1992-06-22

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-306, an act to amend the Department of Forestry Act and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur) moved: that Bill C-306, an act to amend the Department of Forestry Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be concurred in at the report stage, as amended.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Guy H. Arseneault: that Bill C-306, an act to amend the Department of Forestry Act and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Debate. The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the purpose of this bill is to substitute, in the English version, the name "Department of Forests" for the name "Department of Forestry".
I would like to quote recommendation No. 3 of the report entitled Canada's Forests: The Federal Role, a report tabled by the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries in November 1990. I will therefore read recommendation No. 3 on page 39: "The Committee recommends that in the context of its mission and to fully embrace a comprehensive vision of Canada's forest resources, the new Department of Forestry should be renamed the Federal Department of Forests or Forests Canada".
The explanation is on page 39, and the report goes on to say: "It should be noted that this change would only be applicable in the English language as the new department is now called Forets Canada in the French language and Bill C-29 is entitled Loi sur le ministere des Forets. In fact, the English and French names for the department will be closer in meaning as a result of this recommendation. For the purposes of consistency and so as not to anticipate any further decisions by the government in this respect, we will continue to use, throughout this report. After defining the mission of Forestry Canada, which consists in seeking appropriate processes and structures for promoting sustainable development, we must define the mandate the new Department of Forestry will need to fulfil that mission and the type of action that will be necessary."

It is quite obvious the report recommends there be a change and there are a number of reasons for that.
First, the federal government has embraced the concept of sustainable development and has talked about that throughout its forestry committee report.

June 22, 1992
Private Members' Business
With regard to the name itself I will give a brief explanation about that. In French the name is already Forest Canada and we want to make sure the translation is proper.
To give you some background on that and to my colleagues who are here today, we have support for this bill. Members from all parties have supported it. The minister responsible for forestry is supporting the bill. We hope after the bill passes that it will be Minister of Forest. The parliamentary secretary is supporting it.
The bill went to committee. At that time, the committee members reviewed the bill clause by clause. There were some amendments made proposed by the parliamentary secretary and myself in discussion. Those were accepted by the committee and the bill has been reported back to the House.
I do not want to prolong the debate here today. The idea here is to pass it at third reading, get it out of the House and go to the next step.
The only thing I would like to say is I would ask the parliamentary secretary who is going to make a few comments a little later to possibly explain the reasons behind the amendments.

Perhaps we will get an explanation of those reasons. I would also like to thank the minister for his support.

I would like to mention the members who were involved here, not by name, but to say the minister has supported the bill from the beginning, the parliamentary secretary and my colleagues from all parties in the House. I hope they continue to support that. I thank them personally.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to support passage of this bill, tabled by my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur.
Of course, some will think that this is a minor change, but in fact, it has deep significance, because the Department of Forestry is a full-fledged department of government that has been established and Canadians have high
expectations of it. It is true that there was some discrepancy between the meaning of the English and French names of the department. The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur talked about it to the minister, the committee, the Official Opposition and of course the New Democratic Party and I think that hon. members agreed to make the necessary changes.
The Department of Forestry is growing rapidly. We see the increasing role that forests play, both in Canada and internationally. The recent summit in Rio was living proof of what I am saying.
We agreed on this bill in a non-partisan way, in a spirit of consensus, but as the hon. member for Restigouche- Chaleur pointed out, there were some minor technical problems with some amendments. We wanted the change of name from "Department of Forestry" to "Department of Forests" to be gradual and not expensive for the department in changing its stationery and so on.
In answer to my colleague's question, the two proposed amendments can be summarized thus: first, as I mentioned, to ensure a transfer from "Department of Forestry" to "Department of Forests" in terms of identifiable costs within the department.
The purpose of the second amendment, is to ensure that wherever the words "Department of Forests" will be used, it will be done. These minor technical amendments in no way affect the non-partisan spirit and purpose of the bill. That is why, on behalf of the minister and my colleagues, we are pleased to support such a bill.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to make only a short remark to the House and our constituents because people looking in may not understand the importance of making a name change like this.
It is important for Canadians to know that my colleague from Restigouche, ever since he came to this House, has had a very tight focus on the area relating to the forests of our nation. He was the member of Parliament who had the definition of sustainable development put right into the interpretive section of Bill C-29, which went through the House.
June 22, 1992

By having the definition of sustainable development right in the body of the bill, the guidelines for all policy related to the forests of this country are crystal clear.
I think that his constituents and the people of Canada should realize that sometimes even though it may be perceived to be a minor amendment, in actual fact it can have quite a substantive and profound influence on policy development in this country.
I salute my colleague for his work in this particular sector of our economy. It is so important to all of us.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Layton:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been consultations among the parties of the House and there may be unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 132 and 140, the petition for a private bill on the Montreal Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, tabled on Thursday, June 18, 1992 and reported by the Clerk of Petitions on Friday, June 19,1992, be deemed to have been produced within the required time limit and received by the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert E.J. Layton: There may also be unanimous consent to deal expeditiously at this time with Bill S-12 at all stages.

Private Members' Business


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we fully agree with this motion and we would like to proceed immediately, after a few remarks, with the passage of Bill S-12.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE ACT
Robert E.J. Layton: that Bill S-12, an act to amalgamate the Montreal Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are asked to approve this historic legislation giving effect to the merger of the Montreal Board of Trade with la Chambre de commerce du Montreal metropolitan. Both groups have been closely associated with the social, cultural and economic development of Montreal and its regions, including the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole, for over a century.
The decision to combine their strengths by respecting the traditions and heritages of both founding associations sends out a positive signal as to the attitude currently prevailing in Montreal's business community. In fact, the merger decision was unanimously approved by the members of both groups on March 23 of this year.

One aspect of this merger that should be pointed out is that under the official by-laws contained in the enabling legislation, this new structure will operate in Canada's two official languages. At this crucial time in our history, I think that is worth mentioning and worthy of our hearty commendation.

With the adoption of this legislation the officers, members and staff of both groups will then have in hand the legal means to give full effect to the merger decision. There will be a great deal of work but the results will be well worth it.

June 22, 1992
Private Members' Business


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about Bill S-12. As a resident of Montreal, a Quebecer and a Canadian, I am extremely proud. This legislation is one of the instruments Montreal needs as it prepares to enter the 21st century. It was of course necessary, after more than 100 years, to have a second Chamber. A great deal has changed after 100 years. Today, people are delighted to see that at last a merger is taking place. The process is an indication of how Montreal is getting ready and how Montreal feels. The two organizations are to be commended for taking this step, and I hope many others will follow suit, because we are all Montrealers, we are all Quebecers, we are all Canadians, and we all have to work together.
In keeping with this spirit of co-operation, the Chamber, as the hon. member just said, will continue to provide services in our country's two official languages, and will provide those services to business people in the Montreal area, whether they are English or Italian or belong to any other group. The important thing is that we are working together at this crucial moment in our country's history.
Therefore, on behalf of the Official Opposition and on behalf of my party, the Liberal Party, I want to congratulate these organizations and wish them the best of luck. Once the two Chambers have merged, there will be a powerful incentive for the business community, and in fact all Montrealers, not just those who are in business, but those who would like to get into business, to work together to get Montreal's economy going again.
The best of luck, and of course we will continue our support of the legislative process so that Bill S-12 will become law.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief intervention on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus in our support of the merger. It is probably one of the few times we have ever been on record as supporting any merger in the business community.
It is an excellent move and perhaps, one would say, long overdue. I am pleased it is happening, particularly this year of our 125th anniversary as a nation.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 the House went into committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-12, an act to amalgamate The Montreal Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal.
On Clause 2-Definition


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: I have a question which I think most people would want to ask. Why did this have to come before Parliament?


Robert E.J. Layton: I believe, but without full knowledge, that an original charter has been granted to The Montreal Board of Trade. In order to allow it to join now with la Chambre de commerce du Montreal metropolitan, which is a federal charter, there needs to be the passage of a law here.
It has been through the Senate in these last few days. I know it is causing great rejoicing in Montreal.
Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova) Mr. Chairman, I had a feeling that was the reason, but I thought Canadians would want to know why two very good institutions in Montreal were before the House in this piece of legislation. There are some old legal steps that have to be taken, and I thought it should be clarified.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Chairman, I will take advantage of my colleague's comment and question simply to add that this is a year when so much good is coming from the great old city of Montreal in its 350th anniversary.
There are all kinds of social and positive activities to reunite Montreal and the country. As all of us know, we are also celebrating the 125th anniversary of Canada. The symbolism in that the two business communities
June 22, 1992

have worked closely together and have now gone to full fusion is very appropriate.


Coline M. Campbell: I just want to wish Montreal the best of luck, and I am sure that everyone can see that in the future, Montreal will still be in Canada, and we all have an appreciation of what Montreal has given all Canadians in the past. I am sure that the merger of these two organizations will have a positive impact on Montreal and its residents.
Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert E.J. Layton: that the bill be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. members:: Now.


Robert E.J. Layton: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [English]
Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find it in order and you would find approval to now suspend the House until twelve o'clock.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order. I need your advice on a problem I want to raise.

On June 9, 1992, there was unanimous consent given to a motion by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader of the government in Hansard on page 11622.
Private Members' Business
Contained in that motion was an agreement by the House as to the time and date of the address of Mr. Yeltsin, President of Russia, to both the members of the Senate and House of Commons.
The motion also ordered that:
-all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to
House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records
of this House;
The terms and conditions of this motion have not been adhered to. I have a copy of Hansard dated June 19,1992, the date of Mr. Yeltsin's address. It does not include the text or related speeches in an appendix. The only thing that appears is a corrigendum stating that the text of Mr. Yeltsin's speech along with all introductory related speeches will be published at a later date as an Appendix to the House of Commons Debates.
I do not know whether there has been an error in the production of the Debates of the House or whether Hansard cannot record the speech in the official record because of the fact that strangers, people other than MPs, were in the House at that time.
I recognize there are no provisions in the Standing Orders either for the invitation of guest speakers or for procedures regarding the actual delivery of the speech, but because of the significance and nature of such speeches, protocol should be strictly adhered to.
I note that on all previous occasions beginning in 1941 when heads of state or governments have addressed this House the speeches have been printed in Hansard. For example, the speech by Mr. Herzog, President of the State of Israel, to both Houses of Parliament on June 27, 1989 was printed as an Appendix in the Commons Debates of that day.
I will table the list of these dignitaries, their speeches and relevant page numbers in Hansard.
I believe we have two problems. First, an order of the House has not been adhered to. Second, for the first time a head of state or foreign dignitary has addressed

Government Oders
members of Parliament and senators in the House and the text of his address does not appear in the official record of the House of Commons as an Appendix.
I wonder if the Speaker could rectify this very serious problem.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, and because it was my motion my hon. friend is referring to, I believe you will find that the official record of the House is the Hansard which comes forth in a week to 10 days' time. The Hansard we have had distributed to us today is in effect a preliminary record.
I believe the explanatory note at the beginning of today's publication does indicate when the daily Hansard is published, Mr. Yeltsin's speech and the introductory and thank you speeches will be published with it.
If I am not mistaken that is a practice which has been followed in the past. It is not being departed from in this instance.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on June 27, 1989, the House of Commons Debates show that the speech of Mr. Herzog, President of Israel, was included in the first edition of Hansard. I am surprised that President Yeltsin's is not.
My second point was whether this did not happen because there were strangers in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for calling the attention of the House to this situation. On checking, I am told that it is only due to technical reasons that the text of Mr. Yeltsin's address was not included in the draft edition of last Friday's Debates. It will indeed be included in a later edition to June 19, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Now, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to suspend the sitting until 12 noon. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
At 11.42 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 12 p.m.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That in relation to Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill, and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the second reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Knowing how important this issue is to members from Toronto, I find this motion strange coming from a Tbronto member. We should be taking more time to go through all aspects of this debate.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true I come from the Tbronto area, from Brampton, where this bill is urgently needed, urgently required. The regional and local governments have asked that it be passed expeditiously and that is what we are doing. We are getting it into committee so we can have witnesses and get this bill through as soon as possible so we can take the necessary action.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.
June 22, 1992

Government Oders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.
++NAYS
Members


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.



PAIRED MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
++YEAS
nil/aucun
Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Belsher	Bernier
Bird	Bjomson
Blais	Blenkarn
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Bourgault	Brightwell
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)
Charest	Cole
Collins	Corbeil
Corbett	Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Darling
de Cotret	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Dorin	Duplessis
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Fontaine
Greene	Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Horner
Horning	Hudon
James	Johnson
Joncas	Kempling
Koury	Landry
Larrivee	Layton
Lewis	Loiselle
Lopez	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McKnight	McLean
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Plourde
Porter	Redway
Reid	Ricard
Richardson	Robitaille
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Winegard	Worthy-92
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope, and on the amendment of Mr. Allmand:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-86, an Act to amend the Immigration Act and other Acts In consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Minister of Transport.

June 22, 1992
Government Oders


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this House today in support of the amendments that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, recently proposed to the Immigration Act.
These are changes which will ensure that Canada continues to prosper from the skills and talents new Canadians have always brought to this land and benefit from their unifying spirit of commitment to Canada.
I believe that immigration is the cornerstone of our national heritage. It has made an invaluable contribution to Canada's social and economic well-being and to our success in nation building.
Three core objectives lie at the heart of our immigration policy. The reunification of families and the protection of refugees are central elements.
Equally important is the concern that immigration contribute to our national prosperity by attracting those with the particular skills and talents Canada requires. Balancing these three objectives is what effective management of our immigration program is all about.
Canadians-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for a few moments, but I ask for the co-operation of both sides of the House so that those listening to us, and also the Chair, can follow the speeches attentively. I again recognize the hon. Minister of Transport.


Jean Corbeil: Canadians are naturally drawn to an immigration system that balances our compassionate instincts as a people with our pragmatic requirements as a nation. However, much has changed in the 16 years since the Immigration Act was passed in 1976.
Global political and economic conditions are far from stable. Regional conflicts, environmental disasters, economic collapse have all spurred on unpredictable, large-scale movements of people. Some estimate that as many as 80 million people are on the move world-wide. This all adds up to ever increasing pressures and stresses on the immigration programs of virtually every industrialized nation.
How will the world community respond to the rising tide of migrants? How will Canada respond? Canada has not been standing still. A little over two years ago, the
federal government consulted widely with a broad crosssection of Canadians. Our discussions then were about what would be required to meet the challenge. We asked ourselves a number of questions.
How many people does Canada need to meet its economic needs and its international obligations to refugees? Which individuals with which backgrounds, education and skills does Canada want to attract? What steps must be taken to ensure that the needs of new immigrants do not outstrip our ability to provide for them? What tools do we need to help immigrants integrate into our society?
The result of those consultations with different individuals was a five-year immigration plan. We are now in the second year of that plan, which has been approved by the great majority of Canadians. Today, Canada has the highest immigration rate per capita of any nation in the world. One in six Canadians was bom outside Canada.
We now accept 250,000 immigrants and refugees each year, three times the number we accepted in 1984. The combined cost to deliver immigration programs across all federal government departments is about $900 million per year; almost a billion dollars.
At the same time, we have maintained our strong commitment to the world's refugee community. Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board is a model of fairness and operational effectiveness that other countries come to study.
The Canadian acceptance rate for those claiming refugee status is the highest in the world. It is more than double the next most generous nation and ten times that of a country like Sweden. Even so, this combined immigration and refugee effort is not enough to satisfy a world awash in a sea of change. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions more would like to come to Canada, far more than we can possibly accommodate.
We have gone a long way with our planning but it is obvious today that new management tools are required. Our current legislative framework or the "rules and regulations" governing the Immigration Act were developed in 1976, in a world very different from today. The system was not designed to withstand the pressures exerted on it by the realities of the 1990s. Those

June 22, 1992

pressures hamper the effectiveness of the program and leave people dissatisfied.
As waiting lists grow longer and the time to process legitimate applicants drags on, the temptation to abuse the system also grows. Our very openness and generosity make the system vulnerable to abuse. Abuse which erodes confidence in the system ultimately threatens the very integrity of the program. Without the tools to manage the program effectively in the 1990s, we run the risk of losing the support of the public and the economic and social benefits which immigration brings to Canada.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has proposed a series of changes which will ensure a healthy balance among those traditional cornerstone groups of our immigration program.
While the program will continue to favour the family class and provide strong support for refugees fleeing persecution, we will also place a renewed emphasis on the independent and business class immigrant whose skills, talents and acumen are so necessary to our economic prosperity.
What the changes will do is allow us to control the categories and numbers of new immigrants more effectively. We will achieve more certainty in our planning. Greater certainty means fewer delays in processing, more predictable processing times and greater fairness for newcomers.
Specifically, we are proposing the introduction of three management streams for selecting immigrants. Our objective is to eliminate backlogs which drain our resources and reduce our flexibility to assist others.
Stream one would be open-ended, with no fixed limit on the number of applicants. The department would be committed to processing individuals according to specific time frames. Spouses and dependent children will benefit most from this change.
Streams two and three would have established ceilings for groups within each stream and have limited commitments to processing times. Once ceilings were reached, no more applications would be accepted.
We also intend to take steps which will accelerate the refugee status determination process. A single-stage hearing process will reduce processing times, cut admin-
Govemment Oders
istrative costs and allow the independent Immigration and Refugee Board to target its resources more effectively. This is a change recommended by Canada's Auditor General and supported by the chairman of the IRB.
Genuine refugees should be able to get on with their lives as quickly as possible. The sooner decisions are made on claimants' status, the sooner refugees can get off social assistance programs and become fully contributing members of their community.
The new procedures will allow convention refugees to be "landed" more quickly and take up employment sooner. The proposals would permit the spouse and dependent children of the applicant to be processed at the same time as the successful claimant.
The department hopes to cut the processing time for landed status to an average of six months.
The changes we are proposing will ensure that we have a fair, balanced and effective immigration system attuned to the realities of the 1990s, which continues to satisfy our compassionate instincts as a people and meets our pragmatic requirements as a nation.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the minister. In his speech nowhere did he deal with any of the major, specific issues in the bill. Ele is supporting the bill.
For example, I would like to ask him, in the bill authority is given to the government to impose a place of residence on an immigrant coming to this country as a condition in the immigration visa. We have always had incentives to encourage immigrants to go to certain parts of the country where their trades and professions were needed and that is acceptable.
I ask the minister, how can he support a clause in the bill which would impose on the immigrant that he or she must live in a certain city or district of Canada when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in article 6 says that a citizen or a permanent resident can live in any part of Canada, can work in any part of Canada, can move to any part of Canada?
I ask him that question and I hope that he can give us a good answer.

June 22, 1992
Government Oders


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the amendments to our immigration legislation proposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration is to change certain aspects which over the years have created problems and also to adjust the number of immigrants we receive now and whom we welcome with warmth and generosity, so as to meet Canada's economic and social concerns, in the 1990s.
I think it is entirely in order to respond to certain questions and comments that have been raised regularly by Canadians to the effect that we should try to direct immigrants towards locations where they are more likely to adjust to prevailing economic and social conditions and to meet specific needs.
I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration made an excellent suggestion in his draft amendment, because once again, the purpose of all these new measures is to adjust our immigration program to changing political, economic and social realities.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question of my hon. colleague.
The government is saying essentially that it is willing to entertain all sorts of challenges, that charter challenges are something which could very successfully be challenged. At the same time, just barely a few weeks ago we dealt with the question of a referendum where the government said: "Whoa, hands off. We are very reluctant to move in this direction with a referendum bill because we do not want to have a challenge under the charter."
Now either it is soliciting challenges or it is not. The government is not concerned about challenges under the charter as far as immigrants are concerned but it is concerned when it comes to citizens of this country who are not immigrants. Government cannot have it both ways.
Either government is fully aware this is going to lead to a number of charter challenges and is going to bog down the system even more, or the legal advisor of the government said this would not create charter challenges. Quite frankly, I would like to see the government table any of this legal advice or opinion where it says this type of activity or legislation on the part of the government would not engender charter challenges because I think the lawyers would be wrong.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, Canada has always been a welcoming nation. I said earlier that we must adapt our immigration laws to the new realities of the 1990s. When it has been explained to prospective immigrants that there will be certain limitations regarding their place of residence for a certain time, we are firmly convinced that once they are here, they will accept those conditions. In fact, these changes were proposed following wide-ranging consultations among various groups in this country and were welcomed by a large number of Canadians.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister and first I want to say to him and to the people of Canada that we are not opposed to improving, streamlining or making the Immigration Act of this country better than what it is. We have difficulty with the fact that a very complex bill is being jammed through the system so quickly. It is tough to comprehend all aspects of this.
My question is with respect to the part of the minister's speech where he said that we are going to be able to better control the movement of new immigrants. Under the proposed amendments to the new Constitution we are basically giving immigration to the provinces. That means there will be provincial immigration operations right across the country. The provinces will all be doing their own thing. What mechanism will we have as a national government to correct any abuses to the immigration system once we pass on this immigration responsibility to each of the provinces? Is there any part of this amendment or this act which covers that?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, since as yet there has been no agreement on a new distribution of powers in a renewed Canada, these problems will be dealt with under our current immigration legislation, on the basis of the distribution of powers as it exist today. As soon as these powers are to be transferred in some way or
June 22, 1992

another to the provinces, we will deal with the problem at that time and make the appropriate arrangements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: For a short question, the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, being aware of the fact that a short question is all that is allowed, let me ask the minister if there is a potential for a challenge under the charter with respect to mobility rights. If I do not necessarily accept to go or if I do accept to go and I do not like it, do I have the right to leave before the two years you are imposing? Yes or no.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, we do not think there could be a challenge under the charter, since these conditions would be freely accepted and freely contracted by people who would agree to enter Canada under this new system.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading of Bill C-86, which is the very extensive and elaborate immigration legislation, a fact our critic certainly pointed out quite articulately on Friday. The bill is 113 pages long and comprises some 128 sections. Simply from a process viewpoint, having nothing to say about substance, from a clearly procedural point it is highly offensive that we are approaching such a sensitive area in such a callous manner.
Additionally, we are moving from first reading to second reading without even taking a breath because this morning the government imposed closure. It gives parliamentarians little or no chance to even begin to digest the essence of Bill C-86. More important, it does not give enough time at the second reading stage for Canadians to become partners in the equation rather than dealing with them as abstract observers to the entire situation.
It is regrettable. The critic for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal caucus stressed this position on Friday and articulated the concerns the Liberal Party has as well as some of the minor improvements that had been made within the body of Bill C-86.
Government Oders
When we discuss immigration we are discussing one of the most emotional areas of federal public policy; emotional because we are saying who can come and who cannot come into the country and the reasons for those individuals not being able to come or to stay.
There is nothing more difficult than for members of Parliament to go back to their constituencies where immigration is a very important item and to be the messengers of those negative decisions whether it be for a student who wants to come here to study, a visitor for a marriage or a funeral, a refugee who has no other option but to be deported, a Canadian who cannot have his brother or sister join his family here. It is a very emotional area and yet at the same time, for the last number of years, it has probably been one of the most mismanaged areas of federal public policy. A wide array of ministers for immigration have brought with them new priorities, new directions. This has caused a great deal of frustration, not only in the immigration constituency but for Canadians coast to coast to coast.
Nothing has highlighted that mismanagement more than the entire refugee determination process, a process that has lacked management. This government wants to come across as a government that wants to get tough with refugees and wants a system that is going to be respected. It has been the manager of this so-called new system.
Look at the refugee backlog. How many millions of dollars have been spent? Count the years that people have not been able to see their own families, people who get refused and then do not get deported at the end of that day. The system is clearly breaking down. The architect of this system is not some former government, the architect of this system, which is being changed again, is in fact this government.
We have to wonder sometimes whether the government has the best interests of the immigration dossier at heart or whether it is playing fast and loose with this dossier against the interests of Canadians across the country, all for political expediency.
If we cast our minds back a few summers ago, there was a clear example of utilizing that dossier in the very worst way. That famous summer, 157 migrants landed off the east coast of this country. Rather than dealing with

June 22, 1992
Government Oders
them in a rational, professional way of giving due process, this government, and this Prime Minister, called it "a national emergency" and then called an emergency sitting of Parliament to deal with 157 people.
In 1980, we-and I say we-government and Canadians, accepted 100,000 Vietnamese boat people just as one single movement, apart from all the other classes of immigration during those years. That is in the best interests of trying to educate a country, of trying to bring Canadians along to accepting these immigrants and the positive things they will be doing for our country. Yet, only a few years later, this same country, this government, said halt to 157 people because it is a national emergency.
What really happened was the government was very low in the polls, some Canadians were excited and traumatized by these 157 boat people, and the government took full advantage, exaggerated the situation, blew it out of proportion, and gave the word refugee a black eye in this country, a black eye they have still not recovered from and a black eye that is getting darker by the day.
It is easy for the government to bring in a bill and say that it wants to control the situation, it wants people to respect the laws. Who is saying anything different? We have told successive Tory ministers of immigration the very same thing and they promised an expedient, fair system that would not weigh upon the Canadian government or the Canadian taxpayers. We have been waiting almost seven years for that better mousetrap to begin to work.
It is particularly easy for this government to try to give the impression that it is acting tough, particularly during tough economic times. Why? During tough economic times, as we are going through right now, there is always the vulnerability among Canadians who are unemployed to look at immigration in a negative fashion, to say that rather than bringing in new immigrants, why do we not allow unemployed Canadians to get their jobs back first, and when times are better we will think about opening the doors a little wider.
That is why the timing of this bill is no coincidence. The government is trying to project a sense of professionalism and of concern, yet over the seven years it has had ample opportunity to act and it has not taken the opportunity of doing so. We have to be very careful not
to give in to the myth that just because we are down in the economic cycle we should not invite new Canadians to join in the rebuilding of the economy and of the country. Most studies that have been done during good times and bad, particularly the latter, show consistently that net migrations of people to Canada, at the end of the day when all the factors are put into the equation, is a net creator of jobs. At the end of the day there is a net number of immigrants who become entrepreneurs, who establish businesses, who take risks and who give jobs to other people. They become consumers and therefore consumer spending and consumer demand goes up. Last, those people, quite frankly, also take jobs that perhaps you and I do not wish to do.
Therefore, in the fine line between myth and reality, when we talk about the most sensitive and emotional areas of public policy, namely immigration, we need to be very careful about the messages that we as a Parliament are sending out. Immigration to this country has played a very significant and over-all a very productive and positive force in building the country that we have built thus far.
What we also have to continue to strengthen is the view that we are not asking people to come to Canada because we feel we have to do that for various cultural communities, but we have to strengthen the idea that immigration is one of those building blocks that we need to continue to rely on if we are to enjoy the standard of life that we have come to know as Canadians. The Canadian population is relatively small and it is an aging population. The birth rate is dwindling. The economy needs people that sometimes our schools and academic institutions are too slow to produce. Therefore, immigration is not the be all and end all, but it is clearly one positive answer to the needs of a country and the future of a country.
While we have to be stern and disciplined in having our immigration laws respected, we must be very careful to create laws that are not based on perception or myths. Unfortunately, this government, when it has come to the whole public policy of immigration, I believe as one member of Parliament on this side, has preferred to base its rationale on perception and myth rather than promoting the reality of this situation and giving Canadians a law that responds to those realistic attributes of immigration.
June 22, 1992

As I mentioned, the bill is 113 pages long. Given my limited time, I cannot begin to deal with every facet of the legislation, but I am going to highlight three general directions that I think are some cause for concern.
The first one is that the Conservative government continues to be preoccupied with, quite frankly, it dominates much of their agenda, the fast-tracking and increasing the proportion of of immigrants with entrepreneurship and investment dollars. By that I do not mean that I or my party are against that category because in fact it was our party that created that immigration class within the Immigration Act. At the same time, the Liberal Party was prepared to put that class in a certain perspective. One of the first things that this government did in 1984, after assuming power, was double the number of immigrants with some cash.
There is nothing wrong with people who have made a buck. There is nothing wrong with people who create jobs and help the economic prosperity of a country. However, it is wrong if the message that goes out far and wide is that it is easier to come to this country if your pockets are deep than if your pockets are shallow. That clearly is a perception and a reality that has gone out from the first day that this government assumed power. There is a double standard at play that contradicts the history of immigration in this country.
The history of immigration for this country has been that for many people, the vast majority of people, including my own parents, who had come to this country, their pockets were very shallow. Their hearts, however, were very big and their willingness to build for themselves and their families and their country was unchallenged and unquestionable. In the process, those immigrants who are now Canadian citizens today not only give thanks to a country like Canada but they reciprocate that thanks and that loyalty by giving back to the country and by building a foundation that is unshake-able.
If the same laws were in place post-Second World War, many of those people would not have had the opportunity of coming to this country. Many of those people would not have been able to realize their dreams in that period. If that had been the case, Canada would not have been able to found itself on people who did not
Government Oders
have the big dollars but, as I mentioned, had shallow pockets and big hearts.
Therefore we have to be very careful in creating that double standard because an instant doubling or tripling of wealthy immigrants has had ramifications. In posts abroad I have visited as a former immigration critic for my party, I have talked to managers of those immigration operations and they have had to pull people, their visa officers, off other desks such as visitor visa or family class in order to facilitate the doubling and the tripling of quotas imposed by this government.
Not only have we had a preoccupation with trying to search for immigrants who are wealthy, but that has also played in a negative way against the other streams of immigrants just as worthy if not more.
Therefore what I have been advocating and what I advocate again is not to do away with that class but to put a greater perspective on it and not allow that entrepreneurial wealthy immigrant class to impose negatively and to have smaller numbers in our other classes of immigration so that we can satisfy those individuals with money. The second problem is that there is little follow-up in this country to ensure that the wealthy immigrant who has promised to build a mousetrap factory in Downsview, Ontario actually does so. There is little to no follow-up in order to ensure that that mousetrap has been built.
We get tougher on immigrants who do not have proper documentation than on the person who got a visa to build that mousetrap and who has not built it. Those individuals are not asked to leave. That follow-up is not
done.
Not only are immigrants buying themselves into this country but in the end of it they are getting it free of charge because they have not put up the investment they promised.
That is the first concern with the preoccupation to help those who are only defined by the dollar sign. We have to take the program back, put it in perspective, ensure the follow-up and let us not let it undermine the other classes of immigration.
A second concern I have with the general direction of Bill C-86 is the whole question of family class. The government purports in Bill C-86 to try to accelerate the family unification but that is only the immediate family class. It says nothing or does nothing essentially for the extended family. If you compare the results from 1984 to

Government Oders
the present you will find that the proportion of family class and extended family class base immigrants is much smaller than prior to 1984.
There is a very good reason for that. Previous Liberal administrations founded their policy on the cornerstone of family class immigration'. There was good reason for it. We believe that it causes an immigrant to be a lot more at ease with himself or herself. You will have a more successful immigrant. You will have the family playing a role that sometimes the state is asked to play and you will have a more successful process of immigration.
The Chair mentioned that my time is limited. My third component is going to be the refugee component. This government really makes an art out of trying to pick on the most vulnerable in our society by returning to the safe third country concept and also by trying to make it more difficult to obtain refugee status.
I had wanted to say a lot more about this third element because what it is trying to do when it says streamline is minimize the number of applications in the refugee determination system. That is not the goal nor should it be the objective of the legislation. The goal of the legislation should be to have a good system in order to arbitrate who is and who is not a refugee and not to eliminate or streamline based on forbidding a number of people access. It is like saying we want to improve the hospitals by saying who we are going to admit as a person who needs help and who we are not going to admit.
I suggest that you cannot do that.
I would care to go on longer, if the House sees fit, or take any questions from members.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with great interest and I agree with him that there are a tremendous amount of myths out there and not facts on immigration. I agree whole-heartedly with what he said about immigration creating employment and being very important for our country, coming from an area like Brampton which is probably one of the fastest growing areas of Canada today and largely because of immigration which is very positive for the area.
He is right that a lot of people have misconceptions of immigration.
The hon. member was a little critical of the management of our refugee system, which we have had difficulties with. I am the first one to admit it. This is to try and alleviate some of the problems that we have experienced over the years in the refugee process. It was not only our government, it was the previous government as well that had a tremendous backlog of refugees when it left office. It is not only the current administration. We have had these problems.
The hon. member will know that other countries are having the same problems. Refugees are on the move today like never before. What we are trying to do is assure ourselves, and I think Canadians want to be assured, that the people who are coming in to Canada are legitimate refugees. There are a tremendous number of what we call economic refugees who do not fit into the United Nations definition of a refugee. What we are trying to do is assure that those who come here are legitimate refugees.
I think the hon. member will agree-coming from Toronto he knows-that there have been some problems there with fraud, not only in the immigration end of things but from that it goes into welfare fraud. That has been a major concern to the municipalities which have asked for some of the parts of this particular bill, especially the identification of those who are coming in. Heretofore we had no way of keeping track of them.
I want to ask the hon. member one specific question. He is absolutely right that immigration creates employment, economic activity and so on, and yet he criticizes this government and he talks about entrepreneurial class and so on.
Would he give the figures from 1991 to the House on family class, on refugees and on entrepreneurial class? If he does not have them on hand I will make sure he gets them. Second, can he explain why the Liberal government in 1984 cut back immigration to 80,000 people, whereas our goal this year is 250,000 and last year
200,000	new immigrants came to Canada?
If it is so important, and the Conservatives have bungled it as he likes to portray, can he tell us why the Liberals cut back so dramatically?
June 22, 1992


Sergio Marchi: I thank my hon. friend from Brampton for a number of questions.
First, on the refugee situation the minister says that the government is interested in trying to keep the illegitimate refugees out of the country. Members from all sides agree with that.
When you have in a system a person who says he is a refugee, it should be taken as the most serious and sensitive statement that one can make under our Immigration Act because it basically says that his life or that of his family is in the balance because of his religious or political views. Every member on this side agrees that those refugees who are fraudulent and who are allowed to stay undermine the authenticity of the real, legitimate refugee who needs refuge. There is nothing that has stopped this government from keeping those individuals out.
The minister points out that there is this legislation now that is going to all of a sudden allow it to do something it could not have done up to now. Obviously the minister does not know the bill or if he does he is certainly not giving us the straight goods. This government under the Immigration Act and under Bills C-84 and Bill C-55 had all sorts of powers to do that.
The fact of the matter is that this government has imposed a refugee determination backlog system that we, since 1986, have said is not working. Instead, it continues to spend millions. It continues to appoint refugee board officials. It continues to deny people work permits. It continues to deny people seeing their own families. All for what? Even the people who were denied were not deported in the end.
This government, which wants to give a perception that it is Mr. Tough Guy with refugees, was not serving the refugee, the taxpayer or this country. We have told the government that.
It is still in that backlog clearance program that it said was only going to take a year and only cost $75 million. It has now taken three or four years and we are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for York West. We should remember the fact that with the exception of our native peoples, we are all immigrants to
Government Oders
this country. We have to treat this issue in a very sensitive way.
The member is a former critic on immigration and has been working with this issue for many years. My question has to do with the staffing. He knows, being a Toronto member, that probably 90 per cent of our work as members of Parliament today is taken up with immigration cases.


An hon. member:: Is that all?


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member from Ontario asks if that is all. He agrees with us.
The problem that I have with this amendment procedure that we are debating in the House today is that the minister on Friday would not acknowledge that he needed more staff; in other words, that aspect of these amendments which is going to try to streamline and push the paper through so we can maybe go on looking after some of the other problems of the other 90 per cent of our constituents.
I do not see anything in this amendment or in the government's attitude which will help those public servants who are working on these problems to try to get the paperwork done so that people can get off social assistance and into the work force.
We have people who have been sitting around in Toronto, as the hon. member well knows, waiting for months and months trying to get their landed papers. The system is being shut down, I believe, because of lack of proper support staff in the department.
I wonder if the member could comment on that.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the member for Broadview-Greenwood makes a very clear and very obvious statement that this government is not putting resources in its department to expedite the claimants, be they landed immigrants or refugees. They cannot even obtain their Canadian citizenship because there is such a barrage and a backlog on that front. At the same time, the government does not allow people to even work.
This minister from Brampton has the audacity to say that those people go on welfare. At least let them work while they are waiting for their status papers. This minister and this government do not give them work permits and then they get criticized for going on welfare. That is the double talk for which this minister and this government have become infamous.

June 22, 1992
Government Oders
Second, concerning the pressures across the globe, as the member knows, in places like Hong Kong, New Delhi and other various areas that are creating a lot of demand, the problem is that there are not enough Canadian visa officers. They do not have computer systems to try to make due with the situation at hand.
Therefore, if you come from Italy there is a six-month waiting process. If you try to come from Hong Kong or New Delhi or Manila, the waiting period is three, four, five and six years.
What the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is trying to say is that there needs to be a consistency there and to try to have a response time that is both humane and fair to all individuals, wherever you come from. If you want to increase numbers and you want to do more, you need to put the resources in your program so that you can do what you want to do and not only say it.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, immigration is a complex issue and an important one for Canada.
The bill before us is a complex piece of legislation, more than 100 pages long. In many ways the basic idea behind the legislation is quite simple. Our immigration program should achieve clearly defined objectives efficiently, in a way that is cost effective and in a way that is fair and humane.
In order for it to do this in the 1990s, we need a new framework, one that allows us to set out clear rules, to enforce those rules effectively and to deliver the program with as little red tape and delay as possible.
I want to talk about the enforcement aspects of this legislation and about program delivery. It is important to keep in mind, especially when we are talking about enforcement, that this legislation-and I underline-does not change the objectives of our immigration program; objectives which have been fundamental to immigration in Canada for many years. The government remains firmly committed to the basic social, humanitarian and economic objectives set out in the current Immigration Act.
We remain committed to maintaining a reasonable balance between those objectives as set out in the five-year immigration plan in 1990 and confirmed by the
minister last fall. We remain committed to a robust immigration program with the levels set at 250,000 immigrants for this year. These amendments do not change the fundamental objectives of our immigration program. What they will do is allow us to achieve those objectives in an environment very different from that of 1976 when the current Immigration Act was passed.
We need a modem management system, one that will allow us to set clear rales for the selection of immigrants and ensure that the selection process does not lead to bottle-necks and backlogs. That is only part of the story. We also need effective ways to re-enforce the rules fairly, firmly and in the best interests of Canadians.
There is not much point in having rules about whom you bring into a country if you cannot make sure that those rules have consequences. The truth is you cannot have an effective, balanced fair immigration program without an effective enforcement policy. You need enforcement to ensure that the program is meeting its objectives, to preserve the integrity of the ideals that underlie the program and to preserve the integrity of our borders.
Without effective enforcement you cannot have a fair program. You need to ensure the program is really helping those who most need Canada's protection.
Equally important, you put the very safety and security of Canadians at risk. Canada has the most open and generous immigration program in the world and we want to keep that way.
To do so we have to take firm action against those who would mistake our openness and generosity as signs of weakness. We have to face the fact that the world of the 1990s is a world of increasingly sophisticated, internationally organized criminals and terrorists. We have to be prepared to deal with what is now a multi-billion dollar migrant smuggling trade and those who would exploit the misery of people in the most desperate circumstances for their own personal gain.
This legislation includes important amendments to the Immigration Act that will provide new authority to meet the enforcement challenges of the 1990s, including measures that will help immigration officials provide Canadians and our way of life with much better protection.
June 22, 1992

Government Oders
For example, the medical inadmissibility provisions of can clearly see a passport sticking out of the claimants the act are intended to protect the health and well-being pocket, of Canadians and ensure that people coming into Canada do not place an excessive demand on our medical and The legislation will also allow the use of fingerprints social service systems. The proposed amendments will an(j photographs to establish an applicant's identity. The clarify the definition of excessive demand in today's question of identity is obviously critical in many immi-terms and ensure that the medical inadmissibility provi-	gration caSes and we need the most effective means
sions are applied fairly and without discrimination. available to deal with those cases firmly.
The act currently provides authority to refuse admission to anyone who has been convicted of a crime. What about people who, while never convicted of a crime, are known to be part of a criminal or terrorist organization? These people pose a real danger. Their activities frequently have a global dimension but the current act does not prevent them from coming to Canada.
New measures will strengthen the definition of criminal inadmissibility and allow us to keep out people we know are active in such groups. They will give immigration officers the authority to refuse entry to anyone involved in serious criminal activities.
This legislation will also help those who try to enter Canada under false pretences or who otherwise try to break and circumvent the rules. The best way to stop such people is to intercept them before they get to our borders. That is why the government works closely with the airline industry, helping it to identify counterfeit travel documents and illegal migrants.
The proposed legislation will provide an additional incentive for airlines to work with the government by increasing the penalties for airlines that neglect their duty to determine undocumented passengers.
In some cases people arrive at our borders with travel documents which have a direct bearing on their admissibility to Canada, but at the present time they can simply refuse to show them to immigration officials. The customs officer, on the other hand, can search a Canadian citizen returning to Canada if he is suspected of concealing something as simple as an undeclared bottle of liquor. We think that an immigration officer should have similar authority to conduct a search and the legislation will provide that authority.
For example, someone who asks for protection as a refugee may claim to have no passport and the immigration officer cannot verify that claim even if the officer
Under the new legislation immigration officers will have increased authority to identify and stop smugglers. This includes increased discretion to detain vehicles.
A number of recent reports by enforcement agencies as well as in the media have highlighted the dramatic increases in organized groups smuggling illegal migrants into Canada. A restructured system of fines will help deal with individuals involved in smuggling. Under the proposed legislation people caught smuggling will face penalties ranging from a $100,000 fine and five years in jail to a fine of $500,000 and ten years in jail.
For people who manage to enter Canada illegally or who have been determined not to have the right to remain in Canada, the legislation provides the tools necessary to ensure their prompt removal. We need to assure Canadians that people here illegally will not remain and that those who enter Canada legally will be held to their promise to respect Canada's laws.
The investigative capacity of immigration officials to identify, document and follow-up on infractions will be increased and made more effective.
There can be no question that examples of abuse undermine the integrity of our immigration system. Abuse also undermines the public's confidence in the value and effectiveness of the immigration program. The measures we have proposed to enforce the law and protect Canadian society will ensure that the immigration system, which has served Canada well for more than a century, continues to deserve the support and confidence of all Canadians.
Public confidence also depends on a program that operates and is seen to operate in a way that is fair, efficient and cost effective. Increasing numbers of people seeking to enter Canada have placed enormous pressures on the program and on the ability of officials to deliver efficient immigration services. As a result, the immigration program has become characterized, in some

Government Oders
cases unfairly, by long lines, excessive delays and costly backlogs.
In recent years a number of significant improvements have been made in services provided by immigration offices in Canada and overseas. Response times to requests for information have been shortened and procedures have been simplified. Continued efforts to streamline service delivery along with new administrative procedures will ensure that a high and consistent level of service is provided at all immigration offices.
The steps being taken to improve service include new centralized information centres to allow Canadian residents to find out more quickly what is happening to applications from their families and friends; clear information for applicants about how long it will likely take for a decision to be reached on their applications; increased use in mail-in and drop-off services at Canada Immigration Centres; new application kits for services in Canada which include more timely information, more easily understood forms and additional staff training, particularly on ways to provide clients and interested parties with up to date information about immigration procedure.
The government is also proposing to streamline administrative procedures involved in issuing or renewing documents for visitors, students and returning residents. In many cases existing procedures are either ineffective or involve unnecessary time and expense. These kinds of administrative and service delivery improvements are important but we must recognize that problems in service are in many cases symptoms of deeper problems in the framework of the immigration program itself. This legislation will address those problems.
For example, the new three-tier management system makes it possible to establish clear priorities for processing immigrant applications according to clearly defined objectives. Those dealt with through stream one, for example, spouses and dependent children, would be processed on demand and within a reasonable time; about six months.
Applicants in stream two will be processed on a first come, first serve basis. They will be provided with accurate information on how soon they will be processed.
Those processed in stream three will be selected for excellence. The new authority to turn away applications when levels are reached may be used to reduce backlogs.
The proposed legislation will also make a big difference in the treatment of people claiming refugee status. Those people who have often been subject to long delays, long separations from their families and long periods of economic uncertainty will be processed much more quickly.
We hope to reduce the review process from fourteen months to six months and we will ensure that refugees can be landed within six months. Close family members will be landed at the same time.
It is important to see how all of the basic components of this legislation fit; a better immigration management framework, a streamlined refugee determination system, effective enforcement and improved service. They all work together to achieve the basic goal of a more efficient, fair and cost-effective immigration program.
Developed countries around the world are struggling to come to terms with the realities of immigration in the 1990s. In many countries we have seen a most disturbing trend toward a closed door approach to immigration. It should be made very clear that this legislation is not informed by that attitude.
This government believes that a robust immigration program is good for Canada but we also believe that a robust immigration program is one in which there are clear rules, clearly enforced, designed to maintain the integrity of the program that is vital to Canada's future.
The legislation we have proposed provides the foundation we need today and in the future. I would be happy to answer any questions.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to something my friend from Athabasca said earlier in his speech. He mentioned that in some cases even though would-be immigrants had not been convicted of crimes, he would put them in a category of fairly unsavoury people.
I wanted him to elaborate on that because he is potentially treading on fairly dangerous ground once he begins talking about breaching the whole principle of innocent until proven guilty. How far do you carry that?
June 22, 1992

What constitutes an unsavoury character? Is it the colour of his skin, the kind of clothes he wears or how he wears his hair? Where do you draw the line?
I am sure the member did not want to leave the wrong impression. I say to him by way of feedback that the impression he left was a fairly frightening one. Early in his intervention he was talking somewhat off the cuff and he indicated, maybe unwittingly, that even when people are not convicted of a crime certain conditions ought to apply. I say to him that is a fairly frightening prospect. If that is the kind of ground rule he would envisage, I put it to him that suggestion undermines most of the rest of what he said about a robust policy and a open policy and that kind of thing.
Maybe unwittingly the member let us into his thoughts more than he intended. Before we judge him on that could he tell the House what he meant? Would he maybe give some examples of what types of individuals, though not convicted of crimes, he might seek to keep out of the country.
The second question flows from the first one. Is that kind of thinking to be applied by people already in the country? Do we have a certain broad-brush approach that would judge people even though the courts have not found them guilty of anything? Would we have a broadbrush approach that ostracizes those people? How far does he go with that? Does he advocate maybe deportation for those unsavoury characters? Where does he draw the line?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am always disturbed when someone tries to put a twist or a turn on something that is said very clearly and stated very clearly.
We in Canada today cannot, under the present immigration laws, bar from Canada known drug dealers who have formed cartels. We have no way of keeping them out under criminal activity. It is well known by Interpol and by the international enforcement agencies that they are drug dealers and that they belong to organized drug cartels. It is the same with organized crime in various countries. Interpol and the other agencies know that it is there. We all know the criminal activity that takes place and those who are higher up are insulated from it. It is known but it cannot be proven. Those are the activities that we in Canada are setting up so that we are giving immigration officers an effective way to determine inadmissibility based on those grounds.
Government Oders


Mr. Dan Heap (IHnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Athabasca for a fairly clear setting out of certain matters. I would like him to enlarge on a couple of aspects relating to refugees.
At present in the refugee determination system for those who come to Canada to claim refugee status, they have the preliminary hearing in which most of them are found acceptable to continue on to the second stage hearing. The government has said that it has eliminated that hearing. It has put several elements, including one very controversial one, into the hands of the senior immigration officers at the port of entry.
If a person comes from a country considered not to be a refugee-producing country, he can be sent right back without a hearing under the new proposed act. If he came through a country that is considered to be a country with a fair refugee determination process, he can be sent back to that country under the new system.
My question to the hon. member is would he consider the United States a safe country to which to send back Guatemalan or Salvadoran refugee claimants who had come over land and through the United States to Canada to claim refugee status?
In face of the fact that the United States has generally accepted only 2 or 3 per cent of Guatemalans or Salvadorans claiming refugee status in the States, at least three-quarters of the ones who came to Canada, often more than three-quarters, were found by our refugee board to be genuine refugees. Would the member advocate that if this bill is passed, Guatemalan and Salvadoran refugee claimants coming to a Canadian port of entry through the United States should be sent back to the United States?


