1967-02-22

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 22, 1967


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from an answer given by the Secretary of State, to be found on page 13205 of Hansard for Monday, February 20, 1967. The answer was directed to the hon. member for Lapointe, who had inquired about the number of invitations extended by the C.B.C. to different persons across the country to speak on political topics. My question of privilege has to do with persons to whom such invitations have been extended.
Looking at the answer given by the Secretary of State we find the name of Mr. Bourgault, leader of the Ralliement pour l'lndependance nationale in Quebec, appearing four times under C.B.C. radio programs and five times on television or nine times in all, while cabinet ministers, men responsible for the country's administration, are listed as "nil". The name of the Minister of Justice is listed as "nil" under the radio column and "nil" under the television column.
I strongly object to the way in which the C.B.C. has proceeded to place Mr. Bourgault, a known separatist, in a category equal to, if not above, that of cabinet ministers of this country; I object to the use of the C.B.C. for the purpose of getting a subversive message, a revolutionary message across to the people of this country; and I for one, as a member of parliament and as a Canadian of the Dominion of Canada, am certainly not willing to sit back without making a protest in these circumstances.
The second part of my question of privilege also relates to the C.B.C. and to the nature of some of the programs which are produced-

-for instance the program "Aujourd'hui" which is subversive, revolutionary and undesirable, particularly at this time when the situation is so tense in the country. I feel that
the said program is perverted and abnormal, that it is presented not only to bring up problems still more difficult than those we are faced with, but also to brainwash the Canadian people, particularly the population of the province of Quebec.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move: [English]
That this subject matter be referred to the standing committee on films, broadcasting and the arts for Immediate investigation, and that the said committee report back to this house before the end of the present session.


Mr. Speaker:: Before submitting the motion suggested by the hon. member for Megantic the Chair has to decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I have listened to the argument put forth by the hon. member for Megantic, and I must tell him that I have no hesitation whatever in reaching the conclusion that there is no question of privilege at all in what he has raised. He may have a grievance, but I do not think the subject matter goes beyond the nature of a grievance. It cannot be accepted as a question of privilege.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who is the chief of the resources and industrial division of the development directorate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	How long has he held the position?
3.	What are his academic qualifications?
4.	What is his previous experience in working with Indians either in the department or elsewhere?
5.	What are his duties and responsibilities and to whom does he report?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Mr. Roy Gladstone Young.
2.	Since November 8, 1965.
3.	Academic qualifications: (a) University of Toronto, B.A. honour geography, (b) University of Toronto, postgraduate. Studies

February 22, 1967
Questions
in land utilization and applied anthropology. (Thesis not completed).
4.	Mr. Young was with the Saskatchewan provincial department of natural resources from 1950 until 1965. As a staff member from 1950 to 1954, he supervised anthropologic and geographic studies in northern Saskatchewan where most of the inhabitants are Indians and Metis. As the assistant deputy minister from 1957 to 1962, he was responsible for co-ordinating the implementation of programs for the management and utilization of fish, fur and timber resources in the forested area of Saskatchewan. Many of the people dependent on these resources are Indians and Metis, and programming for resource use gave primacy to the needs of these people. During the period from 1950 to 1962, it was necessary to visit many native communities throughout the forest and precambrian areas of Saskatchewan, and he therefore attended meetings with trappers and fishermen and discussed problems about resource utilization. Mr. Young was chairman, from 1953 to 1957, of the northern advisory committee, a provincial interdepartmental group, whose purpose was to effect co-ordination in planning and program development for the native residents of northern Saskatchewan.
5.	His duties and responsibilities are: He is responsible for the planning and development of a variety of programs designed to improve the economic well being of the Indians of Canada; the examining of the budget for Indian economic development and assessing it in the light of objectives and goals; surveillance of the implementation of the economic development budget; liaison with federal and provincial agencies; supervision of a headquarters staff and functional and technical supervision to a field staff. Mr. Young reports to the director of development.


FIRMS ACCUSED OF HAVING VIOLATED FOOD AND DRUGS REGULATIONS
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	How many pharmaceutical firms have been prosecuted for violations of the Food and Drugs Regulations in 1961-62-63-64-65-66 and what are the names of the firms?
2.	How many of these firms were members of the P.M.A.C.?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Number of firms prosecuted for violations under the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. Name of Firm. 1961, 3

Chemo Drug Co. Ltd., Toronto,
[Mr. Laing.l
Ontario. McClung-Clemens Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. Bell-Craig Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
1962,	3-Nordic Drugs of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Produits Francaise Ltee., Montreal, Quebec. E. H. Stickley Co., Hamilton, Ontario.
1963,	1-Gauls Herb House, Fort William, Ontario. 1964, 7-Barlowe-Cote Drug Labs., Cap-Rouge, Quebec. Bell-Craig Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. Canada Duphar Ltd., London, Ontario. Charles C. Cummings, Toronto, Ontario. Empire Laboratories Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. GEM Drugs, Toronto, Ontario. Ultravite Laboratories, Toronto, Ontario. 1965, 7-Pro Doc Labs. Ltd., Laval des Rapides, Quebec. Dale Labs. Inc., Montreal, Quebec. Canadian Nutritional Products, Toronto, Ontario. GEM Drugs (Ottawa) Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario. Metro Drug Ltd., Montreal, Quebec. Zirin Labs. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec. Sun-N-Health Products Reg'd., Montreal, Quebec. 1966, 11-B.M.C. Laboratories, Montreal, Quebec. Charles E. Frosst & Co., Montreal, Quebec. Jules R. Gilbert, Toronto, Ontario. C. E. Jamieson & Co. (Canada) Ltd., Windsor, Ontario. Lukas International (Canada) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. Metro Drug Ltd., Montreal, Quebec. Penslar Co. Ltd., Windsor, Ontario. Harry D. Reid Agencies Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. Stylecraft Products Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. Zirin Labs. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec. Sun-N-Health Products Reg'd., Montreal, Quebec.
2.	Information relating to the membership of the P.M.A.C. for the years 1961-66 is not available in the Department of National Health and Welfare. However, based on the member companies of the P.M.A.C. as provided in Appendix O, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 5 of the Special Committee on Drug Costs and Prices, page 375, Canada Duphar Ltd. and Charles E. Frosst & Company, were members of the P.M.A.C. in June, 1966.


COST OF VARIOUS C.B.C. PROGRAMS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What was the amount expended by the C.B.C. in order to obtain an interview with (a) Mr. Adolphe von Thadden (b) Mrs. Gerda Munsinger?
2.	With respect to part 1, how much of the cost was (a) in the form of direct fee (b) in the form of imputed cost to cover the time of the interviewers, transportation, logistics, etc.?
3.	Did the C.B.C. make any estimate of the cost involved in televising an international debate on the war in Viet Nam to be held in York University on March 19, 1967, and, if so, what was this cost estimate?
February 22, 1967

4.	What Is the average per program cost for the production and televising to date, to the C.B.C. for the program "Sunday"?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1 and 2. See information supplied in replies to question 1,080 on May 25, 1966, and to question 2,503 on February 6, 1967.
3.	No.
4.	See information supplied in reply to question 2,252 on January 25, 1967.


TARIFF CONCESSIONS ON AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CANNED FRUIT
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	Are any special tariff concessions granted on imports of Australian and New Zealand canned fruit and, if so (a) what are they (b) do these special concessions take into account the economy of the Canadian fruit belt particularly in the Niagara peninsula?
Questions
2.	What protection is afforded to Canadian fruit growers under existing tariff regulations?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Yes. (a) See attached table, (b) The duty rates on certain canned fruit imported from Australia and New Zealand were increased in 1959 consequential to duty increases on fresh fruits following the Tariff Board's report on reference 124, "Fruits and Vegetables". The board's study was concerned with the protection afforded Canadian growers, including those located in the Niagara peninsula.
2.	The rates of duty applicable to imports of fresh fruit are shown in tariff items 9201-1 through 9800-1. The duties under some of these tariff items are a combination of free rates, specific rates and ad valorem rates. The effective rate of duty under such items depends on the season of the year.
			Most-			
Tariff	British	favoured-	Australian	Zealanditem	preferential	nation	General	trade	No.	Description	tariff	tariff	tariff	agreement	agree men
Fruits, prepared in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
10601-1	Apricots	.per pound	21 ets.	2^ cts.	5 cts.	i ct.	I5 cts.10602-1	Cherries	.per pound	1| cts.	li cts.	5 cts.	-	li cts.10603-1	Peaches	. per pound	1J cts.	21 cts.	5 cts.	i ct.	1| cts.10604-1	Pears	. per pound	2 cts.	2 cts.	5 cts.	Free	1 ct.10605-1	Pineapples	.per pound	1 ct.	2 cts.	5 cts.	Free	-10606-1	Prunes	.per pound	If cts.	11 cts.	5 cts.	-	lj cts.10607-1	Mixtures containing peaches, pears or apricots.. per pound	2 cts.	2 cts.	5 cts.	1 ct.	10608-1	Not otherwise provided	.per pound	1 ct.	1 ct.	5 cts.	Free	1 ct.


C.M.H.C. LOANS, LEBEL-SUR-QUEVILLIN, QUE.
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation granted loans for the construction of housing in Lebel-sur-Quevillin, in the electoral district of Chapleau during (a) 1964 (b) 1965 (c) 1966 (d) 1967?
2.	If so, what is the name of the notary or notaries whose firm was engaged to draw up the contracts?
3.	What fees were paid (in dollars) to the notary for each transaction?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: 1. (a) No, (b) yes, (c) yes, (d) none to date.
2.	Real Caron, Senneterre, Quebec. Joseph Morin, Val d'Or, Quebec.
3.	Under normal mortgage practice, legal fees in connection with the arranging of the deed of loan and hypothec are paid by the borrower. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation follows this general practice and, therefore, has no record of the amount paid by the borrower.

February 22, 1967
Orders for Returns


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN TRADE FAIR, LIMA, PERU
Mr. Isabelle: Will Canada participate in the Pacific international trade fair at Lima, Peru, in October, 1967?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes. This particular fair is the only major trade fair scheduled in South America next year. The Department of Trade and Commerce has taken space and will erect a pavilion to house the Canadian exhibit. Canvassing of Canadian industry is under way, and already we are assured of more than 40 participants.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Reid: 1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sponsor job training courses for Indians in Canada and, if so (a) what kinds of program are provided (b) where are the physical locations of these programs (c) how many Indians are enrolled (d) what is the passing rate (e) what is the attendance rate?
2.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have a follow up program to see that those who have completed their courses are placed in positions and, if so, how many persons have been placed in each of the various job classifications for which they have been trained?
3.	How many placement officers has the department hired and where are they stationed?
Return tabled.


TOTAL FEDERAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES
Mr. Irvine: What was the total amount of all grants, subsidies or other monetary assistance in any form from all federal departments in each of the years 1960 to 1966 inclusive for (a) the mentally retarded (b) the blind (c) the deaf (d) the mute (e) mentally ill (f) crippled children?
Return tabled.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: On a
question of privilege I should like to ask when my question No. 2,239, which is dated November 29, will be answered. I protest about the delay, because it is now nearly three months since this was first placed on 
the order paper. I know from my own experience as minister of agriculture for some three years that it could have been answered within a week by the Department of Agriculture without any difficulty whatever. In spite of that it has been nearly three months since I put the question on the order paper. I can only conclude that this minister is paying no attention to members' questions and making no effort to answer them in a reasonable length of time.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to call the attention of the government to question No. 2,168, which has been on the order paper since November 10 last.
It is a relatively simple question and although it has been on the order paper for almost four months, I have not yet received an answer. Therefore, I wonder whether the government could not answer such a simple question, at least before this session is over.



