documents.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -either prejudice against other persons whether they be on the basis of race, creed, religion, colour, gender, et cetera. Many of the people in this Chamber probably face potential racism themselves whether they be Francophones working in an Anglophone atmosphere, women working in a predominately male atmosphere or men working in a predominately female atmosphere. For us to tackle the problem of racism, we have to look within ourselves.
I say that because by looking within ourselves we have to look at the content of this legislation before us today. In particular, in dealing with Bills C-55 and C-84 it is pretty clear that the Government has responded to concerns in a racist way. We recall that last summer there was supposed to have been an emergency going on because a couple of hundred refugees were seeking solace and refuge on our shores.
June 17, 1988

I think many people had hoped that there would be some fundamental changes to Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 when the Hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mrs. McDougall) took over the portfolio of Employment and Immigration. I thought she would return with legislation which would exclude the possibility of turning a boat away. I would have thought that she would have done that because in a period of war this country, not Vancouver, not Toronto, not a specific community, responded in a racist way by turning away a ship full of Jewish refugees who were seeking solace here. Eventually that ship was sent back and those people went to their deaths. That is a tragedy that should hang on the consciences of all Canadians, because that decision was made by a Government representing the people of Canada. We have made mistakes, and that one was a deadly and racist mistake that resulted in sending people to their deaths.
Why should we today, through a new piece of legislation, grant future Ministers the right to commit the same deadly errors that were committed in the past? Unless amendments are accepted, the Minister will actually be able to give responsibility for such a decision to someone else. A Minister or even a civil servant would be able to decide, on behalf of the people of Canada, to turn away a ship full of people.
I do not think anyone is suggesting that owners of ships who trade in human flesh and are trying to milk desperate people for hundreds and even thousands of dollars should not be dealt with, but surely the best way to achieve the dual objectives of opening the arms of our country to refugees and at the same time making sure that those who exploit them are dealt with in a severe fashion is a different way than the one proposed by this Bill. We can do it in a better and more humane way.
We can achieve those goals by permitting those who arrive on a boat to land in the same way as any other refugee. At the same time, we can bring in legislation which permits the seizure and sale of ships so that those who actually try to trade in human flesh will realize that they cannot sell passage to desperate people and walk away from it.
The owner of the ship that came in last summer walked away with hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was never dealt with. If we had seized that ship, fined the owner, and perhaps imprisoned him, that would have been the right way to deal with the culprit without victimizing the victims who are genuine refugees or, at the very least, people who have the right to be heard. These people had the right to plead their case without having a political decision being made by a Minister responding to the hot political climate of that particular summer. There should not have been a sudden determination that anyone who comes to this country of a different colour or race might not be desirable and therefore may be sent back.
I do not think we want to repeat the racist mistakes that Canada made in the past and for which we are all responsible. If we pass this legislation as it is currently written, we will be
Immigration Act, 1976
conferring on future Governments the ability to commit the same deadly errors that were committed when we sent a boatload of Jewish refugees to their deaths during war. I do not think we want to do that.
I do not think the Government has thought through the impact of the legislation it is asking Canadians to accept. All Canadians are proud of the fact that Canada is the only country that has actually been awarded international recognition for our contribution to the resettlement of refugees from Vietnam. Individuals have been recognized over the years, but Canada is the only country to have been awarded such international recognition.
With these two pieces of legislation we will destroy, in one fell swoop, Canada's reputation as a country with a humane policy toward people who are desperate, people who are without a homeland, people who are so desperate that they will pay someone thousands of dollars to get on a ship that may lead to nowhere. These people could be put on a life-raft out in the middle of the ocean, but they are so desperate because they are homeless and stateless that they are willing to take that chance. As a native born Canadian, I cannot even conceive of the desperation that I would feel if I would have to pack up my family-


Dave Nickerson: Sit on this side; you will know what desperation feels like after listening to this nonsense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member says that if I sit on that side I will know what desperation feels like. I can understand how he feels, given the potential results on Monday.
I cannot imagine how desperate some people must be that they would pack up their families, pay thousands of dollars to someone who at the very least has a questionable business background, and head off on a boat going God knows where, maybe nowhere, potentially to their deaths. Yet we are being asked to pass legislation which will tell those people that they will not even be given a fair hearing in this country. That is one provision of the Bill which absolutely must be changed.
The second area of concern deals with the safe third country concept. Because the Government does not wish to give potential refugees the opportunity to have their cases heard in our country, they will be sent to a third country.
The Government believes that the list of safe third countries should be drawn up by a committee which ultimately reports to the Minister. First, I would suggest that the safe third country concept is not a functional concept in the turbulent political time in which Canada finds itself in relation to other countries. Let us take the United States, as an example.
Most of us would consider the United States a safe country. However, is it safe for a refugee who comes from Central America, lands in Canada, and is then sent to the United States? Do we have any kind of guarantee that the United States will not send that person back to a place like El Salvador where he may in fact be facing certain death, or to a