Jack Wendele Shields: I want to thank my hon. friend for the question.
He refers to coming to Canada to claim refugee status. I hope he is not inferring that this is the only place that anyone can apply for refugee status. They can apply for refugee status at any Canadian embassy or consulate anywhere in the world. We have many of them and I think he knows that. People coming from Guatemala or San Salvador have other places they can apply rather than the border. The United States I would consider a safe country under the refugee determination system. It has proven that in the past. It has been a very generous country in the past. Whether Guatemalans or Salvadorans would be accepted or sent back to the United States would depend on the individual applying at the border.

June 22, 1992
5. 0. 31
I must remind my friend there are other places. You do not have to come to Canada and put your foot on the soil to apply for refugee status. We have been very generous in the past and we are going to continue to be generous in the future. We are not going to turn away genuine refugees who are seeking asylum in this country. We are not going to do that. We are not a people who will do that.
What we are trying to stop and what we are going to stop are the bogus claims that are made. The member is very well aware of the bogus claims that are made right across this country by people who claim refugee status. They are economic refugees but they are not refugees under the definition of the United Nations.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I have a small comment and a question. This is a huge bill, about 100 pages long. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could indicate to this House whether it would deal with the problem of consultants and con artists who exploit the immigrants or the refugees and whether it would deal as well with conflict of interest.
For instance, in Calgary we had an immigration manager who left a couple of months ago and six weeks later he was already advertising that he was a consultant and he was manager of Calgary's immigration.
Could the parliamentary secretary answer the question?


Jack Wendele Shields: I am not sure that I understand the question, as it was rather garbled.
All I would say is the bill itself is a complex one and all of the issues that he has brought forward are being dealt with in the bill itself and are going to be discussed in committee very thoroughly. We want to get it into committee because of the very detailed work that has to be done over the summer. All of those questions will be answered at that time clearly.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the subject of immigration. I am certain
that other members will agree with me when I say it is the single most frequently raised issue in many constituencies.
Over the past four years I have heard horrible stories of an immigration system that lacks compassion, understanding and sensitivity to the needs of both Canadian citizens and those who aspire to obtain it.
It is with great disappointment that I read the proposed changes to Canada's immigration law because it is crystal clear to all of us on this side of the House that the government is abandoning any compassion our immigration process may have had.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I must interrupt the hon. member. It being two o'clock the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Mr.   Marcel@: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation decision to help Canadians learn more about their parliamentary system by producing a series of television programs on the subject.
I think it is very important for the public to understand the inner workings of Parliament if they are to understand and appreciate our democratic system, often referred to as an example in other countries. I urge educational institutions to make these programs available, which will show how important it is to have a decision-making centre where everyone is free to express the views of the population he or she represents.
June 22, 1992



FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the University College of Cape Breton, in collaboration with the Cape Breton Interagency Committee on Family Violence and the Cape Breton Coalition for Sexual Assault Services has been successful in the first level of an application for federal support in the establishment of one of the three community-based research centres on family violence and violence against women.
The UCCB is particularly well equipped to carry out research that is responsive to community needs through its BA program in community studies and through its department of extension and community affairs.
The UCCB research team lead by Dr. Joyce Man-nette, Professors Marshall and Claener, working with community groups, social service workers, police, health care workers and others are eager for the opportunity to build further on the excellent work they are already undertaking.
I recommend to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in very strong language that the Government of Canada now honour this request and honour it forthwith.



PROUD TO BE CANADIAN

Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, June 20, the touring flags of the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs, Proud to be Canadian tour, were united once again in a very moving ceremony at the Terry Fox memorial site in Thunder Bay.
The two flags once flown above the Peace Tower have moved one from the east coast, the other from the west coast, through hundreds of communities across Canada in a symbolic way of uniting our country.
Along with the symbolic Peace Tower flags, there have been over 3 million signatures collected on 600 signature flags. The signatures are those of the young people of our country showing their love for a united Canada from sea to sea.
I commend all of those who participated in the tour with special commendation to the 16,000 Kinsmen and Kinettes across Canada whose efforts show that we truly are proud to be Canadian.



NCC GREENBELT LANDS

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, in the 1960s the federal government had the foresight to protect environmentally sensitive land in the nation's capital with the establishment of the greenbelt lands.
The NCC is the federal agency responsible for these lands. The greenbelt was established to control urban sprawl, provide beauty to the nation's capital, assist municipalities in local improvements such as the cycling paths, the Stoney Swamp, the Pinhey Forest and the Log Farm. They have all added to the enhancement and beauty of the nation's capital.
The people of Nepean are most concerned that the NCC is moving away from that premise.
Does this government plan on continuing the status quo with the Nepean greenbelt lands or does the government plan on putting these lands up for sale?
The majority of us in Nepean clearly do not want the greenbelt chipped away for residential or commercial development.
Can this government assure the people of Nepean, the nation's capital and all Canadians that the greenbelt lands remain as the wonderful breathing space it was created for in the first place?
We want and we deserve and answer.



STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government will model its Student Loans Program on Quebec's program, which is more efficient, according to senior officials from Treasury Board. According to deputy secretary of state Mark Rochon, Quebec's program is probably the best in Canada.
The federal government has accumulated $960 million in accounts receivable since it started its Student Loans Program in 1964, while Quebec has lost less than $10 million since it started its own program in 1966. Quebec only expunged four-tenths of 1 per cent of bad loans, which works out to $9.1 million. After $2 billion in loans was cashed on April 30, 1989, Quebec recovered most of

June 22, 1992
the loans because it is very careful about expunging accounts receivable.
The Canadian program has a poor record, to say the least: $55 million in accounts receivable will be expunged this year because of failure to trace bad loans. In 1992-93, accounts receivable will total $1 billion.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, in the July edition of I'Actualite editor Jean Pare writes:
"It is time to face the facts. If after 30 years of agitation for independence, nine years of pequiste government, a referendum, and 10 years of threats, Quebecers still have not separated, it is because they do not want to."
"Very simply, Quebecers love Canada, with a secret, perhaps slightly embarrassed affection. Behind their speeches and periodic bouts of anger, they are Canadians in their hearts. If this country displeased them as much as has been made out, they would have left long ago."
These conclusions are based on a CROP poll which shows that when posed the hard question, the real question: "Do you want Quebec to remain a province within Canada or become an independent country," only 34 per cent of Quebecers opt for independence and 54 per cent choose Canada.
It is important that this House take note of these facts. They teach us that we are not wasting our time looking for the best constitutional offers we can find for Quebec and Canada as a whole.



THE ECONOMY

Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, the recent evidence of growth should give all Canadians confidence in the economy. Many forecasters will be revising their earlier pessimistic forecasts to put them in a range the Minister of Finance has consistently referred to.
Contrary to speculation by some analysts of a doubledip recession, the recovery has now proceeded for four consecutive quarters. The Minister of Finance has consistently forecast that a growth rate for 1992-93 would be in the area of 2 to 2.3 per cent.
We believe he is right.



ARMENIA AND NAGORNO-KARABAGH

Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, the recent events in Armenia and Nagor-no-Karabagh have taken a serious turn for the worse. Recently, more than 500 people have disappeared and several hundred civilians, including children, have been injured or killed, all resulting from violent attacks by Azerbaijan.
Azeri motorized battalions, reinforced by heavy artillery and armoured vehicles are reportedly positioned for a large-scale offensive against Armenia. Sources have also reported that Azerbaijan's weapons are being supplied by Tbrkey, a member state of NATO.
I ask the Prime Minister to communicate Canada's profound concern over Turkish intervention in this conflict, and ask him to urge President Yeltsin of Russia, who still has a significant number of troops in the area, to secure the region and prevent any further Azeri attacks against the people of Armenia or Nagomo-Kara-bagh.



OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK

Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: As this week has been designated Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week, I would like to underline how important it is for all of us to focus our attention and give priority to the occupational health and safety issues which are vital to the protection and preservation of the health of working people across Canada.
With the renewal of Canada's drug strategy, a new emphasis in employee assistance programming recognizes the increasing need to be concerned with substance abuse in the workplace. Labour Canada and Health and Welfare will be working in partnership with such organizations as the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and the Alliance for a Drug Free Canada to improve the ability of both business and labour to respond to a variety
June 22, 1992

of health issues that may manifest themselves at the work site.
There is clearly much yet to be done and I support the joint efforts of employers, employees and government in achieving the health and safety objectives toward which we are all working.



CANADIAN COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, today we learned that despite a year of prosperity initiative propaganda our ranking in the world competitiveness report has dropped from fifth to 11th, behind such industrial powerhouses as Ireland and Finland. Again, our real problem is not the workforce but the people who manage it. Our workers are ranked eighth, our managers fifteenth.
Worse still, in R and D we are 17th. Meanwhile, the actions of the federal government amount to little more than fiddling while the R and D infrastructure burns.
The Science Council has gone. The Prime Minister's promise to double spending on R and D is gone. All we have had is a massive cross-country prosperity show. The Science Council described these consultations as mere proxies for leadership and condemned the lack of government action.
Yes, Mr. Prime Minister, you were right about our being in the junior B league of competitiveness. Clearly what we need is major league management. It is time to fire the coach.



THE ECONOMY

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the first quarter 1992 results for the economy released by Statistics Canada confirm the recovery is continuing and at an improved pace over that of the second half of last year.
In fact, at a 1.7 per cent annualized rate the output increase in the first quarter was stronger than all analysts had been expecting. Exports were the key source of strength in the quarter with real exports increasing over 15 per cent, reflecting the success of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
It flows as well from the improving competitiveness of the economy instilled by government policies in the restructuring taking place in Canadian businesses.
The evidence of growth in its composition should buoy confidence in the economy. Most forecasters will revise their 1992 annual average growth rates back up to the 2 to 2.3 per cent range. Some no doubt will go higher. This will put them back in the range the Minister of Finance has consistently referred to since Statistics Canada revised 1991 growth after the budget.
The undue pessimism of some forecasters such as the Conference Board will now surely stand in even greater contrast. We are clearly on the right track. We must stay the course. Clearly the Minister of Finance and his predecessor have served Canada well.



EMPLOYMENT

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Rudy Wilczek, my constituent, and 25 of his co-workers at Revenue Canada's Pearson airport customs and excise office, postal division, will have a hard time celebrating Canada's 125th birthday on July 1. They will be waiting for the unemployment office to open on July 2 to join the growing list of unemployed people in Toronto.
As of July 1 the customs and excise branch will hand off responsibility for collecting duties on international mail to Canada Post. Canada Post has retained employment agencies and a few students to do the work formerly done by customs and excise officers. The employment agencies will cost more than the officers did.
Worse yet, Revenue Canada, which for months has promised to find jobs for these displaced workers in other divisions issued lay-off notices to them effective July 1. Every time this group of Canadians watches one of the government's expensive feel-good ads for Canada's 125th birthday, they, like many unemployed people in Toronto, cannot help but feel the painful irony of this government.



OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia - Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of all members of the House the seventh annual Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. It began yesterday and continues until this coming Saturday, June 27.

June 22, 1992
We are moving toward an economy which is becoming increasingly advanced technologically. Consequently, we have to pay more attention to safety and health in the work place. The education and retraining of workers in response to these rapid changes must always incorporate the highest levels of safety awareness.
Strong emphasis must be placed on learning in the modem world of work. Accordingly, this year's theme is "Planning: Your Investment in Health and Safety". Business and labour share a joint responsibility to ensure that all activities related to the work place are studied in a spirit of co-operation. In this way, avoidable accidents can be reduced significantly.
On the occasion of Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week, I ask my hon. friends to bring the challenges of this issue to their constituents' attention. In so doing, we may all one day be able to point with pride to the commitment which has made us the leading nation in the care and protection of all our workers.


125TH ANNIVERSARY OF CONFEDERATION


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in this 125th year of Confederation, it is important more than ever before to celebrate Canada Day, even in the current political climate. There are a number of reasons why we should be optimistic. As we all know, Canada is an exceptionally beautiful country, endowed with exceptional riches. We should never forget that Canada is a democratic society. In a world tom by hatred, persecution and fanaticism, Canadians have always been known for their tolerance. This tradition helped us build a country on half a continent that has become a symbol to all of peace, prosperity, comfort and freedom, so much so that last year we were ranked by the United Nations as the best place in the world in which to live.
In fact, if we look at the news, we realize that our problems are minimal, compared with those endured by
most of humankind. By building on our traditions, we will be able to solve our problems and offer a better life to all Canadians.



VOYAGEURS '92

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, today's Vancouver Sun contains an article questioning the success of the Voyageurs '92 program. The article draws a damning picture of a last minute program lacking adequate support, organization and community interest. There was a lot of negative and a lot of bunk.
I will tell you about the positive. The Fraser Valley Broadcasters, the Metro Valley Newspaper Group and the Times joined together in a united community media effort to get the Voyageurs off the ground in my riding, and what a job they did.
We have two groups heading off to Pontiac, Gatineau and Labelle tomorrow and are they excited.
We have already seen two groups come to the Fraser Valley and they had a great time. The Sto:lo Nation and Tribal Council put on a cultural extravaganza including, dancing, food, a visit to a First Nations police training centre, a tour of the valley and Vancouver. The groups rode the gondola across Hell's Gate on free passes. The officers at CFB Chilliwack took the kids water skiing on Cultus Lake. There was a trip to Victoria, there was an all-night block party and a barbeque to close things off.
We have churches, veterans associations, schools and service clubs like the Hope Rotary and Lions all working together. This does not sound very negative to me. It sounds like the community got together to celebrate Canada and being Canadian.
A lasting impression was made that will do more for Canadian unity and personal development than all the negative media in the world.
Voyageurs '92, making great Canadian history yet
again.
June 22, 1992



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Throughout the worst recession since the Depression, the government has repeated incessantly that it was not to blame. It repeated that the recession was caused by the world situation and that other countries were also performing poorly.
However, in its 1992 report on competitiveness, the World Economic Forum showed that Canada's competitiveness has fallen from fifth to 11th place. The truth is that Canada's economy fell faster and deeper than in any other comparable country.
How can the Prime Minister deny his responsibility and deny the fact that Canada has the worst growth in goods and services of the industrialized world?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that we have experienced a weak world economy, I think everyone should be encouraged by the first quarter results that have just been revealed today which show there has been a growth of 1.7 per cent in the Gross Domestic Product which indicates that there have been four consecutive quarters of positive growth. I think all Canadians should be heartened by that development. At least we certainly take comfort over here, notwithstanding the fact that we would like to see that growth more robust than it actually is.
With respect to the world competitiveness report, I would remind the hon. member that the data on which this report made its finding is stale dated. It is basically based on last year's evidence when Canada's inflation rate was 6.2 per cent, which was the worst inflation rate in the industrialized world. That has improved to 1.3 per cent.
The hon. member should also take cognizance of the fact that the government has embarked upon a very
Oral Questions
aggressive competitiveness and prosperity initiative, some of which we are seeing in the growth figures today.


Mr. Tobin:: An advertising campaign.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are seeing a 2.5 per cent improvement in productivity in the first quarter of this year.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada confirmed what 1.5 million Canadians have known for the last two years, that this has been the worst and the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
After winning the 1984 election, the Conservative government launched a budget.
In the government's first budget eight years ago, it said its plan was to foster higher investment, greater innovation and increased international competitiveness. Eight years after announcing that plan, Canada has gone into a free fall from fifth to 11th place in international competitiveness.
In the same budget, the Conservatives said: "It is an ongoing priority of this government to encourage much improved research and development performance in Canada''.
How does the Prime Minister explain that eight years after this promise, Canada ranked last in research and development among industrialized nations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is categorically and absolutely wrong when she suggests that this downturn and this recession has been the worst since the 1930s.
She should know, and I will tell her what statistics will reveal. The peak to trough decline in 1981 was something in the order of 5.3 to 5.5 per cent. The peak to trough decline in this recession is something in the order of 3.6 per cent. That is a remarkable difference.
In so far as her point with regard to competitiveness and productivity, I remind the hon. member to look at the data that has been released today. She will find that the recovery is led by merchandise trade, by export trade and by improvements in our productivity. That should be good news to all Canadians.

June 22, 1992
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, his own document from Statistics Canada says: "This is the first time since the Great Depression that the economy has shrunk two years in a row".
It's report card time across this country and the World Economic Forum has issued a failing grade to the Government of Canada. We ranked last in balance of trade. Canada ranks last on export market diversification. We ranked last in research and development. We ranked second last in merchandising training. We ranked second last in manufacturing. We ranked third last in the industrialized world in competitiveness.
How can you claim that your competitive agenda is succeeding when all world indications show that Canada is failing the challenge of competitive economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe the rhetoric of the hon. member because she was in the House last week. She would know that merchandise trade has improved.
As a matter of fact, exports have increased by 15 per cent. That is one of the reasons why we have had a 1.7 per cent increase in Gross Domestic Product in the first quarter of this year. Merchandise trade exports are at a record all-time high for the last two or three months. That is because we have a free trade agreement and because most of that trade is being done with the United States.
It is because we have taken initiatives to improve and enhance productivity and enhance competitiveness. That is why we are producing such good results that will be translated into jobs and further economic opportunity.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the latest leaked draft of the North American free trade agreement shows that Mexico will not capitulate as Canada shamefully has to U.S. energy demands. Mexico, unlike Canada, will not be forced to make up for U.S. shortages if there is a North American shortage.
Does this government not find it thoroughly embarrassing and thoroughly humiliating that Mexico has cut a better deal on energy than Canada?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is somewhat outdated in terms of what is likely to be in the energy package.
He is looking at or quoting Mexico's early draft. He will find that in terms of the negotiating text that we are now considering there are areas of disagreement. We have no final text. In that final text he will find that we are doing quite well in terms of resolving the energy differences between Mexico, the United States and Canada.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, under this text, which was apparently negotiated two weeks ago, if there are any energy shortages, Mexico will not be forced to divert scarce supplies to the United States, but Canada will.
If the government cannot negotiate a more favourable energy agreement, an agreement which is at least as favourable as Mexico is obtaining under this deal, if it cannot do that, will this government refuse to sign the North American free trade agreement?


An hon. member:: Once again Peterson has his facts wrong.


William C. Winegard: I will repeat what I said before, Mr. Speaker.
It is very clear that my hon. friend is looking at an early draft which was not a Canadian draft. I would also like to remind him that there is such a thing as the International Energy Agreement which a previous government signed on behalf of Canada.


An hon. member:: Which happened to be Liberal.


William C. Winegard: It happened to be a Liberal government. There is no question at all, we do not have a final text on energy. Our opportunities are to open up the Mexican market for Canadian goods, including energy.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The minister responding for the Minister for International Trade has just said: "Well we are all dealing with early drafts of the Mexican and NAFTA talks". Perhaps if members of this House and Canadians knew what this
June 22, 1992

government was negotiating instead of being told: "Well nc, after it is signed", we could have an intelligent debate on what is in the NAFTA agreement.
Based on the reports today, it seems clear that this government is intent on taking a bad deal, the Canada-U.S. trade deal, and making it worse in the NAFTA deal by reducing our ability to control Canada's petrochemical energy industry, giving the U.S. more access to our energy resources and reducing Canada's ability to effectively conserve and manage our own energy resources.
Mexicans have had the guts to stand up and say: "No, you will not touch our energy resources". Why does Canada back down and why is Canada giving away our energy resources when Mexico refuses to do so?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the North American free trade agreement will not tie Canada's energy resources closer to the United States. That is another misconception being promulgated by the New Democratic Party that never wanted a free trade agreement in the first place because it is afraid of trade.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The New Democratic Party is not afraid of trade. We want fair trade. The minister is afraid of giving a real answer and letting Canadians know exactly what is going on in these trade talks.

The minister knows the Canadian Constitution gives the provinces control over their natural resources. However, it seems the proposed trilateral agreement would include areas under provincial jurisdiction, including that of provincial power companies.
Before going any further, does the federal government intend to consult the provinces about their provincial power companies?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and discussions with the provinces all through the free trade agreement negotiations. The provinces have met with the Minister for International Trade from time to time and they have
Oral Questions
met with the negotiating team from time to time. There is no question at all that the provinces know exactly where we are going and trying to go in this negotiation.
As far as energy is concerned, I do not understand why the New Democratic Party does not want improved opportunities for Canadians, particularly those from the west, to sell exploration production techniques all to do with the petrochemical industry.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the Acting Prime Minister.
It is clear that in the draft that is available, through the news media not through this House of the NAFTA agreements, this government is signing an agreement which appears to extend into areas of provincial jurisdiction, namely to provincially-owned electrical utilities. There is no exemption cited in this chapter for provincial electrical utilities.
I again ask the Acting Prime Minister: Is it this government's intention to encroach on the constitutional right of provinces to control their own resources and utilities, yes or no? Will this government be clear that in fact provinces will have a say in any area that will affect their jurisdiction?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, that is why we have been consulting with the provinces right from the beginning, so that we will not do anything outside of the provincial jurisdiction. We want the provinces to be onside with us. We have made special attempts to have them onside with us. There is no question at all that we want an agreement that will be of benefit to all Canadians and of benefit to those provinces that have the resources.


ATLANTIC FISHERY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister will know that on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, and indeed including western Newfoundland, there has been a 67 per cent decline reaching 71,000 metric tons in cod landings over the last seven years and representing the longest and deepest

Oral Questions
decline in gulf cod landings recorded since 1960 by the federal department of fisheries.
The cod industry in western Newfoundland is in crisis. I want to ask the minister of fisheries what action the Government of Canada is going to take to rebuild the gulf cod stocks and what action, both immediate term and long term, the Government of Canada is going to take to assist the fishermen and fish plant workers who are being dislocated, displaced economically, because of this crisis in the gulf cod stocks.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to manage the gulf fishery in accordance with the advice which we receive from CAFSAC and our Canadian scientists.
There has been a considerable decrease in the total allowable catch of the cod stocks in the gulf in the last several years, and in accordance with the scientific advice the total allowable catches have been reduced.
There is not any immediate crisis that I know of in that particular stock at the present time, with the exception that we have had to restrict mobile gear vessels because of the size of the cod that were being caught and because of some other activities which had to be discouraged.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this member wants to assure the House that I want to work with the minister and with the government, but it is difficult to do that when the minister says there is not any crisis, when landings have gone from over 90 million pounds in 1982 down to 30-odd million pounds in 1991, and when there has been a 67 per cent decline in cod landings.
I want to quote to the minister from a report done for him by his department in December 1990, by William Steele of the program co-ordination and economics in the gulf region office. The report says in its conclusion, and I quote from the minister's own report: "The cod industry in western Newfoundland is in a crisis. The fixed gear fishery in western Newfoundland is at a point of no return if there is no strategy to rebuild the cod stocks in the near future".
That report is 24 months old and the rate of decline has continued over the last 24 months. What has the minister done since December 1990 to halt this crisis in decline in cod stocks? What is he doing now to rebuild
those cod stocks and to assist the fishing families who are severely affected by this crisis; yes, a crisis in the cod fishery?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are no new figures being produced by the hon. member today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There is no new fish either.


John Carnell Crosbie: If I am allowed to answer I will answer. There is nothing new in the figures that have been announced by the hon. gentleman today. These total allowable catches were set some months ago based on the scientific advice we received from CAFSAC, from the Canadian scientists.
Because the hon. member rises in this House and shouts across the House does not make a situation a crisis. The cod stocks in the gulf are certainly cause for worry. Small cod were being caught in large numbers which had to be stopped, particularly by mobile gear vessels. The facts have been known for months and there is no sudden crisis today in the gulf.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, for some reason the minister is choosing today to downplay this problem. He knows that fishery in the gulf and the Atlantic fishery generally are in an absolute tailspin.
He has seen the numbers for 3PN and for 4R. They are even worse than the numbers for northern cod, as bad as they are. I say to him that no other industry in Canada is being so pulverized. This is the prairie drought of the 1930s.
People in his riding and mine are losing their homes. They are having their cars repossessed. They cannot buy the groceries. They need some money now. What is he going to do about it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we all know with reference to the northern cod stock that in the province of Newfoundland in particular there is a serious problem in connection with the fishery. We also know other stocks are under heavy pressure.
There is no sudden emergency that has just occurred with reference to other fisheries. There are difficulties in other fisheries as well. We have brought in programs, as we did last year, to meet those difficulties. I refer to the
June 22, 1992

ice compensation program and others that were brought in last year.
Never in the history of Canada since Newfoundland joined it have so many programs been brought in to deal with problems in the fishery. They will continue to be brought in if the problems continue. It certainly seems likely with reference to the northern cod stock.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, all the reports tell the minister the contrary. We tell him the contrary. The fishermen's catches tell him the contrary. If he wants to paint a picture and say it has never been so good, if he enjoys that thought, let him get his jollies from it.
Will the minister answer the question? Fishermen and plant workers in Lawn and St. Lawrence with whom I met over the weekend and people along the southwest coast and the northeast coast in Nova Scotia are all hurting. They are really hurting. They are all asking the same question, and I am going to put it to the minister now, much as they put it to me.
When is the minister going to make a move? They are not talking about a song and dance to say how rosy the picture is. When is he going to make a move, a substantive move? When will he do something for those people at least to keep the wolf from the door for them?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. gentlemen is not serving the people he represents very well when he tries to exaggerate like this and when he deliberately distorts what I have said.
Has anybody else in the House heard me say how rosy the fishery picture is? Did I say that today?


Some hon. members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Did I say today that never in history has the fishery been as good?


Some hon. members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is the kind of exaggeration that does a disservice to this serious problem in Newfoundland which we are attempting to deal with and which will not be helped by purported hysteria by the hon. gentlemen opposite.
Oral Questions SEXUAL HARASSMENT


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence.
A woman soldier at CFB Comox has been harassed by superior officers. She has been called a "sexretaiy", a "biker mama", and asked about her dating habits. She has been subjected to other comments that I cannot even repeat in the House of Commons.
Her allegations of sexual harassment were inadequately addressed through military channels and now she is taking her case to the Human Rights Commission, but she is still being harassed. Her job has been threatened.
What will the minister do now to protect her while the matter is being investigated?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of the situation. It is an extremely unfortunate one. While I cannot comment on the individual's situation because indeed she has both redress of grievances in the system as well as a case before the Human Rights Commission, directions have gone out to the base commander to deal with this issue.
I understand certain actions have been taken, but there will be a further investigation to make sure. No woman should have to work in an environment which is poisoned as a result of sexual harassment.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response, but since this woman went public the women's centre near the base has been inundated with further stories of harassment on military bases; in fact they are coming from all around the province now. One of these women herself is being threatened with a court martial.
The Robichaud human rights case ruled against DND several years ago and said it was a responsibility of DND to provide a work place free of sexual harassment.

June 22, 1992
Oral Questions
What is the minister prepared to do now to stop this harassment and protect women members of the military?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my hon. colleague that indeed there is a very good policy in place within the Department of National Defence dealing both with the military side and the civilian side.
Of course a policy is only as good as the way in which it is implemented. That is why the chief of the defence staff has taken this issue very seriously. We have incorporated into all of our training exercises for our base commanders just as recently as two weeks ago further information and education on how to provide harassment-free work places. This will be ongoing and every effort is being made to educate individuals about their rights as well as supervisors about their responsibilities to deal with the issue effectively.


THE CONSTITUTION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
The government's constitutional plan seems far from certain. While the minister has refused to declare which of the many options he and the government prefer in order to overcome the current impasse, the clerk of the Privy Council is now embarking on a national tour of provincial capitals while the associate clerk is advocating a constitution based on the Belgian model, which would have serious repercussions for our national government role as well as linguistic rights.
I ask the minister quite simply: What is the government's constitutional blueprint and what is the government's action plan that will guide its deliberation in the next and important few days?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we have made considerable progress on a Canada round of negotiations.
We have progress yet to make on four major issues. One is the Senate. A second relates to the amending formula. A third is to ensure that we have means to bring down barriers to trade in Canada. A fourth is to ensure there is agreement on a package relating to aboriginal Canadians.
At my instruction, the clerk of the Privy Council and other senior officials are meeting today in Halifax with senior officials of the Governments of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
They will meet in Calgary tomorrow with senior officials of the Governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and later I believe in Ontario with the Government of Ontario, not to negotiate but to determine where people are on each of those major points.
Then the Prime Minister and I, tomorrow night probably, will come to a view as to the next step we would recommend in this constitutional process. We very much hope that it will be possible for us to achieve agreement among governments.
That is our goal. That is what we are seeking to do. If we can get co-operation from enough governments across the country, as I hope we can, that is the way we will proceed.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister.
I think Parliament has a right to know exactly what the federal government's plans are, and it expects the government to be clear about legislation that is very important to all Canadians.
Why will the minister not reveal the next stage in the federal government's plan? Will there be a First Ministers' Conference? Will Parliament be recalled to consider a new agreement or a referendum? Does this government really know when we can expect an end to this constitutional dilemma?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think a number of things are clear. First of all, sometime after mid-July, the Government of Quebec wants to start public hearings and consideration by the committee which is to examine what the Quebec
June 22, 1992

legislation refers to as Canada's offers. One way or another, the Government of Canada must prepare a Canadian position.
Actually, our government would prefer to have an agreement supported by the other governments in Canada. That is what we are seeking now. However, if it is impossible to get an agreement with the other provinces, then the Parliament of Canada will have to get ready to prepare proposals for consideration by the Government of Quebec.
For the time being, I can give no indication whether there will be another multilateral conference to seek an agreement by the various governments. If it is feasible, if there is a very real possibility an agreement can be reached, then of course the Government of Canada will convene another ministerial meeting to finalize such an agreement.


WE ST RAY MINE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We learned this weekend that the federal government commissioned just one independent technical study before it committed $80 million in loan guarantees to the owners of the Westray coal mine.
We also learned that the energy department bureaucrat who conducted the review spent-and I want to underline spent-a meagre 18 hours reviewing safety and other issues at this mine.
Why was the Government of Canada content to spend only 18 hours reviewing the safety aspects before pouring $80 million into the Westray coal mine?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member already has the documentation. It is very clear that the CANMET report, which is the report to which he is referring, was a study of several other reports that had already been done and it was a report that concluded that the mine was technically feasible. It concluded that on the basis of at least three other large reports that were done by consultants.
Oral Questions


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the minister is contradicting his colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism somewhat. He said in the House on June 5, and I quote: "We did further studies of a technical type in order to make sure that our loan guarantee was reasonable".
We now know exactly the technical study which was done. It was an 18-hour review consisting of nine pages authorizing $80 million for the Westray coal mine.
Again I ask the question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Why was the Government of Canada content with only an 18-hour review, a nine-page summary of information with no further technical studies done to pour $80 million into the Westray coal mine? Why was there such gross negligence by the Government of Canada?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, because he has had the documentation available to him for some time, that every party in the negotiation had its own interest. We had to be able to insure the bank loan.
We had the CANMET review. Eighteen months after the CANMET review we provided financial assistance for this project. ISTC undertook detailed economic and financial investigations of this project. The Bank of Nova Scotia undertook detailed technical, economic and financial investigations. The Government of Nova Scotia undertook to ensure that this project could be done, was technically feasible and could be done safely.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Many Canadians agree that Canada has too many military bases and that military bases must be closed.
The panel formed to provide guidance for the process has recommended that the decisions for closing bases be established on the basis of national security and not on considerations of regional development.
When future closures of military bases are made, will these closures be in line with the recommendations of this committee?

June 22, 1992
Oral Questions


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the work which that committee did was excellent and the report has now gone to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which has been hearing witnesses on it.
We will obviously await the recommendations of that committee. Our own department is reviewing the recommendations, as will other departments as it has implications for them as well.
Once this process is completed I hope we will have in place a good process by which we can evaluate the requirements for future bases. Until that process is in place, the minister has already indicated that there would be no base closures until that matter is finalized.


PUBLIC WORKS
David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
As the minister knows, the Minister of Public Works brought forward a submission to refurbish St. Andrew's lock and dam and the submission was put over for further review. The minister also knows that the most recent safety report on the bridge states that the best case scenario is that the bridge would have to be closed by the end of this calendar year if not sooner.
With the greatest respect, I would like to ask the minister, what further review is necessary, what timeframe has been assigned this review and when will this issue once again be reviewed by Treasury Board?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I appreciate his concern.
We are reviewing the over-all program of public works. In the absence of the Minister of Public Works I would like to say that this particular department is monitoring very attentively the conditions of the structure and it is carrying out the emergency repairs as they are needed.
That being said, we are also aware that there will be ongoing discussions with the Government of Manitoba and they will discuss the future of this facility.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of energy and it concerns the Westray mine.
Given that of the thousands of pages of documents tabled in this House, the only ones referring to a report by and for the federal government relate to the so-called 18-hour report, and given that there were a number of requests filed through access to information for the release of materials on the federal role in the Westray mine, will the minister assure the House that any information released will automatically be tabled in the House or with the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, once again there seems to be some implication that the CANMET report was not a significant report. The CANMET report surely was significant because it reviewed at least three major technical papers having to do with whether this mine was feasible or not.
In terms of tabling information we are, of course, prepared under the Access to Information Act to look at whatever is available.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker my supplementary question is for the same minister.
It is rather interesting that there is such heavy emphasis put on the CANMET report, when of the approximately 1,000 pages which were tabled, a mere nine concerned the CANMET report.
Given that Justice Richard, appointed by the Nova Scotia government to examine the Westray mine disaster, has indicated that he does not have jurisdiction to examine the federal government's role at Westray, will the minister explain what the process will be to allow for a full examination of the role of senior public servants opposed to the mine, the involvement of the Minister of
June 22, 1992

Oral Questions
Public Works in pushing for the mine and of the involvement of the Prime Minister?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, both Judge Richard and the inquiry council have said that they are satisfied with the mandate of the inquiry. They have indicated they will inquire into the federal involvement in the Westray mine where they believe it is necessary. Of course, we will co-operate with the inquiry. We have always said we would co-operate with the inquiry.


STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
This year, the Government of Canada will expunge $55 million in accounts receivable because of its failure to trace people who default on their loans under the Student Loans Program. We are talking about $55 million in taxpayers' money.
Will the minister establish a line of authority this year for the recovery of student loans, because today, the banks, the universities and a number of students could not care less about taxpayers' money?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that I have already started discussions with the provinces, students and other groups for the purpose of improving the process.
There are problems with the program. We are aware of the problems and we know the rate of loan defaults, but I have also started negotiations with financial institutions to develop a new financial structure for the program, in order to reduce payment defaults and make the program more efficient.
I can give all members of this House the assurance that this thorough review of the program is progressing very well and that by the end of the year we will be able to make an announcement in this respect.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Last week the Solicitor General told us that occasionally he is required to be aware of the names of former CSIS informants on a need to know basis. However, he did not say anything about previous solicitors general or their political staff.
Will the minister tell this House whether the CSIS targeting committee was ever forced to permit the presence of political staff at its meetings between 1986 and 1990, thereby allowing the names of informants to be disclosed to these staff?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am not in a position to say what happened under previous solicitors general. I have no reason to believe there has been any change in the process that would lead to the conclusion my hon. friend has made.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree today to assist us on this, to provide to the subcommittee on national security the rules governing informants and will he assure Canadians now that information about informants has not been used for any political purpose by his office or by the offices of members of cabinet?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that if he wishes to enter into discussions with the Security Intelligence Review Committee on that particular matter, I am sure its members can apprise him of whatever information is available which it is possible to reveal.


MEDICARE
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

June 22, 1992
Oral Questions
Immediately after last week's meeting of the federal and provincial ministers on medicare, the minister publicly questioned the high cost of providing medicare to the elderly.
Could the minister please indicate to the House why he has singled out the elderly? Does he not understand that these people have paid for medicare all their working lives so they would not have to worry about some government in their future deciding they are too old to be taken care of?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that is quite an extension to what I said last Thursday.
I will explain to my colleague that first, figures were provided by the province of Manitoba minister which showed that 50 per cent of the cost to the health care system is due to costs for people over 70 years of age. But I said, and he should know this, that there is no way the health care system which we have today, based on the five principles, will not apply to senior citizens. It means that any request for care by a senior citizen under the Canada Health Act will be provided. There is no reason to make any cuts.
We must consider the appropriateness of the ways and means we use money at all levels, particularly at this one. It does not mean that the ministers said there would be cuts. They said they will make an analysis of expenses to see the way to do it.
I repeat what I said, I confirm and I will always say that the five principles will apply, particularly to senior citizens.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. The minister will know that when he introduces facts like 50 per cent of the cost goes to people over the age of 70, those people are sitting there listening to the minister speak and are very concerned about whether or not they are going to be under additional pressure.
The minister will also know that he has a responsibility to all Canadians under the Canada Health Act, despite pressures coming from the provinces, to defend medicare for everyone.
I would ask the minister to assure the House that he is not about to introduce any amendments to increase the so-called flexibility to the provinces.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I never said that.
May I ask the member something? How does he think the senior citizens consider a member who, when the minister said something is not true, repeats time after time that the minister said that? What do we call that kind of member?


FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGES IN ONTARIO
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Last week, the Government of Ontario announced at the convention of the Association canadienne-frangaise de I'Ontario that the provincial government intended to help fund two French-language colleges in Ontario. When will the federal government also announce that it is taking part?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, negotiations not only with the Government of Ontario but also with other governments are going well. Agreements in principle have been negotiated. Funding, specifically the amounts to be allocated, is being discussed. The government will make an announcement on this in a reasonable time, further to the discussions that have taken place so far.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there is great concern in the francophone community in Ontario about the fact that some 50 per cent of those who participate at the elementary and secondary level drop out at the post-secondary level. They are anxious to know when this government is going to make its announcement that it has committed itself, as has the Ontario government, to the quick initiation of these two colleges.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been ongoing for six to eight months with Ontario, as they have with other provinces. They are going very well and I think we have reached an agreement in principle on all the issues. The
June 22, 1992

Routine Proceedings
Government of Ontario must recognize that the provincial governments, not just Ontario but B.C., Saskatchewan and Alberta, have to introduce legislation to make something like this happen. We are talking about the monetary side of the equation. Negotiations are proceeding. In due time we will make the announcement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to lay on the table copies, in both official languages, of the annual report of the Correctional Investigator for the year 1990-91.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have two tablings today. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the second annual report on the export of military goods from Canada.


CANADIAN COMPANIES OPERATING IN SOUTH AFRICA
Barbara Jean McDougall: Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in the House the sixth report on the administration of the code of ethics for the employment practices of Canadian companies operating in South Africa and on compliance therewith.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 96 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, as vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environment, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment on the thinning and depletion of the ozone layer.
Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the committee studied the depletion of the ozone layer. In this report, it expresses its concerns about ozone depletion and its effect on health.
I also want to point out how pleased I am that all members and all parties co-operated in writing this report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), may I present, in both official languages, the report on the fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary Seminar as a delegate from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Allow me to record our gratitude to the CPA branch of the Trinidad and Tobago group for their sponsorship of this worth-while seminar. The benefits that accrue from the exchange of views and information by parliamentari-

Routine Proceedings
ans from across the Commonwealth demonstrates the value of maintaining Commonwealth relationships.



JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
10TH REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
In accordance with its order of reference of Ibesday, March 31,1992, your committee has considered the draft regulations on gun control and has agreed to report it with 37 recommendations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STATISTICS ACT


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Statistics Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to establish a status for Statistics Canada which is more independent than the present position it has. This desire to achieve greater independence for the agency comes after attempts by the finance department to pressure Statistics Canada to make changes in withdrawals in a study which Statistics Canada presented earlier this past year. It is for this reason that I think the need arises to establish more clearly the independence from government pressure of Statistics Canada so it will be able to report directly, clearly, and honestly to the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should advise the House that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor was out of time in the filing of material. However, with consent I would be very pleased to proceed. Do we have consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Langdon moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present two petitions from many people in the riding of Beaver River, from Bonnyville, Ardmore, Medley, Grand Centre and Cold Lake.
These people recognize the Proud to be Canadian project that was undertaken by the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada. The flags travelled across the country and they, along with these petitions, were sent down to celebrate that Canada is a wonderful country.
The petitioners support the Proud to be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive, life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the North Thompson Valley who point out their concern regarding a plan to divert water from the North Thompson River near Valemount into the California area. The petitioners call upon the Canadian government to prohibit any notion of this type of interbasin water transfer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of veterans from Kamloops, British Columbia. They call on the government to maintain the current level of services provided to veterans through the Veterans Independence Program and to assure there is no increase in charges to veterans for board and lodging in institutions for long-term care.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to ensure that if a referendum is called regarding the Constitution that it be binding upon Parliament although they realize this is impossible technically but simply to reflect the views of the petitioners.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another topic, the petitioners from Kamloops call on the government to reconsider the decision not to proceed with more co-operative housing. They feel this provides adequate housing, accessible for people who normally have difficulty accessing decent housing.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from Simcoe Centre area, which humbly prays and calls upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker,
I have several petitions to present.
The first one which is quite detailed comes from a large number of Canadians of Chinese origin and concerns the Chinese head tax. The petitioners state that Chinese immigrants came to Canada in the early part of this centuiy and had to pay a racist head tax. Some 81,000 Chinese immigrants paid approximately $23 million, a sum worth over $1 billion today. That was followed by the Chinese Immigration Exclusion Act, which was not repealed until 1947, and which prohibited virtually all Chinese immigration. Both these policies had a very negative impact on Canadians of Chinese ancestry, led to a bachelor society, severely hindered-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the House is very aware of the matter the hon. member is raising but we are limited in remarks made at the presentation of a petition. I would ask the hon. member to proceed with the petition itself.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners ask for an all-party resolution to consider this matter. They call on the Government of Canada to provide symbolic financial redress of $10,000 for the head tax certificate, community financial redress and post-commemorative plaques regarding the Chinese Canadians who worked on the
Routine Proceedings
railways. They ask Parliament to pledge again to ensure such injustices will never happen again, including reform of the charter of rights, and in particular to respect section 33.
That was my first petition. I have several which I will combine into one although they are different.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I have assurance they are on a different subject?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the three petitions are on the subject of co-op housing. They are quite different petitions but I will combine the essence of them.
These petitioners are from throughout Vancouver and B.C. who are very concerned the federal government has discontinued the co-op housing program and are reducing the CMHC programs. They urge the federal government to reinstate co-operative housing.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the cities of Toronto, Scarborough, Downsview, and North York.
The petitioners are concerned about the military dictatorship in Rwanda which has lasted for 30 years. The pass laws, the only ones in the world similar to South Africa's pass laws, refuse to let two million exiled Rwandans return.
They urge Parliament to urge the Canadian government to apply pressure on the Rwandan regime to immediately stop killing innocent Rwandans, to urge the Canadian government to stop economic aid and other forms of assistance to the current Rwandan regime, and to urge the Canadian government to support the European Community resolution on Rwanda issued on February 20, 1992.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I too rise at this time to petition the House on behalf of my constituents and a few others from outside of

Routine Proceedings
South West Nova who are in support of the establishment of the peacekeeping training program in Canada.
They call upon Parliament to maintain CFB Cornwallis as a multi-purpose training facility and to establish the proposed peacekeeping training program at CFB Cornwallis.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my first petition deals with cuts to education, training, retraining, research and development, with a special emphasis on the reductions of transfer payments and the 3 per cent tax on student loans.
These petitioners request that the government reverse its policies because they believe they are contrary to increased effectiveness and enhanced productivity.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my other petition deals with the goods and services tax on books and reading materials. These petitioners point out there has never been any such tax in our country. They believe it is contrary to the basic principles of a democratic society and they ask this tax be removed.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my other petition deals with fair taxation. The petitioners point out that certain people get tax credits with respect to child care facilities while others do not. They believe there are a number of tax measures that are discriminatory. They ask for a simpler and fairer tax system.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present several petitions bearing 1,850 signatures.
The petitioners humbly declare that for nearly 20 years the federal government has had a policy of multicultural-ism based on preserving and promoting heritage languages and that the federal government affirms that the preservation and promotion of heritage languages should be supported and encouraged.
For these reasons, they humbly ask the Parliament of Canada to restore the full financial support for the Heritage Languages Program of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, which the government reduced in its budget of February 1990.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from Vancouver and Burnaby, British Columbia; St. Lawrence and South River, Newfoundland and many areas in between which states:
"We your petitioners draw to the attention of the House the following: That hundreds of thousands of Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line; that over 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty; that the 37 cent increase in Old Age Security pensions in April 1992 is inadequate to meet the needs of Canadian seniors; that it is desirable for all Canadians to provide senior citizens with the necessary support to live their lives as independently as possible; that the federal government has a primary responsibility to ensure the adequacy of seniors' pensions. Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to urge that the government ensure that Canadian Old Age Security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens."