MOTION FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for papers No. 208 is acceptable to the government and the papers are being tabled immediately.
I ask, sir, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH R. & R. SHIPPING LTD.
Motion No. 208-Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters between the Minister of Transport or any members of his department and either Mr. Alex R. Gordon or the R. & R. Shipping Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, the guardian of our financial interests. I should like to ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the castigation of his department by the Auditor General, as recorded on page 64 of the report, regarding the case of the Studebaker Corporation which apparently
February 22, 1967	COMMONS
received such consideration in 1965 and 1966. The report states that this manufacturer is in debt to the crown for customs duties estimated at $2.4 million.
I ask the minister why no action has been taken. What action does the government now intend to take? Is the minister aware that the Auditor General stated that the procedures followed are "not adequate to protect the revenues properly accruing to the crown"?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Of course I have looked at the Auditor General's report. I have asked for a thorough investigation and comments on the report as submitted by the Auditor General. I believe these would probably be too lengthy to read on orders of the day when I have received them. I suggest, therefore, to my right hon. friend that if he will put a question on the order paper I will answer it as soon as possible with the lengthy explanation.


John George Diefenbaker: My experience with the C.B.C., Mr. Speaker, has not been that questions get answered. However, I ask the minister this. How does he justify the delay of over a year when he told parliament the matter was being looked into in view of the general statement made by the Auditor General indicating a gross neglect of duty on his part as minister?


Edgar John Benson: The comments of the Auditor General do not indicate any neglect of duty on anybody's part in this particular matter. Information which was not available at the time the Auditor General submitted his report is now available. I will be pleased to supply the information to my right hon. friend as soon as I have obtained it in suitable form from my department.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the lack of time on orders of the day to get answers to questions regarding the auto pact, will the Prime Minister not agree to submit the auto pact to the scrutiny of a standing committee of the house so that all information in respect of this pact can be obtained?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I will be glad to look into that matter. I cannot answer it definitely at the present time. We have to get through some important legislation before this house prorogues. Whether there will be an opportunity to discuss this pact I do not know, but there certainly will be an opportunity when we discuss the estimates in the resumed session.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I feel this matter is of great urgency at this time when thousands of Canadians are being laid off. I think we should find sufficient time to look into this situation, in view of the fact that we are looking into everything else through royal commissions and standing committees.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the suggestion that this situation arises out of the operation of the auto pact. My hon. friend probably is aware of what is going on in Washington, where attacks are being made on that government because this particular agreement is said to be too favourable to Canada.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that within a matter of just a few weeks ago Dafew Metal Stampings Limited of Scarboro has gone out of business as a result of the auto pact, and that 82 employees have lost their jobs permanently?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am also aware that many thousands of jobs have been given to Canadians as a result of this agreement.


Michael Starr: Where; in Windsor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition quite rightly asked the Minister of National Revenue whether the Studebaker Company had paid its bill of $2.4 million. Surely the minister must be aware whether or not they have paid this bill. All this house wants to know is whether the bill has been paid; yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member knows the rule.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. I should like to ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the president of the Canadian Union of Students to the effect that over the past 15 years successive presidents of that organization have been interviewed by
February 22, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the R.C.M.P. for the purpose of soliciting information gained by N.F.C.U.S. observers at international student meetings, particularly those in eastern Europe. Has his attention also been called to the fact that all five of the men who have held the position of president of the Canadian Union of Students have said they were similarly solicited, and that one of them said he was offered a bottle of rye whiskey?
I should like to ask the minister whether he will undertake to have an investigation made of these allegations to see whether they are true. If he finds they are correct, will he undertake to report back to the house to the effect that these practices are being discontinued?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply perhaps I may be permitted to say that I am advised the R.C.M.P. does not supply funds to students or student organizations for the purpose of inducing them to act on behalf of the R.C.M.P.
I wish to emphasize that the activities of the R.C.M.P. are limited to counterespionage. Obviously it is not possible for the R.C.M.P., which is charged with the responsibility for national security, to carry out its responsibilities unless members of that force are able to ask questions of people who have relevant information. The R.C.M.P. have openly interviewed people from all walks of life, including students.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Would the Solicitor General also be prepared to advise the Canadian Union of Students that since the R.C.M.P. is one of the arms of government and is vitally responsible in the maintenance of law and order in this country, co-operation with the R.C.M.P. is co-operation with the government and the citizens of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.

Is it the intention of the government or the Prime Minister to advise the C.B.C. or to recommend to the C.B.C. that it should abstain from extending further invitations to persons directly or indirectly affiliated with any separatist activity in the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will bring my hon. friend's observations to the attention of the C.B.C.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to use the C.B.C. to prevent ideas from circulating in Canada, or would he not rather leave the C.B.C. free to allow those who have ideas to express them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN MEETING RESPECTING LATIN AMERICAN COMMON MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Because of the number of existing trade agreements that will be involved, could the minister tell the house whether Canada has been invited to send an observer to the mid-April meeting in Uruguay designed to set up a common market of 19 Latin American nations.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a wire from the mayor of the city of Calgary requesting an early discussion on Canadian Pacific Airlines' request for landing rights at Calgary and informing the minister of the grave concern of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce at the delay in settling this matter? Also, can the minister state when he will
February 22, 1967

be prepared to meet the mayor of Calgary to discuss this matter?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received the message. I really do not believe that much useful purpose would be served by having a repetition of representations that were made to me by the mayor of Calgary a few weeks ago. I understand his impatience, and hope he will not have to be impatient very much longer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister certain that the mayor has no further matters to put before him than the representations which were made some weeks ago; and would he not be prepared to meet the mayor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion Souih):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Transport aware of the fact that he is disagreeing with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who yesterday implied that repetition was needed?



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any information to pass on to the house regarding conversations with the government of France leading to possible future orders for uranium from this country?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new to report. The government is keeping in close contact with the French government, as are the uranium producers. As far as I know, there are no active negotiations at the moment.



EXPO '67 OBJECTIONS BY AUDITOR GENERAL AS TO FINANCING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the minister intend to introduce legislation during the present session to eliminate the objections raised by the Auditor General with regard to the financing of Expo '67?
13341
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir, because such legislation
in this session is not necessary.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister satisfied himself that the recently announced preview of Expo '67 for some 7,000 V.I.P.'s will not place unnecessary additional burdens on the taxpayers of this nation?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I am satisfied on that point, Mr. Speaker.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the day of the Minister of National Revenue, or perhaps this question should be addressed to the Minister of Defence Production. Has their attention been drawn to an editorial in the Financial Post to the effect that on November 24, almost three months ago, the federal government made a change in the ground rules affecting hundreds of companies, whereby certain reductions were made in connection with importations of defence products. No notice was given to the trade. Why did this failure take place? What justification is there that orders made by the government, so important to business and employment in Canada, should have been kept under cover until finally revealed three months after the order in council was passed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman has indicated there was an order in council passed which was discussed with those involved in the industry before its passage. The order in council having been passed it was, as usual, published in the official gazette of Canada. I have not with me today the page number of the gazette for the month of November, but I will be glad to provide it to the right hon. gentleman so he can read it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I can also read what was stated by the Financial Post.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
13342	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, you don't like the truth over there.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: We would like you to obey the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: This is just another example of the attitude of ministers when they are on the ropes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question. I cannot understand this unseemly noise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the right hon. gentleman ask his question?


John George Diefenbaker: My question to the minister is whether it is a fact that companies active in defence business were not told of this, nor was the Canadian Manufacturers Association; and that this took place over a period of three months to the detriment of Canadians because of the failure of the government.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of publishing the order in council in the Canada Gazette was to draw it to the attention of those who had an interest, and I assume that those people would have taken the trouble to read the very precise terms of the order in council, which was published in extenso.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the amount of purchases required for a full remission of the customs duties involved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is obviously out of order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns a military matter, a subject in which he is intensely interested. In view of recent evidence given to the defence committee and particularly that by General Moncel, former vice chief of staff, will the minister explain how Canada's commitments toward NATO will be maintained under the proposed plan of unification Which is being put forward by the Minister of National Defence for unknown reasons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

DEBATES	February 22, 1967


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: It is a well known rule of this house-


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot accept this question. It is much too broad and general.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to point out that the hon. gentleman, who is an authority on the rules of this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order. As I was saying, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre knows perfectly well that it is not in order to ask a question about a statement made in committee while that committee is sitting concurrently with the session of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is not well taken; it is simply a point of disorder.


Mr. Speaker:: I had stated other reasons why the question was out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which I think may be acceptable to him. Will he appear before the defence committee and explain how the proposed unification will affect adversely, as was stated, our commitments to NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be glad to assist the hon. gentleman by helping him to phrase his question a little better.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he can report to the house any progress in the negotiations aimed at the rescission of the surcharges proposed by Japan and the shipping conferences in San Francisco, which would be disastrous to the port of Vancouver. The matter is urgent, inasmuch as the deadline by which the increased rates are otherwise to come into effect is March 1.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and see what progress I can report at an early date. The period for negotiations is still open.
February 22, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport arises as a result of representations I have received and meetings I have had with unions in my area. May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the Canadian National Railways to make further cut-backs in employment and service in the town of North Sydney by discontinuing their express and freight operations in that town?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope not, but I will make inquiries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member may want to discuss this in the adjournment debate.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to deal with this very important question at the first opportunity on the late, late show.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether, in view of the desire expressed recently by a large number of the provinces to hold a constitutional conference, the Prime Minister will accede to their request by arranging such a conference in our centennial year and calling it the centennial family conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Some provinces have also indicated that this would not be the proper time to hold a constitutional conference. Naturally until there is unanimity on this matter, and until preparatory work is done, there would not be much value in holding that kind of conference.


Michael Starr: In view of press reports that the majority of the provinces have agreed, will the Prime Minister tell us which of the provinces have not agreed?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, because some of the reports I have received are confidential, naturally I have to give careful consideration to minority rights in this matter.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A	supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister is not yet ready to call a centennial family conference, will his government consider bringing in during this session legislation on family planning?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
We learn from an official source that the government has just granted an $11,850,000 loan to India. I would therefore ask the minister this: If interest free loans are made to foreign countries and loans bearing interest are secured from foreign countries, how does he expect to balance the external affairs budget?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that this is not a question but an argument.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and deals with the next international conference on water and fisheries in Washington. Does the Canadian government intend to invite the provinces to be represented on the five-member delegation Canada is entitled to, since they have offshore jurisdiction and the use of water falls within their jurisdiction?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to accept all the comments of the hon. member. The federal government also has responsibilities where our waters are concerned, for fish live in them, ships navigate them. Fisheries and navigation, to mention only those, are fields of federal jurisdiction.
As to who will be the members of the Canadian delegation to be sent to Washington, the matter is now being studied jointly by Ottawa and the provinces.
13344	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, it was reported today that massive defects in Ford motor vehicles were reported to the United States government. I wish to ask the Minister of Industry whether the Ford Motor Company of Canada have made similar reports to him regarding defective Canadian vehicles on the road at this time.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure to what particular reports the hon. gentleman is referring, but the Ford Motor Company of Canada in addition to notifying the purchasers of cars with real or suspected defects also notifies the government.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and in his absence it was answered by the Prime Minister. My question concerned negotiations concerning coal shipments to Japan. I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to report on that matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the
negotiations have been going on for three years. The parties to the negotiations are members of two private industries, the coal industry of Canada and the steel industry of Japan. The Dominion Coal Board is fully informed on the negotiations, but on a confidential basis; I think it would be improper for me to report on them.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works concerning what is doubtless the greatest undertaking in which his department is engaged. Since he replied to my question on February 8 has the minister or his 
DEBATES	February 22, 1967
department received another or fuller report from Mr. O. J. McCulloch on the Northumberland strait crossing? If so, has such report prompted any consideration of changes in design or scheduling of this important project?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the precise date on which Mr. O. J. McCulloch forwarded his report to the Department of Public Works, but that date was disclosed in the answer to the written question given in this house. Whatever the date was, whether before or after the 8th, the report is now being studied to see whether any changes in the plans for construction of the crossing are warranted.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-STEPS TO SETTLE WHARFAGE DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of the letter he tabled yesterday appointing Dr. T. G. How to look into the administration of small vessel harbours on the British Columbia coast. Will the minister suspend the operation of the side wharfage section of the government wharves and piers regulations until the report by Dr. How has been submitted?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether it is usual to suspend the operation of a law while an investigation is carried out.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question. Would the minister at least agree not to extend the application of the side wharfage regulations to those places to which heretofore they had not applied, until this report is received?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the minister in any event would have power to do anything of this kind, sir.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister table in the house the new internal information publications issued on his authority for the purpose of counteracting criticism of his policies?
February 22, 1967
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is no such instruction of any kind, but I would be very pleased to have the deputy minister of national defence, to whom the information services of the defence department report, appear before the committee within the next few days to reassure my hon. friend that no such information is given out; nor would we contemplate such a thing under any circumstances.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling the house that there is no such publication as one dealing with internal information for the forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker; there is indeed. The director of internal information reports to the director of information services who reports to the deputy minister, and as I say I should like the deputy minister to come before the committee and explain to my hon. friend why it is essential for the forces to receive accurate information and not have to rely on some of the things they read in the newspapers attributed to my hon. friend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question. Have the members of the forces not read the minister's speech of December 7 which was sent out in a red cover?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BAY OF FUNDY-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of mines. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house what progress has been made to date by the special group set up to study Fundy tidal power; and could the minister tell us when we might expect to receive a report and some recommendations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the engineering committee of the board met recently I think in Montreal, to interview different engineering companies and to ascertain what each of them could contribute to assist the study being undertaken of the Bay of Fundy tides. These applications are now being studied and in the coming days there will be a meeting of the full board to examine the recommendations made by the committee.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR NATIONAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether the government has received a brief from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with particular reference to their request that the federal government convene a national agricultural conference. I want to ask the minister whether the government is giving favourable consideration to convening such conference with a view to focusing attention on the problems of the agricultural industry, and finding some solutions.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government has received the brief from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and we had a very useful and informative meeting with them this morning. All the suggestions made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their brief, including that respecting a national conference on agricultural goals, will receive the very serious consideration of the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I also ask the minister when we may expect the report of the investigation which is being carried on into the price of farm machinery. When does the minister expect to be able to make a report to the house and to table the correspondence he has had with the farm implement companies?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be able to report to the house on this subject very soon.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to the first question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Now that the minister has had ample time to study the memorandum of the Manitoba government requesting a national conference on agriculture, has he made any reply to the government of Manitoba and, if so, would he table his reply in this house?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we received a communication at an earlier date. I take it that tabling my reply and the original letter would have to be subject to the usual rules with respect to correspondence passing between federal and provincial governments.
13346	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.-Mr. Marchand-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 7 of the bill was under consideration. Clause 6 was allowed to stand, clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 having been agreed to. Does the committee wish to continue with clause 6 or clause 7?