June 17, 1988
*
Immigration Act, 1976
place like Chile where people have disappeared by the thousands? What kind of a guarantee do we have that in the turbulent political climate in the Americas, a safe third country concept should include the United States?
If it were left up to the Minister, with the so-called advisory committee, the Minister would be under a tremendous amount of political pressure to include the United States as one of the safe countries. We have a renewed, terrific relationship with the United States of America. Imagine what kind of a backlash there would be if we issued a list of safe third countries for refugees from Central America and the United States was absent from that list. Imagine what kind of pressure we would have from people like George Shultz and the President of the United States.
I do not think it is viable to suggest that the Minister who is subject to those kinds of political pressures should decide something like this about an issue we have tried to depoliticize. I do not think we want to place upon the Minister the responsibility for determining these so-called safe third countries. We would be setting a dangerous precedent. In very many instances what is a safe country to a Canadian is not necessarily a safe country to a potential refugee. That is another reason that this legislation, as it is currently drafted, is simply unworkable. The safe third country concept does not work. If the Minister is given the power to determine what constitutes a safe third country, the question will be a political one rather than a moral one.
The third area of the legislation which was not changed and with which we can absolutely not agree is that dealing with the Government's intention to provide an exclusion for a person who is "contrary to the public interest".
In other words, a refugee coming to this country can make application and say "I am a bona fide refugee; I have come to this country with nothing but the shirt on my back, my children, and my husband" or "my wife". The refugee determination process is set in motion and the refugee board can determine, after all the appropriate security checks, et cetera, that in fact the person is a bona fide refugee. Yet, the Government is reserving the right for an amendment for the exclusion of a person who is "contrary to the public interest".
It seems to me that that is exactly the kind of exception that we want to avoid. We have seen the case most recently of Santokh Singh. Indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) may be called to report before the House because he refuses to appear before the committee and clear up the discrepancy of the refugee determination process as it relates to Santokh Singh.
Your Honour will recall that Mr. Singh went through the process. He in fact was cleared by the security people; he got clearance from CSIS as well as the general clearance carried out by the RCMP. He was also cleared by the refugee determination process. Then, all of a sudden, a foreign
Government, which happened to disagree fundamentally with the political views of a minority in its own community, allegedly contacted the Minister and said that this person should not be allowed into Canada because it was not in the public interest.
Even though the refugee determination process, in an independent fashion, had given clearance to this individual, by virtue of a foreign Government calling and saying that the person was not to be allowed in because he was "contrary to the public interests", the person can be sent away.
There are constituents in my own constituency of Hamilton East from the Ukraine who may not be the most beloved former citizens of their own country from which they were forced to flee and which Was taken over by the U.S.S.R. According to the amendment in this legislation the Soviet Government could call up and say "I don't think Zenon Kramer should be allowed into your country because he might be working contrary to the public interest". I am sure that Ivan Boyko, the current President of the National Congress of the Ukrainian Canadians, is not working in the public interest of the Government of the Soviet Union.
Do we think that by bringing in a Bill which permits the Minister to override the independent findings of a refugee board and respond to the alleged concerns of foreign Governments we will be able to maintain the independence* depoliticization, and integrity of the refugee determination process?
We do not think that is possible. That is why we cannot support the concept of an overriding amendment which would allow any Minister, if the political climate gets hot, notwithstanding what the refugee board may have determined or the security clearance of CSIS and the RCMP may have determined, to reserve the right to get rid of a person if a foreign Government calls up and says that we should. The Minister would be able to disregard the due process which has been the hallmark of the refugee determination process in Canada.
There are certainly three major concerns, some with which I have dealt. One is the safe third country concept. The weak appeal process is also of extreme concern. People who come to Canada to make refugee applications have approximately 72 hours in which to apprise themselves of the fact that they may be able to appeal the case. That was, in fact, extended from the original plan of 24 hours. In three days they may not be able to have access to counsel. They may not learn what opportunities they may have to appeal a decision of the Government. In fact, it seems to me that it is a fundamental flaw in the Bill to give them such a short pre-screening period and immediately to ship them out to the so-called safe third country. I am very surprised-

I am quite disappointed, after more than 30 years of progress by the Canadian Government on human rights and refugee policy in Canada, that on the matter of Japanese Canadians that was just mentioned, all Canadians should be

June 17, 1988

ashamed of what our Government has done. Madam Speaker, because my own daughter has a Japanese grandmother, according to the rules that were in effect during the Second World War, she could have been put in a prison camp by the Canadian Government. I think it is a disgrace for all Canadians that during the war, we reacted so strongly that we put bona fide Canadian citizens in prisons and concentration camps, just because they had a Japanese great-grandfather. They were put in a concentration camp for that. I do not want us to adopt retrograde policies that would allow us to turn back a ship. I think that the Bill as it stands is a step back, and Canadians and Members of the House should reject it.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member could elaborate a bit upon why the Government has chosen to bring in such badly drafted legislation with regard to refugee determination. It is hard to understand why, when there is a need for an effective refugee system, the Government would bring in legislation which is condemned by a wide group of Canadians. Does the Hon. Member have any ideas about why the Government is bringing in this legislation?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, often in Parliament we hear the Government complaining about opposition criticism and how we are too tough on the Government because we ask some pretty tough questions. In fact, the people who have spoken out against this Bill, including the two Parties in the Opposition, are not only political people.
Among non-governmental organizations which have spoken out is the Canadian Council for Refugees that is made up of 96 different groups. It has turned thumbs down on the legislation. The B'nai B'rith of Canada has said that the legislation is open to legal challenges because it is unconstitutional. The Coalition for a Just Refugee and Immigration Policy has condemned the process and condemned the Bill as politicization of the refugee process. In fact, the Canadian Bar Association, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council all consider that this piece of legislation is so fraught with drafting problems that it will be snarled up in the courts for years.
Rather than passing the Bill and letting it be challenged in the courts, the better route to follow is for all Members on all sides of the House to make the necessary amendments, to respect the constitutional rights which have been invoked in the Charter, and to respect the opinion of not only the Opposition but many church organizations and community groups across the country which say that this Bill is simply going too far.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. This is not the first time I have spoken on this legislation in the House, but it is necessary to keep debating it until the Government gets the message.
Immigration Act, 1976
I was asking my colleague why the Government has brought Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, into this House. The legislation has been widely condemned. I conclude that the Government has brought in this legislation because it has been playing to the fear that people have about false refugee claimants and immigrants. It has been appealing to the mass audience in trying to score political points. That was evidenced by the fact that Parliament was called back into emergency session last summer to deal with the question of immigrants in response to the headlines in the newspapers.
The Government is playing a mean spirited type of politics with refugee policy. It could follow an alternative. It could take advantage of the democratic process rather than play to mass audiences through the media and try to take advantage of fear about false refugee claimants and of the frustration felt by immigrants who are trying to reunify their families by bringing relatives to this country legitimately while others are trying to come in through the back-door.
Instead, the Government could implement a generous and genuine policy of family reunification, which it has promised time and time again. There are many immigrant groups in my riding with a genuine need to reunify families in this country. It should do the hard work that is necessary to develop an effective, fair, and generous refugee determination process. No Government can do that by itself. It must conduct public hearings to deal with the current refugee determination process which is clearly ineffective. It takes years to process people through that system. After two years, even if someone were found not to be a legitimate refugee, he has already begun to be integrated into the country and it is difficult to remove him. There are many other reasons the present system does not work. There must be a consultative process to develop a workable and generous refugee determination process.
The Government should produce a paper on its refugee determination policy on which groups concerned about refugee issues can comment. Those groups in our society working with refugee claimants on a daily basis should have input into the policy so that we can develop a process that will work, that will screen out those trying to come in by the back-door and take advantage of the generosity of Canadians, while providing safe haven for legitimate refugees whose lives are in danger for expressing their political views.
A refugee determination process must accomplish two goals. It must separate the wheat from the chaff so that the generosity of Canadians is not taken advantage of, while providing a safe refuge for genuine refugees.
An open door refugee claimant policy would only create a backlash in which Canadians would want to slam the door to prevent abuse of the system. Then we will have hobbled the possibility of establishing a real effective and generous refugee determination system.