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, after reviewing my remarks in the House as recorded in Hansard on June 12 of this year I note that the third sentence in paragraph 2 on page 11971 is incorrect and should be replaced by the following:
It seems incredible to me that someone in Mrs. Bisset's case could not share on a credit-splitting basis the pension of her husband after 35 years of marriage, 28.5 years as the wife of a military officer and the other 6.5 while her husband served in the Public Service. A maximum of 35 years of contributions to the pension plan was paid up prior to the separation and divorce. As you know, when a wife is divorced from her husband she is disentitled to the benefits acquired under the marriage.
Thank you very much for the opportunity of correcting the record.
June 22, 1992


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 315 will be answered today.


Mrs. Mitchell: What is the total estimated cost of the special production in conjunction with the Just For Laughs organization, of a humorous history of Canada announced in April, 1992 and how much of this cost will be borne directly or indirectly by the government, and through which departments or agencies?


Hon. Henry Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: The special production in conjunction with the Just for Laughs organization is privately funded.
According to information available, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and the Department of Communications' Cultural Initiatives Program have not been solicited to participate directly or indirectly in the funding of this project, defined as a humorous history of Canada, which was set up in collaboration with the organization Just for Laughs.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave pursuant to Standing Order 52 to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of a debate on a matter of great urgency, namely the crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of Atlantic Canada.
With the House of Commons about to recess for the summer in 24 hours, today presents the last opportunity for there to be a proper debate on the crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador specifically, but also in Atlantic Canada.
I ask the Speaker to give consideration to this request so that an emergency debate may be held today.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I believe you realize this is on exactly the same issue. We believe this is an emergency situation with the collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery and the devastation, not just to the resource itself but to the people living in those areas, particularly Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and the need for some emergency action to protect the resource itself and also to deal with the problems of the people living there.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte some days ago, also the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, and subsequently 40 other members have indicated their wish that there be an emergency debate with respect to the situation resulting from the difficulties in the northern cod fishery.
I notice that the request is that these Canadians urgently require an indication of the kind of short-term and long-term strategies the government will employ, et cetera.
I have listened very carefully over several days to the questions and the answers. There is no question that the matter is of importance and concern to all members of the House.
After careful consideration, under the provisions of Standing Order 52, I am in a position to grant the request for an emergency debate today. However, the House is in a quandary as it adopted last June 9 an order to extend the hours of sitting until 10 p.m. In addition, earlier today the House agreed to a motion for time allocation on Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, which would require, if necessary, an interruption 15 minutes before the expiry of time provided for government business, namely 9.45 p.m.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
While Standing Order 52 governing emergency debates states that such a debate be held at 8 p.m. until midnight, I have also gone back and looked at the McGrath report. In light of the spirit of the McGrath report, which sought to allow for emergency debates without infringing on the time of the House, I am prepared to set down for debate at 10 p.m. the matter raised by the hon. member and members.
This debate will conclude at no later than 12 midnight, as specified by the Standing Orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Allmand (p. 12472).
Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, it disturbs me a great deal that this government is determined in pushing the most significant changes to immigration laws in almost 15 years without providing opposition parties sufficient time to review the legislation in detail and consult with various non-governmental organizations and other immigration experts.
Bill C-86 has more than 120 sections and is over 110 pages long. Since the emphasis of this legislation is on trying to improve the management of the system and has new enforcement measures, these provisions must be examined very closely because they may impact directly on immigration policy and can be far more significant than simple technical or administrative changes.
I am worried about this legislation for another reason. This bill is shifting the responsibility from Parliament to the regulatory process. It is of profound concern that this bill is transferring powers away from Parliament. It leaves the system wide open to abuse.
Canada deserves an immigration system that is understanding of the needs of Canadians and that treats immigrants and refugee claimants with dignity and respect. Anything less would be unacceptable.
Far too often the process has treated both immigrants and refugee claimants with disdain. My constituency office is swamped with files of cases showing how insensitive the immigration and refugee determination process has been.
The policies and practices of this department seem to run on the assumption that all refugee claims are bogus and that immigrants should consider themselves lucky to be admitted to this country. This type of attitude fails to recognize that Canada benefits from their arrival on our shores and that no matter where they come from and no matter what experience they bring to Canada they contribute greatly to our economy and form an important component of who we are as a nation.
As an illustration of how the process has treated people, I want to tell the members of this House about the Mirzad family. These people came to Canada with four children. They escaped from Afghanistan, a nation devastated by the Soviet invasion in 1979 and perpetually victimized by a civil war that has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people.
They came to Canada hoping for a new life and to escape from the mindless violence that plagued their homeland. When they arrived in this country they applied for refugee status and entered the process. While waiting for immigration and refugee officials to decide their case, the Mirzad family proceeded with their lives. They even had a fifth child here in Canada.
When the decision of the first step of the refugee determination process was reached, officials claimed that the parents did not have credible basis to remain as refugees in Canada. At the same time, the same body that rejected the parents gave their young children at least part of the required status to remain here. In effect, this decision would create orphans in this country by allowing children to stay and sending their parents back to a life-threatening situation.
A couple of months ago I rose in this House asking the Prime Minister to look into this case. He stood in this Chamber and said he would investigate the matter.
June 22, 1992

I am sure that members of this House will be shocked to learn that the result of this commitment was a government appeal of the decision granting the children credible basis. His own people.
After the Prime Minister's intervention, the children, including one born here in Canada, may be forced to return to Afghanistan. This decision is completely incomprehensible.
What this bill will do is give more power to the people who make these kinds of decisions. We must remain a compassionate nation. We were at one time. We must reach out and understand that human rights of all people is something Canada must uphold.

With this bill, the first part of the refugee determination process will be eliminated. With this proposal, even the Mirzad children could have been deported from Canada.
Refugees can present their case without being biased by a system that does not take into account neither what is going on in their country of origin nor the problems associated with being a newcomer in Canada.
This legislation will empower immigration officers at Canadian ports of entry to turn down refugee claims. I am not convinced that this provision of the legislation will effectively entitle refugees to a lawyer and an interpreter and, more importantly, to a fair assessment.
We cannot and should not leave decisions affecting the life of these people in the hands of a single person. They have a right to be heard by Canada, while Canada has to carry out the international responsibilities it has under the refugee conventions.
Again, this legislation describes a safe third country system in which immigration officers would be allowed to send refugees back to the country through which they entered Canada. This provision ignores the reality of far too many refugees. Many countries may be safe to visit for someone born in Canada but be very risky for people from other countries.
How can we make sure that the list of safe countries reflects reality? Political and military changes happen all the time. We must be sure that government will recognize these changes as they happen.
Government Orders
The refugee determination process, as it stands, calls for only one member of the two-member determination board to accept the individual as a refugee. Under Bill C-86, a unanimous decision will be required. Again, access to our country is made more difficult for people who are legitimate refugees.

This bill will make it somewhat easier for family reunification but it is still less than what is recommended by the Official Opposition and various non-governmental organizations.
We must make sure that family reunification is swift and that it is sensitive to the various definitions of family. It should not be one only based on the North American notion, but one which recognizes that the definition of family is as varied as the quilt that makes up Canadian society.

Every one in this House remembers the incidents reported by the media where members of the determination board looked down on refugees. Unfortunately, this is an all too common occurrence, which forces us to question the integrity of such a system.
That is why I support the proposal to create a system for disciplining board members who do not understand the importance of what they do, the seriousness of the situation and the impact of their decisions.
Too often, we have heard that board members did not understand the situations experienced in many countries of origin. For that reason, they do not show compassion and sympathy for families who have had to live through trying situations and only want an opportunity to start over in peace and harmony in the best country in the world. The system must deal with the problems that we find too often now.
I want to talk about the case of a married couple living in my riding. The woman is Canadian and the man is from the Middle East. They have been married for two years, and it certainly was not a marriage of convenience. The woman is now two months pregnant. They are building a life and making a family in Canada.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
Immigration officers want to force this father-to-be to leave Canada because his passport is no longer valid, having expired. The embassy of his home country does not want to renew it because he has not yet done his military service, which is compulsory in that country.
He does not want to return to the Middle East because he does not want to die there. His wife does not want to go to the Middle East because she wants her child to be born in Canada, where it can live in a peaceful society.
The members of that family want to live together, but our Canadian refugee system will force them to live apart for two to three years. This is another humanitarian reason that we could mention here, Mr. Minister. I hope that the proposed changes may improve such a situation.
It is surely not by fingerprinting and photographing refugee claimants, as the new bill proposes, that Canada will be perceived as a welcoming country. It is not by having the preconceived idea that refugees come here to cheat the government that those who decide on their fate will be more equitable. This part of the bill is particularly humiliating for those who come to Canada to flee political situations that are humanly unacceptable and to have a chance to work and live without fear.
Will their first contact be questioning by the host country? That is unacceptable. Why would we accept for others what we would find completely out of place for ourselves? It is a double standard.
I can only approve if the government wants to improve the immigration program, but deciding where newcomers must live and for how long before they are free to choose where to settle is surely contrary to human rights.
How can Canada define itself as an open and hospitable country when it fingerprints and photographs applicants for the record and tells them where to live for x number of years, which will probably be monitored very closely? That is a funny kind of welcome.

Many people have come out and said that the provision which would force immigrants to live in a specific region could violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would in effect be creating two types of immigrants: one group that is free to move as it pleases and another that is restricted to a specific area.
I have serious doubts as to whether this provision will stand up to a charter challenge. Why not try to find out first? Several immigration lawyers have said quite publicly that they did not believe this provision was constitutional.
If we are to be sure of the integrity of the immigration and refugee process then we have to make sure the law is constitutional. Immigrants, as well as Canadian citizens, have to know that the immigration law will be applied consistently and equitably across this country for years to come.
I sincerely hope we will be able to examine this legislation very carefully in committee. It is imperative that the immigration and refugee system we create follows some very basic principles. It must be a fair, compassionate and responsive system that meets the needs of Canadians, respects and treats with dignity those people from around the world who wish to join us, and helps us contribute to a greater Canada.

Of course, some of the proposed changes will make the immigration procedure more efficient, but the obvious flaws, that is, the inhumane proposals, must be corrected right now to give refugees and immigrants the greatest chance in this country. If they need us, we also need them. Only together can this country grow; otherwise it will die a slow death.

Canada is a vast country. We must realize that in a world that is overcrowded, where human rights violations are an all too often occurrence and where people struggle to better their lot in life, Canada is a natural choice. We have so much to offer and we must be generous. This generosity not only benefits the people coming to our shores but benefits us.
We cannot submit to the tiny minority of Canadians who because of misinformation are hostile to immigrants. Together, native bom or naturalized, we have a role in building this country. Canada's immigration process must recognize this fact.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I compliment my colleague from Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. She referred to the family from Afghanistan in her speech. I believe the parents were given

a deportation notice and the children were allowed to stay.
This case is just one example of many that happen like this week in and week out. We know how tough it is when parents of young students in high school come into our constituency offices. They could be weeks away from getting their grades. The teacher is saying that they are good students. They are established in the community and their parents have received deportation notices. It is just a mess, the way families can be tom apart.
We have tried on Friday and today to be very constructive in this debate with the government. We have pointed out certain aspects of this bill that we support. However,
I come back again to the fact that the best plan can go off the rails if there is not the proper staff to support the implementation of the plan.
The member talked about the right to decide who stays and who goes being put into the hands of officials. This can be a very dangerous transformation of powers. In a situation where public servants are stressed out because they are overworked and because of the volume of immigration cases coming at them, it is absolutely impossible to have all of them keep their cool all the time. Quite often rash decisions are being made.
Does the member think that one of the real problems in this legislation is that the Government of Canada is not giving the Public Service of Canada enough person-years to make sure that its best intentions in implementing this plan go forward properly? I happen to think that without the proper person-years this is going to be fiasco.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. He has touched on one element that is very important. When this commission was first founded a lot of money was put into it in the hope and with the assurance that it could complete the job. It has been a long time and it still has a backlog of a couple of a hundred thousand people. No wonder its people are tired.
The government's preoccupation is to get rid of our debt only at the cost of anything else. It does not matter to the government. It wants to try to lower the deficit, which none of us can complain an awful lot about, but it
Government Orders
should not at the cost of human lives and human dignity, which is what is happening here.
It is easy to say that our public servants are tired and overworked with some of the cases I have read about. The Prime Minister of this country stood in the House and said that he personally would look at the case. Then his own government decided to appeal in the case of the kids. They had credible basis accorded to them in one hearing. The parents know about Afghanistan. Another problem is that there are people sitting on this commission who do not know what is going on in the Third World countries.
Our own Prime Minister stood up. The minute the talk is about children, he loves to get to his feet, but when he has to do something he does not do it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Cheap shot.


Shirley Maheu: It may not be a cheap shot. The minister should take a look at the dossier.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Cheap shot artist.


Shirley Maheu: I have many other cases. Another case from Afghanistan is being given the same response.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Cheap shot.


Shirley Maheu: The minister keeps repeating "cheap shot". When five kids are at stake, I am glad I am in a position to give a cheap shot because none on that side of the House would. You are talking about a baby here, Mr. Minister. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I say through you to the minister that we are talking about children. You know very well how I must feel, Madam Speaker, because we are both mothers.
I have a second case which is the same. People were tortured and left the country, and a couple of members who do not know anything about Afghanistan say: "We do not believe him. We do not believe he was tortured. The marks are not enough". Sometimes electric shocks do not leave enough marks. He does have other marks.
What I question is how this government has so many hard-hearted people on this commission. If the minister has ever granted for humanitarian reasons to let someone stay in this country, I wish he would share it with this House because in my riding there have been several cases that could have had and should have had the minister's intervention. I would like to know where he did get involved for humanitarian reasons.

Government Orders


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, in her remarks the hon. member from Saint-Laurent-Cartierville referred to the case of the Afghan family where the parents were accepted and the children were refused, leaving us with a very inhumane situation where the parents were expected to go back to their country of origin and the children would stay here. It was very ridiculous.
As my hon. colleague from Toronto said, in our offices we get similar cases all the time. I had a similar case where a Lebanese family of three brothers: two were allowed to stay in Canada and one was deported to Lebanon. They were all involved in the same political movement in Lebanon. The mother was allowed to stay but one brother was sent back.
There is no appeal on the merits in the Immigration Act, nor is there any provision of it in the bill. There is an appeal on law but none on the merits. Since no board is perfect, the only recourse for these people who were rendered these terrible decisions by the board was to appeal to the minister under section 114(2) on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Since this particular minister has become minister he has virtually closed that door. Even the two previous Conservative ministers used to use that clause for humanitarian and compassionate reasons and admit cases such as the ones we were just discussing like the Afghan family or the Lebanese family.
I want to know from the hon. member who does a lot of immigration work in her office and from her experience in her constituency whether she would confirm to me that this clause has been virtually closed down, this access for justice on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
I wonder if it is like mine. It is almost impossible now even to get the minister's staff or anybody in his office to consider admitting horrible cases like this to Canada-horrible in their outcome-as sort of an appeal to overcome the harsh decision or the ridiculous decision of the board. What is her experience?


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for giving me this chance.
I have had cases in which even the minister's staff has said it wished there were something it could do. There is
a little bit of a point in the law that does not quite cover it. I am thinking of the young couple waiting for their baby and he has to go back to fight in a war.
There is room for a little bit of humanitarian consideration in this case and I wish the minister had stayed. I would have liked to have had him try and explain to us what he meant when he said he makes decisions on humanitarian grounds.
If he does would he please tell us where because we are not seeing it, not at our level anyway. I have one of the most multicultural ridings in the country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to have an opportunity to address the House on the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act which have been introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
After a great deal of consideration and discussion by our caucus, a caucus which is representative of the entire country and not one particular area, it has been vetted with elected members, all of whom have experienced some of the problems which have been referred to in this House.
I am quite satisfied it will ensure that Canada's immigration system continues to contribute the unity and prosperity of Canada.

Several of the proposed amendments deal with security and enforcement issues of particular concern to me as minister responsible for CSIS and the RCMP.

Before addressing those provisions in the legislation I want to make a few comments as to the over-all thrust of the legislation. I think it is important we note that in this bill we are going to streamline the refugee determination system.
References have been made this afternoon to delays and hardships. I do not think it is in anyone's interest to delay the determination of whether a person is a true bona fide refugee fleeing from political persecution and persecutions in other countries. There is no question Canadians want to open their doors to legitimate bona fide refugees.
June 22, 1992

I do not think there is any question also that Canadians realize the strength of what immigrants have brought to this country and I will make some references to that at the end of my remarks.
We are a country which has grown in stature over the last 125 years and that is because of the strengths which refugees from various countries have brought to Canada. We intend that they continue to come and continue to provide our country with the asset of effort and determination that immigrants bring to a country.
At the same time, and I think this is important in this day and age, one of the over-all thrusts of this bill is to better protect Canadian society. There is no question from time to time individuals who would not have been selected for immigration try to test our laws, our regulations, our openness and our generosity as a country.
Quite frankly, Canadians are fed up with people trying to beat the system. This bill addresses that frustration in Canadian society. We want to provide an immigration program which is fair, balanced and effective.
It is fair to say that refugee determination is a world-wide problem. I visited the Trevi meeting of European security ministers two weeks ago in Lisbon, Portugal. The question of asylum was a major topic of discussion; what constituted appropriate asylum. There was the question of the Dublin convention. The question of visas and the abuses of visas is a very major political issue as most western countries are facing growing pressures from migrants seeking political and economic stability. Others were: the conflict and political instability in many countries; the economic disparity that exists; increasing availability of transportation that resulted in unpredictable flows of people toward western Europe, Australia, the United States and, naturally, Canada.
This unplanned and large-scale movement of people presents a challenge to Canada and to other industrialized countries. It is a multi-faceted issue that cannot be solved by any country on its own. We need international co-operation to address the root causes of this mass migration and also to address those who would tend to abuse the system.
Government Orders
Countries such as Canada have to take steps to maintain effective immigration policies which ensure that persons are treated fairly and equally but also to ensure that the country's interests are protected.
I believe there is a tradition in this country to respect the queue and Canadians understand that we have to have rules and regulations for immigrants. Canadians become annoyed at those who want to beat the system. We have a long-standing tradition of welcoming persons in need of protection but quite frankly, we are concerned about those who try to beat the system.
As well, there is no question of the rising costs of the immigration program. If that immigration program is skewed by illegal refugees, people who take advantage of our openness, people get annoyed at the whole immigration program. That is what we are trying to prevent with this bill. We are trying to prevent people from circumventing immigration controls, plain and simple. The integrity of our immigration program cannot be maintained unless we as a government address the problem which is represented by those who abuse the system.
I believe that the legislation addresses the concerns of Canadians and will ensure that persons who endeavour to abuse the immigration process are not successful. That is why, as Solicitor General with the responsibilities that I have, I am especially pleased to give my full support to the entire bill and especially to those legislative amendments that relate to the security and law enforcement aspects of the immigration program and therefore the responsibility of CSIS and the RCMP.
One of the things that the bill does is introduce legislative changes that strengthen the inadmissible provisions of the act so that we are not going to become as a country a safe haven for retired or active terrorists. Over the past several years there has been a growing concern within the national security establishment about persons with terrorist backgrounds who are seeking entry to Canada. Quite frankly, the legislation is going to close the door on those individuals. It is going to increase our capacity as a government to close that door.
As well, we are going to increase our capacity to exclude persons with criminal backgrounds or who are associated with criminal organizations. This will assist

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
the RCMP and other police forces in their battle with organized crime.
If we have reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime, that person would be barred from Canada.
While some civil libertarians may decry that fact, Canadians who obey the law, welcoming legitimate immigrants who just want to come here to make a new home for themselves, do not welcome people with known criminal records who want to find a new place to commit further crimes.
I am pleased as well to support the amendments to the security certificate provisions of the act. These are provisions that enhance the ability of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to exclude from Canada persons who pose a security risk.
These changes will give greater protection for sensitive information which we receive from allied governments that we use in support of certificate cases before the federal courts. The legislation will ensure that persons who are the subject of certificates cannot attempt to avoid the rule of Canada by making a claim to refugee status.
It also gives the government authority to exclude from Canada persons who are members of or associated with organizations or governments that have been involved in war crimes and human rights abuses.
We have to be able as a country to exclude individuals whose admission serves no public interest and whose very presence in Canada is offensive to the democratic values of Canadians so that we will take care of that type of individual.
I also would point out that Canadians are going to be pleased to see that under the proposed amendments criminals can no longer make a refugee claim in order to avoid extradition. We will take care of that particular abuse of our system and our openness as a country.
I am also supportive of the provisions which are aimed at curbing the activities of individuals who are more involved in migrant smuggling. There cannot be anything worse than people who set up a business to try to cheat people out of their money and land them on our shores
without proper documentation. To take advantage of people like that in any country is not on. We will be able to stop that. The RCMP will play a major role in this part of the initiative.
I also want to endorse the legislative changes to the restructuring of the review and appeal mechanisms. These provisions are going to curtail the abuses in the system and defend the integrity of the program which is essential to our social and economic development.
I am firmly in support of the bill and what it does for our ability as a country to secure our borders against illegal refugees. One has to realize that this bill enhances immigration and takes on the people who would abuse the immigration system.
We have raised our levels in recent years to help us build this country and to help people who are in difficulty in other countries. I have always been in favour as an individual and as a member of Parliament of increased immigration in this country. There is no question were we to continue our current birth rates and the old immigration policies we would see our population diminish. That does not suit our purposes as a country that either looks forward or wants to welcome people who want to make a new lives for themselves.
I want to particularly mention policies which I believe are not shared by any of the three major parties in this House. I want to specifically refer to the policies of the Reform Party. I want to quote the Reform Party president. As I said, I am sure my colleagues in the Liberal and New Democratic parties and in my party do not support this type of comment. This is a comment from the president of the Reform Party of Simcoe North:
"We're bringing in the riff-raff of the world," says Jill Patterson,
president of the party's Simcoe North riding association. "Not all of
them, I'm not saying they're all riff-raff, but a lot of them are."
That is the policy of the Reform Party of Canada. I reject it out of hand.
The best way I have found to reject it is to remind people of the backgrounds of the people who built this country. It is best said by a writer named Pete McGarvey. He used to be on the radio in Toronto. In the Huronia Sunday of May 3, 1992 he took her on on this riff-raff thing. His words are very appropriate:
June 22, 1992

- let's not forget the 'rabble' of Britain and Europe provided an immigrant labour force that built Canada in pioneer days, just as the 'rabble' of the Orient slaved and died to complete the Rocky Mountain portion of our national railway. It was the 'riff-raff' Irish who built the city streets of North America early in this century and the 'rabble' Italians who built the buildings.


An hon. member:: My ancestors.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You are right. My hon. colleague from Brantford says his ancestors. I say my ancestors because I am the first Lewis in my family bom in this country. When we talk about immigration people forget there were a lot of poor English that came to this country, built it and participated in it. The same for the poor Irish and poor Italians. They all came here and made great futures for themselves and their children. They built this country.
We do not want to stop that. We want to enhance it. We want to build our immigration levels and build this country. At the same time, we are determined that people who want to cheat the system are not going to cheat our system and people who want to take advantage of Canada are not going to take advantage of Canada.
I agree with my hon. friends when they raise concerns. When this bill goes to committee there will be ample opportunity to take a look at it and to make sure that we have provisions in there that are fair but at the same time protect Canadian society, not against somebody who comes here and wants to make something of themselves but against people whose first step on coming into the country is to try to beat the system.
With this bill we will tighten that up and endeavour to have a country which is known as open to immigration but at the same time closed to cheating.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the Solicitor General is here. He might be able to explain a clause in the bill which I just cannot understand. It is with respect to detention.
At the present time an official of the department of immigration can put a prospective immigrant or refugee in detention, not because there is a charge of an offence against that refugee or immigrant, but because the official has reason to believe that the immigrant or refugee might not turn up for an inquiry that is planned
Government Orders
in a few weeks' time. That is the immigration official's opinion, that the individual might not turn up for the inquiry or it is his or her belief that this individual could be a danger to the public.
I am saying there is no charge against these individuals. If they were charged they would be in a criminal court or a criminal institution. These are immigration detention centres.
Under the present law once the official decides that the immigrant should be put in the detention centre there is a review of that detention within 48 hours and then thereafter every seven days.
Since most of these immigrants and refugees cannot speak English or French a lot of them have great difficulty getting ready for the first review at 48 hours. The great majority of them do get ready for the seven day review and the vast majority are released on that seven day review because it is shown that they are not really going to flee the country or avoid the inquiry and they are not really a danger to the public.
In this bill the government is proposing to extend the seven-day review periods to 30-day review periods, more than four times the present time allowed for a review of one of these cases. I just cannot understand it. This means that the same practice or tradition we have now that the great majority of these people will stay in detention centres for at least 30 days in order to get a release.
I want to know from the minister, who is involved in law enforcement as the Solicitor General, why was it necessary to increase the seven-day review period and it was for every seven days in the present law? Why is it increased to four times that amount to 30 days and 30 days thereafter each time? It would seem to me that not only is that unfair and unjust to the immigrant who is put in detention but it is also going to greatly increase the cost of the system.
I have one of these detention centres in my constituency. It is going to have to triple or quadruple in size keeping all these people for 30-day periods and 30-day periods thereafter.
I ask the minister, since he is supporting the bill, what is the reason for increasing the detention review from seven days to 30 days over and over again?

Government Orders


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question. To answer, I should go back one step.
Obviously, if the people my hon. friend referred to came with all their documents in order, they would not go into the detention home. Immigrants come with documents in order. My hon. friend suggests that people without documents come in here carte blanche and if we cannot decide the case in seven days they should be walking the streets. Canadians do not want that. If a bona fide legitimate immigrant comes with the necessary documentation and presents that documentation, there will be no difficulties.


An hon. member:: That is not the case.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of very serious questions to ask the minister concerning the difference between normal procedures where a person is going to be deprived of certain rights because we can document that the individual has been involved in certain activities.
This bill starts by saying that if a person is a member of an organization that is deemed to be a criminal organization, a terrorist organization or a subversive organization or associates with them the person can be removed without any indication that the person himself is involved in any of those activities or had any intention to be involved.
We have organizations in this country which have been deemed as having some kind of negative connotation, for example, Palestinian and Jewish organizations and organizations from the Innu Canadian community.
My understanding is CSIS will determine that a certain organization is involved in terrorist activity. The public will never be told. An individual will never be told. That individual becomes involved in an activity someone has deemed that organization is involved in. By being associated with that organization which the individual knows nothing about or involved in very open community affairs be they philanthropic, religious or otherwise of which the community is very much aware, that individual is liable to removal from Canada simply based on that association. Not only can they be removed because they associate with an organization nobody has publicly named, but they did so in an ex parte court hearing that neither they nor their lawyer had access to.
I am wondering if in the fervour of making sure legitimately, as I think all Canadians want, people who are involved personally and individually in activities that are criminal, terrorist, or subversive are removed, people, particularly in ethnic communities will be frightened to be involved in any community activity in case CSIS has deemed that organization is subversive.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I had a chance to discuss the matter briefly with the minister of immigration. He advises me we have simply added the clauses in the Geneva convention pertinent to this particular area to the provisions in our present legislation.
This is not always a nice business. People we are refusing admission to do not play by the same rules as you and I. They often do not have any rules, or they have rules you and I find abhorrent.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: So we are going to adopt the rule.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Now wait a minute. My hon. friend dismisses the fact there has to be a full court hearing where the individual in question is represented by counsel, and the lawyers for both sides have an opportunity to put their case before a Federal Court judge. There is also an appeal process. There is that protection plus the CSIS review, if my hon. friend wants to address it too. All of these provisions are in there to protect the legitimate immigrant who wants to get into this country.
We are simply saying these folks do not play by the same rules as you and I, which Canadians respect and want to protect the public. We are saying we have enough people who respect the rules who want to come to this country. We are going to exclude those who do not respect the rules.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, this government once again is introducing in Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act. It is a very controversial piece of legislation and I think very unjust in many respects. The government is already ramming it through second reading at the end of a session when there is not sufficient time to either debate it in full or have adequate consultation. Already groups, including immigration lawyers, churches, refugee support groups, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Cana-
June 22, 1992

dian Ethnocultural Council and others are protesting many aspects of this bill.
The bill changes the priorities for immigrants and refugees to settle in Canada. There are very different priorities in these three streams being proposed. Ironically this minister has reversed many of the changes that were made by the last Conservative minister of immigration, which supposedly were supposed to streamline procedures, get rid of the backlogs and prevent fraud. We know of course the last Immigration Act did none of these things.
Bill C-86 is not an improvement. It is restrictive, unjust and inhumane in many aspects. First of all it allows people to buy their way into Canada. That is one of the first priorities. It reflects therefore Conservative and Reform Party values and not the values of fairness and generosity toward immigrants, which have been a Canadian tradition.
Government priorities are reflected in three streams. Just to remind people, the first stream would give priority to and fast-track wealthy investors and families, as well as UN approved refugees.
The second stream would be first come first served. If there is a long waiting list, many people would have a very difficult time making it. That includes extended families, self-employed people who have contributed greatly to our economy and people with confirmed job offers.
The third and last stream would take only limited numbers and this I find very difficult to understand. It includes business entrepreneurs and independent immigrants who have a job confirmed. Why on earth would they be last? These people are surely going to make good settlers, be employed and contribute to Canada.
The priorities of course are geared to the Conservative philosophy. Let us bring in as many wealthy people as possible and leave others much lower down on the list.
In a world where populations are exploding, civil wars are rampant, human rights are being violated, children are starving, and families are being separated for years, surely we in Canada can afford to be more generous and fair in our immigration policy.
We should not approach immigration with corporate values that allow wealthy immigrants to buy their way
Government Orders
into Canada as a first priority. As a multicultural country we should recognize multicultural values and customs. This means we should include grandparents in the primary family group. We should not be imposing the traditional North American concept of family.
The minister must also accept more refugees based on humanitarian appeals. I agree with my colleague for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. The minister was not here when she spoke but I agree completely, he does not seem to be approving any people on humanitarian grounds through the appeal procedure. I have put through many well-documented appeals based on humanitarian grounds and I doubt he has even seen them, much less really considered them seriously.
It is very important we look at immigration in a much more fair way. Hopefully the minister will look at appeals with more compassion than he has to date.
We must not allow criminals of course to come into Canada or allow organized crime to infiltrate with false documents and so on. However, security measures should surely be implemented by CSIS, not by fingerprinting all refugee applicants as if all were criminals. Indeed, if we are going to do that we might as well do it to all Canadians. I wonder what they would say.
I want to quickly summarize some of the characteristics of this bill. First of all we are told this bill is based on excellence. There will be a new elitist system of quotas to enable the department to select immigrants according to its view of excellence.
The credible basis, which was the first stage of refugee claims process will be eliminated and we are in favour of that. We did not want it in the first place.
A senior immigration officer will be given authority at the border to decide whether or not a person is eligible for a full hearing. The officer can of course decide to refuse a hearing too. We might have some questions about that depending on the immigration officer.
I have already referred to the fingerprinting of refugee claimants, which will be required as if all applicants are criminals.
There is the item of family reunification. When a refugee claimant in Canada is accepted and able to apply for landing, the spouse and children will automatically begin to be processed for landing. We are in favour of speeding up the applications for families. However, as I

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
said earlier we think this should include grandparents and they should not be in a much lower category.
There is the safe third country rule. Refugee claimants who enter Canada through another country such as the U.S. may be removed for a refugee hearing there. We know many refugees from Latin and Central America in particular will be deported by the United States, yet the minister is going to encourage that by refusing them at the border.
Federal Court appeals will only be allowed on points of law and not on merits. This is too narrow a basis for appeal and many experts have said this.
There will be legislated changes to allow speedier removal of rejected refugee claimants, even though an appeal is pending and before appeals are processed. Immigration officials will have authority to search arrivals they may suspect of carrying forged or illegal documents
On the denial of the right to work, refugee claimants will not be allowed to work until they are accepted. This is another regressive move because people need to work and learn English or French to keep their self-respect while they are waiting and it helps them to adjust in Canada afterwards.
Detention will be reviewed after at least 30 days instead of every seven days. My colleagues were just speaking on that.
Finally, there will be better provisions for disciplining IRB commissioners. I hope this approves better appointments of refugee appeal board persons as well so that they will be based on qualifications rather than on political background.
We agree with some of the changes. We agree with the elimination of the credible basis and we want the processing to be speeded up. Long delays in the past of one to three years have not helped claimants who are left in limbo, many of them living in poverty and desperately hoping to stay in Canada while their children become Canadianized and then have been sent back. To be deported after two or three years is inhuman and yet we are told that in B.C. 77 per cent of refugee claimants have been refused during the first three months of 1992.
I have appealed many cases as have others in this House, particularly where children are involved. I have carefully documented children at risk. It very definitely contravenes and aggregates our commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am thinking of a number of Polish families in particular. The minister refused every one of them.
In not one case that I have referred has this minister made a positive response to appeal for humanitarian, compassionate consideration to families that are refugee claimants and could be given consideration to remain in Canada. I doubt, as I said earlier, that he even looks at these personally. If he does, he must have a very cold heart.
We want the processing of refugee claimants to be dealt with more quickly but we also want a more sincere and compassionate appeal process to allow for humanitarian considerations. We want refugee claimants to be allowed to work and to learn French or English and to save the costs of welfare while they are waiting for their cases to be heard.
We also approve the proposed measures to process families more expeditiously. Hopefully this will be under six months. The long delays in reuniting married couples and bringing in family members have caused undue hardship for many immigrants. I would like to say that it has been particularly long for people who have applied from Asian countries whom we are very familiar with in B.C.
I asked the minister to give special attention to the very long delays in India, China, the Pacific islands and Africa where immigration offices are very distant and it is very difficult for families and very costly.
We do not agree, however, with the government's concept of family and the restrictions which give priority to the nuclear family but deny entry to extended families, the basic family unit in many Asian and other countries.
New Democrats have pressed this government for years to include single adults as part of the primary family group. The former minister, I am glad to say, did approve this policy but then it was rescinded by the present one. Now we see in this bill that the nuclear family will have priority in the first stream while grand-
June 22, 1992

parents must wait until much later. Surely Canadians can afford to be more generous toward extended families.
Experience proves that relatives in immigrant families help each other. They often develop family businesses that contribute to our economy and to employment. Immigrant families work hard, often at jobs that Canadians refuse and their goal usually is to buy a home as quickly as possible. This, again, contributes to our economy as consumer goods are purchased and more homes are built.
Grandparents are an important part of the family in transmitting the original language and culture as well as helping to care for children. They are the link between the past and the future which makes us a multicultural country. The so-called security measures to be imposed by this bill have been severely criticized by groups across this country.
I could quote many immigration lawyers who referred to the fingerprinting policy for refugee claimants as being odious. "It reflects the standing paranoia of the government which over the years progressively restricted human rights of non-citizens in Canada, particularly those seeking protection as Geneva convention refugees", said Barbara Jackman, a Toronto lawyer.
They object also to the ability to appeal which is even more restricted under this bill and to the whole question of returning people to a so-called safe third country which I referred to earlier as well. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council also criticized exclusion of grandparents and feels that the bill reflects a bias against refugees.
These are the kinds of things, the points of view, that the government must listen to. There has not been time enough to get these views out and made known to the public.
I want to express another deep concern. While this government welcomes wealthy entrepreneurs and gives them top priority for very speedy processing in coming to Canada, it gives low priority to workers with skills and those with professional training and those who have job confirmations. I cannot understand this.
Unfortunately our country is not producing skilled tradespersons and for the future we are short of these people. We need experience and expertise in many
Government Orders
fields. Why should these people be restricted to go only to certain areas of Canada? That also seems to me smacks of a slave camp psychology and certainly is not something we should accept. Mobility is a basic right in Canada.
Skilled workers should not be restricted to work in designated areas. The government does not value human resources. Perhaps it values material resources, money in particular, but not the human qualities of immigrants. It does not use the education and professional training of many people who have come to Canada as landed immigrants.
We must find a way, along with provinces, of accrediting professionals so that they can practice in their fields of expertise and so they contribute their knowledge to Canada.
Finally I want to appeal to this government to be more generous toward refugees on humanitarian grounds. Why did it send back well educated, skilled tradespeople from Poland who had been here from two to three years, who had proven they were excellent workers in Canada, who were political refugees at the time of their arrival and who had children who were going back to very risky situations? I referred earlier to the eight cases which I appealed to this minister and he turned down.
It was very unjust and very unfair and also very expensive to send these people back. The appeal process must not be so restricted in the future.
I would like to say also that at this time there is a man called Steven Ogun Wuyi, a Nigerian refugee, who is in sanctuary in a church in Vancouver. He is in sanctuary because he is threatened with deportation. He did not have adequate legal representation. He did not speak much English and his lawyer was not adequately prepared and he was refused an appeal by the minister afterwards.
This Nigerian refugee has been in Canada over two years. He was linked to a military coup in his homeland. As a southern Christian in Nigeria, where the government power groups are not Christian, surely he will face persecution and imprisonment if he is deported to Nigeria.
As I say, he is presently in sanctuary in a church in Vancouver and I ask the minister to grant him permanent asylum in Canada.
June 22, 1992

Government Orders
The director for immigration for B.C. and the Yukon has stated: "Canada's immigration laws had to be changed because of enormous changes sweeping the world and the need to attract skilled people. Unfortunately this bill does not target skilled persons".
She also said: "Mainly because of civil wars there are 80 million people on the move around the world and many of them want to come to Canada". This is certainly true.
We must look at world conditions when we develop immigration policy and we must be as generous and humanitarian as possible in sharing our wonderful country with newcomers.
Despite the Reform Party and members of the Tory party who spout rhetoric to the contrary, immigration contributes to the wealth of Canada with human resources, people who are rich in skills, experience, enthusiasm and a drive to settle and make a good life for their families. They bring cultures from many lands, as well as contribute many economic advantages.
This bill denies all these benefits and must have full debate with extensive amendments. Better still, it should be withdrawn.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member who was all over the place in her comments on the immigration proposal. She and many members here today, especially of that party, have talked about the investor program. She talked about the processing of categories of immigrants and she alleged priorities were being given in this bill to investors.
I would like her to explain to Canadians that in reality what we are proposing is that the streams of categories of immigrants recognize that in Canada family members will be reunited without limits, that refugees will be accepted without limits and that investors will be accepted in Canada without limits.
What is the hon. member tiying to achieve here? All provincial governments are in favour of the investor program because it brings new Canadians with capital to regions of Canada in which they can create jobs, in which they create wealth for the Canadian people.
As principal applicants in 1981, investors represented less than 1 per cent of the movement of immigrants to Canada. Why make a big fuss about investors when they constitute less than 1 per cent of the number of immigrants?
She pictures these changes as trying to clamp down on refugees. Why would the United Nations high commissioner for refugees in Canada endorse these proposals if it meant less compassion and less attention to our Geneva Convention obligation of protecting refugees?
My last point is that in the last eight years we, this government, have increased the number of immigrants, the number of people we have welcomed to Canada from 88,000 in 1983 to 250,000. Surely that is not a sign of a government that does not care about the need for immigration for Canada.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments.
The minister heard me, I hope, when I quoted-and I was quoting from reliable information-that the proposal in this bill, in his new policies, would have no limits on number and would fast-track wealthy investors, immediate family members and approved refugees.
It is not that we object to entrepreneurs. Of course there is a place for them. I would like to ask the minister why he is giving priority to fast-tracking wealthy investors and yet stream number three would limit the numbers on applicants who are business entrepreneurs and independent immigrants with skills that we need.
He is biasing it to the elite, to the moneyed elite, rather than to traditionally what has been a cross-section of people who would be coming to Canada. I do not know why wealthy investors should be fast-tracked any more than people who have a confirmed job or people who are business entrepreneurs. The family entrepreneurs are the strength of this country, the immigrants in particular.
He also talked about a clamp-down on refugees. I did not say that this bill was clamping down on refugees. Of course they are defined by the UN convention. What I was saying to the minister was that he personally was clamping down on the ability that he has as a minister to consider appeals on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.
June 22, 1992

I would like to know how many cases he has approved on that ground. Every one that I have put forward-and I have documented them very carefully and very sincerely-has been turned down and I am sure other members had the same experience.
I do not think he is being at all generous or compassionate to people who have been here several years. Many of them were in the backlog, and I mentioned the people from Poland in particular.
Turning to my final point, I think the minister mentioned that the number of 250,000. We agree with that. We support the government. We think we should be taking as many people in Canada as we can possibly take, but it should be a fair policy as I said earlier. It should not just favour wealthy entrepreneurs.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, to the member of the New Democratic Party on the same question of entrepreneurship, in my province I happen to know that the NDP will say one thing but will practise another.
In this particular area right now in the province of Ontario we are welcoming entrepreneurial immigration to this country. I agreed with a lot of the things the hon. member said in her speech about these cases where we would like to have a much more aggressive humanitarian spirit in the department.
I do not want to get into that, but I think of the thousands and thousands of jobs that have been created in the province of British Columbia by Japanese entrepreneurial investors and by Chinese entrepreneurial investors. They do not just come here and invest their money and it sort of sits there. They buy into housing projects and into ski lodges which creates jobs.
I know in the province of Ontario right now our premier-and I salute him for it-is travelling the world trying to pull in investment capital and entrepreneurial immigrants so we can reprime our manufacturing industry.
Why is the NDP putting a stigma on a wealthy entrepreneurial immigrant who wants to come to Canada for the express purpose of creating jobs of which we are in such dire need right now?
By the way, I might also say to the hon. member of the New Democratic Party that a lot of these successful, to use her expression, wealthy entrepreneurial people are
Government Orders
craftsmen and skilled people in their own right. They may have started poor or started small, but they grew through their skill and their wealth. Why the NDP is against bringing in that kind of person or why it is not encouraging them is a mystery to me.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. Liberal friend is not reading this bill or the explanation of this bill correctly.
In my speech I asked why stream one would fast-track and give unlimited numbers to wealthy investors, and yet at the same time stream three would place strict limits on the number of applicants who were business entrepreneurial and independent immigrants. Why should one have top priority, his friends obviously? We need entrepreneurs. I am not saying we do not need them, but why should they be given much higher priority and much quicker processing than those in stream three which will have strict number limitations and be processed much more slowly? It is a reverse of what I think was Liberal policy when they were government.
I am surprised that the hon. member who has been up on his feet so much today would not understand that. It is the priority in government that we are objecting to. It is not a stigma on any particular group. It is fairness we are talking about.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, before I begin my debate, I would like to respond to the member from the New Democratic Party. My point in bringing to the attention of the House and of the member the reason we encourage and promote entrepreneurial immigration to this country was not just because we were trying to give somebody preferential status. It has always been for me, and I think for most members of this House, a linkage to direct job creation almost instantaneously.
Sometimes we refer to wealthy people whom the NDP seems to think are always getting preferential treatment. These same people come here and invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars. In the process of doing so they like to see what they are investing in and where their money is going. In my judgment if it means that it can save some Canadian jobs or save some Canadian companies from going under or going bankrupt, if it responds that way, I think we should be sensitive to