Mr. Marchand:: I wish to move an amendment to clause 6. I have no French translation, though I shall obtain it during the discussion.
I move:
That clause 6 of Bill C-220 be amended by striking out lines 39 to 41 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
Sittings.	(2) The Board may sit at such
places in Canada as it sees fit. Quorum.	(3) The Chairman and not less than
two other members, or the Vice-Chairman and not less than two other members if at least one of such persons is a person described in subsection 7 of section 3, constitute a quorum of the Board.
Hon. members will understand that to mean, I think, that one of the lawyers or barristers attached to the board will have to be part of the quorum.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: I think this meets the objections raised yesterday, particularly with respect to the board's sitting anywhere in Canada. I hope the board will seek the opportunity to suit the convenience of appellants in many parts of Canada. The amendment also meets the point I have taken that a legally trained person on the board should always form part of the quorum. This amendment is quite acceptable.


Mr. Lewis:: I merely want to say that I hope the minister's response to this request, though not a major one is an augury of how he will deal with other amendments put forward. I am glad the amendment is before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.

DEBATES	February 22, 1967
On clause 7-Court of record.
Thomas Miller Bell: On this clause I wish to raise two issues. One of them I dealt with briefly when speaking on second reading, the question of what normally will be the type of appeal. Is it the intention that the appeal shall generally be an appeal on the record, or that it shall be a hearing de novo?
I believe generally an appeal on the record would be less than satisfactory. Usually the appellant-the applicant for entry into Canada-at the time of the hearing before the special inquiry officer has little advice; often he may not be represented, and frequently he may not have had the opportunity to consider how best to present his case. An appeal on the record therefore would be less than satisfactory.
If the appeal is to be by way of a hearing de novo, is it to be a hearing de novo in all cases, or is that to be left to the discretion of the appellant or the board? On what basis is this to be determined? How will it be determined under what procedure an appeal shall be heard? Nothing in the bill deals with this matter.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member whether clause 10 is not relevant?


Thomas Miller Bell: Which part of clause 10?


An hon. Member:: Read it.


David Lewis: It seems to me that that clause sets out the hearing procedure in general and as to the taking of evidence, in particular. It states that the board can act on the record as presented to it or take other evidence if it sees fit. I may have misread this, but it seems to me that the clause proposes that.


Thomas Miller Bell: It seems to me that clause 10 relates to what the board shall do after a hearing of an appeal by one of its members, and not to what that member hearing the appeal shall do.


Jean Marchand: I propose to amend clause 10. If the hon. member wants to relate clause 7 to clause 10, perhaps he prefers to have clause 7 stand until the amendment to clause 10 is moved.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could I finish my comments about clause 7? I have dealt with the first matter that I think the minister should consider.
February 22, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13347
Next, I am concerned about subclause 2
(c), which reads as follows:
(c) receive such additional information as it may consider credible or trustworthy and necessary for dealing with the subject matter before it.
When does the board receive this? Is it at the hearing, subsequent to the hearing, or at some later date? In other words, how and when is additional information to come into the possession of the board? Also is it to be genuine evidence, or hearsay evidence, or anything that, in the imagination of the board, may be considered relevant? Is this additional information to be made known to the appellant? Must it be made known to him before the hearing or at the time of the hearing? The broad way this subclause is drafted shows to me that there is here a great potential for abuse.
No time limit is set out in the clause. If the board is able to receive additional information it may consider credible or trustworthy subsequent to a hearing, I think the appellant's hands are completely tied. These are the broadest powers I have ever seen, in the rights of a board, to receive information. I have grave doubts about this. Abuses might arise as a result of this clause. I should like to hear the minister's comments.


Jean Marchand: It is clear from reading the bill that we want to constitute a board that will be independent and will have a status comparable to that of the ordinary courts. I think this board will have to use its discretionary powers about procedure, if procedure is not established in the law. I think most of the time, the board will proceed de novo. It might decide to proceed in some other way. It is provided in the amendment, which I hope will be accepted, that a member can report to the board and the board can decide on the report of the member who shall have been authorized to hear evidence. We want the board to have this power, and to exercise its discretionary power as it sees fit. I do not think we could foresee all cases. We should consider this board as a major board, with the responsibilities of a court.
I do not believe that all procedural details governing the ordinary courts are included in the regulations concerning those courts. For example the courts need not necessarily render judgments in writing. They do that however, and those judgments usually are accepted without complaint. This is the same kind of situation and we hope the procedure
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board will follow the same lines as in the normal courts.
* (3:30 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister has made a comparison with the courts, but clearly the courts have no such power as exists under subclause 2(c). The rules of evidence would in no circumstances permit a court to receive the type of "additional information" which is here mentioned. I would ask the minister this: Is the "additional information" to be received at the hearing or outside the hearing? Will it be made known to the appellant? Will it be introduced after the hearing is all over, when the appellant may not have an opportunity to meet it at all? This is where the possible evil of this paragraph may lie. There is no limitation whatever placed upon it. This additional information might change the whole context of the evidence which was before the board. I think the appellant should have the right to know what is the case against him, and it should be made clear that there will be no opportunity for additional information to be brought forward in any circumstances after the hearing has been closed.


Jean Marchand: The board is a court of record and I understand that if any information is given to it the appellant must have a copy, and it must be done during the hearing and not after. This is the whole spirit of the bill. I do not think we can gather, from reading this measure, that the board will decide these matters on the basis of documents which will not be produced during the hearing, outside the knowledge of one of the parties.


Thomas Miller Bell: That might be the spirit of the bill but assuredly it is not the letter.
Mr. B re win: I should like to support the hon. member for Carleton. The trouble is that although this board is called a court of record it does, in fact, exercise the power of appeal from an administrative decision. It deals with all sorts of questions which are not strictly dealt with by the courts. It is my submission that the utmost importance attaches to making it clear that this appeal board will not act merely upon additional information which may be given to it later.
It is this kind of procedure, the hearing of reports not disclosed in the records, which has vitiated the appeals heard to date by the present appeal board. I suggest this subclause 2(c) is altogether unnecessary. The board is
13348	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board more or less an administrative tribunal and it will have authority to receive information other than evidence in a court. It should not be given express authority to receive additional information, which implies that this is received other than in the normal course of hearings.


Mr. Orlikow:: I wish to raise a subject which was dealt with yesterday by several hon. members. I raise it today partly because I was unable to be here yesterday. I speak with some hesitation because, unlike the hon. member for Carleton and my hon. friend from Greenwood, I am not a member of the legal profession. It seems to me that if this board is to be considered as a court, people who appear before it must have the right to be told the reasons for the denial of their application. If for example the board only has before it a statement from the Minister of Justice or from the R.C.M.P. to the effect that the applicant cannot be permitted to stay in Canada because he is a security risk, the hearing, in my opinion is reduced to an exercise in futility. I join with my hon. friend from York South who said yesterday that we do not expect the department or the security agencies of the government to divulge their sources of information.


David Lewis: You are dealing with a separate question.


David Orlikow: My hon. friend says I am dealing with a separate question. It may be. But I do think that a person who appeals should have the right to know precisely the reasons for which action is taken. If he cannot answer the accusations made against him, the court is really not a court at all-it can only be called a kangaroo court. If this is not the proper clause I can only hope that in some other clause we shall give people the right to obtain the information which is supplied to the board by the government, so that a man will be in a position to make an explanation of the circumstances and defend himself against charges made against him by some government agency.


Mr. Baldwin:: I understand the minister will be dealing with clause 10 later, and that it may have some reference to clause 7. May I point out to him that subclause 2(a) provides that a summons may be issued to a person requiring him to appear. He may also bring with him certain documents. The reference is obviously to a situation where the board is sitting and witnesses appear before it. Then,

DEBATES	February 22, 1967
subclause 2(b) provides for the administration of oaths and the examination of persons upon oath or otherwise. This obviously covers the entire gamut of the situation where evidence, documentary and oral, is heard by the board.
Plainly, then, subclause 2(c) must refer to some other kind of proceeding. It must have in mind hearsay evidence, evidence obtained outside the hearings from documents or even in the course of mere discussion. The board or any of its members would be quite free to obtain information from any other person by way of documents or otherwise and that information could be taken into account in reaching a decision.
The minister may tell us that this cannot happen. But our experience is that whenever powers are given those powers will be used, even if they were not provided intentionally. I think the minister should make it perfectly plain that this "additional information" will be information which the person concerned will have the opportunity of meeting. I believe this could be done very easily by way of an amendment.


Jean Marchand: I am not in disagreement with anything that has been said, and if there is no objection on technical grounds I will try to meet the submissions of hon. members in this regard. So I will ask that clause 7 stand.
a (3:40 p.m.)
I do not believe an amendment is necessary because this board is really, to a certain extent, administering the law. Of course the board will receive some reports and these reports will have to be communicated to the appellant or his lawyer. This is normal. If that is not the situation under this provision, then it is not what I intended and if something can be added without destroying the purpose of the law I am ready to do it.


David Lewis: I should like to add a word while the minister considers the point. I am not trying to lecture him, but I notice he considers that this is a court of record. It is a tribunal set up by statute. As the minister knows, it has no more jurisdiction than that which the statute sets out. It does not have what we call the inherent jurisdiction of courts. It is limited by what this statute says it can do. This explains the anxiety of some of us that a statute set out very carefully the limitation of its powers, as well as the extent of its powers. Even though you call it a court of record, it is not. It is a statutory tribunal which cannot go outside the limits of the statute, but can go the entire direction that
February 22, 1967	COMMONS
the statute permits it. Therefore the definition of terms is of extreme importance. I support the request for a change in clause 7(2)(c) and the minister's suggestion that the section stand.


