Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition Nos. 332-4759, 3324814 to 332-4818 inclusive, 332-4820 to 332-4822 inclusive and 332-4827 to 332-4829 inclusive.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by residents of the City of Winnipeg, Selkirk and a number of other cities. The petitioners say that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and, as the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S., they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from my constituency who state that the paramount right to life is vested in each human being and that the word "person" applies to all human beings. They hope the House will prepare legislation to the effect that unborn persons shall be afforded the same right to life as all others in Canada. The signatories are from such places as Nelson, Riondel, Harrop, Procter, Trail, and Castlegar.

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf

of residents of Scarborough, Don Mills, North York, and Toronto who join with thousands of supporters and volunteers in supporting the Rouge Valley in Scarborough as a unique and precious natural area.

They say that protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas in the Rouge Valley is in the national interest. They join with the Scarborough City Council, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations in working to save the Valley. They petition the Parliament of Canada to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by some 700 residents of the City of Toronto, in addition to ones previously presented in the same form. They point out that on October 30, 1987, the then Minister of State for Immigration promised unmarried sons and daughters of all ages would be considered as members of the family class of immigrants, that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 points.

These petitions were gathered during the past months and weeks and, of course, they will be pleased to have the Minister's answer at last, though it was originally promised in several months.

They also point out that two years ago the then Minister of Justice promised that the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more would be eliminated so that both these groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age, and that this promise has not yet been fulfilled. Therefore they call upon the House to ensure that the Government will fulfil its promise now.

Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions from my riding and other ridings in the Greater Vancouver region. As well, there are over 100 names from Ottawa, Scarborough, Etobicoke and Toronto.

All these people are very concerned with the high incidents of crimes, including murder, robbery and sexual assault, that are committed with knives. This is on the increase in all major

July 12, 1988

Order Paper Questions

cities across Canada. They call upon the federal Government to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places, with some exemptions.

Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present three petitions today signed by constituents from Hamilton West and the surrounding area. The contents of all three petitions are the same. They call upon the Government of Canada to increase funds in order to increase research necessary for a cure to the disease schizophrenia.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from petitioners who are concerned that Canadian sovereignty is being threatened by the proposed trade deal. They believe that the present Government has no mandate to negotiate and complete a trade deal with the United States.

They call upon Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on this trade deal during a national general election.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents from Kelowna and other parts of British Columbia who remind the House of Commons that on October 30, 1987, the then Minister of State for Immigration promised that unmarried sons and daughters of all ages would be considered as the family class of immigrants and that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 points when assessed for immigration to Canada. These petitioners express a number of other concerns and they are asking the House to take steps to make sure the Government fulfils these promises now.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Mr. Speaker:

Shall all questions be allowed to stand?

Agreed.

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to move on to debate today the Government's position on Bill C-84. As I have said frequently, Bill C-84 forms with Bill C-55 a complementary package that will create a fair, effective way of ensuring that the rights of genuine refugees and our international obligations are respected.

Equally important, we must take the necessary legislative steps to ensure that abuse of the system does not occur.

Bill C-84 must be passed without delay so that the attempts that have repeatedly been made to abuse the refugee determination process can be counteracted. The passage of Bill C-84 is also necessary to ensure that the measures proposed in Bill C-55 will be effective once they are put in place. That is why I consider these two Bills to be a legislative package.

Madam Speaker, I would like to note that one of the controversial points in Bill C-84 was the empowering of the Minister to order ships turned back on the high seas if they were transporting people who hoped to claim refugee status in Canada. Today I want to announce a sunset clause that will do away with this power six months after the passage of Bill C-55.

I just want to make it clear that we are proposing a sunset clause that will eliminate the power to turn away ships six months after proclamation of Bill C-55. In the interim, the Government is also proposing an amendment limiting the power to turn back ships to those carrying illegal migrants which are intercepted outside our 12-mile limit. In addition, we are proposing, for consistency with Bill C-55, that only the Minister will be able to exclude security risks from Canada.

The Government believes that the deterrent measures in Bill C-84 provide ample power to discourage the increasing abuse of our refugee determination system. These measures include increased penalties for the organizers of illegal migration and for their accomplices, including the imposition of ten-year jail sentences and fines of $500,000; heavier fines for transportation companies that bring undocumented arrivals; increased powers to detain security risks and unidentified arrivals; exclusion of security risks and criminals from the determination process; increased powers of search and seizure; improved electronic surveillance capability.

July 12, 1988

The net result of these measures will be a refugee determination system better able to help those truly in need and to handle the unprecedented global pressures we are now facing. We will face these problems with legislation that respects the Geneva Convention, respects our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and respects our humanitarian traditions in Canada.

In conclusion, it is my hope that now that our response to Bill C-84 can be seen to be fair and reasonable the other place will see fit to move with dispatch on Bill C-85 so that we can begin the process of putting it in place.

I move:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, but disagrees with amendments 2(A) and (B) and with the earlier amendments 5(B) and (C), on which the Senate insists, because this House believes they contradict the principles of the Bill for the following reasons:

Amendments 2(A) and (B) would reverse the policy on which the Immigration Act, 1976 was based, which policy was not changed in the Bill as passed by this House. The amendments jeopardize the possibility of successfully prosecuting persons who profit from organizing illegal migration and from counselling fraud among refugee claimants.

Earlier amendments 5(B) and (C) arise out of Senate amendment 5(A), which is amended by this House, and are inconsistent with that amendment.

And, that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendment 3 and in earlier amendment 5(A) on which the Senate insists, but would propose the following amendments:

Amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

"Strike out lines 14 to 16 on page 24 and substitute the following:

Referred to in paragraphs 19(1)(E), (2)(A) and 48.1(c) and subsections 39(2), 40(1), 41(1), 82.1(2), 83(1) and 91.1(1), and any such power,"

Earlier amendment 5(A) be amended to read as follows:

"Strike out lines 13 to 30 on page 8, and substitute the following:

91.1(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within twelve nautical miles of the outer limit of the territorial sea of Canada is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Minister may direct the vehicle not to enter the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, as the case may be, and any such direction may be enforced by such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.

(1.1) The Minister may make a direction under subsection (1) where the Minister is satisfied

(A) the vehicle can return to its port of embarkation without endangering the lives of its passengers;

(B) All passengers who seek Convention refugee status and are nationals or citizens of the country where the vehicle embarked them have been removed from the vehicle and brought into Canada;

(C) The country where the vehicle embarked its passengers is a signatory to the Convention and complies with Article 33 thereof; and

(D) The country would allow the passengers to return to that country or to have the merits of their claims to Convention refugee status determined therein.

(1.2) Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within

(A) The internal waters of Canada, or

Immigration Act, 1976

(B) The territorial sea of Canada

Is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Minister may direct that the vehicle be escorted to the nearest port of disembarkation and any such direction may be enforced by such force as is reasonably necessary."

That concludes my response, Madam Speaker. I believe if you seek the opinion of the House you will find we have unanimous consent to add an additional amendment to this Bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):

The Minister is seeking unanimous consent to add another amendment. Is there unanimous consent?