Government Orders
making sure they are welcomed. At least that has always been the position of the party I am associated with.
I want to return to some of the minister's remarks last Friday when he started speaking. He referred to the fact that an immigration policy of a country is really a mirror of the country's value system. I believe that. I have always believed that Canada was a country that had and still has to this day an image of being a caring, approachable, compassionate country. When we travel abroad, very few people say negative things about our country. We are in an enviable position.
The legislation we are putting through the House today concerns me. Bill C-86 has some 113 pages. I can honestly say that I have not had the time in the last three or four days to read every line of it. As much as I am in support of streamlining and improving, pushing this bill through the House in a couple of days is really playing a little fast and loose. I am a bit concerned about it because part of the amendment gives departmental officials of the Public Service of Canada a lot more power to judge.
I asked the minister last Friday-and I have asked it of a couple of other government members in debate today-what happens when this legislation is implemented? What happens when all that judgment ability is passed on to the Public Service?
I am in no way, shape or form knocking the Public Service of Canada. We have a lot of great officials in the Department of Employment and Immigration. However a reality exists in the department, that these public servants are overworked whether it is on the international end, visas abroad, people coming here, or even departmentally. I had no idea of the amount of work of this particular sector of government when I became a member of Parliament. I can honestly say being a member from downtown Toronto-and I know all my colleagues in urban areas have the same experience- that the immigration issue takes 90 per cent of our time. We cannot walk down the street, we cannot go out to a ballpark or a hockey arena, we cannot go and buy a dozen oranges without someone approaching us about an immigration problem in the city of Toronto.
Invariably our constituents come to us with problems because they say that the department is backlogged or cannot seem to process their applications.
When I asked the minister the other day about adding some person-years I was not asking him to do so to put an added burden in terms of cost to the taxpayer or raising taxes or to make life easier per se for the public servants who are already in his department. If he is to have a shot at making these amendments work he is going to need proper staff.
The Minister of State for Finance said earlier that the volume has gone up and that is why the public servants cannot process. He is absolutely right. The volume has gone up. Yet the support staff to handle that volume is not there. Somehow we cannot seem to make the point.
What happens when people are caught in terms of waiting for two, three and four years and the system starts to break down is that they start to cheat and to abuse the system. What they will do is encourage friends abroad to forget the queue, to come over as visitors, to throw their passports in the toilets on the planes and once they get here to declare refugee status and they are covered off. A lot of these cases are as a result of the system breaking down because it does not have the proper support staff. I really believe that.
When the Solicitor General talked earlier he referred to the fact that the government side of the House was opposed to people who abuse the system. Everyone in this country is opposed to people who abuse the system. We on this side are as fed up with people who abuse the system as any member on the government side.
However, we can too quickly put people in the category of abusing the system and the next thing we know we have developed a very callous attitude. In the process of public servants taking a signal from the government that it is going to be much tougher in the name of fighting abuse, I am afraid there may be a lot of good people who get caught. The very mirror he referred to in his remarks, that our immigration policy was a mirror of our country, may get some marks on it in the process of them getting caught. I think that would be the beginning of a tarnish which could affect us in many
June 22, 1992

other areas. It could even effect us in the area of entrepreneurial or business class people coming here.
The reality right now is that Canada is the greatest country in the world and people do want to come here. But there are also some other countries that are beginning to clean up their act. We may end up, if we get a little tarnish on our immigration policy, losing some of these people to other countries. Within a very short period of time there is going to be, if you can imagine this, a competition for the best and the brightest people in the world. We have always had a policy of trying to attract the best and the brightest from all over the world, whether they are skilled people, entrepreneurial, business class, we have always been very generous that way.
I am afraid that we will send the wrong signal to the public servants, that we are cracking down on abuse and so we are going to back them if they make a quick judgment. If a public servant is overworked and on a Thursday or a Friday afternoon is bogged down and because he is frustrated and wants to get out, all of a sudden that deportation or that refusal stamp is a little too aggressive, then the system really begins to break down. That is just one note of caution I want to put into this.
It affects us as a community because we have a lot of problems in processing the unification of families. Not a weekend goes by in my riding when I am not approached by young married couples who say that they would like their mother and father to come and live with them. If you can believe it, some of them have waited two and three years. For those of us who have been here all our lives, I cannot imagine the frustration of waiting two and three years to be reunited with my mother or father. It is a very tough thing for these people.
I also think of the cases that are caught in between right now. I think of people who maybe came here before these amendments, are caught in the system and are on the long list. I think of many Bulgarians in my community who came here when there were problems in their country. While they are waiting for their applications to be processed things are much better in Bulgaria.
These people have made their way here, many of whom are skilled crafts people and they are caught in the process. There is nothing more emotional than to have
Government Orders
the owner of a business come to you and say: "This Bulgarian gentleman is one of the best mechanics I have had in 20 years. When he came here there was a legitimate problem regarding his refugee status and yet now because things are much better in his country I am going to lose him. If I lose him I am going to lose a lot of my business which has been built on his skill and contribution".
These are the kinds of things that really concern me about the amendments to this legislation. My colleague from York West said earlier today that this is a highly emotional issue. It really is a highly emotional issue when your kids come home at night from school and say: "Mr. and Mrs. Shakala are going to be deported but their daughter can stay here and be a part of our welfare system, almost part of an orphanage".
I know that not for a second would this minister not have compassion for these cases if he was in our constituency office in downtown Tbronto. It is a heck of a lot different in the province of New Brunswick and I know that for a fact. It is just not the same thing. These cases come at you day in and day out, and again I am not talking about people who abuse the system. The Solicitor General talked about the Reform Party referring to cleaning up the riff-raff in the immigration system. For me riff-raff are people who abuse the system and I am opposed to people who abuse the system.
If the Reform Party meant it is opposed to people who abuse the system then I agree with that particular woman the Solicitor General was quoting. The Solicitor General said he was opposed to people who abused the system and he said it about seven times in his speech.
I would like to know how he would define that kind of person. He would probably call them riff-raff too because they are the people who give the whole system a bad name. In many cases they put a stigma on the whole immigration system.
I want to go back to the fact we are a multicultural nation where no culture is less than or greater than another culture. It seems there are cycles in our country. As the Solicitor General said earlier, the English and the Irish came here at a certain period of time. Then a large wave of Italians came, for example, to Toronto and then there was a very strong wave of people from the Greek community. Now we have many people from east India

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
coming into our community as well as many people of Chinese origin.
This is what makes my city one of the most exciting cities in the world. All of us on all sides of the House welcome these people because we need their expertise, we need their skills. They give us a trading advantage when they go back to their countries, because they have the facility of language and they can open doors for us. I do not think there would be anyone in this House that would argue that point.
I want to make one point here. The one point I want to make is that our public servants in the department of immigration, with the best intentions, do not really implement the act because there is too much coming at them all at once.
I really do believe that if these amendments are going to have a shot at putting our Immigration Act back on track, which can also be an instrument of pulling this country together, then I beg the minister to make sure the necessary person-years are there so that those of us who are MPs in urban areas do not have to spend 90 per cent of our time looking after 5 per cent of our community.
If that is done, we will then be able to serve some of the other people in our community that are just as important to us and need our services just as badly as those people who are immigrating here.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I have a few comments and I would like to ask the hon. member a question.
The first point he made was about the lack of resources in the department. I think it is quite telling to Canadians to refer back to the year 1957 when we welcomed into Canada 282,000 people with fewer resources. At that time we had a less cumbersome and complicated system which was not as much judicialized. What we are attempting to do here is give the department the tools to manage effectively the influx of migration into Canada.
The hon. member referred to specific cases in his riding that call for humane and compassionate considerations. Sometimes people do not fit the refugee criteria, they do not fit a category of immigrants. They would have to go back. The minister does have the discretion to accept people on humane and compassionate grounds.
However my experience in the few months I have been in the department is that you get thousands and thousands and thousands of people who want their case considered on humane and compassionate grounds by the minister. That is just impossible.
In section 6(3) and 6(5) of the proposed act, and 114(2)-these are the agency considerations-he will find that I am proposing that we establish by regulation criteria that will allow us to determine and grant to officers in the department the power to make that determination on humane and compassionate grounds. It will not be a decision that is made out of thin air, there will be criteria that we will ask them to apply in order to exercise that discretion which I submit shows the real face of Canada to the world, which is a face the world has come to trust.
I would like his comments and his views on this transparency because the cases he referred to are examples in my own mind of situations where, if there were transparent criteria, an officer could exercise in favour of this Bulgarian he spoke about.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, in 1990 I wrote a letter to the then minister responsible for immigration talking about an idea where members of Parliament could act as quasi-deputies of the minister of immigration. If I took the time to hear an hour or two or three of a constituent's case, subject to the departmental approval, I could write a letter to the department asking it to please allow this person to work or please take this person off a deportation notice.
The minister is missing the fact that by giving all of this power to the officials, by taking the political culture out of it, he has not relieved the burden of the member of Parliament. The workload will not be less for the official, it is just that he has more power. But now at least the constituent has access to a member of Parliament and so the member of Parliament can be lobbied by church groups, by the immigrant's employer: here is a person who is working, here is a person whose daughter is getting good marks in school, and on and on.
Right now, as a member of Parliament, I have no power to help these people. A lot of them are good people. I am as opposed to abuse as much as the minister, but there are many people who are good people and my hands are tied. The minister has just admitted something I have known for months, he is getting thousands and thousands of cases. I am almost embar-
June 22, 1992

rassed to call his office on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
If we could organize an amendment to this bill that would give a member of Parliament some responsibility, subject to the department's review, then I could give someone a recommendation that I believe he or she should enter the country on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I should be able to judge humanitarian and compassionate grounds just as easily as anyone else. The minister, once he signs humanitarian and compassionate grounds, it is through. If members of Parliament could sign for humanitarian and compassionate grounds with a condition on it, in other words subject to the department reviewing my judgment, then at least we could provide some hope for those constituents who are coming at us day after day. Quite often I know when we really take the time to analyze them, 90 per cent are on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The minister just said the volume of them right now is difficult to cope with. Rather than just handing that process over to officials, give it to the politicians, the elected people who are accountable to the community. Do you think I am going to sign on humanitarian and compassionate grounds if the guy is trying to scam or if he is a bogus operator? Do you think we are going to do that? Then we would be accountable to our community at large. But give the elected members of Parliament some responsibility so we can deal meaningfully when our constituents come to us with legitimate cases.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, I did not want to rise on this because I got involved in a fight over a similar issue in 1987 with Bill C-55. In this case, however, I am very pleased to see that 14 of the 19 amendments I had recommended were included in this bill. These 14 amendments were not changed and I hope that will be acknowledged. The hon. member seems to use "immigrant" and "refugee" indiscriminately and I think that a distinction should be made between the two. I agree that it is the same bill, that it is one and the same thing. If there is a riding where there is a problem with
Government Orders
immigration, it is mine. There are 350 cases pending at all times. I would have many questions, but I will ask this one about refugees, a subject that requires that we exercise judgment because there are humanitarian considerations involved.
First of all, most people who request refugee status have already been admitted either as a visitor or as a student. They have had a chance to appreciate our way of life. In spite of all that we may say about it, Canada is the best place to be in the world. We have our freedom, three meals a day and we truly live in a fascinating country. I have a great deal of difficulty agreeing with the meaning the hon. member is giving to humanitarian grounds. I would like to know if he would take the decision himself, if a foreign national wanted to come and visit Canada and swore that he or she would not remain in this country without requesting refugee status or trying to obtain, through his member of Parliament, immigrant status while remaining in the country. I would like some clarifications on that because, believe me, I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I think
with these amendments there will probably be fewer people coming on a visitor's visa and trying to claim refugee status.
I am opposed to bogus refugees. I am now talking about the fact we have about 60,000 people in the city of Toronto who are in a state of limbo because the system is not functioning properly. I would like to see that particular group get expeditious service. If your officials in the department are not in a position to process these people quickly, then members of Parliament should be given conditional power to sign on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Then rather than sitting at home collecting social assistance cheques, these people could find work or continue to work and their kids could go to school until the department made a proper analysis.
It is the people who are in this state of limbo who are driving those of us who are members in urban ridings crazy.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on major amendments to the Immigration Act.
In his speech the Minister of Employment and Immigration made it clear that the proposed amendments will not satisfy those who want to slam the door and they will not satisfy those who want us to give away the store. These amendments will satisfy Canadians who understand there is a happy medium between these two extremes.
We are proposing these amendments because we believe it is possible to strike a balance between our needs as a country and Canada's humanitarian tradition.
For more than 125 years, immigration has played a major role in shaping the values that identify and unite Canadians. It has helped to strengthen our fundamental respect for diversity, our tolerance and our generosity and has also helped us to build a prosperous and competitive economy.
Immigration is the story of people who had a chance to start a new life in Canada and gave the entire country the benefit of their skills. It is the story of John Polanyi, the scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Canada, and of Lap-Chee-Tkui, whose discovery of the cystic fibrosis gene was a major step in fighting this disease.
It is also the story of Rey Pagtakhan and Otto Jelinek, of Phil Edmonston and Stanley Knowles, and of many other members of this House. However, the system Canada established to manage immigration and the integration of generations of newcomers is coming under increasing pressure, both nationally and internationally.
Countries like Canada must react to these population flows and the problems they create for our immigration programs. However, our ability to react effectively is restricted by the Immigration Act, which was drafted in the 1970s to manage the demands of a simpler time.
In the 1990s the challenge of immigration is more than the simple processing of applications of people who wish
to immigrate to Canada. It is also about Canada's ability to attract people with the skills we need. As Canada adjusts to the economy of the future, based on science and advanced technology, the demand for increasingly skilled workers will grow. However, in some cases, there are no Canadians with the skills required to fill specialized jobs.
Immigration helps find some of these skilled workers. Conversely, such immigrants fill jobs that help our economy remain competitive and thus, either directly or indirectly, they create more jobs. However, the present system for selecting qualified workers is too slow and is unable to meet the demands of Canadian industry.
Furthermore, immigration should contribute to regional economic development. Here again, the current legislative framework does not provide the means to encourage immigrants to locate in regions where then-skills are most in demand.
Changes are necessary to maintain and improve a Canadian program that has helped us to become aware of our identity and has contributed to our prosperity for generations.
In 1976, we adopted the current Immigration Act which introduced the program's three fundamental objectives: reunite families, protect refugees and promote Canada's economic development. These objectives remain primordial in the bill before the House today.
Our current legislation requires the federal government to set annual levels of immigration. We set those levels after consultations with the provinces. However, although the federal government is responsible for setting annual immigration levels, we lack the means to actually deliver on those targets.
The proposed changes will give us the means to control our immigration program more effectively. The new management system will help us adapt the program to Canada's needs.
These changes will introduce greater certainty to our planning. Greater certainty means fewer delays, it means more predictable processing times and greater fairness for applicants. More specifically, we will be able to avoid the buildup of backlogs which are costly and a constant source of frustration.

We have proposed three streams for selecting immigrants. Immigrants belonging to various categories will be selected and their applications processed according to clearly defined principles.
Applications made by claimants from the first stream, namely spouses and dependent children, would be processed as they are submitted and according to specific time standards. There would no fixed limit on the number of such applications approved each year.
Applications submitted by claimants from the second stream, which include parents and grandparents of Canadian residents, would be processed on a first come first served basis. There would be ceilings for applications from each group within this stream. The other applications would be eligible the following year.
Applicants from the third stream would be selected for excellence, accepting only the most highly qualified individuals. Again, only the allotted number of applicants specified in the annual plan would be accepted. Once the ceiling for the year would be reached, the other applications would no longer be accepted, again to stop costly backlogs from accumulating.
The third stream would include individuals from the independent or entrepreneurs categories or people qualified in designated occupations.
These changes will provide us with the modern management tools that we need to ensure that the immigration process better serves the interests of Canadians. However, we must also take into account the needs of the provinces and territories. Immigration can and must play an important role towards achieving their social and economic objectives. The proposed changes will help us to better take into account their concerns. In particular, the new measures proposed by the federal government reflect the present agreement between the federal government and the province of Quebec.
For the first time, the federal legislation on immigration will reflect the new sharing of responsibilities between the Governments of Canada and Quebec, pursuant to the 1991 Quebec-Canada Agreement on Immigration. The legislation recognizes the exclusive responsibility of the Quebec government regarding the selection of immigrants wishing to settle in that province. It also recognizes Quebec's responsibility to set up and manage the sponsorship commitments made by Cana-
Govemment Orders
dian permanent residents for members of their family wishing to settle in Quebec.
By virtue of the agreement, the Government of Canada is committed to pursuing an immigration policy that allows the arrival in Quebec of a percentage of immigrants that is at least as high as the percentage of the Canadian population represented by that province, thus preserving its demographic weight within our country. Right now, measures of an exclusively administrative nature enable us to meet this commitment. This bill is therefore aimed at providing us with a safe legislative framework.
By specifying the percentage of immigrants that Quebec can have, as well as its role regarding the make-up of the flow of immigrants, this legislation recognizes the importance for Quebec to plan its own migration movements.
A press communique released earlier this week by the Department of Cultural Affairs and Immigration of Quebec said that regarding the reunification of families, the minister noted the will of the federal government to speed up the processing of immigration applications from spouses and children. This initiative follows repeated requests made by cultural communities in Quebec.
Finally, as regards the sharing of responsibilities in the field of immigration between Quebec and Ottawa, the Quebec minister noted that the federal bill reflects the provisions of the Quebec-Canada agreement on immigration and temporary entry of foreigners, that was reached in February 1991.
This bill is drafted in such a way that it applies equally to any agreement that the federal government might conclude with a province regarding the selection of immigrants.
Many regions of the country have trouble attracting immigrants, especially those who have skills that a particular area may greatly need. To rectify this situation, some skilled workers will be offered a sort of contract arrangement. They will be admitted provided that they settle for a specific period, two or three years, in a given region where their particular skills are in demand. It will be up to the communities concerned to create the right conditions to encourage the immigrants to stay there. Of

Government Orders
course, I am thinking of the lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe peninsula and north shore.
Our immigration program for investors brings to Canada business people who can contribute to regional economic development nationally and regionally.
Between January 1986 and December 1991, the program drew about 7,500 applicants, with total investments of approximately $1.5 billion. Furthermore, they created some 10,000 jobs in Canada.
To improve this program, we will establish national standards, with provincial input, for the kinds and levels of investment provided by the program.
Furthermore, we will take measures for more effective enforcement of the program rules so that Canada can get as much as possible from it.
The generosity and openness of the immigration program shows our understanding of the value of immigration and the role it has played and continues to play in developing this country.
We must ensure that this essential national program continues to promote Canada's prosperity and unity for generations to come.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister with a great deal of interest.
I know that she has been particularly involved in the immigration and refugee considerations.
She has had a very attentive ear to many of the concerns that I have expressed. I have listened to other colleagues who have problems with humanitarian concerns. I, on the other hand, have found the minister very open and very understanding. There are constraints that she faces and I understand that. Notwithstanding that, every humanitarian case is a very difficult one. If I follow up on the observations of my colleague from Toronto, I do not think that any of us would find the task of making decisions on people's lives very easy. I certainly would not care to think about the sleepless nights that must be involved.
There is one area that I want to ask the minister about.
I hope she can perhaps clear this up. As the minister well
knows, 95 per cent of the people who come to this country are not trying to crash the gate. She knows from the process that has been in place that these are rightful seekers of justice at the door of this country. What about those who have been caught in the backlog for two, three and four years, who have established themselves here? They had reasonable and credible grounds when they first came here to be accepted as refugees.
Circumstances changed in their country. They could go back now, so we say, but they have established themselves with a life here, having children here. Does the minister not think at this point, when we did not bring in administerial review and a sort of general amnesty that these families who are established with a good job, who are working well, who have been here three or four years, who have children and new children born here, should automatically receive special consideration and humanitarian consideration?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, what we are trying to do with this bill before us today is to give ourselves the best tools and instruments to manage our immigration program effectively, and of course we also want to improve our refugee determination process.
With the changes we are making, we wanted to clarify the act and to have regulations so that we no longer depend on procedures which in the past unfortunately led to such large backlogs, to which our colleague refers.
It is important that this revision enable us to select effectively those who want to come to Canada. With the bill before us today, we also want to protect Canadian society from applicants who abuse the system and we especially want to simplify the process.
What will happen to the backlogs? It will be up to cabinet and the minister responsible for immigration to make the appropriate decisions. The important and urgent thing was to make these amendments so that we finally have what we need to manage the system properly, while maintaining this humanitarian tradition that Canada has always had and of course respecting refugees. Always remember that there is an immigration system but also very specific treatment for refugees, who are selected individually and can appeal.
June 22, 1992

I think that this whole process, which we are trying to make as humane as possible, makes Canada what it is, a welcoming country; it shows respect for those who respect our system.


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for the good speech that she made earlier. I would also like to emphasize three points that are often brought to my attention in my riding.
Many people in my region, whether they are officially recognized refugees or immigrants, want to settle and work but have difficulties doing so, for various reasons. Let me give you the example of a doctor.
A doctor must go back to school and start his studies all over again because the Quebec Medical Association-or even that of Canada, but I refer in particular here to Quebec's-does not allow a qualified doctor from another country to start practising immediately. I am convinced that we would help some regions-I use the example of a doctor, but of course there could be other occupations-by recommending to immigrants that they settle in those regions. In fact, the majority of regions do not have immigrants. Occasionally, I talk to my colleagues about immigrants and they do not even know to what I am referring. I will not repeat the little joke that I tell them, but since they do not even know about this issue, they cannot discuss it.
I think this will be a very good thing, because it will help the regions that need qualified people but cannot get them because Quebecers or Canadians do not want to go there. I am convinced that there is an endless number of immigrants that will be proud to come to Canada and to work in those regions to help the local population.
The second stream, which is of great interest to me, concerns spouses and children. I will talk briefly mostly about spouses.
I know of spouses that have had to wait two and even two and half years. When people get married, they want to live together and not be separated by continents and have to phone to hear from each other. I once told a minister that if he and I were in that situation, people would hear us say things that would not be very nice.
Government Orders
Again, I congratulate my colleague because I believe that this second stream is very important, especially as regards children and spouses.
I now want to say a word about job creation. This afternoon, when I was coming back from my riding, we got talking on the famous Constitution and on job creation. We need investors to create jobs. The investors program has already created 10,000 jobs. This is extraordinary. Several people from Hong Kong are now settling in my riding to create jobs. I congratulate the two ministers for having included this stream in their program.


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I will simply say that it is perfectly in order to think about remote areas, and I can say that where I come from, there are not many immigrants. It would definitely be a big plus to be able to attract skilled immigrants, and the medicine field is an excellent one. Indeed, where we have problems attracting doctors, such as in remote areas, it would be great if, through an immigration policy, we could give provinces the responsibility of identifying the qualified resources to improve the quality of life.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for participating in the debate on this bill this afternoon, and I also want to thank her for the help that she provides to all the members that raise with her issues dealing with immigration.
I want to ask her why the government does not give refugee status claimants the possibility of an appeal on the merits of their case, following a negative decision from the refugee board. The minister knows that in Rabbi Plaut's report tabled in the mid-1980s, nongovernmental organizations, churches and lawyers specializing in immigration issues all recommended such a right to appeal based on the merits of a case.
She must also know that not having a right to appeal leads to requests based on humanitarian considerations which end up on her desk or her colleague's. She also knows that such requests are rather futile. According to statistics compiled by non-governmental organizations, in Ontario and Quebec, only 23 out of 3,485 requests for humanitarian considerations were accepted in 1991. She knows why an appeal on merit is important. A claimant may present evidence that he was unable to corroborate

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
at the initial hearing. For several other reasons that I intend to explain in my speech shortly, an appeal is necessary. Why did the government not accept this right to appeal? Could the government consider such an amendment when this bill is studied?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I can reassure this House that even after the act is amended, everyone will still be able to demand fair and equitable treatment. Even under this new legislation, every case will be considered individually, in a humanitarian way. Of course we will be able to make the appropriate decisions based on personal circumstances.
As I was saying a little earlier, what we are trying to do with our amendments to the act is to maintain this balance between our humanitarian tradition in dealing with refugee claims and reliable and efficient management of our immigration system.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, we all ought to know that Canada is a country built by immigrants and which continues to depend heavily on immigrants for its growth. It is this fact which has created on Canadian soil a unique multicultural society.
My own riding, Mount Royal, is a microcosm of that Canadian dream that has drawn so many millions of people to this land, whose diversity is a source of cultural and economic wealth and is proof of our potential to make not only this century but the next one also, a century of Canada's greatness.
The matter of immigration is a matter we all ought to take to heart. It is a very sensitive matter and it is a very emotional issue.
As a Canadian of Jewish faith I certainly know about refugees and I certainly know a great deal about immigration. I know about there being no safe haven, about the fact that there is no open door and about boats being refused at our ports. I know about that, as do many other groups in our society who have come here as immigrants. We all just have to think back to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and their shores and the fears that were aroused with the Tamil arrivals and of the Sikhs.
There are groups, not only in my riding, but across this land that know about not having access or safe harbour with an open spirit at times. Times have changed, attitudes have changed and I would hope that Canada's great open spirit to that change will never close down.
Montreal is one of the great cultural mosaics in this country. The centre of that cultural mosaic is Cote-des
Neiges, a Snowdon district, which is in my riding. The many cultures which coexist there side by side in this district has given it a degree of vibrancy, a sense of being alive and fascination and differences. We have learned not only to be tolerant, which I find not to be the kind of word I particularly like, but we have learned to have respect for each other. We live in that area of my riding in very close quarters under very difficult circumstances with a lot of emotional trauma that is accompanied by the impact of having to live as either a refugee with an unsettled case or as a new immigrant trying to find one's way, whether it be in the linguistic sense or the cultural sense, in a whole new milieu.
With this new mosaic that has built into this wonderful part of my riding, we have seen self-help groups arise. We have seen community service groups come into being. We have seen ethnic centres that are helping out and extending a hand. We have a wonderful place called Project Genesis that has done some wonderful work so there is better understanding about the cultural way of life, because it is a cultural way of life. It is different for each one of these groups that come here, whether it is landlord tenant relations, whether it is how you shop in the store, whether it is your transportation system, your education system, language at work, language at home, the mores of a society which are different from the mores of many of the societies from which these people come.
I can tell you that there are many aspects that go into the development of an immigration and refugee policy that must be taken into consideration. I guess that is one of the reasons I regret so sincerely that we have had closure called on this bill. This is one of the last bills on which this government should ever have considered closure.
This is a bill that touches the very fibre and heart and life cycle in this land. There are so many things that need to be discussed that are left out, never mind that which is included.
If we could perhaps have raised those issues it could have sensitized the committees when they went out to have some discussions. It is not only me and my riding. It is almost every single member of this House who spends hundreds and hundreds of hours with people who are stressed, who are concerned and upset. They do not understand why their children are behaving the way they behave. They do not understand our education system. They do not understand what the changes have done to their husbands from families that were patriarchal and
June 22, 1992

Government Orders
where the mother is now the breadwinner and they have turned to a matriarchal society.
We need to do things to help the immigration and the integration into our larger society, not only for the people coming in but for those of us who are on the receiving end.
To be fair, there are many things in this bill which are interesting proposals and I hope will help us accomplish our national goals of prosperity. Indeed, we should encourage different forms of immigration and particularly those who can afford to invest in this country, those who have a spirit of or demonstrate a sense of entrepreneurial capacity or talent.
We have essentially three streams put in here. The first stream says "wealthy investors". I am not 100 per cent keen about wealthy investors. I am keen about people who are prepared to invest. What does wealthy mean? If you have $150,000, is that wealthy? If you have $200,000, is that wealthy? If you have $2 million, is that wealthy? If you are going to live in a major city, does that make you less or more wealthy, depending on the money you have in your pocket? I think it is a very difficult decision to make as to what is a wealthy entrepreneur. I suppose if you start in the millions and lots of zeros beyond which I am normally not able to count, that would be the wealthy investor.
What about the entrepreneur? I think that is very important. What about the independent immigrant? The reason I raise these three streams, whether it is the wealthy investor, the family member or the accrued refugee in the first stream which are fast-tracked, or the limited access, which are the parents and the grandparents, the self-employed, and people with job offers, or the third stream of entrepreneurs, independent immigrants, who are going to be based on point systems, these will all be defined in regulation, but not in the act. That means they can be changed around at will. There will be no accountability for the House of Commons. I think in a bill of this nature we need a serious sense of responsibility.
There is another aspect of this bill that I do not know how one gets around. People do not recognize the importance of immigration to the well-being of this country, that all immigrants are a boon to Canada, that they are the taxpayers, they are the consumers, they become the producers, and they become the employers. We have a very important study in that regard, the 1992 study of the Economic Council of Canada. They outperform native-born Canadians in labour force participation. No greater a percentage end up on welfare than do native bom. That is a myth that people like to circulate which is unfounded. Almost 28 per cent have some university training as compared to approximately 24 per cent among native-born Canadians.
Studies by other learned institutions, and I have a lot of studies in front of me, debunk a lot of the myths, studies from the Laurier Institute and as I said from the Economic Council. I might get around to quoting some of them. Right at this moment they all support the findings that it is vital and important that we increase the people of Canada, the numbers of people who fill this vast land, through immigration. We are certainly not doing it through our own repopulation systems right here in this land. Immigrants are a boon and they are a treasure.
Is that message getting out? I do not think so. We have been sending wrong messages. It is very important that we change the language of discourse, the language that makes us feel that they are not an important asset and a boon to our society.
The fact is that the message that immigration is a blessing, as I said, is not out there. If it were out there, the fact that racists in our country continue to suggest or imply or insinuate that immigration somehow harms us, or takes away jobs, or dilutes our national identity would not be current, if we were doing our job.
The fact is that thousands of signed petitions against turbans as an acceptable headdress or a head covering for the RCMP officers would never have come in and been deposited in this House if we understood the significance of dress as a cultural part of life for certain

Government Orders
streams of immigrants coming into this land. That does not make them any less or any better than any other Canadian.
The fact is that some suggest that racism is exacerbated by immigration to Canada of visible minorities, of people of colour. The fact is that some go so far as to suggest that only those immigrants who look and act "like Canadians", whatever that may mean, should be admitted because they will integrate more quickly into the mainstream of Canadian life and Canadian society.
That language is anathema to me. I find it would not be on the tongue, in the mouths or in the minds of people if we had done a proper job in the integration and in the instruction within our school system and within the larger society so that we could count those blessings for the blessings that they truly are.
Does the legislation dispel this myth in any way or any of the other myths about immigration? I do not believe so. Many pieces of legislation have come into this House with preambles that are absolutely overflowing with fanciful language that find no place in the law. This was a perfect time to put a preamble in that would indicate the strength and the importance of immigrants to the growth and the development of Canada.
Somehow or other there was such a rush to get this massive bill in here and through here we forgot some of the key phrases and the key thoughts that could have been there that would underscore the fact that the definition of Canada is unity in diversity. Whether it is the diversity of our geography, the diversity of our regions, the diversity of our people, the diversity of their colour or the diversity of their language, that is what has built this country. As we go across this land we can appreciate that and we can understand it. We should have written it into a preamble in this bill.
As we did not accompany this bill with any kind of an education campaign, I think we had better look to that as the next step so that we can debunk the myths that are out there.
One of the big concerns that I heard over the past weekend as I was home and saw large numbers, as all of us do, of constituents, is that they are very concerned about the lack of prior consultation. Many a group committed to Canada's present and future and committed to a fair and equitable immigration and refugee
policy has expressed dismay at the lack of consultation which preceded the tabling of this important legislation. These groups are not opponents but are allies of Canada, Canadian immigration, and the minister. They know the immigration and refugee field well and they seek the best for our country. The minister would have been well advised to have consulted them.
Why did we hear there was no prior consultation? We have learned all too well in recent years how far a faulty process can go to derail even the best of proposals. I am not going to read chapter and verse in here about all the failures by this government since it came to power, the backlog, and all that business.
I have in front of me a number of press releases. I will read the B'Nai Brith Canada release which along with the Canadian Jewish Congress is well known for its interventions in the interest of a very good and healthy immigration and refugee bill.
I do not have to remind this House about the role of Rabbi Plaut in setting the stage for the first of the trilogy of bills that are in here. The B'Nai Brith says:
That while the proposed changes to the Immigration Act introduced yesterday in Parliament address many issues in need of attention, the lack of prior consultation in drafting these changes and some of the proposed changes themselves are a cause of concern to B'Nai Brith Canada's Institute for International Affairs. The institute was deeply involved in the debate over changes to refugee legislation adopted by the first Mulroney government and has continued to express concerns over fairness and humanitarianism in the management of refugee change.
As a community that has experienced the consequences of restrictive immigration and refugee policies, we are committed to the development of a fair and effective process in this area. B'Nai Brith has supported significantly increased immigration targets for Canada which is a country built by newcomers and which will grow primarily through immigration. While it is natural that Canada would act in its own interest in recruiting perspective immigrants we must never neglect our humanitarian obligations.
This is Frank Dimant, chief executive officer of the Institute speaking.
I would bring to your attention:
The legislation does not deal with major concerns which have existed for some time regarding fair procedure. The appeals procedure is inadequate and the benefit of the doubt has been eliminated in requiring a unanimous decision by refugee board adjudicators hearing cases of individuals arriving without documents. Finally, refugee claimants should be able to work as soon as they make their claim rather than only once it is accepted. There are a few other points that are made here.
June 22, 1992

I often look at this saying you are supposed to arrive here as refugees with your documents. What are you supposed to do? Go back to the city hall and say please while I am running away to save my life and save my children could you please just go to your files and get out my birth certificate? Really there is some insanity that goes along with this whole thing.
With respect to the lack of consultation and the shortness of debate on this bill, the closure which I find totally unacceptable, I do not understand what the rush is. We have already got enough problems with this. I think we should do this, do it this time, and do it right.
The shift from legislation to regulation, I would like to move from process to the substance in a sense or to a substance process issue. The bill provides for far greater use of regulation by the minister and officials. Matters which were once in law are now going to be brought in through regulation.
I am sick and tired of this government bringing things in through regulation. There is a lack of respect for Parliament, the democratic process, and that must be corrected. The fact you have called closure is one example. The fact you like to do so many things by regulation. I will never understand why you want to do that.
One day you are not going to be the government and you are going to dump all this muck on the heads of this party. Who needs it. Thank you very much. Do your job. Put it in law. Never mind regulations that are going to drive ministers crazy.


An hon. member:: You are not helping the Liberals.


Sheila Finestone: I would suggest, as I said, the power of Parliament is being reduced. The system becomes more susceptible to abuse. At minimum these regulations should be submitted to Parliament for a review.
With respect to the obligation to settle in specific areas or in specific regions in terms of the substance of the bill, the legislation makes it easier for potential immigrants to gain admission to Canada if they agree-if you put it in regulations-to settle in a specific area where their particular skills may be needed.
Questions have already been raised in this House and around the country whether or not this is an infringe-
Govemment Orders
ment on mobility rights as set out in our charter. Did anyone check? Has anyone gone to see about court challenges?
I see the minister is coming in. I must have aroused his interest in some remark I made. Welcome.
I would really like to know from the minister if anyone checked about court challenges. I think it is very important to know whether the charter is going to stand up in this area.
The key to an immigrant's becoming a fully productive member of Canadian society is integration. I talked about integration.
Will adequate integration services be available to all those who settle in smaller centres? Will immigrants' integration be hampered by the absence of people of similar origin who may have been here for some years now?
Much of this is very important in the settling of people who are very, very uncomfortable when they first arrive here. Immigrants have been gravitating to Cote-des-Neiges in Snowdon because they see it as a place where they can establish themselves when they first arrive. There is a sense of tolerance and respect for differences in this community because people living close together here know they are all going through the same experience.
The last point I would like to make is this question of the excessive demands on health and social services.
When this bill refers to this excessive demand, are these code words for AIDS victims, for HIV-positive people? Are these provisions for more assuredly removing barriers for handicapped people, and people who seek to immigrate here who might cause us some extra weight on our social services? I do not know, but there are some serious problems there.
There are also serious problems in the refugee determination system. The government has given criminal images to refugees and wants to fingerprint them. It wants to do all kinds of things for refugees to find out if they are going to be abusers. I think the number of abusers we have had indicate we do not have to worry about it but if we did, we should have an appeal on merit.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
I am soriy my time has come to a close. I would like to have addressed the question of a safe third country. A lot of work needs to be done when this bill goes to committee. I hope there will be an openness of spirit, and the legislative committee will not be like a kangaroo court. I hope we can make significant and important changes for these people.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very good speech, but she said two completely different things.

One was positive, the other was negative.
We have been handling refugee status since 1985. I have attended 800 to 900 different meetings and we have consulted 500 to 600 different organizations. It always comes to the same thing. They want this and they want that.
When Bill C-55 came into effect I was against it because the committee had not made enough recommendations. Right now she is saying we should have more consultations. I think we have already had enough. Now this bill is applying some of the Bill C-55 recommendations, such as having one level for refugee status.
When people come in now and ask for refugee status, we will know right away if they are acceptable or not. Having just the one level will shorten the period by about a year and a half for them to attempt to go to the second level. We will have no backlog. It will be done within five to sue months. Before with the first level they would say you might be a refugee. It looks like you have a credible basis, but you have to go to the second level to prove it.
Right now there is only one level. It is going to go much faster. It will be fast, efficient and honest for the people coming in, and they will not have to wait. People are not going to have to wait two and a half or three years to get to the level. They will already have been passed and accepted or not. There will be a better screening test and the refugees will be honest to goodness refugees. People in my riding are complaining that some are using the back door because it takes too long. Before Bill C-55 we had six or seven levels and now we have two. We said we should have one level and now we
have it. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I consulted with him enough in the last three years and have said to every minister of immigration there should be only one level. There has been enough consultation, let us start the ball rolling. We are using closure because we have to. It should have been done yesterday. It should have been done six months ago.
Believe it or not, I agree with a Liberal that people do not know how much of an asset to the country immigrants are. One member from Toronto said we should make decisions, so let us tell the people out there in Canada immigrants are an asset. They buy clothes, shoes and food. They even buy from one of my stores. We definitely should have this.


Sheila Finestone: I thank my hon. colleague from the other side of the House. I often tell people for the most part every one of us are friends behind the curtains, but we have different ideological points of view sometimes. I think we can be respectful of that difference.
We have gone to many meetings together. We have shared similar concerns with respect to many of the dossiers. We had great admiration for your stance as chairman of that committee on employment and immigration. It was not easy for you to take the courageous stand you took and we acknowledge that.
I would like to remind you our competent critic, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, indicated as early as last year, on May 21st I believe, we should have eliminated the two-tier system. We certainly should not have done what we did. It did not prove to be effective anyway, as 95 per cent passed the first stage of the hearing.
I think you would agree with me no one in this world is perfect. As refugees come across the border, who is to say the immigration person they see is not wrong? I think you would agree there is a potential margin of error. I would not even use the word "abuse" although that could be, depending on your point of view. We are dealing with a human life. We cannot afford a margin of error when we are dealing with a human life.
There has to be a method of review. There has to be the right to fair or due process. So when officers at the port of entry reject a refugee applicant, there has to be the right of due process. I think that was the nature of your question.
June 22, 1992


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Mount Royal I share her view on the emotional trauma people go through. We cannot seem to get through to the government today the emotional trauma people experience when they are caught in the system and not getting the proper service.
I want to cite a very specific case. I have a gentleman in my riding whose name is Mohammed Ali. Mohammed was given his convention refugee status in November of 1990. He was told by employees at the Immigration and Refugee Board it would take approximately two years to get his landed immigrant papers. After a few months they asked for his fingerprints. They wanted to check to make sure he did not have a criminal record. Mohammed sent his fingerprints to the department and knew there was certification there had been no criminal record because it was an FBI clearance. He then went ahead and made arrangements to many a person this summer from Sweden. The wedding was organized, but the papers would not come through. They discovered two months ago the department lost the fingerprints. We got another set of fingerprints taken but now because the department is so busy, they cannot be processed in time and he has had to call off the wedding. These are the kinds of things that really cause emotional trauma. If the minister had proper person-years to address these situations a lot of this frustration would be alleviated.
I want to ask the member if she can tell me why she thinks the minister refuses to give this department enough person-years to do this job properly.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would love to be able to understand why this minister does a number of the things he does. I cannot answer that question.
I can tell you that I went to Hong Kong and pretended to be a refugee and an immigrant applying through the procedures in the Hong Kong office after having visited the Vietnamese camps there. I do not know how the staff in Hong Kong stand the stress. They are overworked and stressed. People are coming in with serious problems that create emotional tension. There is a building that has nothing but files in it. There are not enough people. I understand that New Delhi is worse. It takes anywhere from two to three years to even find the file. As
Government Orders
members of Parliament we know how frustrating the whole thing is.
I would presume that the Minister of Employment and Immigration would love to have more staff. I would presume he has made an application to Treasury Board and I would presume that either the Minister of Finance or Treasury Board have been tight. If they are so tight, why do we have a $160 billion budget, a deficit and we are still short-staffed? I do not know the answer. I wish I could help but I am sorry, I do not have a crystal ball. I cannot answer that question.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to take part in the debate on Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
I was somewhat surprised to learn how many pages were in this bill. When this is sent to the legislative committee it is going to have its work cut out.
I would also like to tell the people that are listening, as other members have said, because of closure we cannot make changes in it. There will be no changes made in this bill here in this House during second reading. The only changes that will be made will be made in committee and brought back to the House at report stage. Therefore, we do a disservice when we insinuate that because there has been a limitation to the amount of hours we will take in this House of Commons to debate this, it is against democracy and all those things that go along with that. That is not telling people the truth about how things work in the House of Commons here in Ottawa.
The member opposite also alluded to the fact that there have been no consultations. There have been continuous consultations on immigration matters. This is now the second bill we brought into this House since we came to power in 1984.
Canada has the most open and generous immigration and refugee program in the world. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years our generosity has been perceived as a weakness instead of a virtue. In short, I would say our generosity has been abused. This has been a sore point for many Canadians. When we extend our hand to others

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
in friendship we are not anxious to have our hospitality spumed. Yet there are many who are quick to abuse us.
The tools of the multibillion dollar migrant smuggling trade are sophisticated and include colour photocopiers, high-tech printing techniques and new computer technologies. They challenge the ingenuity of Canadian immigration officials and law enforcement staff around the world.
This is the ultimate irony. People want to come to Canada because our society is open and tolerant. People can achieve anything to which they turn their hands. We have created such a society because of our parliamentary system and our belief in the rule of law. Law is paramount in Canada and all people are equal before the law. Yet to benefit from the society which our laws have helped create, many are quick to break those very laws.
I find this unacceptable. The residents of my riding of Fraser Valley East and indeed all Canadians find this outrageous. As generous as Canadians may be as a people, we will not be abused. Canada will defend the integrity of its society and the integrity of its laws.
Back in 1984, when I first entered politics, I included in my personal platform a pledge to do what I could to help restore control of our borders. I know that immigration has a positive effect on our economy, our standard of living and our quality of life. But an open door policy, a policy that is open to abuse does a disservice to all Canadians and immigrants alike.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has risen to the challenge of the 1990s and has introduced amendments to the Immigration Act that meet these challenges. Among the proposed changes is a series of important measures that will help those at the immigration desk and in the field to give better protection to all Canadians and our way of life. That issue is a matter of effectiveness. All of the best policies are not worth very much if those who are to administer the policies are not given the tools to carry out their jobs.
Consider that customs officers can search a suspected smuggler for something as innocuous as perfume, a lighter or a watch. Yet we have all heard of the limits imposed on customs officers when they are confronted with an individual who claims refugee status and cannot be searched even when a passport is visible on their person. The limits are astounding. These changes are coming none too soon.
There are also the stories of smugglers collecting passports during a flight so that they can be destroyed and refugee status can be claimed. What about those who file duplicate refugee claims under different names? The time has come to end such absurd abuses.
Really what we had in the Immigration Act up until now were limitations so that our officers were not able to cany out their duties as we would wish them to. They need to have that enshrined in law so that they can carry out the various things that people expect them to be able to do.
This legislation includes provisions that extend more discretion to officers to seize documents, to detain vehicles, to search individuals and to use fingerprints and photos to establish an identity. I do not apologize for giving this role to our officers because if we are going to have control of our borders, and we know that we want to have immigrants come to our country, we want the people that are willing to obey our laws. As well, we also want to make sure that they are the people that we desire to come here, that they are bona fide and are legitimate refugees.
Action is needed and action is forthcoming in this legislation. New provisions for document searches and a restructured system of fines are proposed to deal with these document couriers and others who would abuse our generosity and our hospitality. These migrant smugglers can be likened to the slavers of old. They prey upon the desperate and the downtrodden and they deal in people. Now they will be caught and they will pay. In fact those caught smuggling could face fines ranging from $100,000 and five years in jail up to $500,000 and 10 years in jail.
There are measures to allow removal of illegal entrants in an expedient manner. We are addressing the problems and we are taking the necessary action.
Are we putting up barriers to immigration and refugees? I say, hardly. The numbers of people we accept exceed 200,000 annually. What are some of the things that we have in this bill before us, Bill C-86?
We know that the Immigration Act requires the government to announce each year the number of immigrants to be admitted during the following calendar year. This announcement follows consultation with the various interested parties, including the provinces. However, the current act does not provide the authority to manage the admission of immigrants in such a way as to
June 22, 1992

achieve the levels in the plan and to realize other policy objectives.
What is being proposed in this legislation is that there will be three new management streams. The first one would not be subject to fixed annual limits. What does this stream involve? This stream is of particular benefit to spouses and dependent children, in other words the immediate family members of people living in Canada, including adopted children.
One asks if the family reunification plan is alive and well. You bet your boots it is. It is alive and well and we encourage it. There are no limitations on that.
I want the people who are here and looking forward to having their family members join them to know that there is no cause for them to be alarmed about what is in this legislation. It will if anything help them be. It will help do away with some of the clutter that is clogging up the system.
People found to be convention refugees by the Immigration and Refugee Board and business persons applying under a revised immigrant investor program can contribute significantly to Canada's economic development.
Are refugees going to be welcome in Canada? Yes, they will be. Are there limitations? Are there numbers being put upon these refugees who land here and are claiming refugee status? No, there will not be limits placed upon them.
The second stream, what does it take in? It will deal on a first come, first served basis. What are some of the characteristics of what will be in the second stream? They will be the parents and grandparents of Canadian residents. They will be government assisted and privately sponsored refugees. They will be applicants who have arranged employment or are self-employed and apply to come to Canada as live-in caregivers, and people allowed into Canada under special programs that may be set up for public policy reasons.
What takes place in the third stream? This will be selected on the basis of excellence because they are the
Government Orders
best in their category, for example the most highly skilled workers demanded by Canadian employers in a field for which Canadians are not available.
Those in stream three are subject to limits established in the annual plan. These are people who are applying to come as independent immigrants, people who are qualified in certain designated occupations, and people who are qualified entrepreneurs with business experience who can contribute to Canada's economic development.
When we look at the over-all scene of what is taking place in this bill, it is clear that Canada is open for people to immigrate to our country. We are encouraging people, but by the same token we are going to make sure we have adequate controls on the system.
What we are doing is ensuring that our system is effective. Fairness has been maintained. We will not sacrifice our commitment to fairness, but make no mistake about it, we will not be abused. We cannot afford to sacrifice effectiveness in the name of fairness.
This legislation contains, as I have outlined, a balanced approach that considers and safeguards the principles of fairness and effectiveness. Too often we hear about rights and about freedoms. What we do not hear enough about, what we can never hear enough about, is the responsibility that must necessarily accompany rights and freedoms.
Freedoms and rights come at a cost. That cost is responsibility back to the society which extends the rights and freedoms. There is nothing worse than when we have freedom without responsibility, because then we have irrational behaviour and sometimes we have illegal behaviour.
In Fraser Valley East the community is comprised in large part by descendants of immigrants. We have all come to the Fraser Valley to build a better life for ourselves. We have worked hard and we have created a wonderful community, a community which welcomes immigrants with open arms. We do not welcome abusers who pervert our system and break the laws. We welcome those who will meet their commitments to our society and those who will become responsible citizens in our country.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
Our generosity is great. Our tolerance is great, but we will not be abused. This is the message I have heard from my constituents. This is the message I have endorsed and relayed to the minister on more than one occasion. I am happy to see that the minister is taking action, and I encourage all members of this House to support this legislation.
Before I sit down I would like to reiterate that if there are things which are flawed in this legislation there is a means of correcting those flaws. That can come from any side of the House. We do not want something to go forward that will cause problems in the future.
We want something that will help make sure people are treated fairly and we also want to make sure that it is not letting people jump the queue, so to speak, to get in other than at the times they have been selected to come to Canada. We know that during the closing of this debate at second reading, which will be later on this evening, there will be a legislative committee struck to work over the summertime so that some time in the early fall this bill will be brought back to the House. Hopefully there will not be too many amendments but if amendments are necessary, I sincerely trust that the committee will endorse these amendments and bring them back to the House so we can deal with them to make sure the legislation is correct in every way possible that we know how. We are only human. We are not perfect but nonetheless I am committed to make sure we do the best job we know how.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague who said, I believe that Canada was one of the most advanced in the world when it comes to admitting immigrants. I would not say that Canada is the most progressive, but I agree with him when he says that we have an enviable reputation over several countries for having admitted so many immigrants.
As an immigrant myself, I can tell you that, so far, I have found Canada to be a very welcoming country indeed, but I am concerned about this bill, because I get the feeling that government is trying to further limit access to Canada for immigrants. Let me give you two examples and then ask my colleague to comment.
The first thing I noticed was this: there are presently hundreds of thousands of claims in the system and I suggest that the power to cancel them retroactively is an
abusive power which could be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Second, I know from my experience as a member of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee that government demanded maximum mobility on the part of Canadian workers to move from one place to the other, to work where they want them to, precisely to ensure Canada remains as competitive as possible.
What we see in this bill is the exact opposite of what we were advocating, what we promoted before the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. Government can prevent immigrants from going where they want. It can force them to stay in the same place-say Moose Jaw, La Prairie, the Saguenay or Chambly-for a number of years. It can force them to stay there for a given length of time. On the other hand, I wonder how it will manage to enforce such regulations.
Why is this government which is so anxious to avoid challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as we have seen with the referendums legislation, prompting such challenges by acting the way I just described in these two examples?