Jean Marchand: We will come back to it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree now that clause 7 shall stand?
Clause stands.
On clause 8-Board may make rules.


Mr. McCleave:: I wonder if I may ask two questions of the minister at this point? Under the rule making provision, would definite circuits be set up for the board in places in Canada outside of Ottawa? Would this be part of the purpose of this particular section?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Chairman, I think the board can sit anywhere in Canada, according to clause 6 which we have just passed. Now of course the board is going to make regulations. The only thing clause 8 does is to empower the board to make these regulations, provided they are approved.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that an amendment had in fact been passed to clause 6. 1 apologize to the committee for that. Will the board have sufficient flexibility to sit, not at regular intervals, but immediately when a case should be determined without causing the appellant to wait perhaps an unnecessarily long time? This was a criticism I heard directed at this bill some time ago by a person who nominally supports the government, that perhaps our approach in parliament was wrong. Will people not be forced to wait unnecessarily long before their cases are heard?


Jean Marchand: Clause 6, which was adopted, indicates that the board may sit at such places in Canada as it sees fit. The board will therefore sit wherever it desires. I do not feel we can fix by statute the place where it shall sit or the circumstances under which it shall sit. I believe this should be up to the board to decide.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, but on the other hand the board is not limited to definite sittings at definite times. There is this flexibility as a result of the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
On clause 10-Hearing and determination by one or more members.
Jean Marchand: I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Industry to move this amendment, Mr. Chairman, which reads as follows:
That bill C-220 be amended by striking out clause 10 and substituting therefor the following:
10. (1) The Chairman of the Board may direct that evidence relating to an appeal under this act be received, in whole or in part, by a member of the board and that member has and may exercise all of the powers of the board in relation to the hearing of an appeal.
(2)	A member by whom evidence relating to an appeal under this act has been received pursuant to subsection (1) shall make a report thereon to the board and a copy of the report shall be provided to each of the parties to the appeal.
(3)	After receiving any report made under subsection (2), and after holding a rehearing, in whole or in part, of the appeal if in its discretion the board deems it advisable to do so, the board shall determine the appeal.
I believe this takes into account the points that were mentioned yesterday. A member sitting alone will not be entitled to make a judgment. He will have to report to the board, which will decide the matter. This is the first point. The second point is that the report will be given to the appellant.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: This represents a considerable improvement, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.


David Lewis: I just want to say briefly that I am pleased the minister has reworded clause 10. This amendment meets the points I made yesterday and which I think were made by others as well. I appreciate very much the minister's consideration of these points. The new section, in so far as it deals with these matters, seems to me to meet the case.


Mr. Brewin:: I want to propose a further amendment to clause 10, Mr. Chairman, but it does not in any way detract from the amendment the minister has already introduced. The effect of my amendment would be to add a new subclause (5) which would read as follows:
(5) The board shall at the request of the appellant or of the minister give reasons for its disposition of an appeal.
I wondered whether it was appropriate to move this amendment to clause 10 or whether it might more appropriately come under clause 14. However, I noticed that clause 14 deals only with appeals under clauses 11 and 12, and clause 17 deals with a different type
13350	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board of appeal, an appeal by a sponsor. The principle I want to establish in this amendment is applicable to all types of appeals. The proposed amendment deals with a matter that has already been discussed by my colleague the hon. member for York South.
The purpose of this is to ensure that when this board decides cases it shall, if either the department, the minister or the appellant so desires, furnish reasons for its decision. I think it is an essential principle, not only for this tribunal but for all tribunals dealing with administrative matters. I have discussed the question with the minister and with the deputy minister. They have suggested to me that a court of record would, without the indication of such a clause and as a matter of general practice, give reasons for its judgment.
Well, I have had a great deal of experience, if I may say so, both in courts of record and in other tribunals, and quite frequently no reasons are given. The present Immigration Appeal Board habitually gives no reasons. The result of this is not only a feeling of injustice by the aggrieved party, but the failure to build up a system of jurisprudence as it were, a system of principle, upon which decisions of this tribunal are based. It may very well be said you could leave that up to this court of record. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that despite the advice the minister may have received from other sources it is not a fact that courts of record automatically give reasons, whether they are asked for them or not. a (3:50 p.m.)
There is another point involved in this. By a later clause the bill purports to grant a right of appeal on matters of law to the Supreme Court of Canada, but this right of appeal can be rendered absolutely valueless because an appellate tribunal such as the Supreme Court of Canada cannot possibly determine whether any points of law are involved or whether they are erroneous or sound, without seeing the reasons. There may be many cases in which the only reasons which need be given are short ones such as: According to our previous decision in such and such a case this appeal is dismissed, or allowed, as the case may be. Perhaps the reasons would not have to be elaborate, but unless the basis for the decision is made available, then half the purpose of the whole bill could be destroyed.
I am not proposing something that is unique in this field of immigration. Those who have studied administrative tribunals
[Mr. Brewin.l
DEBATES	February 22, 1967
and appeals therefrom in other fields are beginning to insist that this be the practice in order to make the system work with justice and fairness and in a way which is consistent, so that you do not have one decision by one board constituted in one way today and a totally different series of decisions when boards are differently constituted in the future.
I do not believe that in principle the minister has any objection to my amendment. I think his only objection is, as he says, that it is not necessary. I beg to differ with him. If it is not necessary, then no possible harm can be done by making sure that in cases where one party or the other desires reasons they shall in fact be made available. By doing this we would strike at what has been such a hopeless situation under the present immigration appeals system, where consistently nobody knows why a particular case has been disposed of in a certain way. They cannot, therefore, either complain about it, ask for a rehearing, or understand for the future the principle supposed to have been involved.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, it is not an objection in principle. I agree that it should be so. If it were not so, I would be seriously disappointed because then it would not be the court which we intend it to be. I do not know of any court which by law or statute is compelled to render a written decision. We presume the board will do this, because as the hon. member mentioned it is a court of record and it is our understanding that the board will give reasons.
This court or board may have several hundreds of cases before it and probably many of them will not deserve any written decision. Possibly the applicant himself will not insist on having a decision or possibly he may not desire for personal reasons to have a decision. So, I do not see why we should compel the board to do so. Even if this suggested amendment were acceptable-and I do not believe it is-clause 10 is the clause which deals with the proposition that the chairman of the board may authorize a member of the board to make an inquiry, and report to the board. I think it should be placed somewhere else. I am neither a lawyer nor a technician, but it would hurt my good sense to include it in this clause. I do not believe this would be the proper place.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite happy if this matter were placed in a separate clause. I agree with the minister that
February 22, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13351
it would more properly come under clause 14, which deals with the disposition oi the appeal by the board, but the difficulty in this regard is that clause 14 refers only to appeals under sections 11 and 12. It is my view that the amendment I have proposed should apply in addition to appeals under clause 17 by sponsors. It could be placed in a separate clause and I would be happy if the minister would give consideration to this.
With regard to what he said about hundreds of cases, and perhaps that the appellant may not wish reasons, this is precisely why it should be only at the request of the appellant or the minister. At some stage or another the minister may desire to have the reasons. It is only at the request of one of the parties that the board would be required to furnish reasons for its decision. The reasons of course could be delivered orally at the hearing or in writing after the hearing.
The minister says he does not know of any other cases where a court is compelled to give reasons. The hon. member for York South pointed out that although this is a court of record it is a statutory tribunal with the powers given to it by statute, no more and no less. If the minister does not think that clause 10 is the right place to have this provision, I would be glad to withdraw it, if it can be included in some other place.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to the hon. member for Greenwood. I am in agreement with the amendment he has advanced. It seems to me that the appropriate place for his amendment would be in a new subclause (3) of clause 7, which has been allowed to stand. His amendment might be moved when we are considering that clause.
There is one other point I should like to mention to the hon. member for Greenwood. In the way in which he has drafted his amendment is it not possible that he is depriving the board of the right to give reasons on its own initiative? It seems to me that his draftsmanship may mean that the reasons can be given only when the appellant or the minister asks for them. I think this would be unfortunate.
I would suggest that if the hon. member proposes to move his amendment, it should read:
The board may, and at the request of the appellant or of the minister shall, give reasons for its disposition of an appeal.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am very grateful to the hon. member for Carleton, and I think his suggestion is a good one. I am very glad to accept it. It was not my intention to say that the board might not give reasons whenever it saw fit to do so. I should be glad to have discussion as to where the amendment should appear. I do not care where it comes in, so long as the principle is established.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, if the house would approve clause 10 as it stands amended, we could immediately revert to clause 7, and I would be ready to accept this amendment to create a new subclause 7 (2) (d).


Richard Albert Bell: I think it would be better to have a separate subclause (3). I do not believe it could be subclause (2) (d).


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. If I read the amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood correctly, it is a second amendment. That being so, the only amendment before the committee at the moment is the amendment proposed by the Minister of Industry. Perhaps it might be proper at this time to deal with his amendment and then deal with the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood later. I might point out to members of the committee that I am not sure we are following the proper procedure here. It might be the better procedure to put the further amendment to clause 10 in the original bill, as being part of the bill, and then institute the new clause proposed by the minister. There appears, however, to be some general acceptance of this particular amendment and perhaps we might proceed as has been suggested.
Is the amendment to clause 10 moved by the Minister of Industry agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.
Clause 10 as amended agreed to.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, may we revert to clause 7, which was allowed to stand?
The Chairmon: Does the committee agree to revert to clause 7?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 7-Court of record.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it is proposed by the Minister of Agriculture that clause
13352	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board 7(2)(c) be amended by adding at the beginning the words "during a hearing".


John James Greene: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, this was the suggestion I made privately to the parliamentary secretary, which I understand he has taken up with the law officers. Having made the suggestion initially, the amendment is entirely agreeable to me.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate now for me to move as an amendment to clause 7 as amended a further subclause (3) which would read, as suggested by the hon. member for-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Perhaps I could suggest to the hon. member for Greenwood that we first deal with the amendment moved by the Minister of Agriculture. Then I would hear the hon. member on the amendment which he would like to propose. The Minister of Agriculture moves:
That subclause (2) (c) of clause 7 be amended by adding at the beginning thereof the words "during a hearing"
Does the committee agree to the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move a further amendment to clause 7:
That clause 7 as amended be further amended by adding thereto subclause (3) reading as follows: "The board may, and at the request of the appellant or the minister shall, give reasons for its disposition of the appeal."


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point in connection with this amendment. Maybe I have misread this provision, but would it not be possible under certain circumstances that the person who wants to be a citizen would be in the position of a respondent and the minister would be the appellant? That is to say, should the phrasing be "the appellant or of the minister", or should it be something broader? This is the question I want to ask the mover of the amendment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The hon. member for Halifax may be right, Mr. Chairman, but I think on reflection that only two types of appeal are possible, one by an individual who is then described as an appellant, and one by the minister. But perhaps the point the hon.

DEBATES	February 22, 1967
member makes is that the minister might appeal and the individual might be the respondent, and as such might like to see the reasons for the decision.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Perhaps there is a point in
what the hon. member says.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for Greenwood may be assuming that the minister is never going to appeal.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could solve the dilemma since I created it. Instead of the words "appellant or of the minister" should we not say "or either one of the parties to the appeal"? Would that not solve the problem?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is correct. May I move it formally. I move as a subamendment:
That the words "the appellant or of the minister" be deleted and the words "of either party" be substituted therefor.
The subclause would then read:
The board may, and at the request of either party shall, give reasons for its disposition of the appeal.
If you will give a moment, Mr. Chairman, I will write it out.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I suggest to the hon. member for York South that perhaps the proper thing for him and the hon. member for Greenwood to do would be to get together and redraft the amendment.


David Lewis: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.


Jean Marchand: I think we should say "either of the parties to the appeal", Mr. Chairman.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We are all agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may suggest that the hon. member for Greenwood be permitted to withdraw the wording that he gave originally and substitute for it wording as follows:
The board may, and at the request of either of the parties to the appeal shall, give reasons for its disposition of the appeal.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York South is writing out just that wording. Everybody seems to be agreeable, and I am certainly agreeable to withdrawing my original amendment and substituting this
February 22, 1967	COMMONS
new one. There was some confusion in the matter and I should like to ask for the withdrawal of my previous amendment. I now suggest the following amendment:
That clause 7 of Bill C-220 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
"3. The board may and at request of either of the parties to the appeal shall give reasons for its disposition of the appeal."