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
The Government should take a democratic approach to the development of a refugee determination policy by allowing public discussion in which the Minister and interested groups can receive attention in the media. That would only be the beginning of the process. Real consultation could take place behind the scenes in which the Minister could have real dialogue with the church groups that work with refugee claimants, with lawyers who work with refugee claimants, with concerned citizens, as well as with members of the Opposition. For instance, the Minister could meet with our critic in order to get the benefit of his consideration in this area and thereby improve the legislation.
The Government has chosen not to do that. Instead, it has taken a much more traditional route of policy development, which is to seize a political opportunity. It has to announce action, strong action which will eradicate this abuse from the system. Therefore the development and the writing of the legislation is conducted behind closed doors. An announcement will come before the legislation is drafted. The call of Parliament will then come before the legislation is even ready. The Government will scramble to put something together. It does not have a real opportunity to meet with people to consider this matter in depth and to obtain some studied comments on the type of policy it is bringing forward.
In choosing to approach the refugee determination question from a political perspective, political in the sense of taking advantage of headlines and trying to get the attention of television cameras, the Government has lost the opportunity to obtain a genuinely democratic policy development process. It has lost the opportunity, thrown it away, to develop a policy in this very difficult area that could actually work, a policy that could combine both compassion and effectiveness.
I know that when the Government made announcements with regard to its legislation it added a footnote with respect to family reunification. It promised a more generous family reunification regime. I assume that it has done this because of what I have heard from people in my riding. I am sure that members of the Government hear the same thing in their ridings. When people from the immigrant communities in my riding go to the Department of Immigration to ask to have a member of their family come to join them, they tell me that it is like banging their head against a brick wall. I am told that the process is very slow and difficult. I know from the case work in my riding that when we seek information from the Department of Immigration to try to assist on some occasions we are successful and we can facilitate the process. However, it is an incredibly slow, cumbersome, and difficult process. There is a need to be more compassionate with regard to those people who are already in this country as immigrants. They are here. They are established. They want to live a decent and humane life. Part of achieving that is by having their whole family here rather than just parts of it.
Rather than the Government stating that it will do something about family reunification as an add-on to an announcement about refugees, it ought to take the whole matter very seriously. It ought to take the opportunity to do something real in the area and to be much more generous in terms of recognizing that families are the backbone of the country. The Government should realize that immigrants have made a great contribution to the country. If we want those immigrants who are here to enjoy the benefits of their own hard work, then we ought to allow them to bring their relatives here.
Rather than seeking to take advantage of headlines and rather than playing to people's fears, the Government ought to be performing some real policy development in the area of family reunification and in the area of developing an effective refugee determination process. In short, it ought to be governing the country. It ought to be developing policies that will work. It ought to be examining the policies that are there, recognizing where the policies do not work, and going through the process of developing a policy that can be effective. That is called governing.
If the present Government were to concern itself more with governing the country than it does with the public opinion polls and the latest headlines, I think it would do better politically. It would do much better in the public opinion polls in the direct result. However, when it seeks, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appears to be doing most of the time, to play to public opinion and to the headlines as well as to raising of the stature of the Government in the polls, it is seen to be doing just that. The people then simply refuses to give it their confidence. What is needed for the country is a Government that is committed to devising policies that are necessary to meet the problems the country faces.
If the Government were to set its agenda, recognize that we need to have an effective determination policy, and go about developing it, obviously it would receive criticism in the process as well as some publicity. Fundamentally it would build confidence among Canadians in their own capacities, intentions, and values. As an indirect result it would gain in popularity, if we can call it that, and in the polls.
Maybe one of the reasons it is so desperate to use every political opportunity in order to rise in the Gallup poll result is that it was elected on such a wave of public approbation. Members of the Government were so high in the Gallup polls when they were first elected that I am sure it was some sort of a record in polling history. They got so high that when they came crashing down to earth it must have been a pretty hard experience. Thus it desperately sought a quick-fix political answer to its desperate straits in the public opinion polls when what it ought to have been doing was concerning itself with governing the country. Having been elected its job was then to solve the problems that faced Canadians, or at least to face up to them and do the best it could about it.
There is one characteristic about the Government which stands out to a great many Canadians, simply that it does not
June 17, 1988

appear to have a real agenda. It seems to go around like a ping-pong ball. It is battered this way and that. If it could ever establish a real agenda and follow, then people would have confidence in it and it would not have to take political advantage in the area of refugees and immigration.
When the Government was elected it said that it would husband the financial resources of the public. It said that it would be very careful with the way that it would spend money. In the last few days we have seen the Government throwing money around like proverbial drunken sailors. If we could have by-elections in every region of the country, then maybe all Canadians could benefit from this behaviour. What this demonstrates is the fact that the Government has no consistent direction. It just seeks political favour. What we need from the Government is a commitment to govern, to develop the policies that Canadians need and, most particularly, we need a policy with respect to refugee determination.
The hard work that it takes to meet with groups of people and to consult with them in regard to refugee determination legislation and to go through public debate is naturally a part of developing policy in a democratic society. That is what we need from the Government. We need a process that will work, that will be effective and efficient, and that will have compassion.
In light of the fact that so many groups with experience in refugee determination have condemned this legislation, I would ask the Government to withdraw the legislation and start over. It should with a White or Green Paper, throw out some ideas, consult, and start the long, hard work that is necessary to come up with a law that will work.