Ross Belsher: I want to thank the member opposite for his intervention and for his questions.
What we are trying to do here is work with the provinces. The provinces want to end up having some say as to what will happen with regard to people who come into Canada and they want to see if they can have some influence on that.
I see nothing wrong with that. I think it is perfectly legitimate. We already have an agreement worked out with the province of Quebec. I know British Columbia has actively pursued working out an agreement with the federal government with regard to immigration.
Various provinces have desks around the world to seek out people who want to come to their province and to help set up businesses in their province and they will do everything they can to assist them.
The member opposite asks whether it is wrong to force people to go to a place. I do not think there is anything wrong in asking people to come and make a commitment that they will stay for x number of years in a particular area. If people want to come to Canada and seek this as
June 22, 1992

their home, I see nothing wrong with asking them to make that sort of commitment ahead of time.
He talks about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter says everyone will be treated fairly under the law. If a person is going to say he would like to come to this country and he will stay in a particular place, and then after he gets here he goes and claims the charter is against him, that person is being dishonest with us. We do not want people who are dishonest with us, when they do not put down on paper what they say they will do when they come to our country. Everyone wants to hide behind the charter as to what they will do.
We want to try to discourage that. Such is the case that people get on an airplane with papers and suddenly when they get off the airplane they no longer have papers. What happened? Did they disappear into thin air? We have to have the ability to take corrective action.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would like to invite members of the House and people who read Hansard or who are watching this debate on television to really question the speech that was delivered by the member for Fraser Valley East. I want to point out that the member started off by saying that Canada has the most open and generous system in the world but then alleged that the system is too generous and people are taking advantage of it. He introduced no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that people are taking advantage of our system.
He also said that Canada must defend the integrity of its society. Again, the assumption is that the integrity of our society is in danger. There is no support for such a sweeping statement.
He then said when he was elected he pledged to restore the control of our borders, again suggesting that somehow Canada has lost control of its borders. Again, he introduced no evidence to that effect and I certainly would challenge him on that point.
The member was engaging in a pretty familiar technique which is to set up a straw man and then knock it down. I would really like to tell him that I feel he was engaging in a pretty cynical exercise which is called fear mongering or scare mongering among Canadians that somehow the gates of the country are open and the hordes are about to descend upon us.
Government Orders
The Canadian council for refugees in a press release dealing with the government's legislation said that it is disturbed by the language and orientation of the government's statements. The emphasis on control and abuse, not justified by any available statistics, will undermine public sympathy for refugees. That is the kind of cynical exercise that this member and this government are engaged in.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I take great exception to what the hon. member opposite has been saying. Where I come from there have been refugees who have been sponsored into our area and they have been well received and well looked after. They have been a tremendous asset to Fraser Valley East.
We also make no apologies for wanting to have control of our borders as to whom we invite to come to our country and that is what this bill is talking about. I make no apologies for that. That is what is taking place in this bill before us here today.
We have a situation now in which our officers are not able to carry out their jobs adequately. There are instances of that. I do not have them chapter and verse here. He knows it.
That is what this bill is addressing. I encourage members to let this bill go forward to committee so that it can be scrutinized in a very thorough manner.
I think is only right. There will not be a single amendment made to this bill here in the House during second reading. It will all be done in the committee room and there will be weeks and months of work at the committee level. That is what is necessary and I endorse it on that basis.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this very important legislation from the point of view of my own constituents. Surrey is the fastest growing riding in Canada and is now nearly the largest one. We have had an increase of 10,000 households since the last election and many of these people who are moving into the riding are new Canadians or recent immigrants who come from diverse backgrounds: eastern Europe, Central America, Latin America, the Philippines, India, China and the British Isles.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
The community has been blessed by this diversity, particularly with the Indo-Canadian community. It has contributed greatly to our economic strength, being involved in small business, labour organizations, gardening and agriculture. It has added greatly to a social milieu within the community, particularly its concepts of family and community responsibility. It holds very strongly to assisting not only its own families and extended families but other people in that community. It has added greatly to the richness of the culture, the language, the music and the food.
I also have had many of these people and their friends and relatives approach me about the problems of immigration. This bill does nothing to address their concerns and the concerns of the average Canadian. This bill does a couple of things that are diametrically opposed to what most people say they want to see in terms of immigration.
First of all, it makes fast-tracks for the wealthy. The person who is in a position to invest a lot of money in Canada is given priority and as some people say he is allowed to buy Canadian immigration status and a Canadian citizenship.
It is fixed. It is proposing to speed up the process for spouses and children but I will tell you that it was done administratively a year ago and it is now taking less than six months for most countries to unite spouses and children with relatives in Canada. Therefore it is not going to do anything for that because it has already been fixed administratively. It only needed the will of the government.
It is changing the fundamental concept of what the family is. Particularly, it is down playing the idea of extended families. In many of our communities the family is more than the mother and father and minor children. A family is parents and grandparents. A family is adult children who are not married. This bill now puts them into a lower category in which it is going to take a long time to be processed.
It puts an emphasis on recruitment of skilled workers at a time when people tell me this government should be putting more money into training within Canada to ensure that we have the skills we need in our work force. Let us not rely upon immigration as a method of recruiting skilled workers when we should be building up the strength within our own community.
In this whole business of immigration, there is concern that the policies reflected in this bill do not reflect the values of Canadian society.
Another thing that is not addressed in this legislation is the real problem in administration of immigration throughout the world.
Recently I had the opportunity to travel to India and to see the numerous problems facing immigrants and people applying for visitor visas in the immigration office in New Delhi.
First of all, it was obvious the office was dramatically understaffed. The immigration case-load had grown from 6,900 in 1986 to 12,300 in 1991 with no increase in staff. This resulted in tremendous pressure on that
office.
Of the cases coming to the office in New Delhi, 75 per cent come from the Punjab. It is difficult and even dangerous for many of the Sikhs to travel from the Punjab down to New Delhi.
The government is talking about opening a second immigration office in Bombay. I have been urging this government to open up an immigration visitor visa office where it is needed. That is in the Punjab.
Within the New Delhi office there is a problem with interpreters who understand the Sikh religion and customs. One must remember that the bulk of the people applying for immigration from India are Sikhs and from the Punjab.
There are approximately 80 locally hired staff in that New Delhi office. In other business establishments in New Delhi obviously there are Sikhs working, but in our Canadian immigration office which is dealing with 70 or 75 per cent Sikhs or Punjabi-speaking people, there is no one who is Sikh.
I went with one of my staff members who is fluent in Hindi, Punjabi and English. We sat in on an interview and the interpreter misinterpreted the interview. These same people are advising Canadians on what is Sikh religion and custom as it pertains to immigration. For example: "Is this a valid marriage? No, it is outside the custom". The people who are giving that advice do not know what the religion and custom is and they will give our officers incorrect advice. I have suggested they hire some Canadian-born Sikhs to work in the office. They hire local.

There are physical problems at the embassy. People line up from three o'clock in the morning and stay all day hoping to get a chance to get a ticket to see an immigration officer. There are no washrooms available, no water available, no shelter. That kind of a situation in a Canadian embassy would not be tolerated in any other part of the world where 300 people line up starting at three o'clock in the morning and we do not even make washrooms or water available. The temperature gets up to 40 degrees.
In the administrative process of handling immigration there are things we repeatedly make people come back and forth from the Punjab to New Delhi for. For example, we refuse to have medicals done in the Punjab. Why do we not designate four doctors who are authorized to do medicals in each of the major cities? If they submit medicals that are not appropriate, we strike them from the list. It is very easy. Some people have had to come back not only two but three times to get medicals because they last only six months and their name has not come up for immigration.
There is also another problem that this legislation has not dealt with that is as much a problem and that is the issuing of visas for visitors. Visitors visas are issued arbitrarily by the officer, with no right to appeal. The officer says: "I decide that you are not a bona fide visitor". They do so on whim and I will give you a couple of cases and our response.
I know a young man who is the president of a travel agency for all of southern India. He has been to Canada three times. He has been here with his wife and his daughter. He has always returned home. His sister is a very prominent Canadian. He applied for a visitor's visa to visit his sister for two weeks. He wanted to bring his daughter, an eight year old. His wife was going to stay behind because of her job. Immigration said he could not bring his daughter because he might abandon her in Canada. He was told he had to come the six hundred kilometres from Kerala to Delhi.
Another woman applied to bring her two children to visit her parents in Canada. Her husband was going to stay behind. She had a job to go back to. They had land in India. She was told she could not come to Canada unless she left her two infant children behind. In other words, the Canadian government said that it would hold the children hostage to guarantee the woman's return. That
Government Orders
is the kind of decision that is being made on visitors'
visas.
When my assistant was getting married, her grandmother and grandfather applied. The immigration officer gave her grandfather a five-year multiple entry visa and denied her grandmother for absolutely no reason. It
was an arbitrary decision.
The community is relying on priests in Jutha to help them within their religion. Immigration arbitrarily says this man is a farmer because in their custom and religion the guy does more than just be a priest and therefore they will not allow him to come.
We have made very strong recommendations that people who have visited Canada, the United States, North America and have returned to India should be granted visitors' visas without the need of going all the way to Delhi for an immigration interview.
The general interpretation of the legislation is that the onus is on the person who'must prove beyond any doubt he or she will be going back home. The fact that the immigration officer says you are going to abandon your husband, your children and your farm and stay in Canada, that is nonsense. We need a reasonable interpretation that the person is a reasonable visitor.
Parents and grandparents should automatically be given five-year visas. A grandparent coming from England can come and go when he or she wants. Why do we not give a five-year visa and simply let them come and visit their children and grandchildren when they wish to and go back home when they wish to. Let us give special consideration to issuing visitors visas for priests in Jutha.
My concern is that a lot of the problems in the issuing of visitors visas from New Delhi are based on the arbitrariness of immigration officers.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Who are overworked.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Now we have in this bill that a lot of the same types of arbitrary decision-making powers are going to be given to officers as they deal with other areas within the immigration and refugee process. They are going to be able to arbitrarily make decisions.
I want to talk about two or three other points of administration before I start talking about some of the refugee problems. We have another tremendous administration problem in immigration in Canada.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
People in my riding who have applied for immigration, who have been here and are now eligible to become Canadian immigrants, because of the delays in processing their applications sit there for 18 months or longer from the time they have completed their qualifications to become a Canadian citizens until they actually get Canadian citizenship. They have met all the requirements. They simply need the opportunity to go before an immigration judge, satisfy the judge that they meet the requirements, and go before the citizenship court.
There are delays now, long delays of a year, 18 months and more. We are taking a person and depriving him of job opportunities. You cannot work for the province of British Columbia unless you are a Canadian citizen. You have other losses that you are suffering. This legislation does not deal with any of the real issues that most Canadians and immigrants are concerned about. It does not deal with the real issues. It deals with the straw man model that there is a real problem with fraud in the refugee section and there is a real problem in fraud in the immigration section. There are people who are coming here who are unqualified, who do not want to work or are going to end up on welfare. That is not true.
There is another thing that really disturbs me about this piece of legislation and that is the government's approach to it. This is a significant change in immigration legislation. It is fraught with problems that are ill-thought through. What does the government do? It waits until three or four days before Parliament rises. It introduces the bill in the House. It forces it through the House on closure so we have basically two days to debate it, discuss it or look at the implications.
It is a huge bill. This is not a one-paragraph bill. It is 110 pages and some of them are very complex. They are difficult to understand. Now what is the government proposing? During the middle of the summer it proposes to rush this through a committee.
People out there in the community are in the process of getting ready for summer holidays. They are going to be away. Ethnic organizations, religious organizations, immigrant organizations are winding down for the summer. Their staffs are going on holidays. They are not going to be able to get together in two weeks, prepare
detailed briefs in response to all of these technical questions and interpretations of law and legislation, get it presented to this government and have it properly considered over the summer.
What is the hurry? If the government really feels it is right, why did it not bring this legislation in two years ago when there was lots of time? We would have had two or three years. Why is it waiting until the dying days of its mandate?
Some people in my community over the weekend suggested to me it was a another sceptical ploy to try to see if it could get before Parliament as an election issue rather than take a serious look at the needs of Canada in terms of immigration to look at our history. Under this piece of legislation my father would have never been admitted to Canada. Maybe some of you on that side feel that is quite acceptable. I will bet most of your parents and grandparents would not have been admitted to Canada either.
The people who have built this country, the people who have made this country strong, the people who have enriched this country are the ones who are no longer going to be admitted. That is a shame. It is more shameful when there is an obvious attempt by the government side to push this through the House now, to push it through committee during the summer when organizations will not have the time and resources to properly bring before the committee their concerns about the bill and then bring it back either late in August, as we are now even hearing rumours, or early in September and dump it through the House. I do not think that is acceptable.
I want to close by saying one additional thing and it has been mentioned before. Canada needs immigrants. We have a growing elderly population and the percentage is growing significantly. We need to have younger people to develop the strengths within our community.
We also need to ensure that the diversity of Canada which is its rich heritage is continued. An open and liberal immigration policy is what is needed.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member
opposite.
June 22, 1992

When the hon. member mentions that it takes at least six months for a spouse to enter this country, has he talked to the immigration critic?
Moreover, he mentioned that we should have additional manpower in New Delhi and he quoted a case in point. If we increased our staff in New Delhi, creating additional expenses, what would his reaction be?
I went to New Delhi and I was able to see all the people lining up. If we agreed to increase our staff, what would happen to the many hundreds of people waiting in line? Would that speed up the process? To do so, we need sound criteria and I think we can do it with what we already have.
The member also mentioned that it could take one or one year and a half to get an immigration visa. I do not want to enumerate all the changes that will affect family members and multicultural communities. When they will all come into effect, an immigration visa will be granted faster to a refugee's close family members, whether they are already in Canada or not, and whether they are in the applicant's country of origin or not.
Has the member carefully reviewed all the changes that will be made? A moment ago, he said that we should have done it two years ago. I must say that I am puzzled by that. The law was already in place two years ago, we are simply improving on it. Believe me, we have been working very hard for the past two years to improve this piece of legislation. This bill is a very good one.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I consulted with immigration people in New Delhi and they said to me that they need a minimum of six full-time additional immigration officers. What would be the effect? It would cut down on the line-up so maybe people would not be waiting around for 11 or 12 hours.
Maybe they would not deal with visitor visa applications so arbitrarily. Maybe they would sit there and listen to the person for five or ten minutes and actually find out why they wanted to come and get the correct information instead of arbitrarily dismissing them. Maybe they would not make arbitrary decisions that say, for example, this is not a legal marriage or a proper marriage because the woman is older than the man.
In some parts of India that is not considered custom but in the Punjab it is done all the time. Maybe if they
Government Orders
had more time, they would make better judgments. They would be more humane judgments.
That is what is necessary in order to increase it. You talk about the six months.


Fernand Jourdenais: You are lucky if you get it in six months.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: After much yelling and hollering for the last three years and documenting cases, one year ago last summer, unbeknownst to this government, the officers in New Delhi took it upon themselves, with the sanction of the senior bureaucracy in Ottawa, to change the procedure.
They simply said it is unacceptable that a spouse who has been waiting three years, four years-I have one who has been waiting sue years-to come. They said they are going to process them in six months.
Other than in a case where there is a problem with the documentation, they have lived up to that and they are processing spouses within six months. In fact, they are doing it within three months and four months by simply changing their policy.
This legislation only now sanctions what the people through their own initiative in the Delhi office were able to do simply by changing their procedure. They simply said: "We are going to do it. We are not going to put them to the bottom of the pile and let them sit there for three or four years".


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Surrey North on his remarks. I think he really communicated the emotional frustration we all experience very well.
I want to hear his views on an idea that I put to the minister earlier today when I was asking him specifically about giving members of Parliament some authority to have conditional approvals on some of the applications that are before the system, that are delayed because of the lack of person-years in the department due to their inability to catch up.
The minister in this legislation seems to be very quick in giving all of this authority to unelected officials, but he does not seem to want any authority given to members of Parliament. Quite frankly, we are much more accountable to our constituents.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
In other words, we are certainly going to be put in a harsh light if we put someone through the system on a conditional approval if it were the kind of person who was scamming the system or to quote the Solicitor General, who I think called them riff-raff.
My concern is that the minister seems to be so rigid in his way. He does not want to recognize that we as members of Parliament could be part of this solution. I just wonder what his remarks would be on that. We do sign passports and why not immigration cases?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: It is a novel I idea but my first reaction to it is I did not get elected to Parliament to become an immigration officer.


Dennis Joseph Mills: But we are.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: No, we are not. We sign passports saying this is the person's picture and we know them. I really think that would end up being a sham because in my riding I would spend all of my time reviewing refugee cases in detail. As it is now, my staff spend too much time.
The government mucks up, the government has improper procedures, the government does not have a system in place. I do not think the proper solution is for us then to take it over.
One of the things you get into is this whole arbitrariness, particularly with refugees. One of the things in this bill that bothers me is the provisions for removal of immigrants or landed people and how the government is proposing to broaden the arbitrary ability to remove people. I read this section and I wonder if this is really Canada. It says: "Provisions would be introduced to protect the disclosure of information obtained in confidence from foreign governments or intelligence agencies. The court would examine information in camera in the absence of the person to be removed, or his or her counsel".
Are you suggesting the MP become the person that hears that information in camera without the benefit of the person's counsel?


Dennis Joseph Mills: On humanitarian grounds.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: This is on the same kind of arbitrariness. The government is setting in place procedures that are undemocratic, arbitrary, and not even open to the person to know what is going on.
The government in a case such as that can have CSIS quietly designate the organization as subversive and not say anything to the public. A person then goes to a social event sponsored by the organization and is removed from Canada after a hearing that is held in camera in his or his counsel's absence.
As an individual member of Parliament I certainly do not want to get involved in any of that kind of nonsense whatsoever. It is bad legislation. Let the government make proper legislation. Let the government deal with it in a normal administrative manner, but do it properly and humanely and with justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The first five hours of debate are now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 74, I may remind hon. members that the maximum length of speeches is now 10 minutes, without questions and comments.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-86, an Act to amend the Immigration Act.
When a main thoroughfare becomes so congested that rush hour becomes practically synonymous with traffic jams, constant slowdowns and drivers who never know when they are going to get home, city planners start reviewing their traffic plans. The expressways, intermediate roads and access roads they design will help deal with the problem. After that, traffic flows at a far more logical rate and the overall impact is more satisfactory. People spend less time on the road and the number of accidents decreases.
In recent years, the number of immigrants to Canada has increased regularly. This year, 250,000 immigrants and refugees will be admitted to Canada. They come to our country, attracted by the opportunities available to those who live in a country as rich as ours. And why not, when the United Nations ranks Canada first in the world for its quality of life? They also come to this country because economic and social conditions in their country of origin are such that they want to seek a better life for themselves. In any case, the number of people who are leaving their countries for political, economic or social reasons is constantly increasing, and this creates many
June 22, 1992

new challenges for Canada and other industrialized countries.
We currently have an Immigration Act that was designed to manage the demands of simpler times. For instance, in 1980, approximately 1,500 people applied for refugee status. Last year, more than 30,000 people asked for our assistance: from 1,500 to 30,000 people per year in twelve years. This means that the situation has changed drastically and we can no longer take the same approach to the problem. Compare Germany, which expects 400,000 people to claim refuges status in that country this year.
However, we did not wait until the problem took on crisis proportions. Two years ago, the federal government introduced a five-year plan for immigration, setting the numbers and categories of immigrants we will admit annually until 1995. There is an element of response in this plan. However, today the time has come to update the instruments we intend to use to implement the action plan and that is the purpose of the amendments to the existing legislation.
The federal proposals include a new traffic plan that will help us accelerate the arrival of newcomers and fully integrate them in Canadian society, as quickly and as fairly as possible. We would do well to remember why Canada opens its doors to newcomers. There are three reasons for this. More often, it is to reunite the family of a Canadian resident. In other cases, the doors open to offer protection and asylum to refugees.
Last but not least, we regularly open our doors to independent immigrants and entrepreneurs whose presence here will strengthen our labour market or add to our expertise, technology or investment capital.
The amendments proposed by the federal government will divide our immigrant selection process into three streams or channels. Each stream would have a mix of candidates meeting our three main objectives, but the three streams would differ widely in terms of procedures and priorities.
Applications from qualified individuals in stream one would be processed as they were received, with no set limit on the total number approved in any year. These applicants would be processed in very precise time
Government Orders
frames, such as within six months for spouses and dependent children.
This stream would include spouses, fiances and dependent children of persons already living in Canada, all those recognized as convention refugees by our Immigration and Refugee Board and immigrant investors who are willing and able to invest in our economic development upon their arrival.
Stream two could also reflect our threefold interest in families, refugees and independent immigrants. This second stream would include parents and grandparents of Canadian residents, refugees sponsored by a government or a private organization and anyone benefiting from a special government program arising from a particular international problem, as well as applicants with reserved employment, working independently or admissible as domestic workers.
Applications from these people would be processed in order of receipt and, for the first time, the total number of applications in each category would be subject to limits set in the annual immigration plan. Processing time limits would be set for each application, according to the number of persons already in the system and the total provided in the annual plan. Once the limit for a category was reached, applications would be deferred until the following year.
Finally, stream three would include persons selected on the basis of excellence. There would be no refugees in this stream, since there is no connection between excellence and the need for protection.
Distant family members who are not in the other two streams will be classed with independent immigrants, sometimes in specially designated professions, and qualified entrepreneurs.
Only the best in each category, independent or entrepreneur, the most qualified or those whose qualifications were most in demand with Canadian employers would be selected. There would be precise limits for each category. In this stream as well, once an application was refused, the applicant's file would be closed. He or she would have to apply again.
In summary, these streams would speed the processing of immigrants. Stream one, the express lane, would enable us to process applicants rapidly within precise time limits. The new control measures for stream two, the intermediate lane, would help improve the flow of

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
immigrants, but the processing times would not be as precisely guaranteed as for stream one.
The third stream would give us something that we greatly need, as we all know. We need a selection method based on success, but which in itself would take nothing away from generosity, a way of channeling excellence into the mainstream of Canadian society.
From the beginning, we wanted to be sure that with the changes made to the Immigration Act, the program would continue to serve the best interests of all of Canada and all Canadians. We are convinced that these amendments will help us achieve our objective, which is to have a fair, balanced, efficient program.
For all these reasons, I am pleased to support the bill and I will vote for it because it is what Canadians want.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-86 which profoundly amends the present Immigration Act.
Let me begin by quoting from Sir Wilfrid Laurier's eulogy to the first and greatest Canadian Prime Minister: "The life of Sir John A. Macdonald-is the history of Canada".
The history of Canada at that time was one shaped by a vision of unity, of a binding from sea to sea. The cords that were to bind the country were the people, people of every race, colour and creed, of every language and culture, toiling to make a better life for themselves and those they loved.
Macdonald himself emigrated from Scotland. Laurier, the first Canadian-born Prime Minister, opened Canada to the immigration movement. He filled the land with hard-working souls who built the railways, ploughed the prairies, and mined the hard, unforgiving rock. Trees were felled. Towns were built. Boats of every size and shape plied the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific, bringing fish to port or goods to market.
The vision: the country came before region, unity before language and culture.
These two great men, one an immigrant, another Canadian born, began through the process of immigration a legacy of nation building that has set Canada apart in the world. Ours is a country that now is a shining example of compassion to immigrants and refugees.
Last Tuesday, June 16, the minister's office released a communique on Bill C-86. The opening paragraph read:
Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Employment and Immigration, today announced a series of important changes to the Immigration Act which will ensure that the country's immigration system continues to contribute to the unity and prosperity of Canada.
Yet the message of the Minister of Employment and Immigration had a distinctly unpleasant after-taste. When he speaks not from prepared text his language really reveals and echoes the intent of his government. The message comes through loud and clear to the people on the other end of this legislation, refugees and immigrants and those who volunteer on their behalf, that what is in their bank account is of greatest importance when they reach Canadian soil.
In his press conference the minister remarked on bogus refugees and welfare cheats, on immigration scams and asylum shopping. He said:
We are going to give ourselves the powers to stop welfare abuse.
I felt that in many ways the minister perpetuated myths that the government should be trying to refute, myths that our immigrants and refugees are a strain on the system, that they are a commodity to be managed, that they are to be accepted or rejected as mere commodities.
The minister perpetuates the myth that immigrants are a drain on the public purse, suggesting our welfare system is abused. Studies show that to the contrary costs associated with the arrival of foreigners are short-term and that a much lesser number of them go on welfare compared to Canadian-born citizens. Also, immigrants take jobs that have been shunned by Canadians or for which there are not enough qualified people in Canada.
The Employment and Immigration Advisory Council reported Canadians need to be educated on the benefits of immigration. Yet the government has never supported such an education campaign. For its good advice the advisory council was axed by this government. The minister himself repeats the cheating immigrant myth,
June 22, 1992

telling the media at his press conference about a refugee collecting multiple welfare cheques.
Why has the minister not highlighted the achievements of Canadian immigrants instead?
These people include: Wilder Penfield, founder of the Montreal Institute of Neurology, an American turned Canadian and one of the foremost brain specialists of our times; Timothy Eaton from Ireland and Sir Donald Smith of Scotland, who headed two of the largest chains of department stores in Canada and who were players in our history; Tommy Douglas, also Scottish, who broke the ground for some of this country's most loved social programs including medicare; and more recently we think of Dr. John Polanyi, a Canadian chemist and Nobel prize winner who was born in Berlin and immigrated to Canada in 1934.
Canadian arts and culture have flourished under the attention of immigrants like Ofra Hamoy, a world renowned cellist from Israel; Rohinton Mistry of India, winner of the 1991 Governor General's award for fiction; and Austin Clark, a novelist from Barbados.
Broadcasting owes much to Adrienne Clarkson who immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong. Rosemary Brown, advocate for women's rights, was the first black woman elected to political office in Canada. She came to this country from Jamaica.
Recognition for excellence in sports goes to Sharif Kahn of Pakistan, many times world squash champion.
For success in business, who could forget Thomas Bata, a Czechoslovakian who built the largest shoe manufacturing company in Canada.
For a legal luminary, do not forget Justice Bertha Wilson, bom in Scotland, who was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As an immigrant from the Philippines and now a member of this Parliament, I take pride in the precedent set by these immigrants whose hearts and talents have long belonged to Canada. I can only aspire to the heights they as immigrants and Canadians have reached.
At that press conference soon after tabling the bill, the minister with his 113-page bill on the table before him was writing himself a blank cheque to be the one to
Government Orders
manage the immigration system. In effect he is writing Parliament out of the process with regulations that bypass the legislative process. He is removing the rights of refugees to appeal Immigration and Refugee Board decisions to a court of law.
Precedents are abundant to show that a court of law has not always agreed with the decisions of the refugee board. Has this government forgotten that the courts are the fortress of law and justice, that democracy becomes meaningless if natural justice is denied? Have the minister and this government failed to remember that courts of appeal prove to the world the vitality of democracy by which we live? Truth does not have to be afraid of appeal, particularly in a court of law where men and women dedicate themselves to the noble pursuit of justice and understanding.
Arbitrary decisions on visitors visas in the past have also infringed on the rights of both Canadians and of their visiting family members.
Recently I intervened on behalf of a Mrs. Kaur from India, the sister of a man who died in my constituency. She travelled long and arduously from her home in the Indian countryside to the Canadian Embassy in New Delhi, applied and was denied. I intervened on her behalf, and after a prolonged agony a minister's permit was given. How many more Sarjit Kaurs are refused visitors visas every day?
Recently a constituent invited a relative from Ukraine. The visitor was refused admittance for similar reasons. Ukrainians until now had been prisoners in their own country, until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Is it not ironic that again they are prisoners this time because of Canadian immigration policy?
I would like to conclude by saying that this country was built by immigrants. It is a country that was not built overnight, yet overnight the government is trying to drastically change the whole immigration process. Some changes are good, but some changes are bad. We and the people who care about immigrants and the continued growth and prosperity of this country should be given time to study this bill.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I too, am very pleased to stand here to speak to Bill C-86. The motion put forward by the immigration minister refers to the second reading and reference to a legislative com-

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
mittee in the Departmental envelope of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof and on the amendment by my colleague, the hon member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, seconded by the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys:
That the motion before us be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
That Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
It is saying the bill should not be passed this evening but it should be given an extension allowing us the opportunity to scrutinize it.
The complex and extensive bill was tabled less than a week ago. There has not been enough time to carefully scrutinize it or to have broad consultation. It is disappointing the government has not allowed a full and open discussion about this most serious bill which would involve all parties concerned.
The government is attempting to regain votes lost to its extreme right-wing adversary, the Reform Party, by catering to the perception that the system is being abused and manipulated by a significant percentage of refugees and immigrants. Available studies prove that the opposite is true and that in fact, immigrants contribute far more to this country than they take away.
The language of the bill is disturbing in that it concentrates on issues of control and abuse and not on the interests of helping genuine refugees while at the same time streamlining the process.
We know that 95 per cent of those who come to Canada are approved for recognition as refugees in the first stage of the present system.
We need time to study this bill in order to offer constructive criticism. Instead, the government would rather blindly push the legislation through to suit its own political agenda. This fact has added significance when one considers that this legislation constitutes the most extensive revisions to the Immigration Act since 1978. There are obviously many flaws and we must have time to deal with the issues properly.
When we are dealing with refugees we are dealing with life and death situations. As the opposition critic for
human rights, I know from experience that those who are sincere refugees-and the vast majority are-come to Canada to escape severe oppression and in many cases death.
Let us for a moment try to understand the people we are supposed to be helping through our system of refugee determination. According to article 1 of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, a refugee is "a person who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or a political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
In 1969, Canada signed the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and in 1989 Canada received the UN High Commissioner for Refugees highest award for humanitarian assistance. That speaks tremendously well of Canada.
In 1986, the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations published a report entitled Independence and Internationalism. It concluded that Canada's refugee policies were consistent with the country's larger foreign policy objectives, namely humanitarianism, humanitarian assistance to disadvantaged peoples and our interest in a stable and just international order.
There are few countries in the world which have sufficient resources and the capability to provide temporary or permanent asylum to refugees. Canada figures prominently on that short list.
I submit that our enviable record has slipped. It has slipped at a time when the world needs us most. Environmental disasters, chronic famine and regional conflicts are factors contributing to the creation of new classes of refugees and give rise to even more confusion about what should constitute a precise definition of a refugee.
Recently, global trends have placed unprecedented pressure on Canada's refugee determination process. In 1981, 3,450 refugee claims were made to Canada. The 1980s saw a remarkable increase in claims. In 1987, there were 25,000 people claiming refugee status and by 1989
June 22, 1992

that number had increased dramatically to 95,000. We saw an incredible backlog as a result.
In order to deal with this the government introduced legislation in an attempt to streamline the process. The changes prove over time to be slow, open to abuse and grossly unfair to many of the refugees who get caught in this trap. Today, we look at the government's attempt at improving the process.
Many of the provisions proposed in this legislation deal with management of the system and with enforcement. Whether or not they can actually be considered an over-all improvement to Canada's immigration system is yet to be determined.
As has been the case with other bills passed recently by this government, Bill C-86 grants to the minister and cabinet a greater use of regulation and removes several matters from the law.
The measures included to speed up family reunification of young children, husbands and wives are indeed very welcome.
Our immigration critic, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, recommended some time ago, on May 21, 1992, that those granted refugee status should be allowed to sponsor their families as soon as they are recognized as refugees.
One-third of refugees have spouses &/or children and many have been separated for over five years as they get caught in the extremely slow process. It makes sense to allow immediate reunification of refugees with their families since approximately 95 per cent of refugees are eventually granted landed status.
The bill also resurrects a safe third country provision which was opposed a few years ago in former Bill C-55. This allows an immigration officer to return a refugee applicant to certain countries which the applicant passed through on the way to Canada.
According to the Canadian Council for Refugees much decision-making has been taken away from the quasi-independent immigration adjudicators and given to senior immigration officers. The CCR continues that decisions that will be made without the claimant having a right to counsel. Genuine refugees because of that may be sent away at the border having no recourse at all.
Changes as well are proposed to the process of the refugee panel. In the present process only one member
Government Orders
of a two member panel need approve the applicant for recognition as a refugee. Under this bill the approval of two members out of two will be required in certain cases.
Under the legislation the minister will be allowed to choose among applicants for immigration those he or she considers to be the best for one reason or another. This would replace the system of first come first served for a system of pick and choose. The cynical side of me can only guess which immigrants from which countries will get preferred treatment, especially if we were to believe the majority of the proposed changes are politically motivated.
Other changes include that the general stay for visitors visas has been extended from three to six months, but nothing has been done to correct the abuse in rejecting legitimate applications for visitors visas. The bill introduces more stringent provisions against potential terrorists and criminals involved in organized crime. It is not clear how freedom fighters, for example, would be distinguished from terrorists. I think it is critical that this distinction be made quite clear.
The bill also shifts a substantial burden from the government to transportation carriers for enforcement of the law. There could be serious implications here for cost accountability and control. It is interesting that the government is expressing such a desire to control immigration and the influx of refugees on the one hand and on the other hand to relinquish some control to transportation carriers. It just does not seem to make sense to me. One good provision is the inclusion of a system of discipline for members of the Immigration Refugee Board who misbehave or are negligent. There were several cases where board members were rude and ridiculed refugee applicants. I think most of us were quite shocked by that.
While it is good to clearly define what is acceptable behaviour, I am left wondering whether it is a politically motivated inclusion or whether it has been included in the interests of humanitarian concern for people who have already suffered enough.
There are a number of areas that have not been dealt with by this bill. There is no provision for an appeal on the merits of a case from decisions rejecting refugees at the border or at the refugee board. There is an appeal on questions of law-to the federal court, but even this is

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
restricted. No board is perfect and an appeal system is essential where human rights are involved.
While the bill will clarify and improve the enforcement provisions of the act, nothing is being done to clarify and improve the use of section 14, which provides for admission of refugees on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
I prepared a 20-minute speech and unfortunately now have to cut it down to 10 minutes. There are a lot of other things I wanted to speak about, but obviously I do not have the time. Members on this side of the House and I believe the bill needs more study in consultation with immigration refugee experts. There needs to be genuine improvement, which will incorporate efficiency and compassion, not just attract some of the voters who have fled to the Reform Party.
This bill has serious implications for Canadians. To close debate and ram through bad legislation is a disservice to Canadians and a betrayal of the people of this world who are not fortunate enough to enjoy the same freedoms we do.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for 10 minutes on this bill.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This is not a bad bill at all. This is a good bill that I think is welcomed by our constituents and Canadians from coast to coast.
It will help Canadian residents be reunited with close family relatives from abroad. It will commit Canada to providing shelter to legitimate refugees and it will promote the development of a strong and viable economy in all regions of this country.
The government is proposing a series of changes to the way we have been doing things since the last immigration act was passed in 1976. They are sensible, pragmatic and important changes that will ensure immigration continues to serve the best interests of all Canadians. Some measures will streamline the way we identify and receive refugees, while others will place more emphasis on attracting to Canada those with particular skills and talents we require. Others will reduce the abuse of these programs and clear up the inefficiencies to make the system fair to all.
The changes are needed because the context for our immigration program is very different than it was in 1976. Political and economic conditions around the world are less stable today. Natural disasters, regional conflicts and economic collapse have sparked large-scale and unpredictable movements of people. Some experts suggest as many as 80 million people are on the move at any one time.
In 1983, for instance, about 95,000 people sought asylum in OECD countries; in 1991 that number had jumped by 800 per cent to 700,000. Most of those asylum seekers would not qualify as refugees according to United Nations definitions.
There has been a blurring of the distinction between refugees and economic migrants.
At present, the number of individuals wanting to enter Canada is enormous. The demand is impossible to predict and moreover the classification of newcomers is far from straightforward. In this environment we need the tools to help us manage the ever-increasing demand on our immigration program and help us make the most straightforward determination and the best selection possible in the best interests of Canada.
Embedding efficiency and control in our system is particularly important right now, given the future all industrial nations face as we learn to deal with this mass movement of people. It is not a question of closing the doors as some have suggested. It is a question of managing our programs in the most effective way possible with the resources at hand in order to best serve the interests of this country.
One of the problems with the 1976 act was this. The federal government was given the responsibility of establishing the over-all level of immigration in a given year but it was not provided with the authority to actually achieve those levels. To effectively manage the immigration program, the Government of Canada requires that authority. It is given that authority in Bill C-86.
To make sure Canada's immigration program benefits all Canadians, we must be sure that our system is under control. Many of my constituents in Niagara Falls, through surveys they have returned to my office, through their letters, when speaking to me in the street, believe that we are in danger of losing control of the system. In
June 22, 1992

that fear I believe they are right. That is why new enforcement measures are needed.
There are individuals on our doorstep who are very adept at circumventing immigration procedures and our laws. We see this in increasing numbers and we also see the sophistication of fraudulent documents, new techniques for avoiding legal entry, and methods of smuggling illegal immigrants into Canada. It is time for some new and appropriate tools to fight these and other forms of abuse which attack the integrity of our immigration program.
Within our borders things have changed too since the current Immigration Act first went into effect. The needs of provinces and regions for residents with specific skills and experience are an even greater priority now during a time of economic difficulty and increased urbanization than it was in 1976.
As well we have a much more pointed sense of where inequities in our system exist. For example, why does it take so long to process the applications of legitimate immigrants from around the world? It is one of the difficult things that all of us as members of Parliament face when we get constituents who say they have somebody in the old country who has filled out all the proper forms, they qualify, they have the medicals, they have everything in place and then they are told they may have to wait three years. That is a system that works in nobody's interest and it is one which should change.
These proposed changes will go a long way to reducing those kinds of frustrations for individuals immigrating to Canada. It will at the same time deter cheating at the time of entry and ensure that the balance among the three primary goals of our immigration system best serve Canadians.
The changes we propose will make that system fairer and more straightforward for everyone and that is why I support it. That is why I think all members of the House should support this legislation.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin my speech on Bill C-86, the immigration bill, by picking up where my hon. colleague left off. As a member on the government side, he said that this immigration bill is a bill which is going to provide a sense of fairness to the immigration procedure and process. I do not buy that. I do not buy that at all.
Government Orders
If you look at the bill carefully you can easily pick out five or six areas where it does not provide this fairness. I ask for my friends on the government side to bear with me and listen. Perhaps they will see why I consider the bill unfair.
First, we are talking about the requirement that we have developed where the wealthy get into this country no matter what their competency is, no matter what the need is. As long as they have money they jump to the head of the line.
It is like a new head tax except it is much more expensive nowadays. I guess the government is keeping a line on inflation and has decided if you have enough money you can come into the country. It is made even worse with this bill because they are given even higher priority. Actually we are making this injustice even worse than it was before.
The second objection I have concerns the speeding up of the reuniting of families. I understand this has already been done administratively. It is not necessary to have a bill.
We talk about reuniting families and allowing the working family to exist and allowing immigrants to work. However, by the time the paperwork is finished and the citizenship granted, what good does it do a family if they cannot earn any money because they are not Canadian citizens until about one year or 18 months after the paperwork has been done?
What happens to those people who are waiting for their paperwork to be processed? Some of the people in some provinces have to go on welfare. Some of the people in some provinces have to work illegally. They do not pay any taxes. The government is shooting itself in the foot because it does not allow these people to work. It takes so long to give them their citizenship that actually these people are withholding money the government legitimately should have through taxes. This bill does not even address that fundamental problem.
Third, we should look at the fundamental rights of immigrants when you come to this country. We are all immigrants to this country I suppose except for the First Nations. Perhaps I am one of the most recent immigrants. I am an immigrant from the United States.
When I talk about fundamental rights I know what that means when you are an immigrant and you come to

Government Orders
that border and you are given an interview with someone who has more information on you than you know about.
I recall vividly when I went before the immigration authority seeking to become a Canadian citizen after renouncing my American citizenship, after being in the U.S. army for three years, after being honourably discharged, having spent my time in Panama. On the other side of the desk the immigration authority asked me if I had ever been in trouble. Had I ever been in trouble? I wish I had a dime for every time I had been in trouble. I would be a rich man today. I grew up during the turbulent 1960s.
I was in charge of a boycott in my college which saw the president resign. Spiro Agnew, who was the governor of Maryland, jailed me overnight along with others because we were suspected of inciting to riot because we were boycotting classes. We were working with groups affiliated with Martin Luther King. I guess I was some kind of terrorist because I had been arrested for marching in demonstrations.
I knew from information that the immigration authority who was interviewing me had, that I had a chance to respond, to explain, and to give examples. He understood. I was allowed to come into Canada and I guess we are all suffering for that right now.
Here I was, relatively well educated, someone white coming into a country which wanted to have I suppose immigrants such as myself. I had done all the paperwork. Then at that one moment of fundamental right, and we call that audi alteram partem which means being able to speak on the other side and being able to confront your accuser.
We do not have that in this bill. Immigrants will not know what they have got on them. They can say you are a member of some suspicious organization, some terrorist organization. What is the difference between a terrorist and a patriot? The one who wins.
Thlk to me about the Stem gang in Israel. Thlk to me about the PLO, the Contras, talk to me about anyone who is fighting for principle. If you are fighting for principle it takes many different forms, many different ways, and it just takes one high-level bureaucrat to decide you do not fit into his or her way of trying to change society. It does not matter if that is the way it is in
your country. Therefore, you are to be excluded without ever knowing what the accusations were.
That is what is so dishonourable. That is what is so unjust. That is what is so obscene about this bill. You will not have a chance as an immigrant to confront your accuser.
I have another problem with this bill about requiring immigrants to stay in one place. I do not think it can be enforced. On the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee we looked at mobility across the country. We needed mobility, people working where they were needed. We wanted to promote that.
We have a bill right now saying: "Look, you are black. Why not go to Moose Jaw? We think we could have you in Moose Jaw for two, three or four years". "You are brown. Let us see. What colour do we want to paint the northern part of this country?" "Maybe in the eastern part we will make it a little darker hue". This is tantamount to disaster. This will not work. We cannot force people to go into areas where they do not quite naturally belong and where they do not want to be. They are going to go where their families are, and to do otherwise is cruel and unusual punishment.
There are a number of things about Bill C-86, the immigration bill, which I disagree with. It is a contempt of Parliament mainly because much of what is in it is going to be decided by regulation. The government through regulation and orders of cabinet will be able to reward with favours people it wishes to favour and restrict people who it wishes to restrict without having a debate in Parliament.
I think that is wrong. It is even a contempt of the Supreme Court and the Singh judgment of 1985 wherein the Supreme Court said that the government was wrong, that it had to give them a fair hearing, and that it could not exclude people from entering this country without listening to the basic reasons which brought them here.
In conclusion, I would like to say there is a cherry on this cake, this gift to the Reform Party, this pre-electoral cake. The cherry on top of this putrid cake is the ability to cancel retroactively applications which are already working through the system.
June 22, 1992