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is there agreement in the committee to the withdrawal of the amendment originally suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) withdrawn.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I now move in substitution the amendment in the terms I have just suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 11-Appeal on question of law or fact.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment but I am not sure whether the minister would agree that this is the proper place for it. It covers all appeals under clauses 11, 12 and 17.
What I am concerned about is the provision in the bill which would require the minister to give the appellant the grounds on which the rejection of his application was originally based. However, it seems to me now that my amendment would be more appropriate under clause 19. I thought I should mention it at this stage, since clause 11 is the first clause dealing with the right of appeal.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, may I make it clear that even if I agree with the hon. member that the proper clause under which this amendment should be moved is clause 19,
I would not like the hon. gentleman to believe that I am ready to agree to his amendment under clause 19.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has not yet heard the arguments.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to put a question to the minister which relates to the debate we had yesterday. It was a very good debate and I am sorry that I could not stay to hear the minister's reply when he closed the debate. However, I understand from reading
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board Hansard that he substantiated the position taken by his parliamentary secretary and intimated in no uncertain terms that in hearing an appeal the board would have the right to base its decision on humanitarian grounds, regardless of the regulations contained in the act. This is what I understood from his speech, and if I am wrong he can correct me.
The point I should like to raise refers to the following words in clause 11: "on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law or fact or mixed law and fact". What question of fact can be involved in an appeal? The only question of fact which can be considered by the board is whether or not there has been a failure to comply with a section of the act, and subject to that a deportation order may be made.


Jean Marchand: May I tell the hon. member that I wish to amend clause 15, and this may satisfy his objection.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am quite agreeable to that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Disposition of appeal.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, last evening I gave notice of my intention to move an amendment to clause 14. The minister has indicated that he intends to move an amendment to clause 15. He also said that he was in general agreement with the amendment which I proposed to clause 14. Could he indicate at this time whether I should go ahead and move my amendment, or wait until he indicates his intention with regard to clause 15? This might avoid additional debate.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we stand clause 14 so that we could first deal with my amendment to clause 15, which may solve the problem with regard to clause 14.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed that we stand clause 14?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 14 stands.
On clause 15-Execution of order.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, moves the following amendment:
That clause 15 of Bill C-220 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 26 to 29 on page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
13354	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
" (ii) the existence of compassionate or humanitarian considerations that in the opinion of the board warrant the granting of special relief, the Board may direct that the execution of the order of deportation be stayed, or may quash the order, or quash the order and direct the grant of entry or landing to the person against whom the order was made."
(b)	by striking out line 32 on page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"stayed, it shall allow the person concerned to come into or remain in"
(c)	by striking out lines 45 to 49 on page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"(a) has been stayed pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the board may at any time thereafter quash the order; or
(b) has been stayed pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the board may at any time thereafter"
The effect of this amendment would be to broaden the authority of the board in view of the present more restricted wording of clause 15 (1) (b) (ii) which reads: "the existence of other exceptional circumstances". So we introduce here the concept of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This point was stressed yesterday by many hon. members, and as far as this question is concerned I presume that the new wording is more satisfying than the present wording of the bill.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John James Greene: I so move.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think that in this amendment the minister has substantially met the representations which we on this side of the house made in relation to this matter. I think this is a very considerable advance and is a worth-while amendment which, in substance, meets what we have in mind. I would be prepared, as I am sure would my colleagues, to accept this amendment, and under the circumstances I will not proceed with the proposed amendment to clause 14.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I imagine that the minister and his advisers spent a great deal of time, into the night, preparing these amendments and I congratulate them upon the result and express our appreciation, even though the minister spent some sleepless hours. What he has produced is a very worthwhile change.


Jean Marchand: Perhaps I will gain a few hours tonight.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

DEBATES	February 22, 1967


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Greene) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that we now revert to clause 14?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 14-Disposition of appeal.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering whether the objections of the hon. member for Peace River have been met.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This goes beyond the power of staying, and relates to the specific power of quashing an order. It meets my point precisely.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: We shall now consider clause 16.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-Appeal from refusal to approve application.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to move:
That clause 17 of Bill C-220 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 13 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"17. A person who has made application"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 22 to 24 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"this section may be taken only by such persons and in respect of such classes of relatives referred to in the regulations as may be defined by order of the governor in council".
The purpose of the amendment is to modify the first line of clause 17, which restricted to Canadian citizens the right of appeal in cases of sponsorship. The governor in council will now have the authority not only to determine the classes of relatives for which this right of appeal will exist, but at the same time will have authority to determine the person who may take an appeal. This means that not only Canadian citizens but eventually even landed immigrants could exercise this right of appeal.
There is no doubt that this amendment would leave all of the powers in the hands of the governor in council. But as I have said, Mr. Chairman, we did intend to do this, which is why we inserted clause 17. However we do not want to be pushed too fast in this direction, because we should like to know
February 22, 1967	COMMONS
what will be the exact consequences of granting such right of appeal. Therefore the governor in council is given the authority to make regulations and to experiment, as it were, first of all with one particular class, and then extend the provisions of the clause to classes other than Canadian citizens and even to landed immigrants.


John James Greene: I so move.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot greet this amendment with the enthusiasm with which I greeted the last one. I must take the attitude that this is a sophistical amendment. What it does is to purport to give in the first part-and with that I agree-and then to take away or to give the potential of taking away in the second part. The first part of the amendment extends rights which heretofore have been confined, in the clause as drafted, to Canadian citizens. This amendment would extend the clause to any landed immigrant, in which proposal we concur. The first part of the amendment we will certainly support.
In the second part of the amendment the minister has potentially reduced the first part of the amendment to an absolute nullity. He has given the right to go behind this parliament into the secrecy of the cabinet chamber and to say no, landed immigrants will not have the right to make an application. I think that this is unsatisfactory.
In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, the minister has taken, and insists upon taking, the right to say that the classes of relatives shall be those only as defined by the governor in council. The committee has no means whatever of knowing to what classes of relatives the governor in council will extend this right, and in my view the amendment is totally unsatisfactory in this respect.
As a third ground I confess to my disappointment that the minister has not included in this amendment the same principle enshrined within his amendment to clause 15. If this amendment were carried we would have strict, immediate application. What some of us were seeking to achieve was to bring into this clause the humanitarian and compassionate considerations to which the minister agreed in relation to clause 15.
I would urge the minister at this stage, if he will, to amend this clause by including the very words he has just asked the house to adopt in clause 15. If he were to insert in line 21 the words "or the existence of compassionate or humanitarian considerations that in the
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board opinion of the board warrant the granting of a special relief", he would then give the discretionary power for which some of us on this side are asking.
In the manner in which this amendment is drafted it is unsatisfactory. It is giving with one hand and taking away, or potentially taking away, with the other. It does not import into this clause any of the compassionate or humanitarian considerations which might lead to the granting of relief. I submit that the minister is being inconsistent. If he is prepared to do this in clause 15, there is no reason whatever why he should not do it in clause 17. I hope the minister will not dig his heels in but will give the matter further consideration.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word along the lines of the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton. I have an additional suggestion deriving from some of the minister's remarks last night which appear to me to have validity and to deserve consideration by the committee. I hope we shall find some way of voting separately on the two points in the minister's present amendment. I would support the first amendment. However, I have the same objection to the second amendment as I had, and as the hon. member for Carleton and others expressed, against the original wording.
I am sorry to say to the minister that nothing he said last night on this point or anything he added today convinces one that his position is right. Again it seems to me that he is stating the position out of fear that this appeal tribunal might take over some of the functions of the department. Really, I do not know what is worrying him. I do not know why he should ask this committee to give the governor in council the authority which, in effect, would enable it to limit the class of persons who may appeal, just as narrowly as the minister may decide. I cannot for the life of me see how he can ask us to support that. The minister takes unto himself a different authority, in a sense, from that under the original wording.
Under the original words the minister could limit the area in which appeals may be made to such classes of relations as may be referred to. In the present wording it is not only the classes of relations, but it is also the classes of sponsors, if the words "by such persons" mean anything.
13356	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
The minister takes unto himself and unto his colleagues in the cabinet the right byorder in council to decide who in fact will be able to appeal. He may decide to limit the right of appeal to a very narrow sector. Why should that be, Mr. Chairman? Why, if he has given the right of appeal, should it not be available to every person falling within the general words of the earlier part of clause 17? The minister will have to produce more cogent reasons than he has to this point, before my colleagues and I can support the second part of his proposed amendment.
I mention the second point, that the appeal board should be able to deal with an appeal by a sponsor on its merits, rather than merely being able to consider the technicalities and whether they have been met. I was impressed to some extent by the minister's plea last night that this is not the place to give the appeal board the power to go beyond the confines of the law, to make decisions on humanitarian and other grounds which may be outside the actual law. That sort of thing requires a change in the substantive law itself. I think there is much logic in that.
At the appropriate time we wish to move an amendment. Perhaps I could read it to the minister now, or mention it to him, to see whether he might not consider it favourably. We would move that we import into clause 17 language the minister has introduced into clause 15, but that instead of giving the board authority to make the final decision the board have authority to recommend to the minister, that he might make the final decision. That occurred to me in response to the appeal the minister made last night.
I appreciate that one of the purposes of the separate appeal tribunal is to reduce the onerous duties in the field of discretion attached to the minister. Those duties come into play after an appeal has been heard. Under the present legislation you go from the appeal tribunal to the minister. I appreciate that the whole idea of this bill is to make the decision of the appeal board final. But I would much rather take a crack at an idea and give the appellant the opportunity to place his case before the board. That case should include human and compassionate considerations which moved him to appeal. If the board, this independent tribunal, considers his appeal, his pleas, his grounds, then, to maintain the power in the minister to administer the act and to maintain in him the authority to make special exceptions, rather than having the board make the exceptions, I should be ready to agree that instead of the board making the