Abram Ernest Epp: In his comments the Hon. Member suggested that the Government should have done the work of refining Canada's immigration laws dealing with refugees far more carefully. It should not have pandered to whatever prejudices there might be in the country, at least as we see it, but there should have been a careful inquiry. A Green Paper would have encouraged that process. A White Paper would already spell out government policy. In both cases there is abundant opportunity for debate, as we are seeing these days with regard to the White Paper on Defence.
In the 1970s the Liberal Government followed that course with a Green Paper on immigration, eventually proposals in a Bill, and changes in law. Changes on the side of the refugee determination process were attacked at that time as carrying within them the seeds of their own destruction. The process was likely to become cumbersome in practice, and it would require a good deal of personnel. It was quite legalistic and with these characteristics it had the potential to bog down. At that time there was much criticism of it.
Could the Hon. Member comment on that aspect? The Hon. Member is the long-time encumbent of the riding of Winnipeg North Centre. Another Member who represented that riding is
Immigration Act, 1976
at the Table now. We have all joined in recognizing his eightieth birthday, in wishing him well in celebrating that, and in wishing him many more years of service to the Canadian people. Living in that constituency are refugees who have fled from one country or another in order to find refuge in Canada.
Could the Hon. Member tell us something about the potential of persons for adding to our nation? There have been reflections by the Parliamentary Secretary on the ideas that these people might have. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has suggested that if the Parliamentary Secretary's ideas were to be followed we would need to have thought police at the border. Perhaps some of the persons in Winnipeg might be regarded as doubtful from the perspective of the Parliamentary Secretary. Yet, I imagine those persons make their own contribution to the City of Winnipeg and will become, or are already, good Canadian citizens who will strengthen our commitment to democracy and our devotion to the freedoms stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Could the Hon. Member provide some comments along those lines?


Cyril Keeper: It is clear that the people who come here as refugees, whether they are from Chile, the Philippines, or another country, are like Canadians. They are good people and like all of us they are unique individuals. Each of us is like a snowflake. We are unique. There are no two people alike. A person's fingerprint is his or her own, no one else's, even though there are now four or five billion people on this planet. Each of the people who come here is unique and has a unique contribution to make to Canada.
These refugees would prefer to stay in their own country and to have made their contribution there, but they did not have that option. Many of the people from Chile live in my riding. Even though they have been here for quite a few years now, they still think of Chile as home. They would like to see democracy return to Chile in order that they could return there.
In the meantime while they are here they are contributing together with other groups to the vitality of our community. We appreciate the uniqueness of each of them and the contribution they make. The fact that each is different and unique provides us with the challenge of understanding. We can appreciate differences in another person, celebrate and enjoy them. At the same time we understand that there is a demand, a requirement that Canadians understand someone who may be different. Of course we are all different and we are all unique.
People from the Philippines have a passionate commitment to democracy. I am sure all Canadians are aware of this fact; they can easily remember the bloodless revolution that took place in the Philippines. The people rose up against a dictatorship and were able to overthrow it and replace it with an electoral democracy. It is incredible witness to the power of the human spirit that, without guns, they were able to overthrow a brutal dictatorship that was abusing their country. Those

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
people who are here in this country, and people from other parts of the world, have a tremendous contribution to make. Each and every one has a unique contribution to make and much to teach us about the democratic process. We enjoy the democratic process. It is worth while to have people here who have experienced dilatory dictatorships and great poverty in other counties. They bring an experience to our society that we do not have first hand. Therefore they enrich our life and at the same time challenge us to understand the differences among the people. In balance, we ought to come down upon the fact that these people make a unique and important contribution to our society, to our politics, and to our culture.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have listened to the Hon. Member's remarks, and I would like him to enlarge on one aspect. He has shown that he has a great variety of people in his constituency in Winnipeg. He probably has had acquaintance with some people who might be considered not the most popular with the powers that be, but nevertheless perhaps are not in fact a danger. The amendment before us would replace the idea of excluding somebody from a chance to make a refugee claim because he or she is considered to be such that to allow a refugee claim would be contrary to the public interest, or to narrow that down to say that he or she would only be excluded if he or she were a danger to the public.
Would the Member comment on whether from his acquaintance with people in his constituency, and not of course to identify individuals, he can see some who might have been acceptable if they were being examined only as to whether they would be a danger to the public, but perhaps might have been unacceptable if they were being examined as to whether their entry into Canada or into refugee status would be contrary to the public interest? Can the Hon. Member reflect on that?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has expired, but I will allow the Hon. Member one minute to comment briefly.


Cyril Keeper: I must say that the phrase "contrary to the public interest" as a criterion for refusing or admitting a person to refugee status sounds to me like as very vague concept. If we are to have a refugee determination policy that is effective, that can draw the distinctions between someone who is in genuine need of refuge and haven those who are simply trying to come in the back-door, trying to take advantage of our refugee determination policy, we must have clear and effective criteria. The notion that a broad phrase like that could be abused is of great concern to many Canadians.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commence my remarks this afternoon by indicating to the Speaker and to the House that the essence of this Bill is as a result of a problem that commenced one year ago when boat loads of refugees landed on our shores in Atlantic Canada. At that time there was considerable public debate in the nation
with respect to our existing refugee laws. As a result, last summer the Government recalled Parliament to deal with what it termed to be an emergency situation.
What has led us to debate the immigration laws and what has led us to begin the debate today in the final stages of a new refugee law? Perhaps one should go back to our roots as a nation and find ourselves in terms of an historical perspective with respect to the immigration policy Canada has developed since its birth 121 years ago.
I think most Canadians acknowledge that Canada has developed a reputation in the international community as a haven for refugees. Many people have immigrated to this country to build a new life consistent with the values we hold dear to ourselves. From a personal standpoint, I happen to believe that perhaps the reason Canada has such an enviable reputation in the international community is our tolerance for minorities.
I personally believe that our roots in terms of our treatment of minorities go back to the great battle of the Plains of Abraham. For the first time in history, the conqueror allowed the conquered to keep their own language, culture, and system of laws which was quite different from the British system. The French Canadians in Canada at that time accepted the Napoleonic Code of Laws, as they do today.
It was the beginning of Canada as a nation showing much tolerance for minorities. It was the beginning of the development of a reputation that Canada has justly acquired over the years as a country that is very tolerant toward minorities.
If we examine our immigration policy since 1867, we find that there were cycles or waves of immigration beginning in the late 1800s when a number of refugees and immigrants came from the Ukraine. That led to the expansion of Canada, particularly western Canada. In post war years Canada has been very open in terms of its immigration policy to immigrants from Europe and the Third World. I recall the way in which Canadians opened their doors to the people of Hungary during the revolution of 1956 when thousands of Hungarians fled that country because of suppression by a totalitarian regime. They largely fled-and I will elaborate on this with respect to our concerns about this Bill-to a so-called safe country. Most of them fled to Vienna and to Austria, and from Austria they immigrated to other parts of the world. Canada accepted a great many of those Hungarian refugees.
If one looks at the 1960s when we had the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, we find that Canada again led the way in the international community by accepting a large number of refugees from Czechoslovakia. One has only to look at the 1970s when we had a similarly grave situation in the Far East. We again opened our hearts and our arms to the boat people.
I think there is a recognition by Canadians that our tolerance toward these refugees has developed our reputation in the international community. The difficulty that has arisen in the last 12 months is that, to some extent, Canadians' faith
June 17, 1988