There are 300,000 applications in the system. This is what the government is talking about when it talks about streamlining. That is its definition of streamlining: retroactively cancelling applications.
I do not know how this fits into the lexicon on the government side when it talks about fairness, equity and streamlining. It seems to me this is a bid to reduce immigration. This is a bid to make it so difficult that people will not try as hard as they have in the past to come to our country.
Perhaps our country has not been the best as far as receiving immigrants, but it has been damn good. If we compare the United States where perhaps 7 per cent to 10 per cent of applicants are admitted to Canada where we have close to 60 per cent admitted, I think it is something to be proud of. Bill C-86 is not something to be proud of. I am very much ashamed that we have a government on the other side which dares to present it.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an authority on immigration but I would say to my hon. colleague, the last speaker, that this bill is not something to be ashamed of. I think, frankly from what I have seen of this bill, that it is something to be very proud of.
It is not surprising that the recent recognition of Canada by the United Nations as the best place to live in all the world has been previously heralded by the immigration and refugee pressures which have been upon this country from virtually every nation around the globe. Canada, as we all know, is in tremendous demand as a place in which to build new lives.
Immigration is not just a one-way consideration, however, because Canada needs new citizens just as surely as so many new Canadians want to come here.
For example, I am told present economic and demographic statistics show a minimum immigration requirement annually of 1 per cent of our population or more than 250,000 new immigrants each year just to keep our economic viability in balance on a population basis.
Contrary to what the hon. member has just said about immigration not increasing, immigration in 1991 was at the level of 220,000 immigrants. In 1992 and onward it is estimated and projected at 250,000 as a constant. The chances are that as conditions dictate, those figures may increase in the future.
Government Orders
Immigrants want Canada and Canada needs immigrants. Thus our immigration policies and management of them are a critical part of our nation's master plan for the future, both economically and socially. This Bill C-86 not only contains important measures to make our immigration program work to an improved potential but it is comprehensive, constructive and responsible. It addresses four main themes. They are the immigration management system, which comprises several areas of attention, selecting and processing immigrants, special programs, provincial and regional interests, geographic and occupational mobility and the Immigrant Investor Program.
The second major structure is that of protecting society, of intercepting illegal immigrants, border controls, new search provisions to enable apprehension at the border and certification of legitimate immigrants at border points and the enforcement of our immigration policies in Canada to prevent abuse to our welfare programs, abuse of the refugee system by criminals and to provide for necessary removals and deportations as they may occur.
The third structural pinnacle of the bill is the refugee status determination system where access and international co-operation are featured, streamlining the system so that the Immigration and Refugee Board operates more efficiently in the service to all involved so that there is timely action with respect to faster landing, clearances to employment, to removals and deportations where required and to an appeal process through the Federal Court of Canada.
Last, the fourth major pinnacle of the structure is that of improved services, procedures which are simplified, response time which is faster, better information systems, issuing and renewing of documents, returning resident permits and perhaps, very significantly also, the transparency of the program, the fact that the rules and the procedures are open and visible to all.
Immigrants are very well served by their new status as permanent Canadian residents, but the increasing numbers of people seeking to enter Canada have put enormous pressures on a system which is not adequately designed to handle them. As a result, the process that immigrants must go through is marred by less than

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
satisfactory service. The road to landed status for an immigrant or a refugee can be filled with line-ups and delays, with uncertainty as to when important events will take place, with forms that are complicated and with rules and procedures that are both hard to understand and unclear as to their purpose.
Unsatisfactory service is both troubling and troublesome as a symptom of certain problems within our immigration program. To deal directly with those causes this Bill C-86 has been introduced. As I said, it contains some very comprehensive elements to bring improvement to our entire immigration system.
The most important of these changes is a plan to subdivide the flow of immigration and refugee requests into three main streams, distinct in priority and procedure. It is worth dwelling on those three streams for clarification.
The first stream is the one which is to be demand driven, where applications will be handled on demand, where there will be no limits. These will include immediate dependent family, spouses and children, refugees and investors and their families. That portion of the immigration flow, based on 1991 figures, I have estimated to be in the order of 24 per cent.
The second stream is what has been termed the first-come first-served stream where there will be limits on the total immigration allowable count and where time standards will be set. These will include parents and grandparents of immigrants and their families and selected refugees from abroad. That category will comprise an estimated 35 per cent of the total immigration flow.
Last, the third stream will be immigrants who are selected for excellence. There will also be a limit on the number of those immigrants annually and there will be a schedule and a timetable. Those will consist of entrepreneurs, not just investors bringing dollars, but entrepreneurs, people will skills, people who have demonstrated their ability to run a business and to create wealth. It will include those with special skills and it will include assisted relatives of families.
In speeding up the process of the immigration flow, earlier this afternoon a reference was made to delays at the immigration office in Delhi. It was suggested that it
was only the immigration officers at that one post who were responsible for bringing about improvements in the processing of spouses and dependent children.
It is true that the immigration officials at our posts throughout the world are very efficient, innovative and have much ingenuity. For the record, I think it is important to note that the improvements at Delhi and at other posts are the direct result of the five-year immigration plan improvements which were introduced in this House in November 1990. The commitments contained in that plan and in that introduction are contained in this bill.
The qualified applicants in stream one as I have said will be processed on demand with no fixed limit to the total number of applications. Those in stream two would be processed on a first come, first serve basis with the total number in each category subject to limits set out in Canada's annual immigration plan. Finally, stream three would include individuals who are selected for excellence, as I have said earlier, entrepreneurs, those with special skills and assisted relatives.
Only the best in this last stream, the most highly skilled or those with skills that the Canadian employers need, will pass through in numbers also corresponding to the limits of the annual plan.
The proposed management streams would greatly improve the treatment of all potential newcomers. If spouses, dependent children, refugees and immigrant investors are placed in stream one they will receive immediate attention. As for those in stream two, the new authority to turn away applications when levels are reached will eliminate backlogs which presently drain our resources and which presently limit our flexibility to handle emergency situations. Finally, no backlogs will be allowed at all in the build-up in stream three, backlogs which presently drain our resources and reduce our flexibility to help others.
In closing, I would just like to say the Immigration Act in 1976 committed Canada to an ongoing immigration program with high principles and a series of clear goals. Those goals which are as vital today as they were then are to help Canadian residents to reunite with close family relatives from abroad. They commit Canada to provide shelter to refugees fleeing persecutions and they promote the development of a strong and viable economy in all regions of Canada.
June 22, 1992

The proposed changes in Bill C-86 will go a long way to reduce frustrations for those immigrating to Canada, to deter cheating at the time of entry and to ensure that the balance among the three primary goals of our immigration policy best serve the interests of all of Canada.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the government will proceed very carefully with this legislation. It is my hope that the government will go out and speak to the special interest groups, church organizations, non-governmental organizations and those in fact who would be affected before this legislation is passed into law.
Just a few days ago I had the pleasure of speaking with a representative of the local organization in my riding, the Bootleggers. They are inviting a team from Moscow to come and play here in Ottawa. The team's name is the Moscow Swans. In fact, the Governor General wrote a very nice letter welcoming the team to Canada.
The team arrived in New York only to be told that they could not enter Canada unless each one of those players pays a $50 fee for his or her visa. This is not very healthy, simply put.
The tourism industry in my view will be the largest industry in Canada over the next few years because of the beautiful land that we have, because of the country that we have. To that extent, to put a charge on each individual who wants to come to Canada to visit will not enhance tourism. It will be a deterrent. That is exactly what happened in this situation in which the people who invited the team to come to Canada in order to celebrate Canada 125 were quite upset and rightly so. There is nothing in the legislation that would give the minister the right or the provision whereby visa charges can be waived.
Having said this, while it does apply to visitors it also applies to immigrants. An applicant for permanent residence would have to pay $350 regardless of whether he or she is approved. How much of that is fair? I think each applicant should go through a preliminary interview with a preliminary application. If he or she passes the test, they can proceed from there. To use the immigration system as a measure to generate revenue to the Government of Canada is not fair. I would suggest it is also discriminatory.
Government Orders
Eighty per cent of the cases that my office deals with are immigration cases, refugee cases and visitor applicants. Believe it or not, in some cases it takes up to three months for somebody who wants to come and visit Canada to get a visitor visa issued. I received a call from a local lawyer who told me in business you have to move fast. If there is a deal here in Canada and a prospective investor from Hong Kong, in this particular case the applicant is from Hong Kong, that prospective investor cannot wait two months to receive his visitor visa to come to Canada and have a look at the project at hand. There are certain aspects that need to be addressed.
In many cases prospective applicants have to wait over two years, separated from their wives and their families, before they hear an answer. I have many people who will arrive in the office asking why their brother or sister or cousin was refused when so and so was accepted: "Why was my brother, who speaks the language and has these qualifications, refused when so and so was accepted?" There is inconsistency and simply put, to a large extent when we talk about applications from outside of Canada, the applicant is at the mercy of an immigration officer. That has to be clarified and put in a way that is consistent.
You bring those landed immigrants here to Canada, many of them with Ph.D.s, with a lot of qualifications. I want to say it has saddened me to see many of them are cab drivers, waiters, garbage collectors, doing all sorts of odd jobs, and not because they want to do those jobs. Simply put, it is because in the way we deal with it, in our educational system, there is absolutely no provision to recognize their qualifications so they could fit in to the mainstream.
I have dealt with a dentist who finished his degree in the United Kingdom. He came here to Canada only to end up being a sales person, a real estate agent, for two and a half years and could not qualify in order to practice as a dentist here in Canada even though he had his degree from the United Kingdom. A physician, an electrical engineer and so on, many of those professions are very much needed here and yet we do not deal with their qualifications in an effective way in which we could give them the accreditation they deserve so they could be full-fledged citizens.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
On second language training, we have many immigrants who bring their moms, their dads or their children who do not have second language training, who do not speak either French or English back at home. Our second language training in Canada is a total failure. Simply put, there is no system that is in place in order to see whether all of this money we are pouring into second language training is getting the results we should be getting.
School-boards are getting stuck with the end product. Many children are coming to a school in which they do not speak the language. The teachers have to be not only social workers but moms, planners, nurses-just about everything.
The government has not done enough in order to set up a fair and equitable system that is accessible whereby we could take our immigrants and put them into the mainstream by first giving them the education they deserve, and that is second language training, or the education they need to become full-fledged citizens.
My colleague from British Columbia alluded a little bit to citizenship. It is a major disaster. The Citizenship Act is a total failure in a lot of ways, not only because an applicant for citizenship would have to wait over one year in order to receive an application form to become a Canadian citizen, but after that one year, once he or she is given the application, they would have to wait up to another eight months to have an interview with a judge, only to be asked by the judge about the length of the St. Lawrence River, the number of lakes between Canada and the United States. These are not the kinds of questions we should be asking landed immigrants. We should be asking landed immigrants about what they have done since they arrived in Canada, whether they have been in trouble with the law, whether they have raised their families, whether they have been full participants in the mainstream. These are the questions we should ask landed immigrants.
My colleague from Quebec agrees with me. He is shaking his head. That is the way we measure citizenship. Unfortunately the Citizenship Act which we have right now is not only discriminatory against potential citizens, it is also unfair, ineffective and a total failure. While we accept in excess of about 250,000 landed immigrants a
year, we are not processing even one-third of that number for people who want to become full-fledged citizens of this country. Simply put, our citizenship courts are full. Take a number, as my colleague is saying; it is a long queue.
Nothing in this bill addresses the question of the full integration of immigrants in Canada. Nothing in this bill addresses the question of citizenship in Canada. Nothing in this bill addresses the question of what to do with qualified landed immigrants once they arrive in Canada.
I want to say that there are a lot of good things in the bill but my suggestion to the government is to go for a full-fledged public consultation before it makes it law.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Davenport for allowing me this opportunity to discuss for a few moments the contents of the bill that we are presently debating before this House, a bill that is designed to change the immigration policies of Canada.
My comments will be veiy general in nature inasmuch as this bill changes the policy and changes the philosophical principles by which we have built Canada over the past 50 years. The clause by clause interpretation will be handled by my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, and myself as members of the immigration committee as the bill finds its way through the committee stage before it is reported again in the House at third reading. We intend to be involved very much in the process of trying to implement the changes that we on this side of the House feel are so necessary with respect to the policies and the philosophy by which immigration should be handled in this country.
Again, as a preface to the bill, it is very interesting to me inasmuch as immigration policies in this country allowed my family to enter Canada some 45 years ago. I guess I could be construed as a product of the immigration policies of Canada at that time. The bill is of particular importance to me because it dictates what we will be doing in the next 50 years in the progress of Canada as we build toward a stronger and unified future.
I would like to repeat the words of our colleague from Windsor West who was applauded in this House just a few days ago for having served 30 years as a member of the House of Commons in almost every portfolio. Let me reiterate his words because I think they express what
June 22, 1992

immigration in Canada is all about in the best terms I have heard. He said:
Mr. Speaker, as you know I am proud to be the son of Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe.
If I could just paraphrase, if any member of this House were speaking she or he could substitute child of Finnish immigrants, Portuguese immigrants, Ukrainian immigrants, Polish immigrants, Cuban immigrants, Haitian immigrants, Italian immigrants, or immigrants from any of the countries Canada has been able to build and draw from for so many years.
The hon. member for Windsor West went on to say:
Looking at the story of my parents and their hopes and aspirations, and looking at my part in that story makes me want to say to the members of this House that it is only a small part of the larger story of the Canadian dream, which is being told and retold every day in this country by the strivings of tens of thousands of people who are working to create better lives for themselves, for their families and thereby to build a better country for all of us.
Those were the words spoken by the member the other day in this House and they are as apropos today as they were 50 years ago.
Our immigration policy and procedure must give those people who choose Canada as the new home for themselves and their families every opportunity to do so in an efficient, streamlined and empathetic manner. We must make future Canadians feel welcome, needed and wanted by the country they have chosen as their new home.
The reality of the fact is history has taught us Canada is no longer a country made up primarily of those with English backgrounds. Nor do we have a country made up primarily of those with francophone backgrounds. Today in Canada more than 12 million Canadians, more than a third of its population, came from other lands and countries around the world.
Many people came to this country at the turn of the century and in the great immigration waves of the late 1940s, early 1950s, and early 1960s. Their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters have made very substantial contributions to the future of this country.
They came to Canada with the ability and desire to work. They came to Canada because they wanted freedom and hopefully they came to Canada because they
Government Orders
wanted to make a better life for themselves and their children.
I think it is inevitable when we look at what Canada is today, that the United Nations just recently voted Canada the number one country in the world in which to live.
Those people who came from all the countries in the world and chose Canada as their home have truly succeeded in helping to make Canada the country it is.
With this bill we are not just talking about another piece of legislation. We are not just talking about another bill. We are talking of developing a philosophy through this new immigration law of where Canada shall go as a country in the next 50 years.
There is no question in my mind once we overcome this debate on unity we are presently going through, many of the people who choose Canada as their home will add as substantially as those who have come to Canada in the past 50 years.
As a result, the legislation must be regarded not as just another piece of legislation, but it must be regarded as a philosophical concept of how we want and where we want this country of ours to go.
I must show my displeasure, not with the entire contents of the legislation but with the manner and procedure which was used to introduce it into this House. Last week the immigration bill that will guide Canada's immigration policy for perhaps the next decade, was introduced on Wednesday in this House. There was a short debate on it Friday-Monday is also a short day in this House. I am told-I was not able to be here early today-time allocation was announced and some one hour and a half from now there will be a vote for passage at second reading and then the bill will go to a committee.
To develop such important policy for the country, to develop the criteria we are going to need to help us build this country, we cannot do justice to this bill by speaking on it in this place for just 10 or 15 or 20 minutes over a shortened debate. There are many members on this side of the House and I am sure on that side, who want to make a contribution that elected members of Parliament

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
should be making with respect to the future allocation of people in this country.
I wish that I did have more time to expound on some of these principles. Let me say something else about this legislation. It is time-and I come to the support of all the municipalities in this country-that we stopped passing legislation that passes the burden of cost on to the municipalities. I see in this legislation, just in a cursory review, that again we have not come to grips with the fact that we make the laws and we pass the burden of responsibility for most of the costing on to the municipalities right across this country. We know that in these difficult economic times the costs involved in welfare, schooling and hospitalization are passed to the provinces which passes them on to the municipalities. It is putting a heavy burden of responsibility on these communities, which is intolerable.
As we go through the committee structure after second reading approval, we must always bear in mind on this side of the House, as will I hope my colleagues on the left, that we must stop putting the burden of responsibility for paying for legislation at the federal level on the municipalities of this country.
Those two areas are the only two areas that I have the time to discuss today and I thank you very much for the opportunity of making those two points.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that will fundamentally change our immigration system. This bill will give great arbitrary powers to use discretion in immigration selection. Instead of fair rules, which treat immigrants as human beings, a big brother attitude will now permeate the Canadian immigration system.
Immigrants to Canada will be required to live in a place chosen by the Canadian state, despite the wishes and the family and support networks that these immigrants might have elsewhere in Canada. Immigrants to Canada will be required to work in an occupation chosen by the Canadian state despite the skills, training and education they may have in another occupation.
I know of a doctor from India who was working as a taxi driver because his credentials as a doctor were not accredited in Canada. This type of situation can only
increase under this bill. That doctor may at least now have the opportunity to requalify for his profession, but under this bill the Canadian government can say that there are too many doctors in Canada, you are not allowed to qualify or work as a doctor. You must drive a taxi or sweep floors instead.
This is clearly a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More than that, it breaks the code of common sense and compassion to which I believe all Canadians aspire. Canadians are proud of their country. We see our country as being a tolerant country in a free society. The new immigration system is not tolerant and limits the fundamental freedoms of a certain class of human beings within Canada. It is simply wrong.
Along the big brother theme, this bill gives border officials greater powers to detain, even fingerprint and photograph people arriving, particularly refugee claimants, but also Canadians. These border officials have not necessarily received any anti-racist training.
I want to tell you a story about a person who worked with me here in my Ottawa office. She was from the west coast like me. She was sitting in a committee room one day with many others in the audience listening to an important session on my behalf. A security guard came into the room and surveyed all the people as a matter of routine. There was no disturbance, no noise. All the people in the room were white except for the staff person who worked with me.
The guard walked across the entire room to demand to see her House of Commons pass. She showed it to him immediately. He looked at the pass then looked at her again and said: "Whom do you work for?" She said: "Dawn Black". He asked: "What is the phone number of her office?" This kind of checking is unheard of. She had a valid pass, she told him the office number and he still looked suspicious but he then dropped the matter. He did not approach anyone else in that crowded room. He approached the only person in that room that was not white.
This is not an isolated incident. Black and aboriginal people talk about being stopped on the streets by the police when they were simply walking, talking, shopping or attending to their own business.
June 22, 1992

We have all read in the papers of examples of refugee officials being insensitive, such as the recent case of two refugee board officials making fun of the fact that a man had been tortured.
Refugee boards have ruled to send women back who would face persecution, violence and perhaps even death in their country of origin because these officials did not understand the different cultures in the world. A story broke only last year about a Canadian immigration official demanding sex from a woman in exchange for entry to Canada.
Most immigration officials are trying to do the best they can and operate ethically, but they are overworked, understaffed and under a great deal of strain.
We have also heard of instances where there have been abuses of power. These front line government officials certainly need more support and training, particularly, anti-racist and anti-sexist training. We need employment equity with mandatory goals and timetables in these and in all Public Service professions to ensure that these officials reflect what is the diversity of Canada.
This big brother bill would also turn away refugees who come to Canada through a third country that Canada has ruled to be safe. This is neglecting our role in the international community. Canada does not border any country from which refugees can come directly. Canada's new rule would mean that countries bordering other nations from which refugees come would be inundated and overloaded with refugees that have no hope then of going on to settle somewhere else. It is not fair to expect only a handful of countries in the world to take the entire load of refugees.
Canada cannot remain a strong and proud member of the international community if we send refugees back the way we have seen recently, the way the Americans are doing with the Haitian refugees right now. Canada has had a shameful past in this regard. It is important for all of us to acknowledge that and to remember it.
Before and during World War II Canada refused entry to Jewish refugees from Europe who were attempting to escape from certain persecution and death.
Government Orders
The Komagata Maru was a ship of predominantly Sikh passengers which sailed to Vancouver and arrived in 1914. They, like many Europeans, wanted to emigrate to Canada. The ship sat in the Vancouver harbour, denied docking, and Canadian officials would not even allow supplies of food and water to be taken aboard. The Canadian government sent those people back.
My riding has a large Indo-Canadian community which has in fact enriched our economy and enriched the culture of the Vancouver region. Many discretionary measures have been used in Canada's immigration past. The Chinese head tax was used to limit Chinese immigration to Canada. The Asiatic Exclusion League stirred up hatred against Chinese and Japanese immigrants and targeted Asian businesses for physical attack and looting.
This big brother bill before us would pass regulations similar to those passed in 1908 to limit Asian immigration. In 1908 a Canadian government regulation was passed requiring immigrants to arrive in Canada by way of a continuous journey from their place of birth or citizenship. As there was no direct steamship from India, this measure virtually eliminated immigration from India.
In 1992 this regulation has been recycled for refugees. Only those who have made it directly to Canada and not passed through any so-called safe third country can stay here. There are no direct flights or ships or any other means of transportation from Somalia, Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Guatemala, China, Bulgaria, Iran or Lebanon, and most other countries in this world in turmoil.
In 1907 Prime Minister Robert Borden said in a speech in Vancouver: "British Columbia must remain a white man's country". The Prime Minister redrafted immigration regulations citing an overcrowded labour market in British Columbia and made it illegal for those of certain occupations to enter B.C. Of course those occupations were predominantly those of Asian immigrants.
In 1992 this government is revisiting these regulations. This proposed legislation sets up a system of quotas by country or otherwise that can be used to weed out immigrants from so-called undesirable places.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
One's country of origin says nothing about how hard working someone is, how much they care about their family and society, how willing they are to contribute in every way to an economy and to our society. Everyone deserves an equal chance based on their own ability to adapt to Canada, not on some stereotypical notion a bureaucrat or a politician may have about their country of origin.
In addition, this big brother legislation restricts the principle of benefit of the doubt in Immigration and Refugee Board hearings, a principle to which Canada subscribes through its signature on UN conventions. Refugee claimants are assumed to be lying or defrauding the system even if there is no proof. This bill also further restricts the right to appeal, which is the right of all other persons in Canada.
The time for racism is over. Canada should be able to prove to the world that we are all equal no matter what race we are and that we can all live and work together, share our ideas and our customs and respect each other's religious beliefs. This is the tolerant and harmonious Canada I want to live in and work for, one in which everyone has equal access to the justice system, to services, and to fair and respectful treatment.
This bill and its cousin, the new immigrant language training program, are not steps toward this goal. This bill not only disregards the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also the UN conventions that Canada has signed. It is a step backward into a tarnished past.
This is Canada's 125th birthday. We should remember the positive aspects of our past and become active in changing what needs to be changed in our society.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me that my time is up.
I just want to mention that we should remember, unless we are First Nations people, that we or our ancestors arrived in this country as immigrants. For the sake of peace in our country and around the world, we must eliminate racism and all unfairness, and we should begin with immigration and refugee system.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, one of the negative aspects of this proposed measure is that it reinforces the government's favouritism toward immigrant applicants from the Third World who are wealthy
and well educated. My colleague from York West earlier today spoke quite eloquently about the discriminatory and negative effect of that policy for Canada. I would like to talk about its disastrous consequence from a sustainable development perspective, and particularly seen from the southern hemisphere perspective.
What we have here is a government which is working at cross-purposes with itself. On the one hand it funds the International Development Research Centre as previous governments have. If I remember correctly, it was founded in 1971. It does so for the purpose of supporting the establishment of scientific, educational and social infrastructures in the developing world. In doing so it supports the work of researchers and scientists in the developing world to develop research that helps the economic and social well-being of the people in the southern hemisphere where most of the developing nations are.
This work has two purposes: to help developing nations deal with its problems on their own terms and to help the educated elite to remain in the land for the total benefit.
The International Development Research Centre in major part was established to help developing countries begin to provide the necessary leadership, educational structures, research facilities and international prestige for their educated citizens so that they would stay at home and help in the development of their economies and their structures.
Yet on the other hand the government brings forward for consideration by this House a bill which would entice the well educated population in the developing world to emigrate, and hence aggravate an already serious brain drain to the northern hemisphere, toward developed countries.
Much mention is made of the growing wealth gap between north and south, the growing brain drain to the northern hemisphere of intellectuals and scientists from the south to the north. It is a serious matter. Emigration of educated persons from the south to a country such as Canada represents a much greater loss for the country of origin, since there are fewer individuals in the developing world to carry out the difficult struggle of providing the necessary expertise.
The world population is expected to double between now and the year 2050 to 10 billion. This bill seems to have been conceived in a vacuum. It does not deal with long-term population policies. It does not deal with the size that we intend or expect in our urban centres since most immigrants settle in urban centres. It is a measure that seems to be conceived as a reaction or as an attempt
June 22, 1992

to improve previous measures. It does not have any sense of vision nor a sense of long-term breadth and scope. It is just intended to rectify here and rectify there.
We must take into account the fact that over 80 per cent of this doubling of the population from 5 billion to 10 billion will take place in the developing world. With a consequent reduction in resources such as fresh water and arable land, the need for these developing nations to keep their own expertise becomes more crucial than ever. Bangladesh, not Canada, will need its best people to solve its critical problems. At the OECD in Paris, a publication was produced in 1989 which dealt with the impact of international migration on developing countries. In that OECD report the following statement is made:
Migration of manpower from a developing to a developed country is bad because it inflicts irreparable losses on the former and robs it of irreparable innovative individuals.
It goes on to say:	_
The brain drain leads to increased inequality; the rich countries continue to become richer while the poor countries become poorer- It removes strategic manpower from key positions in a country, causes loss of present and future production, of present and future saving, of taxes and potential innovation.
One must conclude that the Conservative government's pursuit of immigration policies which result in the steady increase of educated elites as successful applicants at the expense of a southern hemisphere developing nation is wrong within this broader context. It is wrong within the longer term and within the perspective of Canada's aid and development and international research policies aimed at assisting developing countries. In other words, it does not make sense. It does not add up.
On refugees, I would like to bring to the attention of the House because of this debate the plight of Somali refugees in the city of Toronto where I come from.
In the first quarter of this year some 118 Somali refugee claimants have been rejected by the department. Why? Because of the claim that safe areas do exist for Somalis in their native land to which they can return. I submit that these claims are inaccurate.
Government Orders
The minister of immigration must be aware-and if he is not he should perhaps have a briefing by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs-Somalia is in a state of unbridled chaos without any sort of government in control.
The International Red Cross has stated that Somalia is presently suffering from the worst inhuman situation in the world today, without exception. Somali families are separated, many living in dangerous situations in then-native land or in refugee camps in Kenya.
Measures are needed for those who are here. This was stressed and underlined by public demonstrations on June 4 at Queen's Park in Toronto.
It was repeatedly asked that the department of immigration do the job it was intended to do traditionally. That job is to provide settlement and adjustment programs for people who come to Canada as refugees and as immigrants upon arrival so as to facilitate and accelerate their integration into Canadian society. In the case of the Somali refugees it has been an abysmal failure so far.
In this measure there is also a denial of mobility rights if this proposal becomes law. It is unacceptable that one should expect from immigrants, be they in the category of refugees or otherwise, to give up their freedom of movement which every Canadian has. Once an immigrant is landed in this country that person cannot be expected to live in a designated area and remain there unless there are strong incentives for that purpose.
I hope the minister will reconsider that clause so that the legislation covering immigrants to Canada will allow them the same basic mobility rights that have been recognized for Canadians in general.
{Translation}


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, it cannot be repeated often enough that immigration and refugee determination do not apply the same criteria. We use immigration to try and meet the needs of this country. Our economic interests, our manpower requirements-which often include the need for skilled workers-and family reunification all meet the needs of this country. I would like to stress that yes, family reunification responds to the need of Canadians to live with their families. However, when we admit refugees, We are meeting their needs, their need for security. The

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
1951 Geneva convention where the signatory countries agreed to wave their right to select those who enter the country, is an exception to the rule of international law.
This evening, I will speak very briefly about immigration, but I would prefer to focus on the issue of refugee status determination. As far as immigration is concerned, the government has announced that in the family class, files will be processed according to specific deadlines. The government says that its objective will be to process applications from people in the immediate family category in six months, whether they apply in Germany or in India. We welcome this kind of specific timeframe and objective. I hope the government will be able to meet this objective.

As I said, I want to concentrate most of my remarks on the question of the determination of refugee status because I believe that it is in this area that the government is spreading misconceptions about the nature of the problem we face and about the nature of the humanitarian question we are trying to deal with.
In reading this bill and listening to the speeches of the spokespersons for the government, I have to conclude that the government has not learned very much.
I believe that the minister should apologize to Canadians for wasting taxpayers' money in the past five years. He should apologize to church groups and other nongovernmental organizations. He should apologize to immigration lawyers. He should apologize to Rabbi Plaut for ignoring their advice. They all said that the initial screening would not work.
I want to emphasize that this government five years ago set up a two-stage process. The first stage was a screening known as the credible basis stage when it was the job of an adjudicator and a member of the refugee division to determine whether there was a credible basis for the claim. The second stage was the hearing on the merits before two members of the refugee division.
Rabbi Plaut, in his report submitted to this government in about 1985, rejected the idea of screening out refugee claimants with what are really known in international practice as manifestly unfounded claims which is really what the credible basis process was all about.
He reviewed this practice in those countries that had tried to introduce such a screening system only to find it unworkable. In these countries some cases which at first were judged to be manifestly unfounded claims eventually were determined to be refugees by a higher authority.
Rabbi Plaut then said that kind of procedure was not needed, but the government ignored all of the unanimous advice it received and went ahead.
I refer to the document that the government tabled with this bill last week. Today, the government says:
"The first stage has proved less effective and more costly than expected. Experience has shown that over 95 per cent of claimants have a credible basis for their claims so that the first stage actually screens out very few claimants. This preliminary stage will be eliminated. This change alone will reduce delays in the system by three to six months, depending on the circumstances of specific cases".
This was the recommendation of the non-govemmen-tal organizations and Rabbi Plaut six years ago. Does the minister today acknowledge the error he made? Does he acknowledge the enormous costs that were imposed on people, the delays in people's lives? Does he say he made a mistake but today he recognizes this and is going to correct that mistake? Not a chance. Not one chance that this government would admit a mistake even as blatant as that one.
Another mistake which shows again that the government has not learned from past experience is the lack of an appeal. Again this is an area in which the government ignored the advice of non-governmental organizations and failed to provide refugee claimants an appeal on the merits from a negative decision of the refugee board. This bill, again, provides for no such appeal. The government, presumably, has not recognized the folly of its ways. Because there is no appeal the only recourse for an unsuccessful refugee claimant is to apply to the minister for consideration on compassionate or humanitarian grounds.
June 22, 1992

The circumstances under which such considerations are given are extremely restrictive. Inevitably it ends up on the minister's desk. This recourse, as I said, because it is so restrictive, is futile. In Ontario and Quebec in 1991 only 23 such applications were accepted out of a total of 3,485. The door is practically hermetically sealed.
What I would like to suggest to the minister and to the government tonight is that they provide an appeal on merits and if they did we would not need this futile procedure known as an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to the minister.
Why should there be an appeal? I would like to ask the House to reflect on the reasons for courts of appeal in general, in civil and in criminal law in our system of law. Quite simply it is because people make mistakes. Should there not be an appeal on decisions when it is a matter of life and death?
Remember the context. Refugees have left their homes because of war and persecution. Even refugee claimants who one might expect to be fairly articulate, such as lawyers, teachers and union leaders, have been known to break down during refugee hearings. They have been unable to face the past, unable to talk about the experiences to which they have been subjected. We must understand that refugee claimants are in a new country. They may speak neither English nor French. Unquestionably they are unfamiliar with our laws and our procedures.
It is vital that such an appeal be provided for by the government in this procedure. Again, I hope this is an area which the government would reconsider.
In closing, I wish to quote from a communique published by the Canadian Council for Refugees which said that it is disturbed by the language and orientation of the government's statements. The emphasis and control and abuse, not justified by any available statistics, will undermine public sympathy for refugees.
As I said earlier in comments in the House this evening, this is perhaps the most deplorable aspect of the government's campaign of disinformation. By standing up and suggesting that we have somehow lost control of our borders, by standing up and suggesting that the country is being flooded by thousands of refugees with totally unfounded claims not supported by any statistics, this government is setting up a straw man which it will then proceed to knock down with its legislation and with its speeches in what I regard as a very cynical gesture.
Government Orders
I am confident that Canadians will not accept this subterfuge.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill because it signals the reality of Canada in the global context.
There are not too many things we can be sure of in this day and at this time. We can be sure of one thing and that is that the population of the world is growing. We are now talking about five billion people. These are five billion people who are crowding the borders of almost every nation in the world.
They are crowding the cities of the world. As they crowd they seek what we have and that is open space, the number one place, the best country in the world according to the United Nations. Naturally there is a strong demand in the world for Canada, a strong demand that cannot possibly be met by Canada alone.
This is complicated by the situation that the world used to move freely among itself. The world no longer moves freely among itself. It used to be that in the world there were many countries that should you or I or anyone else choose to move to, you could do so easily. It used to be that if there were a political or a natural catastrophe here, you could move across the border in the next place and it would welcome you.
Those welcome mats have disappeared everywhere in the world. Every country has said it has closed its borders. Canada was the last country to come to this closing process through a target or quota system, a quota system that was put in place by every nation in the world in a very stringent way.
The world borders have been closing and as the world's borders close, it creates the 10 or 15 million refugees in the world; displaced people who cannot find another country for their home.
There are a lot coming as the hon. member knows. We were both in those refugee camps. Bud Cullen was the Liberal minister at the time and I said to him when we set that target level back why not take some as refugees. They would make the best citizens in the world we could find; people fleeing for their safety and their security from their own country. I asked: "Why not set a target of 5,000?" He said to me, and it is in the proceedings of the committee: "Good idea. If you think you have the Conservatives", the opposition at that time, "to go

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
along, then let us have a look at it". Six weeks later he announced 5,000, the first target of refugees.
Then in 1978-79, we had the boat people and our minister in government at that time said it would take 60,000.
What we were doing in that process was responding to a world that was tightening down and opening our doors to a very worthwhile group of people who have made fine citizens for Canada. Really we only opened the door a little crack because what is 60,000 out of 15 million? Anyone in a refugee camp would choose to come to Canada given that opportunity.
Canada as an oasis of hope and opportunity is facing the pressures of a world that wishes to come here. What a change from 40, 60 years ago when Canada went out and advertised for immigrants: please come to Canada. It had to give all kinds of incentives to come to Canada. That is not the situation today and our Immigration Act needs to reflect that. Canada is under the pressure of a massive number of applications. Our program now is to choose from among those applications, both in the interest of the person wishing to come and in the interest of our country.
The interest of our country changes from time to time. Right now there is a very strong interest and need in our country for young people with skills to come and help us build our country. There is a need for business men and business immigration and our act addresses this issue. It says we should welcome the entrepreneurs and business men of the world because this is now a global economy. Any part of the world that says it is going to be an isolated island is doomed to failure, poverty and a reduced quality of life.
We have to respond to choice. We have made the most generous choice of any nation in the world by saying we will set a target of 250,000. Who will these 250,000 be? As I said, they need to be young people, skilled people and business people. Of course we must have a very special place for immediate family and true and legitimate refugees. That is what this act says.
I do not think there is a Canadian sitting there listening to us tonight or reading in Hansard tomorrow who would disagree with those priorities. That is what
this legislation is doing. It is saying we will create stream one and we will not put a limit on it. In that stream we will look to the priority of Canada's needs: immediate family, refugees and business immigration.
Of course that is not to say I agree with everything in the report. My immigration committee will report back to the House soon I hope. We are getting near the end and we are going to support business immigration. We are recognizing business immigration is more than just investors who will not become actively involved and just invest money in Canada. It is also entrepreneurs and the self-employed.
Therefore we suggest the government give us an idea of how the system might work. It is not fixed in stone at this stage. The government will look at the report of our committee and at the Ernst & Whinney report that is coming in later. It will take the Ferguson task force report, its own internal report and we will create the regulations that look to these kinds of examples as outlined here.
Obviously we want to take control of Canada. What kind of a government would not take control of Canada? That means we shall select the millions of people who want to come here in the interest of Canada, our country. That is 250,000 now for the next three years and perhaps some adjustment to that target over the intervening years. Perhaps that target will even grow because as we become stronger perhaps this country should not be just 30 million. Maybe it should be 50 million. Maybe 50 million is a viable population, a small not very dense population for the second largest country in the world that can deliver a high quality of life and place for many more people in the world. The old days have gone. Looking at our land as a vast empty unused land just waiting to be filled is an entirely wrong concept in this day and age.
Let us modernize our act. Let us gain control of those who are coming into Canada illegally and let us sort them out. Let us keep those who are legitimate refugees and let us send the rest home and tell them to come and pick through the regular process. I know this is what my constituents want. They want the government to take control of immigration. They want the government to use immigration to build Canada. They want to show our compassionate side through conventional refugees. They want to show our human side through recognizing

immediate family and they want to build our economy through recognizing business immigration.
All of us here have a responsibility to participate in this act, in its process, to get it to committee, to travel across the country and hear the views of Canada. As we hear the views of Canada, and I know that the opposition knows in their heart their job is to oppose, but they know that this act is the right place and the right time.
I have been working on this committee for many years.
I remember 1975 changes, 1976 and 1977 in the committee. I think this is the right time, this is the right act and I support it most energetically and enthusiastically.


Mr. Cole:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to tabling of committee reports, with your permission.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary wants to table anything, I am sure we would be amenable to the usual consultation and after that is done, be willing to do that. I think this is highly irregular to do so without such consultations. If there have been consultations I have not been made aware of them, as the acting person directing the debate for our group tonight. Neither the critic nor myself have been made aware of this and we would prefer this consultation first. We will revert to that if there is consent at a later time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As I understand, there is not unanimous consent at this time.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to sit in the House and listen to the debate and listen to the comments, the direction and the tenor. I of course prefer our side of the argument rather than the side opposite, but it has been interesting to hear the discussion and to see the different points of view as we approach this legislation.
I do not think anybody doubts that Canada has to have an improved immigration law and that we have to have a proper system of immigration. All we have to do is look at our history to realize that is an essential component of building this nation. As we look at the history we see that immigration primarily from Europe made an absolutely most important contribution to making Canada what it is today.
Government Orders
We hear some of the naysayers and some of the negative people in our country saying it is time to close the door and to shut down immigration all together. All we have to do is to look at the statistics to realize the implications of that.
If we were to shut off immigration entirely now, by the year 2010 we would probably only have about 13 million Canadians because our birth rate is not keeping up and we would face that eventual decline in population rather than an increase. I read as well, and statistics will indicate this, that by the year 2015 if we just keep the present level of immigration, then our population will only be around 17 or 18 million. We need to have immigration if we are going to survive as a country, maintain the social programs and all of the things that we hold dear in Canada.
Immigration can make a tremendous contribution to this nation, but I think we have to realize that immigration as it is now happening will drastically change the mosaic of this nation. There will be a change and it will be one that will cause some people some difficulty. There are all kinds of misconceptions about immigrants and refugees coming and stealing jobs from Canadians, that they are making things difficult and lowering the wage rate, all of those types of arguments. Those are misconceptions that have to be cleared away from this issue.
We have to analyse the legislation on its merits to see whether it achieves the goals that we want. That is for a system that is fair and equitable to all and allows proper immigration and refugees to reach our shores and our country and to be properly taken care of once they are here. We on this side are most supportive of the concept of coming up with legislation and amendments to legislation in order to achieve that goal and that objective. But when you look at this particular bit of legislation, does it achieve the goal? We have to say, no, it does not.
As is typical, there are always some good sides to the legislation and there are some things we are supportive of. Obviously the first stage hearing being eliminated is a positive step because it did not work. It did not have any effect. About 90-some-odd per cent of the people got through that stage no matter what was there. In that sense it did not work.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
We are concerned about things, and all we have to do is look at them very quickly because time is limited. This bill shifts the onus away from this place and puts it in the regulations and in the hands of administration, rather than having legislation with the weight of legislation.
There is a shift in authority. One wonders where the accountability will be. We know that we should have those regulations at least as a bare minimum brought back to this place to be reviewed to see there is the just system that we are all striving for.
We are concerned as well about the idea of a safe third country and the concept that if a refugee passes through a country before arriving in Canada, we can send that person back to that "safe country". All you have to do is look at the example of some of the people who have fled countries through the United States to arrive here, knowing that if they are sent back to the United States they will be sent back to their own country and face the responsibilities of fleeing that country and the possibility of death associated with that type of decision. So we have concerns about the safe third country concept.
We agree with the idea that there is more discipline as far as the refugee board is concerned. We have all been appalled at some of the shenanigans that have gone on with respect to that. In that sense we would like to see the changes put in so that something is accomplished there.
We also have to look at what happens in this whole area and what happens to new arrivals to our country. At the same time this government is cutting back on social programs and putting added burdens on the provinces and we are not sure whether the housing and the health and educational systems are in place to handle what is contemplated. I think we have to go back and hear more and not rush this legislation. Rushed legislation is normally bad legislation and this bill has the potential to be quite bad in the long run.
We are concerned about the idea that the minister can pick where an immigrant or a refugee will go once they arrive here. That is fundamentally opposed to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know that there are many people in this country who will say well, you do not acquire those rights and freedoms until after you are admitted into the country as either a landed immigrant
or accepted as an immigrant, up until then you have no rights, and then you do not even have rights until you really become a citizen. That is wrong. The charter of rights is to protect all because those are fundamental rights. They do not have to be designated that they are rights for only certain people.
I am worried about the idea that a lot of the decisionmaking process will fall into the hands of administrators. We had a problem in Moncton, quite frankly, under the refugee program that was trying to attract entrepreneurs. I know there are all sorts of questions about whether you are buying a passport into Canada. In looking at that whole process and hearing the testimony of Zuoy Lam from Moncton, the investors were told: "Do not come to New Brunswick, it is a bad area. You should not be there, you will lose all your money. They are poor investments". This is the type and calibre of person who is advising people as to where they should be going.
As well, you hear things about the administration having fingerprinting and photos and greater powers of search. I think we are going to have to take a good long look at those types of provisions to see whether the legislation is treating refugees and immigrants fairly, as our system should.
There are many other reasons and rationale for us to take a long steady look at this legislation.
There is no provision for appeals on merit, to name some. There is nothing in the legislation that deals with the use of section 114 and the admission of refugees on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. There is nothing to deal with refugees who were legitimate when they fled their country, but now that things have changed- and we see that in eastern Europe-they are being asked to go back home. We have even seen that in my community. We have a small population of refugees and immigrants, but we have seen that happen.
What is fundamental in all of this-and I am sure that all of us on this side of the House are most concerned about it-is the use of time allocation in order to ram this legislation through. We have known for months and months and months that this legislation was necessary, that it had to come forward. Then, at the time when the democratic process provides a chance to have an input,
June 22, 1992

this government brings in time allocation and gives in effect a day for debate or less than a day.
Under those circumstances we on this side cannot support quick passage. There may be some aspects that we are supportive of, some things that we want to see improved, but we cannot have this type of legislation rammed down the throats of Canadians and soon to be Canadians.
We on this side are going to oppose this legislation on some of the grounds that will become clear in committee but also on account of the high-handed manner in which this government has proceeded.