DEBATES	February 22. 1967
final decision, it recommend the matter to the minister.
We have a proposal to change that clause. I shall read it, in the hope that the minister may think it worth considering. Our proposal is in language to this effect: that in an appeal under this clause the board may also take certain things into account-and may I stress here the word "also". The wording I am suggesting is not wording which says "notwithstanding the act and the regulations." The board has to consider the act and the regulations in the first place. We should like the clause to say that the board may also take into account the existence of compassionate or humanitarian considerations that in the opinion of the board warrant the granting of special relief, and that it may make such written recommendation thereon to the minister as it deems desirable, advisable or just-I do not care what adjective is used.
Summarizing, I add my words to the appeal of the hon. member for Carleton. I am sure that appeal will be repeated by others. I ask the minister not to be adamant about seeking the power to narrow the area of the right of appeal. The minister has a board of seven members. The amended clause 7 gives the chairman of the board the right to have the hearing taken by one member only, so far as evidence is concerned. There is no reason to assume that the board will have too heavy a load if everyone who is a sponsor, a citizen or landed immigrant-whoever makes the application-has the right to appeal.
I hope the minister considers this carefully because this is an important question. I am trying to be as unprovoking as I can be. I feel more strongly about this than the mildness of my words suggests. I do not see how the minister can ask parliament to give him a blank cheque to say who shall and who shall not have the right of appeal. This is what this new amendment directs us to do. It establishes the general right of appeal and then says that the minister shall determine-because the governor in council means "on the advice of the minister"-who shall have the right to appeal. He asks us to give him a blank cheque in that area. I do not think he should do that.
I appeal to him to import into this clause the right of the board to consider compassionate and humanitarian pleas, and to consider them on their merits. Personally, I should not mind were the board given authority to make the decision or order. It ought to be able to decide on the basis of all the circumstances of the case. But if the minister still feels that
February 22, 1967
that authority should not be given to the board, that exceptions should not be made by this board, but should be made, as formerly, by the minister under his discretionary powers, I am quite prepared to agree that the board, instead of making the final decision, recommend to the minister on the basis of all the evidence it has received.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
If the minister does these two things, the right of appeal by a sponsor will have real meaning to the people concerned. In every case with which I have had to deal, the people concerned are usually emotionally involved. These cases affect their future and the future of their relatives and all these things are terribly important to them. I am sure the minister is as aware of this as I am. I do not think it is possible to meet a situation involving such real human concern by an amendment such as the minister is proposing, unless there is the power to consider factors other than the technical grounds of an appeal.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to reinforce the appeal which has been made to the minister with respect to clause 17. There are two parts involved. The first question is: Who has the right of appeal? I would point out to the minister that there are two sides to this matter of sponsorship. Who can sponsor? This is decided at the present time by the regulations. The regulations set out the relationships which are permitted, the financial circumstances, and so on. The other question is: Who may be sponsored? The two go together.
In either case the minister, or the governor in council, by making regulations specifies the classes of people who may be sponsored and lays down the general rules, and it is my suggestion that all those who are named as potential sponsors should have the right to go to the appeal tribunal and say: We have been ruled out, although we comply with the general regulations laid down. There is no reason whatever why the governor in council in addition to setting out the rules of sponsorship should tell one class of sponsors that they have no right of appeal.
On this question of the right of appeal, may I remind the minister and the department that sponsorship is itself based upon compassionate grounds, upon relationships. We have two streams of immigrants, as the minister well knows-those we allow to enter on economic grounds because of the contribution they are likely to make to this country, and
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board those who are allowed to come in on compassionate or family grounds. The regulations necessarily spell out in some detail the conditions of entry.
For example, a person may be allowed to sponsor a grandmother, but in order not to extend the category too far an age limit is imposed-she must be over 65, or over 70. Or certain financial conditions may be imposed. But it is precisely considerations of this kind which cannot finally be dealt with in accordance with rigid rules. If, in the other field, when an order of deportation has actually been made, the appeal board is given the right to make orders on what might be called compassionate or discretionary grounds, then in respect to appeals by sponsors there is no reason why the board should not be entitled to take into account the very situations which I know the minister will have taken into account in the past when making discretionary orders with respect to these sponsored immigrants.
I think the minister has shown a laudable willingness to accept suggestions in this field. I would say to him that those who are affected by this measure will feel their rights are infinitely better safeguarded if they are not subject to what could be an arbitrary limitation.
The minister, through the governor in council, confers certain rights. Let those rights be subject to appeal, irrespective of who the sponsors are. If this is done the appeal board will become a more generous and worthwhile recognition of the human problems involved in these cases.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Last night I spoke briefly on this matter urging that the board should be able to act in certain of these cases on compassionate grounds. The minister must have a reason for the position he is taking and I would like him to tell the committee what that reason is.
Even if the power to take into account other than strictly legal considerations were used only sparingly it would give the people concerned greater confidence in the government and in this parliament. After all, notwithstanding the law and the regulations now in effect, a number of cases have in the past been determined on compassionate grounds. As I say, I should like the minister to tell us the reason for his objection to the course suggested; I am sure he must have a very good one.

13358	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
e (4:50 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: There is a good reason. It is because I am convinced this authority already exists under clause 17.
What we are dealing with here, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, is sponsored, not unsponsored, immigrants who have to meet the requirements of the law. The very essence of sponsorship is compassion and humanitarian reasons. These immigrants are not accepted into Canada because of their qualifications but because they are relatives of Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. Clause 15 was modified because in cases of deportation you may be dealing with people who do not meet the requirements of the law and who are not sponsored immigrants. We therefore added the reference to compassion and humanitarian grounds.
This board has all of the powers that the minister and the department have right now under the Immigration Act. This means the board can do anything I can do, as minister. They can exercise all the powers that I exercise under section 8 of the Immigration Act. As the hon. member mentioned a few minutes ago, sponsorship is related essentially to compassionate and humanitarian reasons. It is for this reason I do not believe we have to mention these things.
If it will facilitate the passage of the bill, if everybody would be happy, I have no objection to adding humanitarian and compassionate grounds in the clause. However, I firmly object to removing from the authority of the governor in council the establishment of classes. I believe we are conducting an experiment, not because we have been pushed to do so but because we wanted to try to give immigrants new rights. We want to see exactly what the consequences of our policy will be. We have initiated this provision of course with the intention of applying it. We do not want this law only to have it on the statute books. I believe the house should accept clause 17, even if we modify it in the way mentioned a few minutes ago.
In so far as the rest of the clause is concerned, I think we should make this experiment. We are not taking any rights away from the immigrants. They will still have the right to sponsor their relatives. The only thing we add is the right to appeal against a decision, and at the beginning we want this right to be regulated by the governor in council so that we will know exactly the impact on our policy. This is something which has never been tried anywhere else.

DEBATES	February 22, 1967
If an amendment is proposed to add these two words, I have no objection. I do not believe it is necessary. However, in view of the atmosphere in the committee this afternoon, I do not think I am in a position to refuse to put in these words, particularly since 1 have said I believe they are there now in spirit. I would object to another amendment concerning the powers of the board.


Mr, Bell (Carlelon):: If I were convinced that the minister is right and the board under this clause 17 has the complete powers of the minister, I would not press the matter. I am afraid I am unable to convince myself of that. I think the board here is confined to a legalistic approach and cannot, under clause 17, exercise the discretionary authority the minister has. I am concerned about the situation of a person who comes squarely within one of the prohibited classes under section 6, for example a diseased person who may be the last member of the family in the native land. I do not believe such person could be admitted as a sponsored immigrant under the legislation as it now stands. It is for that reason, and since the minister has invited it, I should like to suggest the following as an amendment:
That clause 17 be further amended by adding thereto after the word "application" in lines 20 and 21 thereof the following:
"or that there exist compassionate or humanitarian considerations that in the opinion of the board warrant the granting of special relief"
I have given a copy of this proposal to the parliamentary secretary, and perhaps the minister has had an opportunity to consider it. Without doubt, this amendment would meet the type of problem which some of us have in mind.


David Orlikow: I rise to express some considerable surprise that the minister would be so adamant in his feeling that he and his department must retain the right until some later date to define the classes of relatives for whom an appeal may or may not be made. Yesterday and today the minister has been so reasonable, so compassionate, in accepting amendments designed to broaden the bill. I do not know why he now reverts to an attitude which we have seen so often in the past, that this right of the governor in council must be retained.
I am certain the minister is aware of the discussions which the special joint committee dealing with the white paper on immigration has been having. I am sure he must be aware
February 22, 1967	COMMONS
of the fact the most persistent and vocal critics of the government's white paper in respect of the whole problem of immigration are the members of his own party, the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Essex West. They have been most persistent. When I say "persistent" I am putting it mildly. They have been the most vocal critics of the whole approach as enunciated in the white paper.
It seems to me that the only purpose of the last part of the amendment which the minister is moving now is again to give the department, at some future date, the right to restrict. It does give the right to restrict the type of person who may appeal. I wonder what the reason is. If a person in Canada has the right to sponsor the admission to Canada of somebody, that means he is a citizen of Canada or a landed immigrant. He makes an application to bring in a relative because he believes that person comes within the class of persons permitted to come to Canada as sponsored immigrants. If the application is turned down and if that person wants to appeal to the board which is being set up under this bill, why should the governor in council want to restrict the classes for whom appeals can be made? It makes no sense. It seems to me the minister is going right back to the kind of departmental authoritarianism which gives the department the right to do things without explanation, to which so many members on both sides of the house have objected in the past.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Let me say one more thing before I sit down. If I could be sure that this minister would be the minister forever and that this deputy minister would be the deputy minister forever, I would not be so worried. I am sure I speak not only for myself but for many members, although not all members, of this house may have had individual cases. When I say that, let me add that although not every case I have taken to the minister or the deputy minister has been settled in the way in which I would have liked it to be settled, very freely and honestly I would have to say that I cannot remember a case, even when the request had been turned down, in respect of which I did not feel that there were at least reasonable doubts.
Mr. Chairman, we have had long experience with other ministers and other deputy ministers. I can remember a minister who once made the statement-and I am paraphrasing-that he was a good deal more in
Establishment oj Immigration Appeal Board sympathy with persons born in Canada than with persons who were born in other countries. I can remember another minister of this department who once had in mind introducing regulations which many members of parliament, particularly those from the Toron-to-Hamilton area, felt were directed almost exclusively against potential immigrants from Italy.
I am not saying that such is the intent in respect of this amendment. I am not saying that this minister has this kind of desire or that he would think along these lines. What I am saying is that if we pass the amendment as proposed by the minister it will give some minister in the future the opportunity to do by regulation, by order in council, what the government and the members of this house would not want him to do as a matter of policy. Therefore, as I say, I cannot understand the desire of the minister to have this right of limitation, which I think is unnecessary. While I do not desire to prolong the debate, I must say to the minister that this request which he is making, it seems to me, requires a good deal more explanation than we have had up until now.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, by this clause we are not restricting any rights; we are creating new rights.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the minister that what he is saying is only partly true. It is true that in the first part of the clause he is creating new rights on the one hand and then in the latter part of the clause he is giving himself, or a future minister, the right, on the other hand, to take away those rights. This is what we are objecting to.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, had it not been our intention to give those rights to certain categories of immigrants or Canadian citizens, it would have been silly to write this into clause 17. It is there because we intend to do it. I think members of the house should be aware that we are introducing something new and very important. Someone stated a few moments ago that under the present law a landed immigrant has the right to sponsor. Formally speaking, this is not true; he has the right to apply. In this clause we are creating the right not only to apply but to sponsor directly, even if the department does not agree. That means there is not only the right to apply, but also the right to sponsor. This is new, and we desire this. If we did not, I do not see why we would have included it here.
13360	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
This is something new and we wish to apply it gradually so that we will know exactly where we are going. Although some hon. members may assume that this is the case, I do not think there is any reason for them to believe that we do not intend to give these rights. Nobody pushed us into this. We created this clause because we believe in the right of appeal. We know that eventually those rights of appeal probably will be extended to all immigrants and Canadian citizens. This is what will happen. If one should look at the evolution of this law I think he would find, even so far as the regulations are concerned, that the trend has been not to restrict the classes of persons who could be sponsored but rather to widen or enlarge the grounds.
Outside the law there is something else which exists in this country; that is, democracy and pressure on the government. As has been apparent, even some members on this side of the house are interested in this clause being really practical and having an influence on our immigration policy. What we are asking-which I think is only reasonable-is that under this clause we have the opportunity to apply this new provision gradually so that we know exactly what impact it will have.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the minister said we are assuming that he does not intend to apply this clause. We are not making any such assumption. He has told us that he does not intend to apply it in all cases; he has been quite frank with members of the committee. He is saying, in effect, that it is his intention not to give this right of appeal to everybody to whom the first amendment to this clause normally would make it applicable. That is what he is telling us. I suspect-and if my suspicion is wrong the minister can correct me-that despite the fact that the minister's present amendment has extended the right to the non-citizen who may apply to sponsor an immigrant, when his regulation appears, nevertheless, it will limit it to citizens.


Jean Marchand: This may happen.