in the immigration system has been tested. Most Canadians have indicated to Members of Parliament that what they want in terms of a bona fide refugee and immigration law is to ensure that our basic sense of fairness as a nation is being applied and that the integrity of the immigration system is intact. I think that is the prime focus of the review of the existing immigration law. That is the reason we are having this debate in the House of Commons today.
Most Canadians expect their Members of Parliament to ensure when a new immigration law is passed that the sense of integrity of the system and the degree to which Canadians adhere to it, the basic fairness of the Bill, will be addressed by Parliament. This is where the Liberal Party has such difficulties with the legislation presently before the House. We have concerns in three particular areas, namely, the pre-screening section of the Bill, the concept of a safe third country, and the appeal process itself.
It is fundamental that all three political parties acknowledge the need for changes to the existing immigration laws. To some extent, Canadians' faith in the system has been undermined by refugees. I am not talking about bona fide refugees but about refugees with very weak claims who are using the weaknesses in the existing laws to circumvent the system of immigration to this country. Many Canadians feel that, provided genuine refugees are addressed, the rest who are questionable in terms of their bona fide refugee status go through the same process that all other immigrants are expected to follow.
I can go back to the Diefenbaker Government years when the Prime Minister at that time, John Diefenbaker, introduced the Bill of Rights. Subsequently, in the 1981 Constitutional Amendment Prime Minister Trudeau introduced, for the first time in a British parliamentary system, the Charter of Rights. The Charter of Rights, in essence, allows for the supremacy of the individual to take precedence over government. Therefore, it is very important to remember that in the process of passing immigration laws whatever laws we pass ought to be subjected to a test of the principles of the Charter of Rights.
All of us as Members of Parliament should listen to the eminently qualified organizations which have testified not only before the House of Commons committee but before the committee in the other place that dealt in a very compassionate and creative way with the immigration Bill in terms of the amendments it put. To some extent I am very disappointed the Government has chosen to deal with only four of the eighteen amendments recommended by the Senate, but that is the prerogative of the Government.
Surely we must have a great deal of concern when qualified organizations such as the B'nai Brith and the Coalition for a Just Refugee Program indicate to the committees that significant segments of the Bill will contravene the Charter of Rights and Bill of Rights. I believe the test for this Bill should be the application of the Charter of Rights to each and every part of the Bill.
Immigration Act, 1976
Let me now deal with the three major concerns of the Liberal Party with respect to the Bill. I indicated previously that the Senate advocated 18 amendments. Four have been addressed by the Minister and 1 will deal with three of them in my remarks this afternoon.
First, there is a great deal of concern about the prescreening process itself. In terms of the legislation it is a step forward in the creation of a new refugee board that will act at arm's length from the Government to deal with the question of what constitutes a bona fide refugee case and what constitutes a bogus case. However, it seems to me in the process of creating a positive step, namely, the refugee board, we have taken away from the refugee board part of its responsibility by allowing a pre-screening process to take place with an adjudicator and a member of the board. This is ostensibly to cut down on the number of cases that go before the board. That is a major flaw in the Bill. From the standpoint of fairness and equity in the system, it leaves a lot to be desired when at the very beginning of the process two people will be able to determine-and I am sure they will not ask for a long history of the refugee's claim-whether or not a person can then proceed to the refugee board for clarification.
When we talk about a pre-screening process or the application that will come before the refugee board, it is important to realize that in a world in which we have a number of undemocratic regimes large numbers of organizations are seeking autonomy in their own home countries. In effect, we have as we witnessed in the Central American region, death squads of far right and far left ideologies that have terrorized many people and created a large number of people seeking refugee status throughout the world.
Canada has taken a leadership role in immigration, witnessed by the awarding of the Nansen Medal by the United Nations. To some extent this Bill is an abandonment of the principles upon which the Canadian immigration policy and leadership role assumed by Governments, Conservative and Liberal alike over the years, has been founded. By introducing a pre-screening process we have subjected ourselves and are open to the accusation that we say one thing in assuming a leadership role in the international community, but when it comes to this Bill dealing with refugees we are taking away from our advocacy of a just and fair immigration and refugee policy.
With respect to the safe third country concept, the Liberal Party recommended that an arm's length advisory board to Cabinet be established. It would be solely the prerogative and responsibility of the organization at arm's length from the Minister that would be in a position to determine what constitutes a safe third country list. Others have spoken in this House today and previously about the politicization of the process when we allow Cabinet to be the sole arbitrator of what constitutes a safe third country in dealing with a refugee claim.