John Cole: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions on both sides of the House, and I would like to seek Your Honour's permission and unanimous consent of the House to revert to the tabling of committee reports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
48TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 48th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted upon presentation.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof,
Government Orders
be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Allmand (p. 12472).
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join what is for my constituency perhaps the most important debate this House has dealt with, that is the rules in this country concerning immigration.
This has been an issue that Canadians have gone back and forth with perhaps every decade since World War II, but it is time that we come to grips with this issue, to show the progressive side of this country and to put aside a lot of the concerns and hesitation we have shown in the past.
Unfortunately Bill C-86 amending the Immigration Act is in fact a step backward. This bill is extremely complex and deals with 128 sections and 113 pages. It was presented to the House only a week ago. The House has been asked to deal with it in a very speedy fashion, which those Canadians concerned about legislation find very hard to believe.
I would like to spend my very short time in this debate because of the curtailment of debate explaining to Canadians why a more progressive piece of legislation is needed.
All parliamentarians hear from Canadians their concerns about the job market, about the changing nature of Canada, and about somehow or other losing a sense of what we were in the past through immigration policy. Governments come to represent one way or the other the voice of the past or the voice of the future. It is time this government realizes that it must become the voice of the future, not the voice of the past.
Let me give an example of an area of policy with which this government has refused to deal and which is fundamental to understanding this country. Several weeks ago the government introduced changes in family reunification. Leaving aside the details for the purpose of this debate, they have made it very difficult to bring family members over. Bill C-86 has not in any way addressed the question of the limitations put on family reunification.
For many of the people watching and listening to the debate, questions of family reunification seem to be, in the old Canadian sense, a question of bringing over mothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins and distant relatives simply to have people together in the same house,

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
in the same neighbourhood. It is a social reason for many Canadians and that is all.
For Canadians wishing to retain in their mind a traditional notion of the country, this is offensive because they ask the question in times of high unemployment, in times of the deep recession, why we need so many people when we already have enough here in this country.
If we stop to think of it from a different point of view, if we stop and ask ourselves the basic question about the Canadian economy, we all know from various studies done in the late 1960s right through until the 1980s that the Canadian economy is facing a very difficult problem of foreign ownership.
If we leave aside the banking industry, almost every industrial sector in this country is owned by non-Canadians. We continue to be depleted by profits, by dividends and by industrial strategies outside our country.
We ask ourselves how in the next 30 or 40 years we build up the Canadian corporate structure. We must do it through some type of industrial base, manufacturing base and service industry in this country.
Then we ask who is going to come into this country to build up a base and use that base to expand and take on the country.
The answer in many cases is families working together. Families work together because they trust each other with cash. They trust each other's commitment. They trust each other's use of cash. They move from one generation to the other. It is no good trying to think that one generation is going to build up a company that is going to take on the whole world. In three or four generations they will be able to take on the world if they have enough family members working together. Canadians forget about that because many Canadians have not been involved with the building of a business.
We hear the international trade cliche. We hear the Minister for International Trade talk about competitiveness, getting out and facing the world. Let us stop and think about what the world is. Let us stop and think about our industrial growth rate being somewhere in the optimistic range of 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent per year to perhaps even a shrinkage. Then we can look at the Asian countries which are averaging 3 per cent, 4 per cent, 5
per cent and 7 per cent for the sake of argument. Sometimes it is higher than that. Over a 10-year period, 10 times 3 is 30 per cent growth; 10 times 7 compounded means a doubling of the size of the economy; and 10 times 1 per cent is probably a total growth over a decade of 12 per cent.
The growth we are looking for is over in Asia. To delve into Asian markets means we must have language skills, cultural skills and a knowledge of that particular business community.
I for one, as much as I want to encourage people, will never be an expert trader in Vietnam, Cambodia, Hong Kong, China, Japan, Indonesia or the Philippines, but I want some Canadians to be there. I want some Canadians to have a base for trading from Canada into those countries so that we understand their trading patterns and we understand how to use what they are doing to our benefit.
A family nucleus of two or three people will come over as refugees or immigrants by other patterns. When new Canadians come to me, they say they want their brother, their sister, their aunt or their cousin to come in. It is not because for some romantic reason they want to share a roof, but it is because they want to build a business. It is the people who come from the refugee camps out of Vietnam who will form the nucleus of our business community.
When a government does not stand up, does not share belief in the House and does not articulate that belief for other Canadians, people do not realize the economic benefits to be gained through family reunification. We must take the effort to make sure we develop trade strategies, immigration policies and business support policies. If we want to begin to deal with the world, we must bring home this message to individual Canadian families who are dealing with our immigration policy. The department is not capable of dealing with these issues with optimism and openness. They receive too many messages from their political leaders, that in fact they should be very careful as to how they deal with different communities.
I say this is the opportunity to change this position. The bill as I noted at the outset of my short time of speaking here is a very complex one and I do not pretend that I can deal with more than one or two issues of the 128 being presented to the House.
June 22, 1992

I will say to the House and through the House to Canadians that this government has set us upon a course that is greatly disturbing to people who want to see responsible government. In the last month we have seen a number of initiatives, from immigration policy to the child benefit package, which has been thrust upon us out of nowhere to deal with immediately.
The government is not giving due time to consider how we want to build the country -and one can read on the front pages of the newspapers forever about the Constitution -not dealing with a fundamental openness and honesty in each step along the way, the Canadians you want here, how you want to build the businesses, how you are going to look after children, I could go on and on with the list.
Here the government is asking for the discussion of this bill in a few short hours today, to be hustled off to committee, to be buried from public view because it is answering some political instinct which to quote from one newspaper on May 6: "Tory immigration policy mirrors Reform Party".
It is not the task of Parliament to pursue narrow partisan interests. It is the task of Parliament to consider basic issues of immigration in the context of family development and economic development.
I beseech the government to reconsider its position, to be kinder to refugees, to be kinder to immigrants. If we want a kinder and gentler Canada the place to begin is the withdrawal of Bill C-86 and the rethinking of the immigration policy for the 21st century.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes this evening to speak on the bill that is before the House.
Immigration issues are never easy for Parliament to deal with. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for some to criticize immigration policies and it is all that easier when those you are criticizing do not look the same as other so-called typical Canadians.
Of course what I am indicating to you is that many times we behave in a manner that we cannot always be proud of when we are dealing with these issues. I remember that day in 1986 when Canada was allegedly invaded by 172 people from the Indian subcontinent, more particularly, from Sri Lanka, Tamil refugees that arrived on our shores.
Government Orders
This government recalled Parliament because 172 people had arrived in this country. On any day there are probably more refugee applicants at the Toronto airport than there were in that situation; except that the ones that come in every now and then do not happen to make news the way these 172 people did.
It left me to conclude that we were not reacting to the incident, we were not reacting to the 172 people, but we, this House, more particularly the government, were reacting to the television news of some days before. That is not a good way to govern. It is a pretty sad way to govern actually.
I also remember the original telecast when the people of the community where they landed brought sandwiches to the people who were arriving on our shores. To me, that was the Canadian way of doing things. That is what I like to remember.
When we talk about immigration policy we sometimes forget, very conveniently, what happened some years before. I recently had a conversation with a good friend of Irish extraction. Together we were reminiscing about how and what some people must have thought when the Irish came to our shores during the potato famine. You can imagine at the time the people probably looked slightly different from others, a little shorter, red hair, many of them suffering from malnutrition, getting off the boat, many of them unwell from the trip, many who had suffered tremendously before the trip began. I am sure the day those boats arrived in Montreal from Ireland people must have said: "What are we accepting in this country?"
Looking at it in retrospect, some of the finest citizens of this country came from Ireland. It is easy for me to say that because my wife is Irish. The Prime Minister will no doubt agree with my sentiments. That is where his ancestors came from and the ancestors of many members of this House, no doubt.
In 10, 20 or 30 years from now maybe one of the Tamil people or their children will be members in this House, they will remember that their ancestors were on that boat and we will once again reflect upon what happened and ask: "Was it not interesting how our ancestors came from a situation that was very hard to live with, to a better country and started a better life?" Then we will wonder what people were doing 20 years ago, just as we are asking ourselves now, what were we doing in World

Government Orders
War II when we turned back boatloads of people, Jewish people, many of whom were going back to a probable death.
We should all remember that when we look at amending legislation for immigrants coming to this country. What is the objective we have in mind? All members tonight when we vote on this bill in 30 minutes from now should remember that.
This legislation before us has 128 clauses, 116 pages. My colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace had about 48 hours to read the length and complexity of this bill before the debate on second reading started. Is that the way to deal with one of the most complicated issues facing us today? Just 48 hours before debating it after the government presented it the government says: "Oh, this is urgent". If it was not urgent enough to present the text of the bill to us earlier, why should it be urgent that we deal with it now so expeditiously? If the government is serious about it, surely weeks and weeks before a copy of that bill should have at least been given to the opposition critics and, indeed, all members of this House for review.
Then the government says: "That is okay. You will have time in committee to listen to witnesses". That may be true, but let us remember how the parliamentary process works. First reading is the printing of the bill so members can see it. Second reading is supposed to be the time when we have read the bill and express to this House and the government whether we think this is good or bad legislation. Is it reasonable that all hon. members were given 48 hours to do that? If that was not bad enough, after one day of debate a government minister stood up and said: "Oh, that is okay. Now you have had only 48 hours to look at this bill of 128 clauses and 116 pages, but I have decided you cannot even debate it any more. You cannot even listen to each other any more because we are cutting this debate off today. We want to go on holidays tomorrow".
This may be a good enough reason for some, but it is not a good enough reason for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, my colleagues or me.
If the government really wants the support of this House, as some government members indicated earlier in this debate, then why is it acting in such a way? I can
only conclude the government does not care whether this bill is adopted unanimously, on division, with dissent or with half of this Parliament against it. On an issue as important as this, the government should at least have tried to obtain the co-operation of other political parties in the House of Commons.
We have the ugliness of racism in our country. There are those of us who are concerned about this issue and do not want that ugliness in our country. The very least we can do is work together to the best of our ability and do our small part to eradicate some of these bad sentiments we have toward one another in this country. We can only do that with the good honest co-operation of everyone in the House. I am sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say they will do their best to provide constructive amendments in committee, study the bill as thoroughly as possible and listen to witnesses from everywhere.
Let us remember we started debating this legislation at the 11th hour of the 11th day in a so-called emergency the government has known about since 1986. It is off to a bad start.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and not pleased to have the opportunity to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-86, which is before the House this evening. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give a critique, but the critique is unprocessed, to follow on the words of my colleague who has just spoken. There has been very little opportunity to critique the substantive issues involved in this bill simply because, as my colleague has mentioned, there has been absolutely inadequate time with which to review the 128 clauses and 113 pages which comprise Bill C-86.
Certainly members in this House have been criticizing our immigration policies in Canada for many months. We have been requesting the federal government to bring in amendments to the present immigration law, but it is most unfair not only to all parliamentarians in this House but to the public in general across Canada. It is unfair to the people who engaged themselves on a volunteer basis to assist immigrant applications to this country, particularly the applications made by refugees, the most vulnerable of vulnerable immigrants to our country.
June 22, 1992

There is no reason to justify the curtailing of debate on this bill this evening. There is no reason that justifies bringing us to second reading and a vote this evening.
At second reading of any bill in this House all members of Parliament are asked to vote in principle their support or rejection of proposed legislation.
Because there has been insufficient time to analyse the content of this bill it really is not possible to adequately vote on the substantive principles of this legislation. On this side of the House we will be voting against this legislation on the principle that there simply was not enough time to review and reflect on the legislation before we could determine whether or not we would agree with the legislation in principle.
It is important to say, because the government always says when we get into this kind of debate that the opposition opposes just to oppose, that that is our role. That is not the case. When we have had the opportunity to reflect on legislation which has been presented there have certainly been occasions on which we have agreed to the principle of the legislation at second reading.
It is not only members of the opposition who reject the process of bringing this legislation before the House this evening. I would like to quote from just a few of those organizations which deal with refugee issues and also express their concern. We have received letters from various of the non-governmental organizations which address refugee issues in this country.
I wish to quote from a letter from the Anglican Church of Canada signed by Dorothy Davies Flindall. She states: "There needs to be adequate opportunity for all concerned groups to study the legislation and make substantive recommendations. This can only happen if the second reading of the bill is delayed to allow time for consideration of the bill. Our preliminary reading of the legislation indicates that some of the proposed changes have serious implications for the refugee community with whom we work. Therefore, on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, I urge you to delay the second reading of the bill until after there has been time for adequate consultation."
Government Orders
The Jesuit Centre in Toronto states, and I quote from its letter: "This bill poses some very serious problems and should not be rushed through Parliament, but subjected to close scrutiny and serious debate".
The Canadian Council of Churches states: "Refugees and non-governmental groups which work with refugees should have the right to participate in the decision-making which affects their lives and work". I am quoting Dr. Stuart E. Brown of the Canadian Council of Churches: "Churches are worried that the government may use the summer session of Parliament to speedily pass this complex legislation without allowing refugees, churches and other concerned groups adequate opportunities to reflect and to share their concerns".
As I said at the outset, we on the opposition side have many criticisms of Canada's current immigration legislation. Bringing forth this bill this evening in this period of economic difficulty in Canada is a difficult time. When Canada is suffering through difficult economic times, the level of intolerance and the lack of acceptance of immigrants and refugees into our country is very high. The times are fraught with misunderstanding and myths about immigrants and refugees to this country and their impact upon our economic, social and cultural life.
I believe it would have been much more appropriate for this government to have presented this legislation in a way that we could understand its substance and content and reflect more knowledgeably upon the same.
The government could have done a lot more to help the Canadian public to understand the realities of the benefits of immigration to our country. The government could have taken action to deal with myths and to set the record straight. The government has failed to put in place a communication strategy to inform and educate the public.
The government in dealing with immigration issues in the last few years that I have been here has looked at different types of merit and desirability for prospective immigrants.
It bases merit and desirability more and more each day on wealth. The richer a proposed immigrant and the more educated, the more desirable you are as an immigrant.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders
In my view, this is a blinkered approach to the necessity for immigration and the need for us to have open arms and accept refugees. Certainly we do not want the system abused, but does the abuse that exists in this country merit the new directions that policy is taking at this time?
In Canada it is very important as Canadians that we not only address the impact upon present immigration and refugee policies on the economic, social and cultural life of this country, but that we take a much broader global perspective of immigration and the growth of the numbers of refugees world-wide. I believe more and more the stories of refugees will become the stories for this decade and the next decade. We must understand the linkages of environmental degradation to increase refugee flows.
In the past, and I am afraid to some extent still, we in Canada think of refugees only in terms of politics. We must recognize that more and more we are seeing flows of what we would call economic refugees and the thing of the future will be the environmental refugees. I am reminded very strongly of a speech given by the head of state of Micronesia, a southeast Pacific nation, who was speaking about the environmental global warming impact upon his many-island nation.
Global warming has had the impact of raising the sea level around his nation by one and one-half metres. Micronesia has a population of 60 million people. As the sea levels rise around its islands, the people lose the land on which they can live and prosper and have any future. Where are 60 million people going to go if they cannot stay in Micronesia because of the effects of environmental degradation? They are going to look to other lands around the world.
The fact that we regard wealth and education and high educational achievement to be the only criteria that attract immigrants to us is really to neglect facing the realities of global and environmental degradation and the fact that we must encourage these people to develop and help their nations to grow and to promote sustainable development within their nations.
I regret that this House has not had sufficient time not only to address the substantive issues in Bill C-86 but to review Bill C-86 in the context of the larger immigration issues which face not only Canada but the world at large.


Mr. Peter Miiliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate, however briefly this evening. I would like to leave a couple of minutes for my colleague from Hamilton West who would like to address a couple of remarks on this important legislation.
I want to express my concern briefly on the failure of the legislation to deal with the important issue of adjustment programs for Canada's recent arrivals. In my own community of Kingston and the Islands where there is a significant and very important and very rich group of relatively recent immigrants to Canada, the situation in respect of language training in particular is very important and has caused a considerable problem. There is a need for enhanced language training. There is a need for better adjustment programs operated on a more consistent and regularly funded basis.
These are not dealt with in this legislation. This government has failed in this bill to deal with this issue in a meaningful way in this bill. It has produced a bill that obviously has taken some considerable time to put together and it has neglected a very important area for Canadian immigrants, an area that helps their adjustment to Canadian society. It helps them find jobs, it helps them find housing, it helps them with language difficulties upon arrival in this country. These are programs that are worth while from the point of view of integration into the fabric of Canadian society and all very important for the integration into Canadian society. Part of the problem that this bill apparently has sought to address is any negative reaction among other Canadians to recent immigrants. The easiest way to solve that problem it seems to me is through sensible adjustment programs. The bill fails to deal with that important issue.
Second, it gives the government considerable power to determine where people will live in Canada, a power hitherto unknown to our immigration system. I suggest it is regrettable because I think it may leave many persons living in communities where they have no relatives and no friends and where adjustment becomes an increasingly difficult problem for those people.
I am sony that my time is so short, but I know what is going to happen. The guillotine is going to fall at a quarter to ten because of this government's approach to legislation in this House. This bill was introduced less
June 22, 1992

than seven days ago, on Tuesday, June 16. By agreement there were three speakers on this bill on Friday. That was the first time it was debated. Very rarely, and let the record show this, is a bill debated at second reading so soon after its introduction in this House. It was introduced on Tuesday, so members of the public had a total of three days to digest the bill before it was called for debate in this House. It was called for debate on Friday. It has been called for debate today and the debate will end today on second reading. This bill will be shunted off to a committee which the government will then have meet to hear public input on this bill.
It has changed the rules in respect of legislative committees to reduce the impact of witnesses. Certain witnesses will not be allowed at legislative committees because of the new rules the government has adopted. It is an attempt to force this bill through Parliament without proper public input, without allowing the public its opportunity to express its views on this bill. I do not mean just the public as represented here in Parliament, but the public across the country who will want to read and study this bill, various groups that work with immigrants and immigrant groups themselves. Various ethnic bodies in this country will want to comment on this legislation. They are being denied an adequate opportunity to do so because of the indecent haste with which the government is moving to ram this bill down the throats of Canadians.
I have had reason to comment before on the government's abuse of the rules of this House and its use of time allocation and closure. I could go through the statistics, but in the interest of time, I will forgo that. This is, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said in his speech on Friday, a disgusting abuse of the rules and the government should be thoroughly condemned for its approach.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Hamilton West, I again say that I consider it a privilege to rise in this place to debate at second reading Bill C-86, amendments to the Immigration Act. I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, for allowing me a couple of minutes as well to add the voice of my constituents through me to this debate.
Government Orders
Yes, this place, the House of Commons, is the highest court in the land, so each and every one of us on both sides of this House are lawmakers. But before we can rise in our place to lend support to or choose to reject a proposal that is being put forward by the government or any member in this place, we must be given the opportunity to reflect on what is presented. I pass this message along to the members across the way, but especially to my constituents who may be watching this very debate in their homes tonight or may read my remarks at a later time.
This is Bill C-86, the most revamped, revised, revisited immigration act of the Immigration Act since 1978. This bill is complex, 113 pages and 128 clauses. My time is short so I will not plead with the government across the way or the members across the way to be fair, to do what is right, to delay this vote. That plea I suspect will fall on deaf ears. I plead with Canadians who are watching this debate and who may read the remarks at a later time to write their member of Parliament. Write your member of Parliament and request a copy of Bill C-86. Have a look at what members of Parliament on this side of the House, in opposition, have only had less than 48 hours to look at and enter into strong debate in the House of Commons in order to revisit each one of 128 clauses to deal with a bill that is an incredible revamping and an incredible revisit.
This bill, of course, falls on its face in many areas. We are aware of that. We have heard debate this day on this bill and the greater use of regulation by the minister and the cabinet, matters that until now have been in a law, and are being transferred to regulation, reducing of course the power of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but it being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Allmand. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.

June 22, 1992
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, before you put the next vote I would ask you to seek unanimous consent. You might find there is such consent to apply the results of the previous vote in reverse with regard to the next vote.

Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Berger
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Butland
Catterall
Dingwall
Edmonston
Finestone
Gaffney
Harb
Heap
Jordan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Leblanc (Longueuil)
McLaughlin
Milliken
Plamondon
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stupich
Tobin
Walker-51
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Browes
Chadwick
Charest
Clifford
Collins
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjomson
Blais
Bosley
Bourgault
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Champagne (Champlain)
Cbartrand
Cole
Corbeil


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for applying the vote in reverse?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Is there unanimous consent for applying the vote in reverse?
June 22, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the motion of Mr. Valcourt.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the motion carried on division?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Do I see five members rising?
I declare the motion carried, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 52(1), the House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House.


Mr. Gerin:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, when you asked five members to rise, you saw there were a dozen members, including members of the Bloc, who rose to show their opposition. You decided to ignore those members and to start all over again, which is entirely against the spirit of this House. Madam Speaker, I ask you to put the question as it should be put.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: With respect, the hon. member will agree there is a lot of noise in the House right now.


Mr. Plamondon:: Is the noise blinding?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I could not be sure the question had been heard by everyone, so I put the question again. There were yeas and nays, and the yeas had it, as far as voices went. I asked a second time whether there were five people asking for a recorded vote, but there were not. The matter is closed. We shall now proceed to the next item on the agenda.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52   FISHERIES NORTHERN COD FISHERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 52(1), the House will now proceed to the consideration of the motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the situation of the northern cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of Atlantic Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to begin the emergency debate that was granted by the Speaker and to speak about the crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, but also in Atlantic Canada.
Let me say in rising to initiate this debate that I want to thank the Speaker of the House of Commons and the people who advise the Speaker for deciding to give Parliament an opportunity to conduct this debate.
Let me also thank the more than 60 members of Parliament who over the last four or five sitting days officially petitioned the Speaker to allow such an emergency debate to take place, including many of the members who are sitting here on this side of the House tonight.

June 22, 1992
I particularly want to say that this debate is in the name of all of those who believe that the crisis in the Atlantic fishery in general and in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, has to be addressed. This debate is brought about by the hard work and determination of the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, the member for Burin-St. George's, both of whom will participate in this debate tonight, the member for Gander-Grand Falls and the member for Labrador are both in their respective constituencies this evening, dealing with the crisis in the fishery in their own respective areas.
If there was ever a doubt whatsoever as to the need for this debate tonight, that doubt was dispelled this afternoon when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, the member for St. John's West, with whom all relevant members on this side of the House want to work, are willing to work, are compelled to work because of the gravity of the situation, we had the incredible spectacle of that minister saying, in essence: "What crisis? There is no crisis".
In answer to questions put to the minister by me and the member for Burin-St. George's, the minister said, and I should quote him to be exact. I quote from the record what the minister said in response to questions on the crisis in the gulf cod stock: "There is an acknowledged crisis in the northern cod stocks but on the gulf cod stocks-"
I put a fair question seeking information. The minister said: "There is not any immediate crisis that I know of in that particular stock at the present time, with the exception that we have had to restrict mobile gear vessels because of the size of the cod that were caught and because of some other activities which had to be discouraged".
The minister said there was not any immediate crisis that he knew of in that particular stock. Let us deal with the gulf cod stock, the forgotten cod stock, the cod stock in the region known as 4R and 3PN, the cod stock that is the fishery that begins off the southwest coast of Newfoundland in the riding of my friend and colleague, the member for Burin-St. George's, and that migrates all the way up through the gulf, all the way up the great northern peninsula. That is the gulf cod stock.
The minister says that stock is not in crisis. Let us examine the record. The record is that approximately 10 days ago the minister's own department conducted a test fishery in the gulf cod stock. It went out itself to conduct a test in the fishery to find out what kind of fish if any were being caught.
What was discovered as recently as within the last two weeks? The department discovered that 80 per cent of the fish being caught in the gulf, fully 80 per cent, were pre-spawners.
Non-Newfoundlanders or non-Atlantic Canadians are asking: "What does that mean?" That means that 80 per cent of the fish being caught were not yet mature enough or old enough to reproduce, and if those fish are caught now before they are able to reproduce it means the stock is wiped out. It means it is fished to commercial extinction.
That is not my test. That is not the union's test. That is not the fishermen's test. That is not the media's test. That is the minister's own department that conducted a test within the last 10 days which showed that fully 80 per cent of the fish being caught were under 18 inches.
In the words of anybody who knows anything about the fishery, to catch a fish under 28 inches is a slaughter, a criminal slaughter of the resource. That is the size of the fish being caught and that is one of the reasons the minister moved to restrict the activities of the mobile fleet in the gulf.
The minister says there is no crisis, but I have in my hand the report of William Steele for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for the minister. The report is dated December 1990. What is the conclusion of the report? Let us deal with facts tonight, not with fiction, not with opinion, not with commentary, not with rhetoric. The report was done as a background paper for the working group report on groundfish commissioned by the minister. What does the report say?


An hon. member:: I would not know about it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The minister says from across the way: "I would not know about it". I hope he does know about it.
The report states at page 11 under conclusion: "The cod fishery in western Newfoundland is in a crisis. The fixed gear fishery in western Newfoundland is at a point
June 22, 1992

of no return if there is no strategy to rebuild the cod stocks in the near future."
I could quote pages and pages from this report to show the extent of the crisis that the minister says does not exist, but that is sufficient for the moment.
Let me then pick up a copy of the Marshall report, also commissioned about a year ago by this minister. It was conducted by Jack Marshall, former area manager for federal fisheries in western Newfoundland, the area manager responsible for the gulf cod stock, the stock of which I now speak. What does he say in response to the minister's claim this afternoon that there is no crisis? What does Jack Marshall say, the senior official in the region?
He states, and I am quoting directly from the executive summary of the report: "The cod fishery in western Newfoundland, southern Labrador is in a crisis mainly because the landings are the lowest on record. Employment and income levels have fallen and impacts are highly concentrated in the fixed gear sector. If present trends continue the fishery could collapse completely. Therefore new strategies are needed to rebuild and maintain stocks". We have started with the results of a test fishery done 10 days ago. The results are a disaster. We have had the report of William Steele done in December 1990, a year and a half ago. It says there is a crisis and we are headed for disaster. We have the report of the area commissioner, Jack Marshall, a report done about a year ago. It says the fisheries is in crisis and we need new direction or we are headed for the ultimate disaster.
Then we pick up the latest study. This study which I doubt the minister has yet seen-if he has not seen it I will provide him with a copy-was commissioned by the Central and Northern Community Futures Committees of the great northern peninsula. These groups are funded by the federal government to look at their current economic circumstances and to examine alternatives to the current downturn in the fisheries.
In fact the April 1992 report is called "The Assessment of the Fisheries Downturn on the Great Northern Peninsula Confidential Interim Progress Report." All of the analysis contained in this report is by Canning & Pitt Associates of St. John's. All of the data flows from the data banks of the department of fisheries, the minister's
department. It is not opinion. It is not commentary. It is not hearsay. It is not rhetoric. It is raw data as recorded by the minister's department.
And what does this report say? What does it tell us? Let us review a couple of pages. It tells us that the total landings of all species by weight of fish on the great northern peninsula has dropped from 90 million pounds in 1987 to less than 50 million pounds in 1991. From 90 million to 50 million total weight of all species over a four-year period. That is a dramatic free fall in the total weight of landings of all species.
What does the same report say about the total landings of cod? It says the total landings of cod on the great northern peninsula over the same period of time-and the minister knows these figures-have dropped from in excess of 90 million pounds of cod landed on the great northern peninsula, cod from the gulf cod stock, to just over 30 million pounds. That is a 67 per cent decline in a few scant years. And the minister says there is no crisis.
Let us turn to another page of this recent report. What does this report which is aimed exclusively at the gulf cod stock at the great northern peninsula say in conclusion about the state of that stock?
The region is currently facing-
That word comes up again.
-a crisis in its fishing industry, and if fundamental changes are not made, the situation is bound to get much worse very quickly. At the present rate of resource decline there will be virtually no cod fishery on the great northern peninsula within a few years. Though higher prices have buoyed up the fishery during the past five years, this cannot continue.
It says:
Within households of fishermen and plant workers, the economic effects have undermined personal security and self-worth and increased dramatically family stress-This crisis, which the study terms of reference call the "fisheries downturn," has been in the making for at least 10 years. Even though it has not been sudden, it has been profound, pervasive, and greater than in areas of the province where the drop has been more abrupt and therefore more dramatic.
The report is clearly telling us something different from what the minister of fisheries stood in the House this afternoon during Question Period and told us, that there is no crisis in the gulf cod fishery, that there is no sense of panic in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the great northern peninsula, that there is no sense of dislocation, no sense of 500 years of collective history and culture being suddenly crushed, vapourized, at the blink of an

June 22, 1992
eye it almost appears to those living in those communities.
When the minister says that, he is showing an incredible degree of insensitivity. The minister is not a stupid man. There is nothing stupid about this minister. This minister is not a minister to waste words. It is not by accident the minister stands in his place in spite of all the evidence I just put before this House and says: "There is no crisis".
That is what scares the people of the great northern peninsula. That is why there were 1,000 people out in St. Anthony last week to say we are here. We exist. We will not go away and we will not disappear. That is why on Thursday there is going to be 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 more out in Plum Point to say we are here, we exist, and we will not go away just because the minister says there is no crisis on the great northern peninsula.
What people fear, quite frankly, is this government has begun to gear up its advertising machinery, its propaganda machinery, and I want the minister to tell me that is not true. The government is about to wipe away all of the people, all of the fishermen, all of the plant workers, all of the communities that depend upon the gulf cod stock.
This minister has decided he is going to declare a moratorium on the northern cod stock. He is going to bring in some kind of compensation for those he claims are directly affected.
For the inshore fishermen of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception or for the inshore fishermen who reside in the riding Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, or for the inshore fishermen who exist along the southwest coast in the riding of the member for Burin-St. George's we are not going to declare a moratorium. We are not even going to recognize a crisis. We are going to abandon those people and let the department of welfare or somebody else look after them. That is the plan of the minister of fisheries.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What is happening? The member opposite, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries, may think this is funny. Let me ask him this: does he
think it is funny that in a St. Anthony, Newfoundland plant that several years ago employed 700 people there is nobody working today?
Does he think it funny that in the Port aux Choix plant that normally employs 580 people there are only 100 working today? Does he think it funny that in the Anchor Point plant that normally employs 237 there are only 50 working today? In Brig Bay that employed 137 there is none working today? That in Conche that employed 78 there is only one working today? That in Main Brook that employed 60 there is none working today. That in St. Julien's that employed 32 there is none working today. In Croque a plant that employed 34 there is none working today.
In a New Ferrolle plant there is only a handful of maintenance people where once 200 people worked. In Englee where 323 worked only one maintenance person is employed today. In Raleigh where there were 60 workers there is none today. In Bide Arm where there were 130 workers, none today. In Cow Head there were 65 workers, none today. In Roddickton there were 157, none today. In Savage Cover there were 80 workers, none today. In Green Island Cover where 150 worked there is none today. Bear Cove, none, Cook's Harbour, none, Bartlett's Harbour, two out of 35 and Flowers Cove none out of 65.
Does the parliamentary secretary think that is funny? Does the minister continue to insist there is no crisis in the fishery on the great northern peninsula?
, Mr. Belsher: On a point of order. The hon. member keeps saying does the parliamentary secretary think that is funny? I do not think it is the least bit funny. I have been listening here to every word he has said and I have not been ridiculing either.


John Carnell Crosbie: We do not find you funny either.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: To put the record clear that is not a point of order and the hon. member knows it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary tells me he does not find that funny I am reassured. It means we have made a beginning with the parliamentary secretary. Now we have got to work on the minister of fisheries, the member for St. John's West
June 22, 1992

who insists in the face of the evidence, and I submit if we were in a court of law that would be sufficient evidence.
In the face of the evidence the minister has now got to admit that, indeed, we do have a dramatic crisis in the gulf fishery, the gulf cod stocks.
The minister will be the first to rise and say -and I will be the first to agree with him -that there is a crisis in the northern cod stock, that the northern cod stock has been devastated. In fact, what is frightening about that stock is what we do not know. The lack of scientific evidence that exists for us to make enlighted, intelligent, and knowledgeable decisions about how to manage that stock.
The minister will rise and tell us he is seriously considering placing a moratorium on that stock. I agree with him. You know why? Because there has been a 60 per cent decline in landings from the northern cod stock.
In fact, if you go back far enough it has been greater than that. My friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception reminded me before I began my speech that in 1968 there were 815,000 tonnes and by last year it was down to
127,000	tonnes. Just in the last four or five years, there has been a 60 per cent decline in landings in the northern cod stock.
I agree with the minister that is a crisis. I agree with the minister that he has to be prepared to compensate those who have been affected. If he agrees that a 60 per cent decline is a crisis, I ask him why then is a 67 per cent decline in the gulf cod stock not equally and similarly a crisis?
I want to put an interesting proposition to this minister. I want to remind him of something. At the end of the day, when it comes to the northern cod stock the area referred to as 2J-3KL, the eastern coast of Canada, the east coast of Labrador if you could picture the map of the east coast of Canada going off into the Atlantic, when it comes to that cod stock, the Government of Canada can always say: "We did our best to manage it well but offshore foreign vessels did not play the game". Foreign vessels overfished as the minister has said and foreign nations have to cease their fishing as we have. The minister pointed out that there is no point having a moratorium on Canadian fishing efforts if foreign fishing efforts continue. The minister is right.
The minister can always claim that despite his best efforts somebody can always trip him up in his management of the northern cod stock and to some extent there is truth to that.
We have a unique opportunity in the gulf. The gulf cod stock and the Gulf of St. Lawrence is surrounded completely by Canada. It is the only major coastline of the east coast of Canada and the only major cod stock that is not adjacent to the offshore and is not bounded by the 200-mile limit. It is the only stock in which we do not have foreign vessels just outside our 200-mile limit operating freely and at their own will. It is entirely enclosed and bounded by the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and western Newfoundland. It is totally in our control. Therefore we have nobody but ourselves to blame or to praise for any wrong that is done or any right that occurs.
I submit to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the minister ought to grab on to the gulf cod stock, to that cod stock that migrates within the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It migrates from southwest Newfoundland to the great northern peninsula. He could use that gulf stock as a pilot project to show what Canadians when they are in control can do to rebuild the fishery. That is within the power of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to undertake if he has the imagination and the courage and the support of his colleagues in cabinet to do.
I want to say that we on this side want to support the minister in any attempt to rebuild the stocks. We know that tough decisions have to be made. It would be damn easy for us to sit on this side of the House and just say to the minister: "It is your fault. You fix it up. We have nothing more to contribute". We are prepared to stand with him and make some of the tough decisions.
We are not prepared to stand silent. We are not prepared to say to our constituents as Parliament closes for the summer recess: "You will not be heard. The reality of the desperate circumstances you live in will not be talked about and we will not call upon the minister tonight to give this House a commitment that when it comes to those displaced by a reduction in the northern cod stocks and by a reduction in the gulf cod stock that this government is going to provide the kind of short-

June 22, 1992
term and long-term economic assistance that the Prime Minister himself committed himself to on behalf of the government in this House last week".
I ask the minister when he comes to his feet to acknowledge that we have a crisis. I ask the minister to reach out and to accept that those on this side are willing to work with him, to share some of the burden of the tough decisions, but he has to have a plan of action. It is no plan simply to say there is no crisis and therefore there is nothing I propose to do. That we cannot and will not accept on this side of the House.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the minister say this afternoon that there was no crisis in the Atlantic cod fishery. I was not here but I heard he is being quoted all across Newfoundland as saying this. I hope the minister is able to stand up this evening and tell us he was totally misunderstood by those who heard him in the House and all over Newfoundland this afternoon. If the minister himself does not recognize there is a crisis, then we are truly in great trouble. Certainly this species could very well become extinct.
I have told the story before of being told by the manager of the biggest fishing company in the area that within five years we could be looking for the last codfish off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. That was told to me three years ago. We are getting perilously close to the extinction of the species if the minister himself is not aware just how serious the matter is.
I had a telephone conversation with Clyde Newhook, our candidate in the Ferryland constituency by-election, to see what he knew about whether or not there truly is a crisis in the cod fishery in that area. He told me it is a total and complete failure everywhere. Perhaps he was exaggerating, but he did talk about three boats that went out in the past three days. They went 140 miles out from the southern shore and 70 feet of net was hauled three times. Fifteen cod were all they got for their effort. He told me of the inshore cod fishery at his own Ferryland constituency. Over three weeks of fishing there was no sign of any fish. A few fishermen who did catch some found them to be very small at 10 inches long. The fishermen there are saying if there is to be a closure, impose it immediately while there is still some hope of achieving something before any more damage is done.
In the offshore fishery in the 3N-0 district the few cod
being caught are full of spawn. We are destroying what little is left of the spawning stock in that area.
The only answer is to quit fishing. It is drastic. I suggested that 18 months ago in this House, and of course no attention was paid to it. I did not expect it would be.
If we do quit fishing, we have to provide for the fish shore workers, the inshore fishermen and the trawler-men. I think Canada is ready to do that.
The minister or anyone else should agree there is a crisis, instead of saying there really is not one right now through lack of knowledge or whatever. They should go to the government and say that, we are liable to wipe out the codfish as a species in the North Atlantic. We need money to pay these people not to fish. There are useful things that can be done, but we have to stop today or tomorrow and no longer. The damage is being done every day those fishermen are out there trying to find fish.
It cannot be like it was when they closed down the salmon fishery. The compensation to those who got out of the industry was paid on the basis of their last three years' catch, which was the worst three years in the history of the industry. We cannot pay these fishermen on the basis of the cod they have caught in the past three years or they will be getting next to nothing.
It is not just the cod, it is the capelin, the primary fish bait or the primary fish food. So far all of the capelin that are showing up, according to Mr. Newhook, are one-half the size of mature fish. The fishermen who see these capelin do not know the reason and I suspect the minister does not either and that is part of the problem. We have to find out why. What does it mean? What does it mean to the future of the capelin?
I have talked about the seals before and I am prepared to do it again. The population seems to be exploding in all the areas where they are not looking for fish. They are in quantities never seen before. There have been arguments as to what the seals are eating and whether or not they eat cod or the cod food. They are certainly part of the food chain, and we know they are not eating corn flakes. Is it already too late to save the northern cod stock?
June 22, 1992

The flounder stock seems low. We have talked about the nose and tail and the jurisdiction. It is time to do something about that. I think if we set an example we would not have to get tough with these people. We should say to these people this is serious. We are in danger of wiping out the species, Canadians are going to quit fishing in those areas. Quit fishing for cod. We want you to join with us in a management plan for the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Co-operate with us to make sure there is no cod fishing in those areas as well as within the 200-mile limit.
Let us challenge them to show that they too want to save that stock for future generations rather than wiping it all out in a matter of one or two years.
Mr. Newhook told me about visiting families in his constituency where unemployment insurance ran out May 15. They are afraid they will not be able to feed their families. They are trying to get social welfare, but something more has to be done for these people, something that will encourage them not to fish.
The minister and others have said before that we do not really know what is going on. When I travelled to Europe two or three years ago with the fisheries committee under external affairs and talked to these people from the European Community about the alleged overfishing, they said that we did not have sufficient scientific evidence to prove our case. We had not proven our case to them. They said that we do not really know what was going on there.
The minister himself has suggested on several occasions that perhaps it had something to do with the high incidence of ice. The waters were so cold this year and maybe the fish went somewhere else. That could be but we do not know where they are. If they are somewhere else, let us find them. Before we catch another cod, let us try to find out where the survivors are if there are survivors. If we cannot find them, then until we do find some, we have to assume that the population is getting dangerously low and take some desperate steps. The thing we can do most effectively and immediately is to cease cod fishing, compensate the people who are going to lose their livelihood immediately and reasonably and persuade all other nations fishing in those areas to join with us.
We must mount a tremendous scientific campaign to try to find out what is happening. Talk and listen to the fishermen. Some of those people have a lot of knowledge. It is their livelihood and some of them know more than others. Some of them know more than people who are here in Ottawa trying to run the industry and run departments.
Let us find out and let us prove to the world that we are doing our best to make sure we know exactly what is happening in that area of the world, what has caused the deterioration in the quantities of cod, the legendary quantities that were there a few hundred years ago. We have all heard stories about how you could walk on the cod, how you could scoop them up by the netful, no problem at all.
It is not a case of laying blame. We know this has been going on for a number of years. There have been Liberal governments and there have been Tory governments. That does not matter right now. We can worry about those thing during the election campaign. Right now we have to arrive at a common decision that it is Canada's responsibility to do everything possible to save that species.
I am convinced that means talking and listening to people. From what I have seen on site, I am convinced that it means stopping cod fishing immediately and totally, demonstrating to the world this is the way to save the species. We have to prove to the world we are going to put the scientists to work who can accomplish anything, who can show us anything, who can tell us anything and teach us anything. We are going to find out what is happening and we are going to manage that resource in the way in which it should be managed, to have it as a perpetual resource for mankind and for the cod themselves.
It is serious. It is serious or we would not be doing it at this time of night. It is serious or the Speaker would not have agreed to this emergency debate this evening. A lot rests on this minister. He can argue and he can present other points of view. He can present other reports, no doubt, and tell us it is not as bad as we are led to believe it is and make us think that perhaps it is going to be better if we are patient.
I submit to the House that he does not know. The evidence to me is so overwhelming there is a serious problem that it is his responsibility to close down the cod fishing and do whatever is necessary to rebuild that stock so the species does not become extinct. He has a responsibility and an opportunity to turn back the tide, to undo the damage that has been done by 10, 12 or more

June 22, 1992
years of Liberal and Tory governments, and to preserve that species. I hope he does not fail us and the cod.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is an emergency debate on the fisheries situation on the east coast of Canada.
If I might just review some of the ground, it was at the beginning of June that the NAFO Scientific Council at our request met with CAFSAC, Canadian fisheries scientists, to review the findings and all the additional research we have had done in the last year or two years with reference to the state of the northern cod, the 2J-3KL cod known as the northern cod.
The northern cod is approximately 40 per cent of the value of all landings of fish in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is 11 per cent to 13 per cent of the value of all landings of fish in Atlantic Canada. It is a very important stock and probably the main reason Newfoundland was settled in the first place. It is a stock of fish very close to the hearts, minds and consciousness of Newfoundlanders.
We had referred this to the NAFO Scientific Council. It spent several days reviewing all this evidence with Canadian scientists. They agreed with the findings of CAFSAC, the Canadian scientists, and they came to certain conclusions which I am sure the House would be quite familiar with. I have the report here. Anyone can ready it. At pages 31 and 32 we see the conclusions. It stated that the age three biomass between 520,000 and
640.000	tonnes and, even more disturbing, the age seven plus biomass-that is the spawning biomass-between
72.000	and 110,000 tonnes were currently at or near the lowest levels ever observed for this stock. The fishery in 1992 would be dominated by only two year classes: those of 1986 and 1987. The limited information available indicated that the 1988 year class was below average and was currently estimated to be about the level of the weak 1983 and 1984 year classes.
Then it continued on page 32 by indicating that it therefore recommended that fishing mortalities should be reduced in 1992 from the levels of recent years.
We had already reduced the total allowable catch for this stock from 266,000 tonnes in the year 1988 down to
120.000	tonnes in February 1992. We set it in December 1991 at 185,000 for this year. There have been reductions in every year since 1988 because of revised estimates, forecasts and projections by our scientists. There have been very severe reductions already up to this time.
It recommended again that fishing mortality should be further reduced. It said that at FO.l, that is the fishing mortality rate of 0.25, the total catch should not exceed
91.000	tonnes. Given the uncertainties in the assessments and the obvious requirement for caution, it would be wise to consider the FO.l catch to be at the lower value of 50,000 tonnes. It should not be forgotten that at least 20,000 to 25,000 tonnes appeared to have already been caught in 1992.
That is its main conclusion. It says that the stock was at the lowest level it had been since it started observing the
stock.
I do not have the time tonight, but I can point out that it is at the same level as it was in 1977, which was the previous lowest level for this stock in its known scientific history. Obviously there is a serious problem with the 2J-3KL northern cod stock.
After the NAFO Scientific Council report came out, I said that I would have to review again the total allowable catch for northern cod for the year 1992. Already it had been reduced by 35 per cent from 185,000 tonnes to
120.000	tonnes. However, in light of this further information from the NAFO Scientific Council in CAFSAC, I would have to review the situation again with a view to either a lower total allowable catch or perhaps even a moratorium on the hatching of the northern cod if I concluded that the stock was threatened so that it might disappear if there were not a moratorium. This was obviously an option that had to be looked at as well. That was all said in the first week of June.
I said that during the month of June and early July, certainly during the month of June, we would be observing the northern cod stock hatched in the inshore fishery. We stopped the offshore fishery for northern cod last
June 22, 1992

February. There has not been an offshore Canadian fishery for the northern cod since last February. We wanted to see what happened in the inshore fishery during June and what cod fish were being caught.
The disturbing thing about the state of the northern cod is its age distribution. There are two good year classes, 1986 and 1987, followed by poor year classes preceded by poor year classes. The classes of 1986 and 1987 have not yet reached spawning age, which is the age of seven. They are only five and six years of age. We had to be careful this year not to allow these two year classes to be caught up this year and next year before they can spawn or else the future of the stock will be threatened. This is what we are watching for. This is now a problem greater than it was in 1977 because of the age distribution of these year classes of the cod.
This is based on evidence. The scientists examine the cod that are caught. They can tell you the distribution of the age classes by counting the rings in the inner ear. This is based on firm evidence that the age distribution of this cod stock is very peculiar. It is based on 1986 and 1987 year classes and the classes since have been very poor. That is why I am contemplating whether or not there should be a moratorium or a further reduction in the TAC.
A further reduction of TAC would still have serious consequences. Even last year, which was a bad year in the fishery, 127,000 tonnes of northern cod was caught by Canadians. The TAC was 190,000 and we caught 127,000 tonnes. Just in 1990 in the inshore fishery alone in Newfoundland we caught 114,000 tonnes of the northern cod. It has not been all bad years leading up to this year. V/e should not pretend that there has been complete decimation over the last two, three, four, five or six years in the fishery. There have been good fisheries and poor fisheries. In 1990 there was a superb inshore fishery in the northern cod. Last year the inshore only caught
75,000	to 78,000 tonnes. It is not all complete disaster in the last few years fishery. That is still the position.
The inshore fishery can come early or late in June or it can come in July. We do not know what the inshore cod fishery is going to be like yet in Newfoundland. Naturally everybody fears it is not going to be too good. We know that the capelin is late arriving. We know that the capelin
that are out there are small, stunted, weenie, little creatures. They are not the size that you can sell in the Japanese market or anywhere else as yet. We know there are problems with capelin and with the northern cod.
Some time in the next week or 10 to 12 days I have to make a decision and I will as to whether we are going to have a moratorium on the northern cod fishery or not or whether we are going to reduce the TAC from 120,000 tonnes for this year to something much less. I will have to make that decision and I will not hesitate to make the decision. I have already said that I am going to make the decision based on the survival of the species. Whatever is necessary for the northern cod to survive, that will be my decision. When that decision is made, whether it is a moratorium or whether it is another severe reduction in the total allowable catch, we will be announcing a program of assistance for those affected by the state of that stock, who are affected by that decision whether it is fishermen, trawlermen or plant workers, the people involved will receive assistance.
If there is a moratorium then the assistance will be based on that. If it is a reduction to 50,000 tonnes or
70,000	tonnes that imposes hardship, it will be some kind of plan to help in that eventuality. I helped them last year. The government helped them last year. The Prime Minister helped them last year.
Last year they got ice compensation when we had a fantastic ice year with ice still coming down in August. We did not hesitate to help them. Last year we also helped the fisherpeople of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada with a catch failure program, an emergency job creation projects and a gear-up program. The like of the assistance we have rendered to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada has never been heard of before in Canada. We do not need anyone from the opposition or from anywhere else to tell us that we have obligations we should meet. We have met them and we are going to continue to meet them.
We have worked night and day to get fish plants opened that were closed, like Galtus, Grand Bank, programs of economic development and diversification outside the fishery, programs of diversification inside the fishery. We do not need any tongue wagging or finger shaking at us because whenever called upon, we have

June 22, 1992
met the situation we were called upon to deal with and that is going to continue.
We have set up a task force, an incomes and adjustment for the Atlantic fishery, headed by Richard Cashin, the president of the largest fishermen's union in the country with five other people from the trade, the unions and universities.


An hon. member:: One of whom is in the gallery right now, Professor Darby.


John Carnell Crosbie: Professor Darby is in the gallery. He is a member of this task force. As a matter of fact the task force is working in Ottawa this week. We cannot produce a rabbit out of a hat for our immediate situation. We will be expecting them to give us advice on the longer term aspects of this situation. A whole series of steps have been put in place.
Hon. members opposite want to have an emergency debate. I understand that. They want to be on the record that they are concerned. Sure, we know they are concerned. I can see they are concerned. If they are not concerned, why are they members of Parliament? Why do they seek to get elected? Why are they here if they are not concerned? I will agree they are concerned and we on this side of the House are concerned. The member for St. John's West is concerned. The member for St. John's East is concerned. Naturally, we are concerned. We understand why they wanted an emergency debate. It is premature because I have not made a decision yet.
It is premature because I have not announced a decision that I have not made yet. It is premature because I do not have my colleagues agreeing on this. I am working night and day on exactly what program of assistance I think should be put in place in the eventuality that I have to make this or that decision.
I am seeing the Prime Minister tomorrow morning to review this with him. I know very well I will have his support. He has already indicated in the House that he is waiting for me to bring forward a plan that he can support. Why will he support it? Because he is humane. He is humanitarian. He has a big heart. He is concerned. He is eager. He knows why this is necessary. Much maligned, but there has never in the history of Canada been a Prime Minister or a member of this House who did more for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador than Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has.


An hon. member:: Absolutely right. He made a promise and he kept it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, let me deal with this business of crisis. I do not mind clear debate and I do not mind people being factual. This is malarkey that somehow I said there was no crisis in the Newfoundland fishery. I have Hansard here. Let us look at the Hansard of today. I am very disappointed in the hon. member for this cheap attack about crisis. According to the NDP member from Nanaimo, the member from Burin-St. George's and the member from the west coast of Newfoundland have been howling all over Newfoundland all day today saying: "The minister said there was no crisis. What kind of a fool, a nitwit and an idiot is the minister? He said there was no crisis". What did the minister say? The minister said in answering questions about the cod stocks in the gulf: "There is not any immediate crisis I know of in that particular stock".
If the hon. gentleman got on the radio and quoted me exactly, fine. He did not do that. He called the radio stations and apparently said I said there was no crisis in the fish stocks in Newfoundland. I say it again, there is not any immediate crisis I know of in that particular stock in the gulf.
Let us look a couple of pages further in Hansard. I said to the hon. member: "Because the hon. member rises in this House and shouts across the House does not make the situation a crisis. We hear the hon. member bellowing ceaselessly in this House in Question Period trying to make it appear that somehow the country is falling apart because he is yelling at the top of his lungs". I also said: "The facts have been known for months that he quoted about the gulf fishery and there is no sudden crisis today in the gulf", not in the Newfoundland fishery, in the gulf.
Then the member for Burin-St. George's got up and I said: "Mr. Speaker, we all know that was a reference to the northern cod stock in the province of Newfoundland in particular. There is a serious problem in connection with the fishery. We also know other stocks are under heavy pressure. There is no sudden emergency that has just occurred with reference to other fisheries". Those are my references to the situation in Newfoundland. The hon. gentleman screeched off to the telephones to
June 22, 1992

phone down to Newfoundland to misquote, tear up and give a false impression of what I said.
The hon. member says he wants to work with the government and then he goes out and tries to stab the minister in the back by misquoting and obscuring what he said.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I would prefer to make a point of order than try to make a long point of privilege. Because it is a matter of the facts, I want to tell the Speaker this member of Parliament has spoken to no journalist and no media in Newfoundland since Question Period this afternoon about the Question Period the minister refers to. His facts are incorrect.
I would be delighted to have the minister tell me he acknowledges the crisis in the gulf. If he would do that, I would be very happy.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must say the Speaker is still wondering which one of our Standing Orders the hon. member was referring to.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is the same one the parliamentary secretary gave.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am telling the hon. member exactly the same thing I told the hon. parliamentary secretary. The hon. minister has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am not interested in debating semantics. I am interested in discussing the situation of the fishery in Newfoundland. We should put this in context as well.
This is not the only cod fishery in the world that is in difficulty. If we look at the Icelandic cod situation, the Icelandic authorities have been told to reduce IF and reduce catch to no more than 154,000 tonnes for 1993. Last year they caught just under 300,000 tonnes. They have a very, very bad situation in the Icelandic cod fishery.
I have charts to show the North Sea and the Baltic Sea cod are in desperate trouble there. The advice is to stop fishing in the Baltic. For the North Sea, reduce the effort to 70 per cent of the 1989 effort. There has been a
tremendous decline in the catch of the Greenland cod. There is practically no cod left there to catch.
The only area that shows improvement recently is in the Barents Sea. For four, five or six years they had grave difficulty and had to just about cut out the fishery. The northern cod is not the only cod stock in grave difficulty.
The gulf cod stock is a different cod stock and it is not in the kind of danger the northern cod stock is in. I am going to act based on the advice I get from CAFSAC and fisheries managers. They are not advising me that the gulf stock is in severe danger of disappearing as a stock or that the year class distribution is in the same maladjusted pattern as it is in the northern cod. Our major problem in the cod fishery at this time is the northern cod.
I am not happy with the state of the gulf cod because the gulf cod is not in a very healthy state but it is not in the kind of situation that the northern cod is in in 4RS-3PN.
There are all kinds of crises if you want to talk about crises. There is a crisis with respect to Hibernia. There has been a crisis with respect to Hibernia now for six or seven months, since the Gulf corporation said it was no longer going to continue in the consortium.
When I think of the Hibernia crisis I think of the fact that the present premier of the province said the whole Hibernia development was not of all that great significance. It only amounted to two fish plants when it came to total employment. He may have changed his opinion since because there is a crisis with respect to Hibernia.
The hon. member from the northern peninsula said that the people in the northern peninsula are here, they exist, they will not go away. I know they are there and they exist. I do not want them to go away. That is why I helped them last year. That is why I will help them this year when the northern cod fishery and whatever action we take requires that they be helped, they will be helped. That is why I helped them last year with the ice compensation. That is why we will help them if the gulf

June 22, 1992
cod stock situation gets any worse. This is a government that helps people when they need to be helped.
The hon. member from the New Democratic Party talked about Mr. Newhook who is a candidate in a by-election in Ferryland in his constituency. He has been in more constituencies than you can count in the whole House. This is about his eighth attempt to get elected in a constituency. I think it is a bit premature to say that Mr. Newhook is in his constituency. His constituency happens to be part of my constituency. I am going to be a very surprised person if Mr. Newhook is seen in that constituency again after next Thursday when the byelection is over. He will be gone off to look for another constituency after next Thursday's by-election. I do not say that in any mean spirit. Every man wants to try to find the right constituency to be in.
I am not quite sure of my time. I think Madam Speaker is indicating that my time is getting close. That is the trouble. Look, I have 14 pages, a pile of facts and remarks prepared by my staff, all good solid stuff, what we have been doing in the last year and several months since I have been minister of fisheries, what we have done internationally, what we have done domestically.
In the next week or 10 days I will be able to describe for you what we are going to do in connection with the northern cod and the fishermen and women and plant workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not going to be easy.
What makes it a lot easier is that I have a leader who is supportive, who is conscious of what needs to be done, who is concerned about people and who is going to be supportive again for us to help down in Newfoundland and Labrador, despite the kind of treatment that he himself personally has received from the leadership of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. He rises above that.
Whether it is Hibernia or the fisheries, he is there to offer a hand in support. He will be there again in a week or two weeks' time when we have made our decision and when we have to say what we are going to do to help the people affected and afflicted. He will be there and I will be there and the hon. gentleman opposite can be secure in the knowledge that the same concern we showed last year will be shown this year, only in spades.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, point of order. I think if you were to consult with the other side you would find agreement that from here on there would be 10-minute speeches at the maximum in order to accommodate as many as possible until midnight.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations and I would concur with the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Caccia:: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, would the hon. parliamentary secretary be agreeable to removing the limit of midnight so as to permit speakers interested in participating in the debate to make their intervention?


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I was led to believe there could be five to six speakers from the other side. If that is so then we could agree to that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Maybe we should start first by getting unanimous consent as far as the 10-minute speeches are concerned. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It might be that we will go over midnight for a little while. Would there be unanimous consent if I were to suggest that our pages, be able to leave?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I think we should examine why we are here tonight. It is for a very simple reason. It is an emergency debate because it is based on an emergency situation in which we have a situation of crisis proportion. We are here, as the hon. member for St. John's West says, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, because we are concerned.
The way I see things is not quite the way the minister sees them. I have heard about the compensation programs, every time I ask a question on compensation. I am told about the compensation the year before and the compensation the year before that. That is not doing much good for the people who need the compensation now.
The reason I and my colleagues are here is to respond to letters like this. I am going to quote a letter I received from a constituent of mine dated June 6.1 want to share with you the destitution in this letter. It is from a Mr. 
June 22, 1992

Dean Williams of New Harbour. He is in charge of a group of plant workers and he has written me and I am going to quote parts of his letter. He starts off by saying:
"Dear Mr. Mifflin: We as fish plant workers are very concerned about the state of the fishery in our province. Many of us have worked in the fishery for most of our lives. As you know, our livelihood has been going down hill in recent years. Those of us who have always looked forward to spring and summer as seasons we could count on for most of our annual income are now finding it difficult to keep our families fed and clothed. Since the cutback in northern cod quotas in 1989 the winter fishery is nearly non-existent. The sad fact is that UI is now the mainstay of our income. The changes made by Bill C-21 in November of 1990 made it more difficult for us to qualify. This increases our difficulty in maintaining our standard of living. We are searching for ways to help alleviate some of the problems we now encounter. We have to come up with some ideas that will help us to maintain a standard of living with our local economy the way it is.
Many of us find it impossible to work 10 weeks in a year because the fish is not there to obtain the weeks we need to qualify for unemployment insurance.
Most of the plants in your riding have slowed down or even stopped production. We would appreciate any idea you may have and any support you would give".
I have 57 plants in my riding. The member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte rhymed off the number in his riding. We have 252 plants in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This gentleman represents one of thousands of people within the last three to four months and they are in two categories. The first is those people who have no unemployment insurance now because either they did not have it when the plants were closing down or they had it but they have run out because there is no fishery, as Mr. Williams points out. The other class of people is actually in both classes, the class I just mentioned and they are also concerned about what we are discussing here this evening, a moratorium on the cod stocks which will prevent any fishing and any compensation in the form of wages.
They are looking at the long-term package, which we are talking about here tonight and the interim package, which was the reason this debate was started at the beginning; the 1,000 people in St. Anthony who had no
jobs, the 500 people in the Charleston fish plant who demonstrated in Clarenville which is unheard of in my riding.
There are the 1,200 people in the deep sea plant in Port Union who have no work, the 50 families who had no qualifications since February 21. I made 26 interventions in this House and I have had no satisfactory response. That is why we are here this evening. Let me give you in another way the scope of the problem. The facts that the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte quoted, that is a crisis.
Mr. Cashin who is working on this is quoted to have said: "The gulf stocks are in worse shape than the northern cod stocks". I did not see that myself, but I am told he said that. Well, that speaks to me.
Let me give you some indication of the deep sea and inshore fishery and the crisis we have gone through. In 1968, 815,000 tonnes and last year 127,000 tonnes in a relatively short term in the life span of 500 years of fishing in Newfoundland, an 85 per cent reduction.
Again with the deep sea offshore plants, the one I just mentioned in Port Union, 1,200 jobs were lost and over 200 trawlermen were out of work. On February 21, it closed down and 155 trawlermen were out of work and 850 people had no work. Normally, at this time of the year, that plant is operating almost full tilt. Now other than just a few maintenance workers there is nobody there.
Let me give a stark and sad commentary on the inshore fishery. About 25 years ago, it was not uncommon for a cod trap-a cod trap is like a box that goes in the water. It has a door, the cod swim in and they cannot get out. It can hold a lot of volume. About 25 years ago, you could catch 25,000 pounds of cod. That was not unusual per trap. One trap would catch 25,000 pounds. About five or six years ago, you could catch maybe 10,000, a few years ago, maybe 7,000. Last year, if you got 1,500 pounds it would be considered to be good.
In Bonavista-TKnity-Conception, my riding, the three great bays in eastern Newfoundland are always teaming with cod. This year in Trinity Bay, I spoke with a fisherman last Saturday who had 27 traps and he got 103 fish. That works out to about four fish per trap, about 25 pounds versus 25,000 pounds 25 years ago. That is a devastating reduction. It is an astounding reduction. It

June 22, 1992
S. ft 52
boggles the mind. That is the proportion and the scope of the problem.
Let me look at it in another way. What does this mean? Why are we here tonight debating? Why did it take us three or four days and 50 members to get this? I have trouble with that. Let me equate it. It is difficult to make comparisons. Sometimes it is odious. When you are in a difficult situation and the frustrating situation we are in on this side of the House, you resort to almost anything to make your point.
Let me make the point this way. In Newfoundland I mentioned 252 plants. If you count those involved in the fishing and the fish plants, in my riding I have over 10,000 people. In Newfoundland, there are 43,000 people involved in this business. That makes up 22 per cent of those people who work in my province.
Let me take the automobile industry in Canada. About
50,000	people who make cars and about 70,000 who are involved in car parts, 90 per cent are in Ontario. So if you take 90 per cent of 120,000 in Newfoundland mathematics it works out to about 100,000 people, actually 108,000 people, but that represents only 2.2 per cent of the working population of Ontario. If I were to take that 2.2 per cent and multiply it by 10 to give me 22 per cent, which is what fishing means to Newfoundland, it would mean that there are over one million workers equivalent in Ontario that would be without work or their jobs would be threatened. Now if that were not considered a crisis on a proportional basis, I do not know what would be.
There is the scope of the problem. The concern is yes for the future of the fishery. Yes, fishermen will co-operate. They understand if there has to be a moratorium.
In one of the plants the plant workers have agreed to have their salaries in Newfoundland, just today or yesterday, reduced from $10 an hour by $1.50 to $8.50 an hour. They will co-operate.
That is the long term but as for the short term there are literally thousands of people. There are 58 families today in my riding that never got any compensation because they did not have enough stamps to qualify and there were no fish since February 21, four months. They are hungry. They are losing their cars. They are losing their houses.
This is more than a crisis. I do not know what is more than a crisis. I do not know what term to put on it but it is of that proportion.
I have given the scope of the problem. I have given the two terms of compensation we need. I beg this minister of fisheries to take account and heed of what has been said here tonight, what will be said here tonight and not wait another month, not wait for another couple of days. Before this House closes down tomorrow, make some commitment to those people in the short term and then the long term, perhaps in a week or so, whenever that is planned.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate tonight and I would like to thank the Speaker for allowing this debate on a matter of grave concern to many people in Atlantic Canada.
It is an opportunity to discuss an issue that has been very much in the news in our region of Canada and about which there is certainly knowledge in other parts of the country, though perhaps not the same amount of understanding we have in Atlantic Canada.
There are basically three points or issues I would like to speak tonight and I will be very conscious of the clock, as I always am.
First of all, I want to make the point that the focus of this debate in this discussion is Newfoundland and Labrador but I want to make the point this is a problem that goes beyond Newfoundland and Labrador and impacts throughout Atlantic Canada.
For instance, in my own constituency of South Shore I have Mersey Seafoods Limited in Liverpool which has an offshore cod quota on the Grand Banks. National Sea Products is impacted. Sea Freez is impacted. Clearwater is impacted. There is a long line of fishermen from Cape Sable Island who fish cod off the Grand Banks.
While the greatest impact by far is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, this impacts as well on my own province of Nova Scotia and I expect other parts of Atlantic Canada.
Accordingly, we will be watching with hope and encouragement that when the minister does bring down the aid package I know he will bring down as part of the response to this, it will extend to other areas of Atlantic
June 22, 1992

Canada that are impacted by this crisis as well, in particular the province of Nova Scotia.
Often we hear, when we are in central Canada and other parts of the country, talk about the problems of the fishermen. I think it is important to recognize that in many ways the people who are impacted as much if not more than the fishermen are the people who work in the fish plants, the plant workers. These people put in many hard hours and quite often do not get the same economic return as fishermen sometimes get. This problem is one that has a ripple effect right throughout the communities in which they are impacted.
I have listened to members on all sides of the House speak tonight and everybody is cognizant that we are dealing here with something that has a very pervasive impact on those regions of the country where it is involved. Solutions and measures must be extended to all those areas and that includes Nova Scotia as well as others.
The problem we are discussing here is twofold. It is long term and it is short term. The long term seems to be coming under control and I want to say a little bit more about that later. The focus of tonight's debate is the short term.
The minister has spoken earlier and made the point that it is a bit premature here to be discussing the response when a decision has not yet been taken and the response fully announced. It might be more appropriate to have a debate at that time but members opposite, for quite understandable reasons, were anxious before the House rose to have an opportunity to put on record their concerns. I must say I welcome that opportunity.
I think we must recognize it is inevitable in the short term that in the final analysis we are going to be faced with some kind of decision relating to the extension of the moratorium. As the minister has said, within the next week or 10 days he will be making that decision.
That moratorium, just as the moratorium that is down now, has a profound impact on the people who normally fish resources and on the people who work in the plants that depend on those resources as a source of supply to keep those plants going.
Inevitably this will require substantial financial assistance over a fairly extended period of time. This government has certainly not shied away from providing such in the past. We had the $584 million Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program two years ago in response to the first waves of this problem. Last year we responded to the destruction of the stocks with the ice program. One expects this government will come through again.
It is interesting to observe what is going on in this country. It is easy for those of us who represent fishing areas to focus on this issue, but we must remember that this is one issue among many in our country today. All Canadians are concerned with the unity issue and the efforts that are being made by people from coast to coast in this country to achieve a successful constitutional renewal so that Canadians could get on with dealing with the economic and other problems that are so important in our lives.
One would have to be blind not to have noticed that the premier of Newfoundland, on behalf of the government of that province, did not seem to be showing a great deal of flexibility in the constitutional talks. I wonder what the response will be from Canadians from other parts of the country for whom constitutional renewal is the major priority, if the response they are getting from the Government of Newfoundland is that it has its principles and its principles cannot be compromised in order to save Canada.
I guess what I am saying is that just as Canadians are going to be asked to be flexible in making their tax dollars available to assist Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the severe difficulty they are facing right now, so also should the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, be prepared to be flexible in responding to the priorities that other Canadians have had.
I cannot think of a better person to go to the cabinet table to defend the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador in this crisis than our hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I think they should be erecting statues of that man from one end of Newfoundland to the other. We could have a few in Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces because he has served Atlantic Canada marvellously well over the time he has been in office. We have to get behind this minister. We have to

June 22, 1992
show that Atlantic Canadians and Newfoundlanders are prepared to make the compromises necessary for Canada that they are now asking Canadians to make to respond to their particular crisis at this particular time.
The problem we are here to discuss of the dwindling fish stocks really has four sources: fishing by Canadians; fishing by foreigners -and I could say overfishing by Canadians and overfishing by foreigners; the impact of the growth in the seal population and as CAFSAC recognized, other environmental factors such as the cold ice conditions in 1991.
The easiest of those to deal with is obviously the seals. Clearly, with an increase of about two million seals in the population of Atlantic waters, it is time we recognize we have to have some kind of a seal cull. There is great nervousness about suggesting this because of the impact of the environmental movements of Europe and other places and their opposition to the notion that anybody should harvest seals or cull seals.
However it is time, in my judgment, that these European environmentalists and these people who call themselves funds for animal welfare started to show a bit of concern for animals called cod fish, flatfish and capelin. They may not be cuddly like seals but they are extremely important to the economy. An animal is an animal is an animal and all have a right to participate. Perhaps the minister will have to be considerate and will look to see what the response is with respect to seals.
Canadians obviously have taken the bite as far as having a moratorium imposed on the offshore fishery. We will wait to see what decision the minister makes with respect to the inshore fishery. If we are going to lick this problem we will need co-operation from those who fish outside our 200-mile zone. We will need co-operation from the European Community, in particular Spain and Portugal, and indeed from South Korea. Of course there are vessels under flags of convenience like Panama and Honduras.
Fortunately we have been getting some co-operation as we have never seen it before in recent years from all these sources. The minister had a very successful visit to Panama and Honduras. I think we will see a lot fewer flags of convenience.
It was very encouraging to see the response recently of the European Community, led by Spain, I might say, in pulling their cod fleet off the nose of the Grand Banks. Unfortunately, this announcement was met with a great deal of cynicism. Perhaps one can understand that in view of the overfishing that has gone on in recent years by Spanish and Portuguese vessels.
At the same time, if we wish others to understand our perspective, perhaps we have to be prepared to listen to them. As Canadians, we love to pilgrimage over to Europe and tell the Spanish that they are a bunch of pirates that are out there raping the fish stocks. I am not sure if I were Spanish how I would respond to that. Perhaps, as Canadians, we should be a little bit better at listening to the perspective of others, rather than just going over there and telling them what our views are.
We have to look at the fact that from their point of view they have participated in this fishery for over 500 years. They have always had a fleet of distant fishing vessels, as opposed to simply fishing in their own waters. They have huge fish plants. They have thousands of vessels, and of course they have a huge demand for their own local market. They do not have unemployment insurance and support programs such as we have in Canada. But they have made an effort and we have to encourage those efforts to see that we do get in the long term the diplomatic solutions that will bring proper control and regulation of transboundary fish stocks in places like the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. It is only through that that we are going to find the long-term solution.
In closing, I will simply make reference to the very significant development that occurred at the Rio conference when, through the leadership, primarily of Canada, and through the leadership primarily of this minister of fisheries, the United Nations agreed to convene a conference on overfishing and the regulation of transboundary stocks, which we hope will ultimately lead to the long-term solution of this problem.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, again we rise in this place to debate a crisis in the Atlantic fisheiy. It certainly is not a pleasant task. We all know that the fisheiy is in severe trouble. If we had ever thought over the years that it would come to the crisis we
June 22, 1992

are in today probably we would have done something about it many, many years ago.
The problem is that the people affected by it, the people who will really feel the brunt of this, are the fishermen who catch the fish, the people in the plants, the packers, and of course the people who sell this great commodity.
After listening to all the speakers here tonight, what is going to have to happen in this whole situation is that a great part, if not the whole area in the cod fishery especially, is going to have to close down. This is something that I and other people of my age never thought would ever happen. For 500 years we have caught fish, we have processed fish and we have sold it. Unfortunately we never took an inventory of what was happening off Newfoundland, off the east coast of Canada, off the eastern coast of the United States, off the east coast of North America.
We heard the minister quote other areas that are having problems, such as Iceland and Denmark. We have allowed this to happen in our lifetime. It has come to a situation that we would never have believed would happen, but now we are in a situation where we probably are going to have to close down this operation and rebuild it again.
I have listened to the people involved in this business, the scientific community. We have heard the experts tell us that, yes, this fishery can be revived and different time frames have been talked about, from two to five years.
The number one thing that will have to take place in that two to five years is the people who are displaced will have to be given compensation to let them, if they are going to stay in the fishery, rebuild or go on to work at other trades. A very important part of this debate here tonight is on what is going to happen to these people. As most members in this House know, especially those who live in the areas that are greatly affected by this, there is not very much else that these people will be able to do. A whole new philosophy and a whole new area has to be brought into being. These people must in the short term and in the long term be taken care of financially. [DOT]
Then of course we have to start to bring back this great resource. We have let this happen over a period of years.
If we had been nurturing, cultivating and tending to this, we certainly would not be in the situation that we are in now.
We have a responsibility as Canadians and we have a responsibility as part of the international community to do our part to rebuild this great resource off our eastern coast. We also want to make sure that all of the factors that contribute to this are taken care of. I am sure that when the people who were at the conference in Rio talked about the fishery in the world and what had to be done also took into consideration the other areas that are contributing to the decline of it, one of course being pollution. We talk about the overfishing and the seals, but we also have to talk about the pollution that has moved into our oceans from around the world from waste that we have been too readily able to dump into the areas. These are the things which I know are all part of the problem we see today.
We also know of course that our fishery has been harvested, has been overfished and has been pillaged over the last 500 years. Honestly, as caretakers of this, we have not been very good caretakers. We now have to start conserving and rehabilitating. We have to take a serious look at what we did not do. We paid lip-service to it, yes, but now the crisis has hit where it hurts: in the pocketbooks and at the dinner tables of the men and women who work this resource, fish this resource and sell it.
When we shut this down, the markets are going to disappear and therefore we are into a whole rebuilding situation. I am sure it is a very sad occasion for everybody who is here tonight. I am sure that the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, is not very happy that he had to move a motion on this because we let our resource get into the situation it is in.
Now that we have taken this look, the government and members of the opposition have to say that we are prepared to go all out to bring this resource back. We have to say that never again can the fish trawlers and the factory ships with all of the new modem equipment take and remove young fish from the area, fish that have yet to produce. This was talked about by all of the speakers here tonight. This shall never be allowed to happen again. We have to make sure that we have the co-opera-

June 22, 1992
tion of the whole international community to make sure that this does not happen again. When we rebuild this fishery, when we bring it back as we hope we can do, we want to hand it to our children and our grandchildren in much better shape than it was left to us. Once we rebuild this and get it back to a situation where we can use it again, we have to use it very carefully.
I say that we have to make a commitment to the generations that follow us that this is what we are prepared to do. If we do this and manage this fishery in the way we should have been managing it in the last number of years, we will in fact have something to pass on to our grandchildren.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, on the points that have been made so far, one has to comment with regret on the fact that the minister felt he had to say that this debate was premature. If anything, one could say that this debate is timely, necessary and of the greatest urgency. One has to put on record two reports that deal with the situation of cod and fishermen whose livelihood depends on the cod in western Newfoundland. I would like to refer to a study by William Steele, the program co-ordinator on Economics in the Gulf Region of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans published in December 1990. In that report, he relates as follows: "The cod industry in western Newfoundland is in a crisis. The fixed year fishery in western Newfoundland is at a point of no return if there is no strategy to rebuild the cod stocks in the new future". These were statements made 18 months ago. Certainly, the alarm signal was already given to the government at that time.
In addition, in a report published less than one year ago, a report known to me as the Marshall study, again by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I find the following statement which reinforces the one just heard by William.Steele. In the Marshall report we read: "The cod fishery in western Newfoundland and southern Labrador is in a crisis mainly because landings are the lowest on record. If present trends continue, the fishery could collapse completely. Therefore, new strategies are needed to rebuild and maintain stocks. It is also felt that the fishermen and the union feel that a moratorium is required with compensation".
The minister claimed that this debate is premature because he has to make a decision. One begins to wonder
why a decision still has to be made in view of the fact that his own officials have been bringing this crisis in the gulf to his attention. The first occasion was 18 months ago and the second occasion during the last 12 months. One wonders why the minister and the government have yet to make up their minds in order to meet this particular crisis.
It is a situation which is of great concern to the entire nation. We do not want to repeat the experience we saw with haddock in the 1960s and herring in the 1970s whereby entire communities in certain parts of Europe lost their livelihood. We do not want to see a situation in Canada of environmental migrants who would see the necessity of moving to central Canada in order to find a new livelihood.
Obviously a culture and lifestyle has developed over several centuries and a solution has to be found for these communities to continue to make a livelihood and to continue to plan for the future by making a living from the ocean.
One lesson is quite clear. Whenever we put the economy first instead of natural resources, in this case the fish stock, we sooner or later will regret that type of decision. This is what happened with the herring fishery in the North Sea and now is happening with the cod stock in the gulf.
We are learning the bitter lessons of sustainability. We must begin to apply the concept of sustainability to fisheries as we do with forestry, agriculture and other natural resources. Obviously we want to avoid further hardships and stresses. We have to build the necessary precautions that will enable this community to continue to have economic well-being where they are located at the present time.
Only the federal government has the means to provide the resources to bridge these communities over during this time of crisis, namely the responsibility of providing the economic aid that is necessary until the stock is rebuilt.
This is done when it comes to a crisis with the prairie farmers, when it comes to the dairy producers in Quebec and Ontario, and it has to be done with the fisheries as well.



It is interesting that Dr. Harris in his report in 1990 stressed the importance of sustainability in terms of conservation: "We must convince the domestic and foreign fishermen that conservation is a matter of the utmost importance and that violations of appropriate regulations will not be tolerated".
At this point one must raise as support of any policy the matter of the Law of the Sea because it has a bearing and a relevance to the capacity of Canada to maintain sustainability in the fisheries.
Canada promoted the Law of the Sea quite actively in the 1970s and in the early 1980s as well. It was among the first nations to sign this law. The next step, that of ratifying, which represents the final step in international laws, has not yet been carried out.
So far 53 nations have ratified the Law of the Sea but Canada is not among them. This law becomes operative only when 60 nations ratify it and here is Canada dragging its feet, losing credibility, waiting perhaps for a hint from Washington, who knows. In so doing we allow the international community to conclude that we really do not mean what we say.
I submit that Canada has to ratify the Law of the Sea because it contains important sections that would help our fisheries. It is the first major step toward an international ecosystem approach for the management of ocean resources for their sustained use. When it comes to the high seas beyond the national jurisdiction, international action is becoming increasingly essential. Advancing the Law of the Sea and making it operative is of the utmost importance in this regard.
Let me quote from page 274 of the Brundtland report, Our Common Future: "Indeed, the most significant initial action that nations can take in the interest of the oceans' threatened life-support system, is to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention".
We are painfully beginning to realize that sustainable development, be it in fisheries or in other national resources, can be secured only through international agreements which would include surveillance, management, development; all carried out in the common interest.
To reach such a plateau of international action we have first to get it right in our mind, namely a clear understanding of the relationship between the economy and the environment. This is essential.
It is not a matter of choice between the two or a question of balancing the two. Instead it is a question of integrating economics with environmental considerations. We will reach a sustainable path only when our policies and actions flow from the clear understanding that the economy is built on the environment. It would be folly to continue to believe the reverse.
In conclusion, we have here an opportunity in that particular part of the gulf known as the 4RS-3PN section, which is fully within Canadian control, to develop this into a model area for sustainable fisheries. All it needs at this stage is a statement by the minister declaring this an area for sustainable fishery development so we can prove to the international community that within our waters, within our boundaries, we can also practise what we preach.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: It is a
pleasure for me to be able to speak in this debate. It is not a particularly pleasurable debate. It is a very difficult situation that affects my constituents, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and frankly it is a national situation we must come to recognize.
In thinking about this situation I wonder quite often how we got here, what it is we are really dealing with, and what in the short and the medium term has been discussed here tonight by my colleagues on both sides of the House. What must we do about it?
Perhaps because I am a bit of a sentimentalist I often think of the great Newfoundlander, the Hon. Bill Keough, who for years was the member for St. George's constituency, one of Mr. Smallwood's original ministers, a neighbour of my family and a great friend. He talked often about the last forgotten fishermen off the bill of Cape St. George. It became a catch-phrase for him and many others. It was really a reminder to us there are many people in the fishery who toil on and are often forgotten. They carry on year after year prosecuting the fishery, making their own living and their own way.
Sadly, this challenge or crisis we face hits people in the fishery for the first time, both those who prosecute the fishery and fish plant workers, particularly in my constituency where there are only about 300 fishermen. In fact that is a census figure and I suspect there are consider-

June 22, 1992
ably less. There are fish plant workers in a number of communities, but many of them have never had to deal with emergency response programs or qualify for unemployment insurance. They have never needed support. For the first time they are faced with one or perhaps two options: in the first there is no fish, and in the second they are confronted with a moratorium on the fishery and will not be able to fish. They will be forced to pursue or participate in programs this government will set up.
My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the member of Parliament for St. John's West, talked a little bit about those programs. He said the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has consistently responded to ice conditions, low catches or problems of that nature, and that protection will be there.
I want to come back to that, but I would like to just briefly touch on some of the problems we face and how we got here. I have been impressed all along that while from time to time we go off on particular tangents, it is recognized the problem is the result of a number of factors. The problem of reduced numbers that have necessitated lowering the total allowable catch and taking some pretty serious steps is the result of a series of problems.
In 1977 when we extended the 200-mile limit and the economic zone, the basis for calculating the number of fish was wrong. We recognize that. It was something officials at the time had over-estimated. Fishery science at the time was very new. The capacity to predict the number of fish and to know what was happening was something that has evolved very quickly over time. In 1977 we did not have the capability we needed.
Quite clearly, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of seals. Not only do we try to catch up with exactly how many seals there are, but we try through repeated studies supported by the department of fisheries or the Centre for Fisheries Innovations, the Marine Institute in St. John's and a number of private studies to assess how seals perform, what their behaviour is, what they consume, how they consume it. The argument is that they do not eat that much cod, but I am sure all members recognize that one bite out of the belly of a codfish may only amount to a few ounces of fish but it also means that the fish is dead and is of no value.
In 1990 we had a great catch. The inshore catch was as high as it has been in a number of years. Fishermen in my constituency did quite well. It should be recognized that even in 1990 we did not see the cod fishery start in Torbay, Flat Rock and Pouch Cove where it tends to strike first until well into the first week and the beginning of the second week of July. We have a bit of time yet on that.
In 1991 we saw some of the worst ice we have seen in a long time.
As the minister has said, in January it was recognized there were some serious problems with the numbers. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertook a major survey that has been referred to by a number of members to assess exactly what the problem was. In my discussions with the scientists they quite clearly have looked at all options. They have gone quite far east to see if the fish have in fact migrated into the middle of the Atlantic. They have tried to catch fish right through the water column. They have tried to follow the northern cod in through the Straits of Belle Isle and into the gulf.
They have concluded that with the water colder than it has been, with the water saltier than it has been, water that we call slubby, which is dirty and full of ice and mush, that something environmental has happened.
There is no question the increase in the European catches has had an impact. That is something we all recognize. I do not think there is any question that some of the practices we have followed, be it in the offshore or otherwise, have contributed to this problem. There is not one single thing we can point to.
Clearly, we have a problem. The northern cod stock is considerably less than was expected. Obviously, the catches for 1992 and subsequent years are considerably less than we would have expected in the past.
We have had a discussion and we have had debates in the media. We have had debates in this House through Question Period and otherwise.
There has been much speculation about a moratorium.
I have talked to fishermen. I have talked to fish plant owners. Both groups have talked to me about a moratorium. What will a moratorium accomplish for us? First of all, a moratorium would allow us to have the stock offish catch up, the number of fish that are available come back
June 22, 1992

to levels that are necessary to ensure the ongoing availability of fish. This is not simply fish to be caught.
It is particularly important that we recognize where in my view the most staggering numbers have come is not in the biomass available as much as in the breeding stock. That is estimated I think between 75,000 and 110,000 tonnes. That large number of fish, even at 110,000 tonnes is less than the inshore allowance we anticipate we would catch.
It is important that we look at both. The minister has talked about the impact of the year classes of how 1986 and 1987 are fairly strong, but obviously with cold water and the inability for fish to survive and fish to breathe, the later year classes logically would not be strong. It is too early to tell, but they would not be strong.
What is it that we do when we respond? The minister has talked about what he is doing to address this problem. He will have meetings with the scientists. He will have meetings with the industry. He will have meetings with his provincial counterparts, part of an ongoing process, a process that he and his predecessors have undertaken as a necessary tool in managing the fishery.
What is it that is important when we design a program if a moratorium is in place or for that matter even if we have to respond to those not able to catch the fish that they have been prepared to catch over time?
It is essential that we take into account the future, the long-term future of the fishery. That means that we have a stock that would ensure that those people who go after the fish have a good and solid income. It is essential that we recognize that communities and families and individuals depend on that fish but that fish cannot necessarily be there for everybody. It is important that we recognize that the program we put in place is not to take care of everybody's needs but to take care of the needs of those who have historically depended upon the fishery, for those whose life-blood has been the fishery for the last 400 years in many cases.
If I may say one thing in conclusion, and I recognize that my time is quickly passing, I have said this before in
this House, sometimes to some ridicule, we deal unfortunately in politics of personality but the force of personality can have a tremendous effect on policy and our ability to deal with our problems.
In 1974 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was faced with a crisis in the fishery, not only the fishery itself but some of the programs which were in place. The member of Parliament for St. John's West, the current minister of fisheries, at the time was Minister of Finance, Minister of Economic Development, deputy House leader, the whole bit in Newfoundland. The premier of the day appointed him minister of fisheries to solve a problem. He went into that problem and he solved that problem. He worked with his federal counterparts, he worked with the industry, he worked with all aspects of the community to try and put the Newfoundland fishery back on an even footing. He was credited for doing that and he came to Ottawa in 1976.
The current minister of fisheries has about 1,200 fishermen in his riding; I do not know how many plant workers. I know that he has faced in his own constituency some of the biggest crises that we have seen in Newfoundland and Labrador in the fishery but nobody has more of a sense of the fishery, has more of a sense of the community, has more of a sense of public policy to try and put all of those things together, to rectify this situation for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Canada.
If I may say, it is a difficult task that you can never do anything right in. If I can say anything to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, right now that minister of fisheries needs a little bit of support to take the difficult decisions that are in the interest of Canadians, in the interest of the fishery, because nobody is more able to ensure that a government and a country understand the crisis and the challenge. Nobody is more capable of coming up with the solutions that will not solve all our problems but will do as well as they can and we will do as well as we can as a country to help all of those who depend on the fishery.
I ask for that understanding and I ask for that support, and together, with our friends in the opposition, with our friends in the industry, we can come to a solution.

June 22, 1992


Roger Simmons: You
spoke well. I just wanted a minute to get my breath back after that. He must have been necking with the Blarney stone all night to get that much blarney in the last two minutes.
He was doing pretty well there for a while. My good friend from St. John's East was not doing too badly but at the end he did a couple things that if I were his adviser I would have advised him against.
First of all, he made reference to the time when our good friend from St. John's West was minister of fisheries. I have news for my friend from St. John's East. If his colleague from St. John's West did such a marvellous job of saving the fishery then, how come it needs saving one more time?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Because you were in power in Ottawa.


Roger Simmons: The member should stick to his subject. The subject was the administration of the department under the tutelage of his good friend from St. John's West. The thing I remember most about that was the gear scandal, as a matter of fact; all the money they blew on the gear down there.


An hon. member:: That is right.


Roger Simmons: That is what I remember about that.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: And he was brought in to solve it.


Roger Simmons: I never said he started it.


An hon. member:: That is right.


Roger Simmons: Now let us talk about our friend, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the gentleman from St. John's West. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when he was appointed to that cabinet post in March of 1991? I was absolutely delighted and I said so publicly. The fishermen were happy, the plant workers were happy and the fish companies were happy.
We all saw an opportunity in that appointment to have our case heard at the cabinet table. That is why we were so happy. We are not partisans with that minister, but we know a good thing when we see it or we thought we did. We said at the time: "Who better to put our case than that feisty, fearless, ferocious fox from St. John's West? He will finally get to the bottom of this failure in the
fisheries. He will get his head around the problem in gig time. He would not be bamboozled by the bureaucrats or cowed by his colleagues in cabinet". How wrong we were.
The very fellow that we had looked to for a solution, it seems from listening to him in Question Period today, is far from being part of the solution and is becoming part of the problem. I would not say what he has become because I want to caution him to back off a bit, but he is fast becoming part of the problem with that kind of rhetoric he was into today.
I do not know who is advising him or if he has got something on his mind that puts him in an unusually sour mood these days. I do not know if his cabinet colleagues are giving him an extra rough time on this issue, but for some reason he is not himself. He is saying wild things. He is saying there is no immediate crisis.
Tell that to the people who live in Codroy, Port aux Basques, Fox Roost or Margaree. Tell it to the people in Burnt Islands and Isle aux Morts and the people in Rose Blanche and Harbour le Cou and Petites and Grand Breton, la Poile and Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River, Frangois, McCallum or Gaultois and Hermitage and Seal Cove and Harbour Breton. Tell it to those people.
Tell it to the fishermen in Coomb's Cove and Wreck Cove and Boxey and Mose Ambrose and English Harbour West, St. Jacques and Belleoram. Or go down to the coast farther to Long and St. Lawrence, the people I met on the weekend who have no source of income through no fault of their own. Tell it to those people that there is no crisis in those stocks. They will not believe you. Those 147 fishermen in Rose Blanche who caught four million pounds in three months in January, February and March of 1987, last year they caught fewer than
100,000	pounds. I say to the minister tell it to those people that there is no crisis.
The minister is listening to the wrong people. We should listen to scientists sometimes, I suppose, but he should stop listening to them if they are saying something that does not gibe with the reality out there because the best scientist is that fellow in that 20-foot open boat who goes out every day and does his research with a net. If it comes up less full some days than it used to maybe we should make a few deductions from his
June 22, 1992

findings. Maybe we should call what he is doing research for the sake of arriving at some sensible conclusions.
Yes, the man that we look to to be part of the solution is coming awfully close to being part of the problem. The vehicle has become the road-block.
Listen to what the minister said tonight. He said: "When we, this government, are asked we have responded". That is not true. Sometimes the government has responded, but I will tell you it has been asked for a long time by the people in Catalina, whom my colleague has the honour to represent. It has been asked for a long time by the people on the southwest coast who had four winter fishery failures in a row. They are depending on this stock that we have been talking about in 3PN, the one that the minister says is not in a crisis. The government has been asked a few times by those fishermen and plant workers and this minister has not responded. As a matter of fact it was only a month or so ago that the minister met with representatives of people from the southwest coast in St. John's. A startling revelation came out of that particular meeting after I had been here beating my gums all winter on this one, asking the minister question after question after question, as had my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte, my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls and my colleague from Labrador. All five of us were up on this issue and related issues, but this issue in particular. What was his summation after his meeting in St. John's with those people? He told them he had not heard about the problem. He was unaware of the problem, unaware.
He says tonight that the emergency debate is premature because the decisions have not been made. That is why it is just in time, I say to him. We had hoped to get to him, to beat a little sense in his head before he made some more wrong-headed decisions.
Then we had that moment of truth, that moment of unwitting truth when the minister said unwittingly, I am sure: "I have not got my colleagues to agree yet". I guess that is more at the root of the problem than he would care to admit.
That is the real issue. The voice we had looked to, the man we had looked to to carry our case to cabinet, is having an awful job holding on to his place at the cabinet table in terms of influence. He is not making the case for us. He cannot be making the case. Let us hope that tomorrow morning when he meets the Prime Minister he will have benefited somewhat from what has been said here this evening and be able to make the case a little more forcefully.
He keeps saying-and cannot get away from it-the gulf stock is not in crisis. How does he explain those landings? How does he explain the fact that the landings in 4R and 3PN are down, as my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte said earlier, by 67 per cent?
We understand that the northern cod is down too. Nobody is knocking that issue because that is a serious one too. It is down 60 per cent and the gulf cod by 67 per cent. His friend, the chairman of his latest task force, Rick Cashin, said two years ago this stock ought to have been put under a moratorium. That was two years ago and things have gone downhill of course since then.
Every study this minister has received-and my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte rhymed off the numbers of studies that have been given to him-all say the same thing. Only the minister has a different view. Why? What is the reason that he persists in saying something that is just blatantly untrue? Is he trying to minimize the problem? Is he trying to pretend those people do not exist? Is he trying to wear them down? Is he trying to demoralize them completely?


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is exactly it.
One of the decisions I hope he is not about to make is [yjn Simmons: Is that the issue? I appeal to him. I to cut off those people down there at the knees as he did appeal to his good sense, his common sense, his human-last year on the emergency response program. I hope this	ity. These people are hurting out there. They are hurting
time he will find it in his heart to go to his cabinet	in all those communities. Why does he not have the
colleagues and tell them that he was wrong last year, that	decency and the compassion to stop wearing them down
he did not help them last year but he is going to help	and demoralizing them and instead send out a signal
them this time.	tonight or tomorrow that he is prepared to go to bat for

June 22, 1992
them because they need him and they are depending on	to look after them and sure as heck do not want to have a
him? I hope he is equal to the challenge.	politician.


Mr. Darryl Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will not get into a political debate tonight. I come from the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, where fishing is our most important activity. I will not get back to that tonight by saying that everything which happened in the past or all the policy decisions are our fault. All I wifi say is that in June 1990, processing plants were closed under Department of Labour programs. There were six of them in our riding.
I am not here to get into politics, unlike my colleagues who just spoke. I was elected because I wanted to work for my constituents and that is what I am doing. Some people want to engage in petty politics, others do not.
First of all, I would really like the hon. member for Burin-St. George's to stay a while to listen to me. I want to talk about the minister's visit to Rio last weekend and the conference held there. As we often say, "God bless the minister of fisheries and Newfoundland". We do all we can, but some people still have problems, like the people in our riding and in the Gaspe, in Newfoundland, as was mentioned earlier, in the Magdalen Islands and on the lower north shore.

When we talk about Atlantic fisheries, when we hurt, we all hurt together.
Far be it from me to get into discussion this morning in which I should say anything about the Constitution. I will talk about fisheries. The opposition has made small cheap shots from Newfoundland and it can make them.
If I can be on the record, it is making small cheap shots at the same time as at the Constitution. I will shut myself up there on that. We will talk about fisheries. We have suffered on the Gaspe; we have suffered on the Magdalen Islands; we have suffered in New Brunswick and we have suffered everywhere. What we are doing tonight in our emergency debate is trying to say Atlantic fisheries are above Conservatives, above Liberals, above NDP's and above everyone else. The fishermen want someone
I have perhaps a couple of solutions and I will always go back to Newfoundland.
My constituents live partly in the gulf. If we wanted to get really angiy we could fight with St. Pierre and Miquelon. We do not do that. We have all kinds of fishermen in our area. We talk about it but we do not mix politics. We do not have to do that.
What we have to do is sit down together. Any politician who would stand up in this House -Conservative, Liberal, or NDP -and say our minister of fisheries is not looking after us would I am sure not do right for the fishermen and for the people they represent.
We have gone through a couple of things. I at the same time have had the opportunity to leave myself open to debate. I would say for my fishermen -and we in Quebec -

-until further notice, are still part of the Atlantic region. The fishermen in our area share the same problems as New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. When things go badly in those provinces, we are in the same boat.

With regard to fisheries, I do not know what will happen at the convention next year as a result of what happened in Rio. I know the situation off the nose and tail of the banks, which I have had the opportunity to look at, is not easy. It is easy for opposition members to criticize and say it is the fault of the Conservatives and vice versa.
At the same time I would say what we have done in government.

With everything that is done for us, for the Atlantic, for eastern Quebec, the Maritime provinces, the message we want to convey to our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is that he and our government should understand and realize that this situation hurts us too, just as it hurts Newfoundland and the whole Atlantic region. This situation hurts the whole Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands.
June 22, 1992


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With Madam Speaker's indulgence I want to thank all members who participated in this debate. I want to thank the Speaker for making the decision to allow the debate and I want to thank Madam Speaker for staying until the wee hours to hear members speak.
Again, I thank all those for the spirit of constructiveness that was evident here tonight.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I would just like to add to those words and thank all members opposite for the debate that has taken place here this evening and to
assure the people in the Atlantic area that we on this side of the House do care extremely for the plight that we find many of them in at this time and we will be looking for solutions to their plight.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: After these kind words, pursuant to Standing Order 52(12), I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded.

The House therefore stands adjourned until 10 a.m. this day, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 00.29 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 23,1992