David Lewis: Exactly, Mr. Chairman; it may happen. I have the suspicion that this is exactly what will happen. So, we have the first amendment which broadens the area to include landed immigrants who are not citizens as well as citizens and then the minister takes unto himself the right to pass an amendment limiting it to citizens. The minister says that he wishes this so that he can experiment with

DEBATES	February 22, 1967
it and gain experience. I am not being hypocritical when I say to him that I fully appreciate and sympathize with his view. He is entering into a new field and wants to be sure exactly what the result will be when this law is in the hands of the new appeal tribunal. But, Mr. Chairman, with equal force I should like to say that I do not see the logic in his taking the position that he will obtain the experience if he limits it to a certain class. One can only gain the proper experience if every class makes the appeal. Then one would be able to judge the result and the working of the appeal tribunal in respect of every class of relative and every class of sponsor.
If a change should be found desirable, then after a year or two if it were found that the appeal tribunal should not function in this way, the minister or his successor could bring recommended changes before parliament. If he did this in a year or two from now, then he would be able to tell the house exactly what his experience has been, the reason for the required contracting of the area of appeal, and what changes this experience has suggested are necessary. Now, however, he has no reason at all except a desire arbitrarily to decide which classes will have the right tomorrow, a desire arbitrarily to decide whether to increase or decrease the number the day after tomorrow and arbitrarily decide when, if ever, what sponsor may have the right to appeal.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I can well understand that it is necessary with a new tribunal, a new idea, a new avenue, to watch it carefully and make sure it works well. But I urge the minister to consider the logic-at least it seems to me logical -that the only way he can really find out is if everyone, who in the general terms of the first words of the clause has a right to appeal, is given the opportunity to exercise that right. Then the minister will see what happens in every case and will have experience on which to base a conclusion that this kind of case is suitable for appeal and that kind of case is not suitable. Then he can come back to this house and say, on the basis of that experience-and he can outline it to us-"I believe that changes of the following order are required in the law." If they are reasonable changes based on that experience, I would hope that members of all parties in the house would co-operate with him in making those changes.
I think all of us who took part in the debate yesterday, from both sides of the
February 22, 1967
house, have shown that we are not trying to put the minister on the spot or make political capital out of anything that has been produced. There has been on the minister's side above all an attitude today in the amendments which he has produced, except for this last one, which shows a consideration for the suggestions made that one cannot but admire and respect, and I do.
So this is not an argument that too often occurs on the floor of this house, for which all of us are often responsible, where one takes a stance for purposes other than the merits of the law. We are urging the minister to reconsider this question because we are convinced that on the basis of what he is trying to accomplish he is doing himself-I do not mean this in a personal sense, but in that of the department-and the law a discredit by insisting on retaining this power.
I do not know what else I can do except urge him that the only way he will have adequate experience is to permit everyone who has the right under the opening words of the clause to exercise it if they wish to do so, and afterwards the minister will have actual case histories that may show a requirement for change. Let him then come back to the house and ask for those changes to me made. If his request is based on that experience, I cannot imagine members of this house refusing him those changes. Otherwise I do not think it is possible for those of us who feel strongly about this matter to accept the position he has stated.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think I should state now that it is the intention of the department to extend this right as soon as possible to all Canadians and all non-citizens in Canada including, of course, landed immigrants. This is our intention; this is what we want to achieve. I agree that it looks like discrimination to give certain rights to one group of citizens and refuse those rights to another group. But I think we have to carry out this experiment. I do not think that in order to ascertain the value of the experiment it is necessary to cover all classes at the beginning, because even if there is a legal difference between a landed immigrant and a Canadian citizen the process of sponsorship is exactly the same. We will gain exactly the same experience with the first group as if we were covering all groups.
So I would state that is is our intention to extend this provision to all Canadians and
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board landed immigrants, but I think we need to know exactly how this measure will proceed and what kind of obstacles we will meet. We ask for this gradual application of clause 17. I believe there is nothing that would justify anybody in the house believing that this is not our aim and is not what we intend achieving, because in the past year I believe we have indicated that we are applying this law in the spirit to which I have referred.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak again on this question; I have repeated my argument several times already. The minister remains adamant on the matter and that is his right, as it is our right to try to get him to change his mind. I wonder whether it would not be more appropriate, and I would be surprised if the rules do not permit this to be done, to divide the amendment before the committee into its two separate parts and vote on each one of those parts separately, rather than voting on the entire amendment. The amendment contains two quite separate and disparate parts which are not related one to the other at all.


Jean Marchand: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the two parts are related. In the clause as it now stands we refer to "Canadian citizen". It may be suggested that we are not adding anything, but I think we are making a change in deleting the expression "Canadian citizen" and replacing it with "person", because this means that the governor in council will have much more power than under the clause as it now stands. Both parts are related, because in the first part we determine which persons can sponsor and have the right of appeal, and the other part deals with the classes of persons. I think it is a unit and we should vote on it as one amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to open a lengthy procedural argument, and I am sure the committee generally feels that way. But I would remind the Chair of citation 200, paragraph (4) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
That citation refers to "the house", but one does not need to take any time to argue the point that the rules that apply in the house apply also in committee. Furthermore, I would point out that the amendment which has been moved from the government side in

133S2	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board its very structure admits that there are two parts to it. There is an (a) part and a (b) part. The (a) part calls for striking out line 13 on page 6 and substituting a different line, and the (b) part calls for striking out lines 22 to 24 on page 6 and substituting different wording in those three or four lines.
Even though there are changes being made in the same clause of the bill, they are not only made in different parts of it but one could be passed and the other defeated one way or the other, and the clause as amended would still make sense. I submit, therefore, that they are two districts propositions, to use the language of Beauchesne's citation 200, paragraph (4), and therefore that Your Honour should agree to the request that they be treated as two different motions and voted on separately.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, namely that there are two distinct propositions embodied in the amendment proposed by the minister. It is obvious that the two parts are directly related to each other. The first part of the amendment, which permits additional classes of people to make appeals, necessitated a consequent change toward the end of the paragraph, and therefore one part is directly related to the other. I suggest therefore that if the hon. member is advancing his argument on the basis that there are two separate parts to the amendment, then his argument falls, on that ground alone.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but I want to add one new point on the general question of the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood will permit me to make a few comments on the point of order before he proceeds with his remarks on the amendment.
I recognize the validity of citation 200 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition as given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It reads as follows:
(4) A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
I should also like to refer hon. members to May's Seventeenth Edition, page 407 where the following citation is to be found:
The house does not recognize the right of individual members to insist on the division of motions moved in committee of the whole house,

DEBATES	February 22. 1967
It appears to me that there is one motion before the Chair and I will rule that the amendment be considered as one motion before the committee.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, in that case I move the following sub-amendment to the amendment before the house.
I move that the amendment be amended by deleting part (b) thereof.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair considers that the sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for York South is quite in order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on the amendment and I will try not to repeat what has been said already. I want to suggest to the house that no self-respecting legislature would grant a right of appeal which is to exist at the suffrance of an entirely different body. Without knowing to whom this right of appeal is given we are told by the minister that there are some limitations, the extent of which is not put before us. I know that in these days it is a quite common practice for legislatures and parliaments to legislate in a form which delegates to other bodies, such as the governor in council, the right to fill in the legislation. However, here we are given, in the nature of a legal right, the right to appeal. To give this right to one authority, and in the same breath say that someone else will have the right to define who shall have the right of appeal, is a monstrous anomaly. This is bad legislation, quite apart from the merits of this particular matter.
It would be irresponsible for the house to say to a group of people, "We are giving you the right of appeal," and at the same time to say "We are giving it to whomsoever the governor in council chooses to confer this right." I submit that this would be a very poor form of legislation and I support the amendment of the hon. member for York South.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question? The question is on the subamendment.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: yeas, 8; nays, 27.
Amendment (Mr. Greene) agreed to: yeas, 31; nays 4.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I now put to the committee the following amendment which I mentioned earlier:
That the clause be further amended by adding thereto, after the word "application" in lines 20
February 22, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
and 21 thereof the following: "or that there exist
compassionate or humanitarian considerations that in the opinion of the board warrant the granting of special relief".


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is there agreement to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Carleton?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment agreed to
Clause as amended agreed to
Clause 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-Notice of appeal.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to indicate that as the bill now stands there is no requirement that the appellant be given information on which he can base his appeal. I do not think the right of appeal will mean anything unless the appellant knows on what he is going to appeal to the board. 1 have copies of a proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman. I move:
That clause 19 of Bill C-220 be amended by designating the present clause as subclause (1), and by adding immediately thereafter a new subclause (1), and by adding immediately thereafter a new subclause (2) as follows:
"(2) Every appellant under section 11 and section 17 shall be provided by the minister with particulars of the grounds on which the deportation order or refusal to approve an application for admission was based in such manner as is prescribed by the rules of the board".
One hon. member has already spoken to this concept, Mr. Chairman, so I do not thinh I should take the time of the committee any further.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not object in principle to the amendment before the house. On the other hand, we tried last night to move an amendment strictly in accordance with the wishes of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). In the face of a great many objections, we finally realized that the best place for such an amendment is in the Immigration Act itself which governs the activity of immigration officers, since they will have to comply with that requirement or the minister may become subject thereto under the Immigration Act.
Now, I cannot dispute the merit of the proposition itself, since I am in agreement. The only thing I can do, if the house rejects this amendment, is to give the undertaking that, as soon as the legislation becomes operative, all immigration officers affected by this
13363
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board clause will be required through regulations to make the report and to give reasons to the appellant. And as soon as the Immigration Act is introduced in the house, it will be up to the house to move the amendment to have it incorporated in the act.
This is purely a technical problem but I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, that clause 19 be left as is and that, through our regulations, the officers be required to give reasons, or that I give them myself to the party making an appeal. I solemnly undertake to do this as soon as the legislation is passed. And as soon as the general legislation is introduced in the house, I shall support an amendment in accordance with the one the hon. member for York South has just moved.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the minister for his very clear and unequivocal undertaking that the purpose of the amendment I have just moved will in fact be carried out by his department, but with very great respect I do not see any technical objection to the amendment. I did appreciate in drafting the amendment some of the points that might arise-I do not say I realized all of the points-with regard to inquiry officers and other officers of the department, as well as the terms of the Immigration Act and regulations which control them. This is why the amendment does not seek- to have the report of the inquiry officer or any other officer of the department given to the appellant. It is also why the amendment asks that the minister provide the grounds.
From my little knowledge of the Immigration Act I cannot see where a technical problem arises on this point. Therefore I am wondering whether the minister would allow the clause to stand. I did understand him to say that he is not arguing against the merits of the amendment but is in agreement with it; it is purely this technical difficulty that he said he stumbled upon last night. I do not know whether the minister and his advisers considered this particular approach of laying this duty upon the minister rather than automatically requiring the furnishing of some departmental document. Perhaps this question was not considered, and if this is the case would the minister consider standing clause 19 so as to give the matter some further thought. Because we are not going to pass the bill today; it is now twenty minutes to six.


Jean Marchand: We may.
13364	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


David Lewis: I can assure the minister that he will not. Therefore would he ask his advisers whether they could look at this particular approach or at some similar approach-I have no pride of authorship at all-instead of rejecting the amendment at this stage.
If the minister finds on further consideration that there is an insuperable technical barrier, then we will have to be satisfied with his very genuine and unequivocal undertaking, which I am prepared to accept without any reservation at all. However, I would much rather see the amendment incorporated into the law if the technical difficulty about which the minister spoke can be overcome. Therefore would he agree to allow this clause to stand and to have his advisers look at this particular approach to the problem to see whether a solution can be found?


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member for York South or the other members of the committee are not satisfied with the undertaking I gave, but would prefer to allow the clause to stand and so insist, then I will not oppose this. I do not think there is any problem about allowing the clause to stand until we deal with the other clauses of the bill, and we may find a solution. If hon. members insist on taking this course I will not object.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to members of the committee for taking up time but I am anxious that there shall be no misunderstanding. I accept the minister's undertaking. As I have said, it was given in unequivocal language and I have not the slightest doubt in the world that he will carry it out. The only reason I would prefer to see this provision incorporated in the law is that people outside the house read the law; they do not necessarily read Hansard. Furthermore, it completes the sense of the law. I do not doubt the minister's undertaking but I think it would be preferable to incorporate the provision in the law.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that clause 19 and the amendment thereto stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 20-Hearing of appeal.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister might agree to stand clause 20 until we have dealt with clause 21. If the committee were to provide that the board should be the body to determine upon security or criminal intelligence reports, I think

DEBATES	February 22, 196?
there would need to be an amendment to this clause. I gave notice of a potential amendment to this clause last night and we really could not intelligently discuss the clause now until we have dealt with the principle contained in clause 21.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that clause 20 stands?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 21-Certificate of minister and Solicitor General.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I now move the amendment of which I gave notice last evening. I move:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
That Clause 21 (1) be amended by striking out all the words in line 5 to 10 inclusive and substituting therefor the following:
"if the Board finds, on the basis of security or criminal intelligence reports filed with them, which reports the board shall keep secret but the existence of which it shall disclose to the appellant, it would be contrary to the national interest to stay the execution of the order, continue or renew the stay or render the decision, as the case may be"
and that Clause 21 (2) be struck out.
Sir, this was argued at some length last evening, on clause 2. I have little to add. This amendment is in accordance with the report of Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C. He suggested that security and criminal intelligence documents be put before the board. The minister has chosen the other course, of having a certificate executed by himself and by the Solicitor General. I venture to suggest that that is not sufficient under the circumstances. Reports should be laid before the tribunal, that the tribunal may assess their validity.
This is perhaps the most difficult field for any minister of manpower and immigration to deal with. The Secretary of State is involved also in citizenship matters with a security connotation. As I said last night, I hope that the Max Mackenzie royal commission takes a good and hard look at this whole field.
The proposal put forward in the amendment is a better interim proposal than the one advanced by the minister in the clause as drafted. I can see no objection to it; indeed I think it is essential that a person should know that the grounds advanced against him are based on security or criminal intelligence. I do not suggest that reports should be revealed; to do so would undoubtedly be prejudicial to the interests and possibly to the
February 22, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13365
safety of the state. I do suggest that the appellant should know about the existence of such reports and that they are the grounds for action against him If he knows about them he will have the opportunity to produce evidence showing that such reports perhaps are erroneous. There have been, and there will be again, cases of mistaken identity. I know of instances myself where grave injustice has been done because of mistaken identity.
I shall not argue the matter further. Members on all sides of the house expressed their views last night. I think the minister can accept the amendment without in any way prejudicing the safety or interests of the state. No member of this house seeks to do anything through any amendment which would be prejudicial to the state. I submit this amendment provides a reasonable interim solution until the royal commission on security reports.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, the most vexed problem in the whole field of immigration is reconciling the contrary requirements of justice to the individual and the security of the state. The hon. member for Carleton has produced his solution. When the minister dealt with this matter yesterday he said this on page 13311 of Hansard:
When we discuss the bill clause by clause, if a workable suggestion is made in this connection, guaranteeing what we want to guarantee, I will be the first to accept it. However, it is not easy to do so at the present time.
Of course it is not easy, but that is no reason for not dealing with a problem. I know that an amendment is before the committee and that it would not be in order at this time for me to move another amendment. I wish to tell the committee that after the amendment of the hon. member for Carleton has been dealt with I wish to move an amendment. Perhaps I could read it to the committee so that the committee may consider it. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, suggests that if the minister by certificate says that the order for deportation or refusal of admission is a matter that affects the security of Canada, and it would be contrary to the interests of Canada to disclose the source of information justifying such order or refusal, then the board may conduct the hearing of the appeal in camera, in respect of such evidence, in the absence of the accused or his counsel; but the board may direct that the minister shall furnish to the board and the appellant particulars of the allegations without disclosing the source thereof.
23033-845J
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
The hon. member for York South discussed this matter. He said that in wartime, when dealing with matters of security, the defence of Canada regulations originally provided for people to be interned on order of the Minister of Justice. There was no basis for internment except the minister's order, if he thought it necessary for the security of the state in wartime. Many of German or Japanese origin were deprived of their liberty, not by the normal process of law, but by direction of the minister. Through experience, and because of the possibility of injustices arising, the Defence of Canada Regulations were changed to provide the right of appeal. That right would be exercised by a tribunal similar to the immigration appeal board proposed by this legislation. That tribunal travelled around the country. Later it was found possible, not to disclose evidence on which the internment was based but to furnish particulars of the grounds for interning, without giving the source. Those particulars gave to the interned person or his counsel or lawyer, as the case might be, not a detailed source of security information, but the substance of the case to be made against him.
At the present time as the minister and other hon. members know, people are refused admission to Canada, sometimes on security grounds and sometimes, not because they belong to subversive organizations, but because they do not meet the regulations. No information is given to these people. The purpose of our amendment is to make certain that there is a fundamental right, bringing with it a fundamental sense of justice to those concerned with appeals. This sense of justice is taken away if you say: "Because somebody says this is a security matter you have no right of appeal." I submit that my proposal, based on experience in security matters at a time of greater national emergency that we now face in any sense, provides a reasonable compromise. It gives people in all cases the right to appeal. It does not take this right away from them simply because someone has issued a certificate. And it provides that the source of the information shall not be disclosed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This security business has been pushed much too far in regard to immigration policy.
I would remind the minister and his department that in Western Europe, where problems of security might be thought to be of greater concern than they are here, literally thousands of people have been permitted to>
13366	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board immigrate from behind the iron curtain, from such countries as Yugoslavia and Poland, [DOT]without this bogey of security being raised against them. They have gone to France, to West Germany and other countries to join the labour force there, and they have done valuable work. I said that people came in their thousands. I should have said in their tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands.
The parliamentary secretary will recall that just a week ago he and I were in Toronto serving on the special committee which is dealing with the subject of immigration. A number of people appeared before us and I wish to mention particularly the representatives of the Canadian Polish Congress. These are people, every one of them, who are as determinedly anti-communist as anyone in this chamber or in Canada. They are determined there will be no subversion in Canada. Moreover they are people with particular knowledge of conditions in Europe. They told us we were way out of date in our security measures with respect to immigration. They said that if we allowed applicants to come in, S9 per cent of them would be "with us". It would be necessary to exclude those who might be thought to present a danger as saboteurs or spies, but it would be wrong to exclude the large mass of these people on security grounds because it was not possible to get a security report on them or because they came from some country, such as Italy, where there was a substantial communist party with which they might have been connected. I believe it is wrong to say to all these people that they cannot come in and that they will not be told the reasons alleged against them. We know that even in this country there have been cases of mistaken identity.
It is my submission that here we have the core of the problem of giving a fair hearing to would-be immigrants. This legislation in general is admirable legislation, but if we take the whole question of security out of it and say that a particular group of people shall have no rights at all, we are destroying the good effect of whatever we are doing in this bill. I realize that this whole question of security is now being considered by Mr. Mackenzie and the other commissioners. Nevertheless I appeal to the minister to take a serious look at the amendment which I am suggesting. It fully guarantees the non-disclosure of sources, while at the same time permitting those concerned to enjoy the rights conferred by this bill, without any surrender

DEBATES	February 22, 1967
of national security. This right of appeal will only be a half right, or no right at all, if some of the people are denied it by the mere issue of a certificate.
I see it is nearly six o'clock. I would be glad to furnish the minister and other hon. members who are interested with copies of my proposed amendment. I do not believe I can move it at this particular stage.


An hon. Member:: Can the hon. member produce the amendment?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have it right here.


Jean Marchand: Is the hon. member moving it or simply making a suggestion at this stage?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I understand that the hon. member for Carleton has proposed an amendment and I think it would be out of order if I were to move mine, now. The minister could perhaps treat it as a suggestion subject to any alteration he might propose.


Richard Albert Bell: The only comment I have to make is this: I hope the hon. gentleman is not inferring that my amendment will be defeated.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not know; I am not a prophet.


Jean Marchand: I think the points which have been raised cannot be dealt with in this bill. Reference has been made to the situation of prospective immigrants from countries behind the iron curtain who cannot apply to come to Canada. I think the solution to this problem must be found within the general policy and administration of the department not within this bill. We are working on this and I hope that I can announce to the house in the near future that we have overcome certain difficulties in this connection.
We are aware of this problem and we probably share the opinions of the hon. member with regard to it, but we have to devise ways and means of processing the applications of prospective immigrants from behind the iron curtain in the same way as other applications are processed. If we were dealing only with these cases, I think a solution would be easy. But we are not. We are dealing with cases where evidence is produced by the R.C.M.P. or by other agencies concerning not only people who are termed subversive elements, but concerning criminals. I am not talking, here, in terms of the security of the state alone; I am thinking of the security of individuals.
February 22. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13367
I emphasize that there are no halfway measures possible when producing evidence before a board. If we introduced any of those elements which are proposed by the amendment and by the suggested amendment, no lawyer would be satisfied with them. I do not think anyone would be satisfied with a general statement to the effect that one man was a criminal or that another was a security risk to Canada. Everybody would feel frustrated. Everybody would like to have more details. They will insist on having the names, and from that moment on I believe we would be placing some individuals in a very dangerous position. I do not see how we can be satisfied, and I would not be satisfied if I were a lawyer appearing before the board, if I were to have only half of the evidence.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Half is better than none.


Jean Marchand: No, it is not better; it may be worse. It might be very misleading. I think if I were to accept these amendments, I would be in favour of opening the case and giving all the information. I do not believe we are going to achieve what is aimed at by these amendments. So, Mr. Chairman, I know it is not a comfortable position, and everybody understands I am sure, but I believe we have to wait for the recommendations from the royal commission on security. It is not wise to bring such amendments until we have those recommendations, and I think the ministers should bear sole responsibility for the decision.
I have been here for nearly a year, and there are not many cases. There have been some cases of applications from behind the iron curtain. This is not the way to solve the problem. We hope we will find a solution very soon. So far as the real criminals or the real subversive elements are concerned, there are very few of them. When it is stated in this house that this bill will be useless if it remains as it is, then I say that is an exaggeration. I think it would be useless for some people to make the efforts they are making if that were going to be the result.
We are not taking away any rights from anybody. Who can come before this board? The sponsor who wants to sponsor somebody, and the man who has been ordered deported. The man who has been ordered deported is generally neither a Canadian nor a landed immigrant. He of course is a human being. He has a moral right to ask to come to Canada, but he has no legal right. He cannot say, "You
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board are depriving me of a right I have." He has a moral right; there is no doubt of that, and I could make an argument on that ground which would be well founded.
We are concerned with a Canadian citizen'' or a landed immigrant who asks to sponsor' somebody. We do not deny him any rights. The sponsor has a right to ask if this man can come to Canada. If we have any information on our file and we were to reveal that information it would be revealed not to the prospective sponsor but to the appellant and to probably the 10 or 12 people in the court. I tell you that in some cases this would be dangerous for the security of the state. I am less sensitive about that aspect because I think we can protect ourselves. However, I believe the security of some individuals can be placed in real danger.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe there are only two ways of accomplishing this purpose. Either we treat these cases exactly like the others and we produce all the evidence to the lawyers or interested parties, or we refuse to do so and put the responsibility on the minister for seeing that the file is not revealed. I do not believe there is a middle way. I think we should wait for the inquiry to make its recommendations and perhaps we will find some solution. I do not see any solution in the amendments or suggestions before the committee.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question.
Amendment (Mr. Bell, Carleton) negatived: Yeas, 14; nays, 27.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 21 carry?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a further amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.



GOVERNORS GENERAL OF CANADA


Lester Bowles Pearson: the second reading of Bill No. C-265, to provide for the payment of a retiring annuity to the Governor General of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
February 22, 1967
Business of the House [DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: That this house do unite with the Senate in the appointment of a special joint committee to study and report upon amendments to the Criminal Code relating to the dissemination of varieties of "hate propaganda" in Canada as set out in Bill S-49, intituled: "An Act to amend the Criminal Code";
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by this house at a later date, be members of the said committee; and that standing order 67(1) be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have the power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing that house that the House of Commons do unite with the Senate for the above purposes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government house leader to withhold this motion for today.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, it being six o'clock would the house leader indicate what the order of business will be for tomorrow and perhaps the balance of the week?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we propose continuing with the measure before the house this afternoon, namely item No. 83 on today's order paper. Then we will deal with items 100, 133, 126, 127, 120, 116, 130 and 119. There may be some necessity to vary the sequence of calling the items, but if there is I will be in touch with the house leaders of the other parties before that necessity arises.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that item No. 130 will probably be dealt with fairly rapidly, will the government house leader consider bringing it forward for consideration immediately after we finish with the immigration bill?


George James McIlraith: I will consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to give a firm answer at the moment, but we are very anxious to get this item through as soon as possible. I believe there will be very little debate on it, and it will be brought forward as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, February 23, 1967