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Let us put this in perspective. People and Members of Parliament have spoken earlier about the United States. All of us assume-and I believe we accept the fact-that the United States will also be a haven for a number of refugee claimants, but even in the United States refugees from El Salvador and from Central America are regularly turned away. Having declared the U.S. to be a safe third country, does it mean that a refugee from El Salvador who claims refugee status in Canada and who commenced his journey to this nation from the U.S. would be deported to El Salvador from the U.S.?
Similarly, in the United Kingdom there has been indiscriminate turning back of Tamil refugees. Would it mean a Tamil who claims refugee status in Canada would be turned back to Britain? Would Britain be considered to be a safe third country?
These questions ought to be clarified before passage of the legislation. The whole concept of a safe third country is an integral part of this legislation. In the international community the concept of a third country list is now accepted. It probably will be the focus of international co-operation in the years to come.
It seems to me that in developing the idea and following through the legislative process it would be much more effective and perceived to be fair and accepted by Canadians, if the decision to determine what constitutes a safe third country were made by a body of experts at arm's length from Cabinet. That is the second point that gives a great deal of concern to us who have been opposed to many parts of the immigration Bill since the Government introduced the draft legislation a year ago.
Much has been made of the fact that in one individual's case the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) intervened and asked that the refugee in question not be granted refugee status. Concern was voiced here in the House of Commons, and it is legitimate. For that very reason the Government ought to accept the amendment to allow the establishment of a body of experts at arm's length from the Government to determine what constitutes a safe third country.
The last area of great concern is the appeal process itself. The appeal process presently in place allows an appeal to take place by a refugee. The appeal goes to the Federal Court of Canada, but the Federal Court can only determine whether the laws of this nation are being applied. The Federal Court is not, in my opinion, the proper place for an appeal process on a refugee claim.
We are not simply talking about questions of law. They are questions of life and death to many refugees. If one looks at history, over the last 10 years those in Iran who practice B'hai have been persecuted. They face death. It is not a question of a point of law. The question is life or death. If a person of the B'hai faith were refused to be considered a bona fide refugee under this legislation, the only point of appeal for that person would be to the Federal Court of Canada, which would only be
able to determine whether or not Canada's laws have been fairly applied. The court would have absolutely nothing to do with the political part of the equation, namely, what constitutes a bona fide refugee claim.
It is important that there be established in the immigration law an appeal process where political points of reference can be applied and tested, and not just simply points of law. Canada has established itself in the international community and has an enviable reputation of being a leader on how to come up with a solution to the refugee problem. This problem gets worse by the day. We have more and more conflicts in various regions of the world that have added to the number of people who will be seeking refugee status. It is important that we have faith in a system that will apply the criteria fairly so that bona fide refugees will be allowed refuge in Canada.
At the same time, at the end of the process of legislative change we also have to ensure that Canadians have faith in the immigration system. I share with all Members of Parliament the concern that to some extent there has been a deterioration in the faith Canadians place in the existing system because people without bona fide refugee status have circumvented the law and have queue jumped. In our haste to solve that problem, we still want to ensure that at the heart of the new law that comes into place, we adhere to the Charter of Rights so that all refugee claimants are dealt with in a fair, just, and compassionate way.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, no one questions the fact that the problem of refugees internationally is a daunting problem demanding an international solution. It is complex. It deals with the lives of thousands, indeed millions of people, who face prosecution, the threat of death, and all manner of dangers and threats to survival.
We also know that Canada has been faced with large numbers of people who have claimed refugee status. There is no doubt that there are those who are not refugees and could lay no credible claim to refugee status who have used our refugee laws to circumvent the immigration process. This is a problem that has been appreciated by all sides. It was a problem that was recognized, for example, by the Employment and Immigration Committee which proposed a new refugee Act that we on this side of the House believe would have addressed the problem adequately and fairly, consistent with international standards and consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead of listening to the sound advice submitted by parliamentarians after listening to expert and concerned opinion, the Government introduced Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, Bills which on a number of grounds cause us on this side of the House and many people in Canada a great deal of concern.
June 17, 1988

We heard earlier the exchange that occurred between my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on the issue of racism as it has arisen in this debate. I suppose that if one wanted to encapsulate the kind of exchange that went on, it was that we understand that in this country, racism is not altogether dead. On the other hand, it does not characterize the country as a whole or all of its people. Allegations of racism must be directed with a great deal of care at any portion of the population. At the same time, we must understand that there are a few of us, while not being racist, nevertheless in our efforts to find simple ways of categorizing everyone all too often resort to zenophobic tendencies.
Those of us who are concerned about racism and those of us who have from time to time experienced its ugly effects must conclude that all too often zenophobia, racism, or a kind of vague suspicion that lurks in the hearts of all too many about foreigners, is all too easily exploited for what must be considered crude political purposes.
This concern is only made greater by the fact that we understand that it was not the Portuguese who circumvented the immigration laws and claimed refugee status, nor the Turks who circumvented the immigration laws and claimed refugee status, but the Tamils and Sikhs, sharing only one thing in common apart from the fact that they came by boat, and that is that they are of a different hue, who provoked a strong reaction. There are certainly many of us in Canada who felt that that very strong reaction in those circumstances contained within it far too much zenophobia, perhaps far too much unconscious racism, and certainly a different kind of concern applied to one class of people as compared to another who appeared on our shores.
These kinds of reactions come easily. However, they are reactions that most people, upon a little reflection, hasten to correct. We would hope that a Government would not hasten to exploit such feelings.
There can be no doubt in the minds of those with whom I have talked among the Asian community, the West Indian community, or the African community that these two pieces of legislation would not have appeared under different circumstances. On the other hand, it is a hopeful and encouraging sign that these two pieces of legislation, Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, upon the reflection of the vast majority of Canadians, elicited not support but opposition, opposition to legislation not only because of what provoked it but because of its very character.
I have talked about the opportunism involved in choosing the particular time and circumstances of these two pieces of legislation. One must wonder if there really is a motive that would separate the Government and its legislation on the one hand from those involved in dealing with the refugee problem and the Committee on Employment and Immigration on the other hand.
Immigration Act, 1976
The other day, this debate elicited remarks from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), who expressed real concern that we might let in too many nihilists, that we might admit too many existentialists, that we may be overburdened by Christian Marxists, that our purity of thought might be affected by dialectical materialists. One wonders if what we are really reflecting in this legislation is some basic attitude toward the kinds of refugees we ought to let in. One wonders whether there is not reflected in those remarks a basic agenda, a kind of selectivity in the minds of those who have brought forth this Bill in terms of who might appropriately be entertained as refugees.
As Hon. Members know, some events have occurred recently that give pause in that they seem to confirm the suspicions elicited by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. It has been reported today that one Nota Moises, the information officer of Renamo, is residing in Canada after some rather peculiar concatenation of circumstances that has not favourably affected refugees from Guatemala, El Salvador, and most particularly from India. This is a man who is easily identifiable with the right wing efforts supported by South Africa and the United States in Mozambique which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, with no purpose in mind. As you know, Madam Speaker, the American State Department commissioned a study which ascertained that Renamo had no purpose other than to cause chaos in Mozambique, chaos which had the wide support of right wing factions all over the world. Somehow he found his way into Canada as a refugee, under circumstances which indicate that he circumvented all the rules, and probably, one must suspect, with considerable complicity on both sides of the Atlantic.
On the other hand, let us consider the case of Santokh Singh, an individual whose refugee status was established. He is a legitimate refugee denied admission to this country by virtue of the intervention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
On the one hand we have a legitimate refugee who had his refugee status properly determined having that refugee status determination overruled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Indeed, there is before us an amendment to this Bill which would make it possible for the action taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be legitimized. This is an unsavoury set of circumstances which we think this legislation will only allow to continue.
We have suspicions with regard to the definition of a safe third country. What is a safe third country? Is it a country which the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned will in some way look upon Canada unkindly with respect to our bilateral relationships because we have chosen to act in a legal, humane, and appropriate way in terms of international standards as we did in the case of Santokh Singh? Will our refugee status determination be affected by the peculiar

June 17, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
decisions made by Americans with respect to refugees in the context of their agenda in Central America?
The legislation before us would deprive refugees of a proper determination and a proper basis for an appeal period. In terms of its history and its content, this legislation should be rejected as all too many have suggested it should be. We should, this afternoon, reject this piece of legislation; we should get rid of it.
This piece of legislation, along with another, required us to return here on an emergency basis. It is now a summer later.


Mr. King:: Why?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Because the opposition to this legislation all over the country delayed its passage.


Frederick John King: Not true.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The Member should recognize where the Government has failed.
The other interesting aspect to these two pieces of legislation is that the turning the boats back bit is going to lapse in six months, a clear concession of wrong-headedness and injustice.
This country was the winner of the Nansen Medal. It is just shameful that we have been unable to deal with the problem in the way in which so many have said we should; so many who have been concerned about refugees, so many who have been concerned about the abuses of our system, so many who are concerned about international standards for the treatment of refugees, and so many who are concerned about the meaning of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I stood in this House just the other day and wondered aloud about the implications of the override clause with respect to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which section, of course, deals with equality among peoples and guarantees against discrimination.
There are those of us who see that failure there is not unrelated to the suspected motivations for and the manner of introduction of these two pieces of legislation, Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. We want to clear away all the suspicions. Let us go back, regroup, and adopt the consensus legislation which was recommended by a parliamentary committee. Let us satisfy the need for this country to control immigration and refugee admissions but at the same time ensure that Canada's conscience remains clean and consistent with its historic values.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been doing a lot of things by consensus today in relation to this matter. We have a bit of a dilemma in that Members opposite or Members on this side, depending on the voice vote, may wish to stand to force a vote to be deferred to Monday night. I wonder whether we could have unanimous consent that if that happens all five questions before us would be put at the same deferral time. If the matter is dealt with one way or another by the voice vote, that is fine; but, if not, all five questions, the two main motions and three amendments, would be stood and voted on on Monday night.
I thought it might be wise to seek unanimous consent for that before we get into the voting procedure. I wonder whether that was the intent of the discussions with the opposition Parties. Unfortunately I was not party to those discussions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, we have no objection to the suggestion. However, I do not think the matter has been officially discussed among the three Parties. Therefore, perhaps we need to hear whether anyone else has any objection.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is hesitant at this point. I think I heard that there was not unanimous consent. Did I hear correctly, or is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Therefore the question is on the amendment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That the motion of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Employment and Immigration be amended in the proposed amendment to
insert a new Clause 32 into the Bill, by adding immediately after Section 123
the following new Section:
"123.1 Should Bill C-84, entitled, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be assented to during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament and section 16 of that Act comes into force before this Act, then, on the day on which this Act comes into force the reference in section 123 of the Immigration Act, 1976 as amended by this Act, to paragraphs 19(1)(E) and (2)(A), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01 (l)(E)(iii) and subsections 82.1(2) and 83(1) shall be read as a reference to paragraphs 19(1)(E) and (2)(A), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01 (1 )(E)(iii) and subsections 82.1(2), 83(1) and 9.1(1)."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 17, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some Hori. Members: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment negatived on division.
Amendment (Mr. Heap) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Mr. Friesen moved:
That Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be further amended in Clause 14
(a)	by striking out line 38 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"landing of that person and any member of that person's family who is in Canada at the time of the application, unless the Convention refugee is"
(b)	by striking out lines 24 to 26 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"cant and any member of the applicant's family for whom landing is sought if the immigration officer is satisfied that neither the applicant nor any member of the applicant's family who is in Canada is a person"
(c)	by adding, immediately after line 8 at page 20, the following:
"(8) for the purposes of this section and section 48.05,
(a)	a person is a member of another person's family if the person is
(i)	the spouse of that other person, or
(ii)	the child of that other person, or
(b)	"child", with respect to a person, means
(i)	a person of whom that person is the natural parent, whether the person was born within or outside marriage, and who has not been legally adopted by any other person, and
(ii)	a person who was legally adopted by that person, but does not include any person who is or has been married;
(c)	"spouse", with respect to a person, means a person of the opposite sex to that person who is married to that person by a marriage that is recognized by the law of the country in which it took place, other than a marriage occurring at a time when either person was already married."
(d)	by striking out line 17 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor: "mining eligibility to be grant-"
(e)	by striking out line 23 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
Immigration Act, 1976
"for a determination whether the person or any member of that person's family who is in Canada at the time of the application is,"
(f)	by striking out line 28 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall determine that the applicant and any member of the applicant's family for whom landing is sought is, but"
(g)	by striking out line 32 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor: "member of the applicant's family who is in Canada is a"
(h)	by striking out lines 12 to 15 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) the person or any member of the person's family for whom landing is sought was determined not to be eligible to be granted landing for a reason other than the removal order; or
(e) the person and each member of the person's family for whom landing is sought were determined to be,"
(i)	by striking out lines 25 to 29 at page 21 and the following therefor:
"(a) grant landing to the person and each member the person's family for whom landing is sought, where the person is a person described in paragraph (5)(d) or (e) and the adjudicator is satisfied that, but for the removal order, the person and each member are eligible to be grant-"
and
That the Bill be further amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 37 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"hold office during good behaviour for a term not" and
That the Bill be further amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line 46 at page 55 the following:
"(7) Section 115 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(5) The Minister may establish and appoint the members of a committee to advise the Minister with respect to the prescribing of countries under paragraph (1) (r)"
and
That the Bill be further amended by adding immediately after line 31 at page 56 the following:
"32. Section 123 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"123. The Minister or the Deputy Minister, as the case may be, may authorize such persons employed in the public service of Canada as the Minister or the Deputy Minister deems proper to exercise and perform any of the powers, duties and functions that may or are required to be exercised or performed by the Minister or the Deputy Minister, as the case may be, under this Act or the regulations, other than the powers, duties and functions referred to in paragraphs 19(l)(e) and (2)(a), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01(1) (e) (iii) and subsections 82.1(2) and 83(1), and any such power, duty or function performed or exercised by any person so authorized shall be deemed to have been performed or exercised by the Minister or Deputy Minister, as the case may be."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Friesen) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the next question?

June 17, 1988
National Transportation Act, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is the following one: Mr. Heap moved:
That the motion be amended in the proposed amendment to Senate
amendment numbered 4 by deleting in subparagraph (iii) all the words after
"(2)(c)" and substituting the following therefor:
"who the Minister has certified constitutes a danger to the public in
Canada; or".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m. Monday, June 20, 1988.


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1987 MEASURE TO AMEND
Gerry St. Germain: that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the opposition for their co-operation in proceeding with this legislation at this time. It is truly a pleasure to rise in the House today and introduce for second reading a Bill which provides the means for ensuring that Canadians with disabilities are provided fair and dignified access to our national transportation system.
Bill C-131, an Act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987, will give the National Transportation Agency the power to regulate accessibility for disabled persons to all transportation services and facilities under federal jurisdiction.
This will expand on a power that the agency now has to regulate accessibility for the carriage of disabled persons on airlines. The existing power for airlines resulted from an
amendment proposed by the Standing Committee on Transport and concurred with by the former Minister of Transport, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), during hearings held on the Act when it was Bill C-18.
The committee was responding to submissions made to it by representatives of disabled persons, and the Minister of Transport was responding to recommendations from his transportation of disabled persons implementation committee. The Minister's committee included representatives of the industries affected as well as disabled persons.
As a result of the amendments, the agency will be able to prescribe regulations for the purpose of eliminating undue obstacles in transportation to the mobility of disabled persons. By regulation, the agency will be able to establish standards for the design, construction, and modification of means of transportation and related facilities, premises and equipment; respecting the use of signs, for the training of staff; respecting terms and conditions for carrying disabled persons; respecting the communication of information to disabled persons.
The amendments will also provide the enforcement provisions that will enable the agency to make a finding of undue obstacle and order corrective measures and compensation for expenses incurred. They will provide a defence where an applicable regulation has been met or has not been contravened and make the contravention of a regulation an offence which, on summary conviction, will be punishable by up to one year imprisonment and by a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual and by a fine up to $25,000 in the case of a corporation.
I would also point out that the amendments will require the National Transportation Agency and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to co-ordinate their activities in relation to the transportation of disabled persons. Both these agencies, as well as the Office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs, have been consulted on these amendments.
Accessible transportation is a key to providing persons with disabilities the opportunity for full integration into the mainstream of Canadian life. Accessible transportation provides greater access to housing which, in turn, provides greater opportunities to education. This leads to greater employment opportunities and ultimately to greater selfsufficiency and independence, and the right to lead a full productive life with pride and dignity regardless of one's challenge or age.
The Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled also deserves mention for its tremendous efforts in having the public and private sectors report on activities undertaken to enhance accessibility for disabled persons. In the transportation field, Transport Canada has appeared before the committee and it provides periodic status report on its activities. As well, VIA Rail and Air Canada recently appeared before the committee.
June 17, 1988

The introduction of this Bill today is the culmination of the co-operation of efforts of industry, disabled persons, and government representatives in a true demonstration of how public and private sectors can work together.
The laws of a country are a reflection of the values of its people. I invite Hon. Members today to join with the Government in this co-operative effort so that this legislation can be placed alongside the other laws of Canada that reflect its tradition for protecting human rights and values in Canada.
I have kept my delivery very short so that members of the Opposition can respond. Again, I want to thank opposition Parties for their kind co-operation in dealing with this Bill expeditiously.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation, let me indicate to the Minister that the Official Opposition is prepared today to take this Bill to Committee of the Whole and complete third reading stage, if the Government wishes to do so this afternoon.
I want to say a few words about the provisions contained in Bill C-131. They are aimed at improving access for Canada's disabled communities to various passenger transportation services in Canada. As the House is aware, the Liberal Party has consistently supported laws that will improve access to transportation for Canada's handicapped.
In December, 1985, when the Conservative members of the standing committee were waivering to some extent on the principle of improvements for Canada's disabled, the Liberal Party at that time issued a minority report. I want to refer to some passages in the Liberal minority report dated December 18, 1985. We stated that we support all proposed legislation that would increase the accessibility, comfort, safety, and rate structure for the handicapped on all modes of transportation. In particular, we support the prompt implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Equality for All and Obstacles reports.
Our report goes on to say that we want to stress that mandatory minimum safety and access standards for the handicapped be incorporated into the National Transportation Act. The recommendation of the committee only goes as far as saying that the Government states its commitment toward the handicapped. We believe the recommendation should provide that statutory recognition be given to the right of access to transportation modes for the handicapped. Such a statement would legally bind transportation companies to modify their various carriers to ensure accessibility for the handicapped.
National Transportation Act, 1987
I am delighted to say, on behalf of the Official Opposition, that we recognize that Bill C-131 is a step forward for Canada's handicapped. For that reason we would like to have prompt passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take advantage of our good mood this afternoon and proceed to Committee of the Whole and third reading of the Bill.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party and particularly on behalf of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) who has been very much involved in all matters relating to disabled people, I would like to say that we, too, wish to see the Bill proceed through all stages this afternoon.
I think that sometimes Canadians who have not had any disability at all fail to realize or have not yet realized that in fact, over three million Canadians are reported to have a disability, according to the Transport Canada study entitled Transportation of Disabled Persons: A Canadian Profile. Almost 70 per cent of all disabilities reported by Canadians 18 years of age and over are related to mobility or agility.
According to another study entitled the Canadian Health and Disability Survey conducted by Statistics Canada, the likelihood of having a disability rises very sharply with age as 38 per cent of Canadians aged 65 and older report a disability. It is therefore very important that we continue to take steps to improve access to those who have a disability. Bill C-131 is an important step in that direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being three o'clock, this House stands ajourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, June 20, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers