1967-03-01

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 1, 1967
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. J. R. Cartwright, M.C., puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 1st March, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty first report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.

It is said in this interim report that the committee refers back to the house the Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act, the new Bank Act, the new Quebec Savings Bank Act.

Thirteenth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) I undertook to make a statement about workers who have been laid off in the automobile industry. I should emphasize that
the figures I have do not distinguish between lay-offs caused by reduced sales or similar factors and those that can be attributed to adjustments under the auto pact.
We know of a total of 5,732 people in the automobile and parts industries who have been laid off and not recalled in the course of the past 14 months; that is since January 1, 1966. Of this total, our information is that 3,063 are in other employment or have withdrawn, temporarily or permanently, from the labour force; 1,874 are registered for employment at various manpower centres; there are 795 of whom we have no current record, though we are doing our best to get in touch with them. Of the total of 1,874 now registered with manpower centres, 566 have been recommended for training courses and 296 are currently in training.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The reason the figure is not larger is that training facilities have been heavily strained in some centres, particularly Oshawa. Representations have been made to the provincial governments for the provision of increased facilities, and detailed discussions are now in progress between the manpower division and the Ontario department of education. We certainly hope this will result in increasing the training capacity available at Oshawa.
All Canada manpower centres in Ontario are making special efforts to bring the qualifications of autoworkers to the attention of prospective employers. Mobility grants are available to assist workers to move if necessary. It must be appreciated, however, that the automotive industry is a relatively high wage one and it cannot be expected that equivalent employment will be available quickly in all cases.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, this announcement by the Minister of Manpower and Citizenship points up the urgency of this whole situation. It points up the fact also that the government was not prepared to deal with this emergency. The minister has admitted that the government has been unable to cope with the retraining of these people so they might find useful employment in other industry. He mentioned that no facilities have been provided in Oshawa, the city in which most of the people affected are located.

March 1, 1967
Labour Conditions
This is another indication of the fact that this government, on all occasions when it has been faced with labour problems and other matters, has sat back on its haunches and done nothing until these situations have become critical.
This matter is not completed as yet. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Industry if he was aware of the lay-offs that were announced by General Motors affecting St. Catharines and Windsor. To this he replied again in the negative. The government is not prepared to do anything about these matters. This morning the newspapers contained an announcement that another 300 workers were being laid off by General Motors, 250 in Oshawa, 20 in Ste. Therese, Quebec and 20 in London, Ontario.
These lay-offs have been taking place every day, every week and every month since last December. All this government does is announce in the House of Commons that we do not have training facilities. It is about time they realized all these lay-offs are taking place as a result of the poor policies of this government.


Mr. Winkler:: And no interest shown by the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Windsor never had as many people at work.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: It
is unfortunate the minister has not got a breakdown-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -though I think he is on his way toward one. It is unfortunate he does not have a breakdown as to the number of the 5,700 individuals who have been laid off in the automotive industry whose unemployment is due to the Canada-United States auto agreement, and those who may have been laid off for other reasons. The government has a definite responsibility with regard to those who have been laid off as a result of the auto pact. One of the two undertakings we were given by the Minister of Industry when this auto agreement was being discussed was that adequate provision would be made for the retraining of those employees who were dislocated as a result of the pact. The other undertaking was, of course, that there would be greater parity of prices in Canada as compared to the United States.
There has been compliance with neither of these undertakings. In the case of workers in

the auto industry it is quite apparent now, according to the statement made by Mr. George Burt, Canadian director of the U.A.W., that there are thousands of auto workers who are not able to obtain alternative employment and who have not been able to secure retraining through the department of manpower.
This is an extremely serious situation. It seems to me that the minister cannot shuffle off on to the Ontario government the blame for the fact that there are not adequate facilities to train these men. When the Canadian government signed the auto pact they undertook to see that there would be adequate facilities to take care of training. This is a responsibility which is theirs and which they cannot shuffle off on to anyone else.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, none of the requests made by the men themselves or their representatives has been met. One of the first was that a committee should be set up on which the employers, the union and the government would be represented so the men would have notice from time to time as to the number who were going to be laid off, so the government would be acquainted with what training facilities would be required, and so there could be a co-ordinated effort to cope with this problem.
All we have had from the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, are repeated statements that he has been unable to persuade the employers to agree to the setting up of such a committee. Surely one of the terms laid down in the agreement should have been that the employers would be prepared to sit down with government and union representatives to work out solutions to the problems confronting the men displaced under the auto agreement.
I want to say to the government, Mr. Speaker, that so far they have completely failed to meet their responsibilities to these men as well as to the Canadian people at large. I do not put all the blame on the minister of manpower; he has inherited this problem as a result of the lack of foresight on the part of the ministers who concocted this agreement and went into it without adequate preparation to meet the problems which an auto agreement was bound to produce.



SYDNEY, N.S.-LAY-OFFS AT STEEL PLANT

Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was questioned about the employment and training situation in Sydney Nova
March 1, 1967

Scotia. First on the subject of training, I should say that at the end of January there were 2,425 persons in the province of Nova Scotia who had been recommended for training by my department but for whom training places were not at that time available. The provincial authorities have been trying to remedy this situation. In the past month they have found 11 additional instructors and made places available for 210 persons in the Cape Breton area in a pre-vocational upgrading course. At this date 164 other people in the area are still waiting for places.
With regard to employment at the DOSCO steel plant at Sydney, I should say that at the beginning of last year it employed 3,560 workers and at the beginning of this year 735 fewer, a decline of 20 per cent. Intensive efforts are being made to find other work for those laid off and, indeed, referrals are going on steadily. There are some important improvements in prospect. Two new industrial operations are on the point of starting up in the area, and it is expected that heavy construction work at Port Hawkesbury in the spring will draw on Sydney for much of its labour requirements. My department will make assistance for training, mobility and placement available to the full extent of the need.
In terminating this statement, Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that my department will fulfil its responsibilities and is ready to pay training allowance to all those who are accepted. As far as training facilities are concerned, according to our agreement with the provinces this is a provincial responsibility.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of manpower indicated that he was going to make a report on the situation in Sydney, but he has reported not specifically on that area but on the situation generally in Nova Scotia with some reference to the Sydney area.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
He referred to the number of men in training and the number awaiting places, a total of about 374 persons out of 1,100 workers laid off at the steel plant. The government has not considered those workers at all. There is unemployment in the area about which the government has done nothing. We have had lay-offs. Our naval base has been closed despite the fact that the former Conservative government established this as a permanent base. This government closed it after having promised the men in that area alternative
Labour Conditions
work. Despite this promise many men in our area have been laid off.
The government is trying to do one thing with one hand and is taking it away with the other when laying persons off. There have been lay-offs in Cape Breton and in Louis-bourg. Because of the differences of opinion publicly expressed the government brought the men back on the job; they tried to take the credit for that. First they fired them, then they rehired them. What contradictions have we here.
When we speak of contradictions, the minister yesterday was asked to clarify the situation that has developed with respect to the crown corporation the government intends to establish. He was asked to make a statement. Now we find the minister saying one thing and the Prime Minister saying something else. First the Prime Minister agreed that the crown corporation would do something for the steel workers; then he withdrew from that stand. Behind the Prime Minister the Minister of Industry promised that the government would do something for the steel workers when the crown corporation was established. On top of that, yesterday and today we heard from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He was unable to say anything about the proposed development. All those remarks are on record.
We have one minister saying one thing, and the Prime Minister saying "No." Behind the Prime Minister the Minister of Industry tried to leave the impression that the unemployed people in Cape Breton would be looked after by the crown corporation. The Prime Minister denied that, too. From all this it ought to be evident to the people of Cape Breton and others across this nation that this government does not know where it is going.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat some of the things the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said. It seems to me, from the statements the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has made in the past and recently, that a serious situation has been exposed. Obviously there is not much value in having a program of mobility grants or of training and retraining if there are not facilities by which such programs can be implemented. I suggest to the minister and to the house that the situation exposed by the minister's statements requires a new look to be directed at our federal policy with regard to the assistance the federal treasury gives to the provision of

March 1, 1967
Questions
facilities for training and retraining. Perhaps an entirely new program is required.
The thing most disturbing about the statement is the expression of anxiety by the minister on behalf of himself and his department. He is worried about his ability to carry out the policies in question; then he turns around and says "But I cannot do it because I have not the training facilities." Well, the responsibility exists. The minister goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the province.
This subject, of course, is one of the problems existing in Canada, and I suggest to the minister and the government with as much urgency as I can that this situation ought to force the government to bring in a new policy with respect to the provision of training facilities, finding teachers for training and doing those things necessary to implement the training and retraining program. It just is not good enough for the minister to shuffle off the responsibility to some other level of government. He should not blame some other level of government for his inability to carry out a program for which he is responsible.
My second point is this. It becomes daily more clear that the government's coal policy with respect to operations in Cape Breton and parts of Nova Scotia is obviously a half policy which will not meet the problems in Cape Breton, in particular. The government ought to take a second look at this program and consider the solution we have urged, namely that it is time to take over all the operations of DOSCO, steel as well as coal, so the workers in both industries can be integrated in a program for rehabilitating this unhappy area of Canada.
In any case, I cannot understand what these lengthy negotiations with the Dominion Coal Company are about. What is it we are buying from the Dominion Coal Company that it should take all this time to set up a crown corporation to get going toward a solution of the problems to which the minister has referred? I conclude by urging that at the proper time this house should reconsider the entire policy in connection with training facilities and particularly the policy toward that giant in the area which is becoming a pygmy at the expense of the people of Cape Breton island.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Lambert: As of October 11, 1966, how many persons in
(a) the employ of the public service of Canada (b) the armed services (c) the employ of crown corporations or agencies, were being paid salary, or pay and allowances, or emoluments in the following categories: (i) $18,000-$20,000 per annum (ii) $20,-000-$25,000 per annum (iii) $25,000-$35,000 per annum (iv) $35,000 and up per annum!


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: (a)	(i) 522; (ii) 397; (iii) 67; (iv) 23. (b) (i) 159;
(ii)	50; (iii) 12; (iv) none, (c) (i) 195; (ii) 116;
(iii)	28; (iv) 7.
Air Canada, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and Polymer Corporation advise that it has not been considered in the best interests of their respective corporations to disclose data on employees' earnings other than what is available through the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


TAX ON ALLOWANCES TO B AND B COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Coaies: Are the amounts that have been received by the
commissioners of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism tax exempt?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Only to the extent of the living allowances, on a per diem basis, and the reimbursement of actual and reasonable out of pocket transportation expenses, paid in respect of absences from their normal places of residence in connection with their duties as commissioners.


* POSSIBLE CONFUSION IN NAMES OF COMPANIES
Mr. Stanbury: 1.	In the light of recent experience with North American General Insurance Company and Prudential Finance Corporation Limited, will the government initiate a federal-provincial survey to determine whether other companies in the financial and insurance fields are trading on the names of well-established companies?
2.	What steps are being taken by the government, independently or in conjunction with provincial governments, to ensure that neither letters patent nor licences hereafter will be granted or continued in circumstances likely to confuse or deceive the public as to the identity and reputation of financial and insurance companies?
March 1, 1967


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The answer to the first part of the question is as follows:
The government does not intend to undertake an investigation of such a general nature because we feel that it would not bring in the required information. The fact that two companies have similar names does not necessarily imply that a company operates by using the other one's name.
However, the government will ask that the similarity in names of financial institutions be put on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference when those institutions are discussed.
Here is the answer to the second part of the question:
With regard to the new insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies, the Superintendent of Insurance is inquiring into the similarity in names and ordering special research work on the list kept by the Registrar General of Canada of the names of all the companies incorporated in Canada, under a federal or a provincial act. Before bills incorporating such companies are introduced in parliament, the petitioners are asked to choose a name which will not be mistaken for that of another. Any special problem is submitted to the attention of the parliamentary committees and it is up to parliament to approve the name.
With regard to insurance companies with their head office outside Canada and wanting to do business in Canada, the superintendent studies the question of similarity in names by referring to the list kept by the Registrar General of Canada. If he feels that the name might lead to confusion, he must so inform the Minister of Finance who may then forbid the company from doing business in Canada.
As for the companies that may be incorporated by letters patent under the Companies Act, the Registrar General's Department is inquiring into the similarity of names by searching through their own files and through files of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The department does not approve the name of a company if it is felt that the name could be confused with that of any other company.
The Superintendent of Insurance may take administrative measures to alter the practice of any company under his authority if he
Questions
deems such practices may lead to misunderstanding or confusion.
When proceeding to an examination of legislation and regulations likely to apply to financial enterprises, not now subject to a system of supervision, particular attention will be given the need for authority to require companies to change their advertising or any other practice likely to cause mistaken identity.
This question will be considered at the next federal-provincial conference on financial institutions.
When new insurance, trust or loan companies are to be incorporated, attention will be given to the question of names similar to other corporations operating in the financial field and not only in the field of insurance, trust or loans, as the case may be.
The list of names of corporations maintained by the Registrar General will be brought to the attention of the provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to suggest to him that such a lengthy answer to a question should be made an order for return. Would the hon. member please resume his seat? However, judging to the extent that I can see from this distance, it seems the hon. member has just about completed his statement, but if he has not he should make arrangements to give the information in some other way.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Ten seconds more, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to ask permission to have it made an order for return, but I have tried to read the answer as fast as I could. I will finish in ten seconds.

When an insurance company having its head office in a foreign country applies for registration under federal legislation, public notice will be required so that any protest concerning the name of the company may be heard by the Superintendent of Insurance.


Mr. Speaker:: I repeat my caution that anyone required to give an answer of this length should consider the advisability of making it an order for return.

March 1. 1967
Questions


INCOME FIGURES, NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO
Mr. Reid: 1.	What are the unemployment figures for the past five years for the electoral districts of Kenora-Rainy River, Fort William, Port Arthur, and for the northwestern Ontario region?
2.	What is the rate of income growth for the past five years in the above areas?
3.	What is the comparison of the rate of income growth in the last five years for the above areas with the national average?
	1962	1963
Fort William	2,294	2,128Port Arthur	3,279	3,035Fort Frances	607	508Kenora	845	795Northwestern Ontario	7,025	6,466
The areas served by the Fort William and Port Arthur centres approximate the corresponding electoral districts, and the area served by the Fort Frances and Kenora centres closely resembles the Kenora-Rainy River electoral district.
District	1959
Kenora	50,414
Rainy River	27,378
Thunder Bay	182,092
Total	259,884
3.	The rate of growth indicated on a similar absis for the same five-year period for all Canada was 39.3 per cent.


STUDY OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE, IONA, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	On what date was the study approved under ARDA to examine the feasibility of creating a highland village at Iona, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, and to prepare a plan of action?
2.	Who is conducting or has conducted such a study?
3.	Has the study been completed and, if so, on what date?
4.	What are the results of the aforementioned study and what plan of action has been prepared?
5.	What has this study cost?
6.	What remuneration has been received to date by those carrying out the study?
IMr. Speaker.]


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and National Revenue as follows:
1.	Unemployment figures are not available for electoral districts.
Annual averages of unplaced applicants on file in the Canada manpower centres in northwestern Ontario are shown below for each of the past five years:
1964	1965	19661,841	1,471	1,3162,606	2,108	1,919563	531	439767	897	7525,777	5,007	4,4262.	No income figures are available by electoral district to permit comparison but the following statistics of aggregate income reported on individual income tax returns are believed to cover approximately the area described in the question as the northwestern Ontario region:
%
Growth for 5 years 1964	(1959-1964)
60,705	20.4
31,759	16.0
217,306	19.3
309,770	19.2


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. December 21, 1965.
2. Professor H. Spence-Sales, McGill University.
3 and 4. The study is incomplete in that no report has yet been received by Nova Scotia. The province expects the report within the next two or three weeks. The results of the study and the plan of action will not be known until then.
5.	The cost agreed to with Nova Scotia is

6.	The payment of fees is arranged between the province and the contractor. The federal government has no direct relationship with the contractor; billings for the cost of the project are made by the province to the federal government.
Total income ($000)
March 1, 1967


ARDA PROJECTS, RIMOUSKI CONSTITUENCY, QUE.
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	What is the total cost figure for ARDA projects carried out in the constituency of Rimouski from 1962 to March 31, 1965?
Questions
2.	What is the figure for 1965-66?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. Total cost figure of $77,442, of which the federal government's share is $41,659. This amount is comprised of:
(a)	Project 5015 Grande Coulee watercourse improvement
(b)	Project 5035 Banville watercourse improvement
(c)	Project 14004 pilot study of assistance needs of farms in Rimouski Co. P.Q., and Renfrew Co., Ont.
amount is comprised of:
(a)	Project 24030 forest restoration work (10 counties) (Part of Rimouski Co. involved)
(b)	Project 24034 Ste Luce provincial nursery
(c)	Project 24055 tourist development plan for Bic area in Rimouski Co.
Total	Federal share
$ 23,851	$ 11,926
47,716	23,858
5,875	5,875
$ 77,442	$ 41,659
lent's share	is $167,500. This
Total	Federal share
$277,000	$138,500
20,300	4,000
50,000	25,000
$347,300	$167,500
In addition, in January 1967 the federal government approved participation in the following project:
Total Federal share
Project 24144 Riviere du Bic watercourse	$ 69,475	$ 26,053



COST OF PREPARING ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

['1,\t2 and 3. See attached table. The loans are administered by the external aid office.\nMarch 1, 1967', 'Questions\nInterest-free loans to developing countries\nCountry Amount of loan Service charge\tDuration\nCeylon\nEcuador El Salvador Guyana India\nJamaica\nNigeria\nPakistan\nParaguay\nTanzania\n(thousands of Cdn. dollars)', '(% per annum) 3/4 of 1%\n(f\n3/4 of 1%\n3/4 of 1% nil\n3/4 of 1% nil\n3/4 of 1%\nii\nit\na\na\n1965-70: nil 1971-90: 6%\n3/4 of 1%\n3/4 of 1% nil\nit\n3/4 of 1%\nit\na\na\na\na\ntt\na\n50 years inch 10 years grace period', '50 years inch 10 years grace period\n35 years inch 5 years grace period\n50 years inch 10 years grace period\n50 years inch 10 years grace period\na\n50 years inch 10 years grace period\nit\na\na\na\n25 years inch 5 years grace period\n50 years inch 10 years grace period\n50 years inch 10 years grace period\n50 years inch 10 years grace period\na\n50 years inch 10 years grace period\nit\na\na\na\na\na\na\n.\t2,000\nTrinidad and Tobago\t650\nDate signed\nJanuary 11, 1966\nMarch 22, 1966 August 5, 1966\nMay 5, 1966\nNovember 3, 1966\nApril 20, 1966\nDecember 28, 1966 September 7, 1965\nSeptember 7, 1965 July 13, 1966 November 1, 1966 November 1, 1966 November 5, 1965\nDecember 29, 1965\nNovember 9, 1966\nDecember 23, 1966\nJanuary 26, 1967 December 15, 1965\nDecember 15, 1965 February 24, 1966 April 26, 1966 April 26, 1966 May 13, 1966 May 13, 1966 Julv 12, 1966']
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is not possible to estimate the cost of answering questions on the order paper or to determine how many people are engaged in research involved in answering these questions. All departments have an official assigned to deal with parliamentary inquiries and to procure the required information from the appropriate division or divisions of the department and/or the crown corporations.
Answering some questions may involve a number of people and represent many man days of labour. In many cases the information requested is not available at the departmental headquarters in Ottawa and must be requested from regional offices or centres in one or all ten provinces or from Canadian offices abroad to compile data.



Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Did Canada export napalm to the United States in 1966?
2. If so (a) how much was paid by the United States for it (b) what Canadian firm or firms manufactured this napalm?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Ministers of Industry and Trade and Commerce as follows. As far as the Canadian Commercial Corporation is concerned: 1. No.

March 1, 1967
Questions
2.	Not applicable.
As far as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has no information on exports of napalm from Canada.


HOUSING ASSISTANCE, PICTOU LANDING INDIAN RESERVE, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to provide money for housing at the Pictou Landing Indian reservation at Pictou Landing, Nova Scotia?
2. If so (a) when will this money be provided and in what amount (b) what type of housing will be provided (c) will the money provided be restricted to new housing or can it be used for repairs to older homes?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No. A
meeting of the chiefs of all bands within the Shubenacadie Indian agency was held recently to discuss the problem of housing. The
chief of the Pictou Landing Indian band which occupies the Fishers Grant reserve near Pictou Landing, Nova Scotia, was also present. It was determined that no new houses are required for 1967-68.
2. (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) Subject to the approval of parliament, a minimum of $6,000 will be provided during 1967-68, for repairs to older homes.


INTEREST FREE LOANS TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	How many countries have received interest free loans from Canada since 1963, and what are their names?
2.	What were the amounts of these loans and on what dates were they made?
3.	Through what agency are they made and what are the terms of the loans?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1,	2 and 3. See attached table. The loans are administered by the external aid office.
March 1, 1967

Questions
Interest-free loans to developing countries
Country Amount of loan Service charge	Duration
Ceylon
Ecuador El Salvador Guyana India
Jamaica
Nigeria
Pakistan
Paraguay
Tanzania
(thousands of Cdn. dollars)

(% per annum) 3/4 of 1%
(f
3/4 of 1%
3/4 of 1% nil
3/4 of 1% nil
3/4 of 1%
ii
it
a
a
1965-70: nil 1971-90: 6%
3/4 of 1%
3/4 of 1% nil
it
3/4 of 1%
it
a
a
a
a
tt
a
50 years inch 10 years grace period

50 years inch 10 years grace period
35 years inch 5 years grace period
50 years inch 10 years grace period
50 years inch 10 years grace period
a
50 years inch 10 years grace period
it
a
a
a
25 years inch 5 years grace period
50 years inch 10 years grace period
50 years inch 10 years grace period
50 years inch 10 years grace period
a
50 years inch 10 years grace period
it
a
a
a
a
a
a
.	2,000
Trinidad and Tobago	650
Date signed
January 11, 1966
March 22, 1966 August 5, 1966
May 5, 1966
November 3, 1966
April 20, 1966
December 28, 1966 September 7, 1965
September 7, 1965 July 13, 1966 November 1, 1966 November 1, 1966 November 5, 1965
December 29, 1965
November 9, 1966
December 23, 1966
January 26, 1967 December 15, 1965
December 15, 1965 February 24, 1966 April 26, 1966 April 26, 1966 May 13, 1966 May 13, 1966 Julv 12, 1966



NEWS FACILITIES FOR OVERSEAS ARMED FORCES

Mr. Kennedy: What facilities, broadcast and printed, with Canadian content, are made available to our Canadian armed forces and their families serving abroad e.g. in N.W. Europe and the Middle East, in order to keep them currently informed on Canadian affairs?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: There are two service radio stations in Europe broadcasting to 4 Canadian Infantry Brigade and 1 Air Division. An 1,800 word bulletin of world and Canadian news, plus sports scores, is obtained from Canadian Press and is relayed daily except Saturdays. In addition a tape

March 1, 1967
Questions
recording of the 10 p.m. C.B.C. news broadcast is made by station C.B.O. Ottawa and relayed by direct telephone daily except Sundays at approximately 11 p.m. Short wave transmissions are made five times daily in English and French of world and Canadian news, sports and other topical events. Radio and t.v. sound recordings of current C.B.C. English and French network programs are supplied weekly to both service radio stations. Cable and land line transmissions of major sporting events such as Grey cup, Stanley cup games and other events of national importance, i.e., Dominion day programs, planned centennial celebrations are also made.
In so far as the Middle East is concerned 168 copies of the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Montreal La Presse are despatched each Tuesday. This consists of 14 copies of each newspaper for six days. Every two weeks 140 daily subscriptions of eight other Canadian newspapers are delivered by service aircraft. A condensed review of all major Canadian sporting activities plus world sport events is despatched twice weekly to the Middle East and Cyprus, as well as other overseas locations.
Radio and t.v. sound recordings of current C.B.C. English and French network programs are supplied weekly for broadcast on closed radio circuit. In addition the five daily broadcasts in English and French are beamed to the Middle East as well as Europe. Kinescope film recordings of semi-final and final games of all major Canadian sporting events are supplied.



TEXTILE IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,605
Mr. Allard:: Regarding question No. 1,640 which was answered on July 8, 1966 (a) in 1966, what countries exported textile products to Canada (b) lor the year 1966, and for each of these countries, what were these products and what was the total value of the textile products imported by Canada, in each of textile groups (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) as referred to in reply to question No. 1,640?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Import statistics for the year 1966, compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, will not be ready until some time in April. The information requested in this question will require further compilation and will be available shortly after that date.



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM AND IRRIGATION PROJECT

Mr. McLelland: 1.	What Is the total expenditure to date by the federal government on the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?
2.	What is the total expenditure to date by the federal government on the erection of the spillway portion of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date by the federal government on the construction of the Qu'Appelle dam on the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?
4.	What is the total expenditure to date by the federal government on studies conducted to preserve the Cree Indian shrine known as the Mis-taseni?
5.	What is the total expenditure to date by the federal government on demolition of the Cree Indian shrine known as the Mistaseni?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	$121,634,209.32 of which $24,674,454.70
has been recovered from the province of Saskatchewan.
2.	$19,524,409.62.
3.	$8,589,229.32.
4.	$300 (This does not include cost of department's engineering staff.)
5.	$958.82.



EXPORT AGENTS FOR WHEAT BOARD

Mr. Schreyer: 1.	With respect to all wheat sales to (a) the United Kingdom (b) Japan, in the last crop year, how many firms acted as exporting agents of the Canadian wheat board?
2.	What was the volume and total selling price of each firm's transactions?
3.	What consideration, value, or margin did these firms receive for the transactions specified above (a) in toto (b) per unit?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1, 2 and 3. The Canadian Wheat Board advises that it is not its policy to disclose the competitive position of grain companies with regard to their transactions with the board. The trade's operations are of a commercial nature and information concerning their negotiations with foreign buyers is not available to the government.



WHEAT AGREEMENTS WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA

Mr. Schreyer: 1.	In the current Canadian Wheat Board master sales agreement with (a) the U.S.S.R. (b) China,
March 1, 1967

what volume of wheat has been shipped and what is the total value of shipments?
2.	What proportion does this bear to the total commitment under the master sales agreement?
3.	Of the total value of shipments already made, what proportion of this value has not yet been received on account?
4.	How many firms have been involved in these transactions as agents of the wheat board?
5.	What volume and value of grain has been handled or transacted by each of these firms acting as agents of the wheat board?
6.	What payment was made or what value was received by these agent firms with respect to their transactions under these two master sales agreements to date?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1 and 2. The current long term wheat agreement between the U.S.S.R. grain agency Exportkhleb and the Canadian Wheat Board covers the period August 1, 1966 to July 31, 1969 and provides for the purchase and supply of nine million long tons (336 million bushels) of wheat and flour. The current long term wheat agreement between the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation and the Canadian Wheat Board also covers the period August 1, 1966 to July 31, 1969 and provides for the purchase and supply of a minimum of four and one half million long tons (168 million bushels) and a maximum of seven and one half million long tons (280 million bushels) of wheat. The Canadian Wheat Board has concluded sales contracts with Exportkhleb for 112 million bushels of wheat and flour and with the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation for 93 million bushels of wheat for shipment in the 12 month period ending July 31, 1967 and the board advises that shipments are proceeding on schedule. According to the Il.B.S. publication "Trade of Canada" the quantity and value of wheat and wheat flour shipments to the U.S.S.R. and China in the August through October period were 33.8 million bushels worth $67.6 million and 34.6 million bushels worth $65.5 million, respectively.
3.	All wheat sales to the U.S.S.R. have been on a cash basis and full payment is received at the time of shipment. Sales to mainland China are on credit terms of 25 per cent cash at the time of shipment with the balance in 18 months.
4,	5 and 6. The Canadian Wheat Board advises that it is not its policy to disclose the competitive position of grain companies with regard to their transactions with the board.
Questions
The trade's operations are of a commercial nature and information concerning their negotiations with foreign buyers is not available to the government.



ASSISTANCE FOR HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION, REGINA, SASK.

[Stage Direction]
Question No 2,636
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 1.	Has the government of Saskatchewan approached the federal government for special assistance for the construction of a new base hospital in Regina?
2.	If such an approach has been made, have any proposals been put forward to establish this hospital as a teaching and research centre in conjunction with the Regina campus of the University of Saskatchewan?
3.	What has been the reply of the federal government to any such representations?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisfer of Naiional Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, to the extent that such a project appears on an initial list of projects making up a five-year program in Saskatchewan for support by the health resources fund.
2.	To be eligible under the Health Resources Fund Act the project has to be established for the purpose of teaching or research in the health field. It is understood that this proposed hospital will be a teaching hospital and that it will be affiliated with the University of Saskatchewan.
3.	The project has yet to be approved by the health resources advisory committee set up under the act. No payment can be authorized by the Department of National Health and Welfare unless the project is part of a five-year program approved by this committee. The next meeting of the committee will probably be held in April.



SELECTION OF HOSTESSES, EXPO '67

Mr. Sherman: 1.	How many hostesses have been selected for Expo '67 and, of that number (a) what proportion are from western Canada (i.e., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia (b) how many of French speaking background are from Manitoba?
2.	How many persons from western Canada (as defined in part 1 above) applied for jobs as hostesses for Expo '67 and of these, how many were of (a) English speaking background (b) French speaking background?
3.	How many persons from Manitoba applied for jobs as hostesses for Expo '67?
4.	On what basis were the persons chosen as hostesses for Expo '67 selected?

March 1, 1967
Questions


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. 220. (a) Manitoba, 2; Saskatchewan, 5; Alberta, 2; British Columbia, 11; total: 20. (b) 1.
2.	160. (a) 115; (b) 45.
3.	29.
4.	The criteria used in the selection of
hostesses were:	(1) Canadian citizen; (2)
Minimum 20 years of age; (3) High school graduation or better; (4) Bilingual; (5) Physical appearance and personality; (6) Previous experience; (7) General knowledge of Canada; (8) Available as of January 26 to October 27. All applications were received and initial screening done by Canada manpower, and the Quebec employment service for those applicants in Quebec.



CANADIANS 100 YEARS OLD

Mr. Tucker: How many Canadian citizens residing in Canada are 100 years of age or over, and in what provinces do they live, by province?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The number of persons reporting their age as 100 years or over, in the 1961 census of Canada is as follows:
Newfoundland	2
Prince Edward Island	6
Nova Scotia	23
New Brunswick	14
Quebec	47
Ontario	125
Manitoba	15
Saskatchewan	20
Alberta	24
British Columbia	38
Canada	314



PENSION PLAN OFFICE, GASPE, QUE.

Mr. Keays: 1.	With reference to the news release of February 15, 1967, concerning the Canada Pension Plan extension of services, does the department concerned contemplate using the facilities now vacant at the Unemployment Insurance Commission at Gaspe, Quebec, for establishing a district office?
2.	If so, when is it expected that this service will be opened?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No such action is contemplated since the Canada Pension
[Mr. Sherman.)
Plan does not operate in the province of Quebec.
2. Not applicable.



ANNUAL BUDGET OF TRAVEL BUREAU

Mr. Jamieson: What was the Canadian Government Travel Bureau's annual budget for the past ten years, including 1966-67?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The actual expenditures of the Canadian Government Travel Bureau for the past nine years are as indicated below. The figure provided for 1966-67 is the estimated expenditure for the current fiscal year. 1957-58, $1,930,766; 1958-59, $2,206,129; 1959-60, $2,299,939; 1960-61, $2,682,516; 1961-62, $2,974,851; 1962-63, $3,341,428; 1963-64, $3,868,359; 1964-65, $4,908,713; 1965-66, $6,332,549; 196667, $10,070,000 (Estimated-including $1.4 million for Centennial advertising).



PURCHASE OF PAINTING &quot;SUNDAY AFTERNOON&quot;

Mr. Coates: Who made the decision to purchase a painting "Sunday Afternoon" by Claude Breeze, what was the reason for the purchase and how much was paid by the Canada Council for the painting?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canada Council that the painting "Sunday Afternoon: from an old American photograph" by Claude Breeze was purchased for $900 as part of the council's purchasing program, on the recommendation of three directors of Canadian public art museums, who consider Mr. Breeze a very talented young artist and that particular painting one of his best.



PROVISION OF COLOUR TELEVISION SETS BY C.B.C.

Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What are the names and addresses of individuals, other than officials or employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, who have been the recipients of and/or have had free use of the colour T.V. sets recently purchased by the C.B.C.?
2.	Are any members of parliament among those to whom colour T.V. sets were delivered by or on behalf of the C.B.C.?
3.	Since the question was placed on the order paper some weeks ago, how many of the said sets have been returned to, or delivered to, the C.B.C. by the recipients?
March 1, 1967


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Sets were assigned to members of the C.B.C. board of directors, to the Canadian representative of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to the office of the Secretary of State, to the Prime Minister's residence and to Government House. It has been C.B.C. practice for some years to make sets available as a courtesy to these offices and individuals.
2.	See answer to 1.
3.	There have been changes in three positions to which colour sets were assigned. (1) One position has a new occupant who will use the set assigned to this position. The former occupant does not require a set in his present assignment. (2) One position has been abolished and the set is being held for reassignment when required. (3) One position is vacant and the set is being held for use by the next occupant.



DELAYS IN APPLICATIONS FOR TRADE MARKS

Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Is the trade marks branch of the Department of the Registrar General, owing to a shortage of staff, now several months behind in the examination of applications in reference to trade marks?
2.	Would the minister kindly investigate the situation, and what promise does he hold for applications being delayed presently or to be delayed in the future?


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of Ihe Administration):: 1. The normal processing time for the examination of trade mark applications based on proposed use of trade marks has not changed, but a slight delay has been encountered in the processing time of applications based on use of trade marks, due to a higher turnover recently in the examining staff. The production, of course, of the newly employed examiners, because of their lack of experience, cannot be as high as that of former employees.
2. Arrangements, however, have been made with a view to remedying the situation.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many community development officers and community development assistants have been appointed since the government announced its community development program?
2.	What are the names, academic qualifications and previous experience of each of the officers and assistants appointed?
Motions for Papers
3.	What were the dates of appointment of each of these community development officers and/or community development assistants?
4.	How many of the community development officers and community development assistants appointed since the start of the program are still working on Indian reserves?
5.	Of those who are no longer working for the department, what was the date of resignation or dismissal of each?
6.	Of those who resigned, what was the reason given for resignation?
7.	Of those who were dismissed, what were the reasons for dismissal?
8.	What was the total establishment for community development officers and assistants approved by the cabinet up to the fiscal year 1966-1967?
9.	How many of these positions are now filled, how many vacancies exist and how many of the personnel have been converted to non-community development work?
Return tabled.


CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Langlois (Meganlic): What is Canada's contribution to each international organization in which Canada is a member, for each of the last five years?
Return tabled.


ASSISTANCE TO SHEEP PRODUCTION
Mr. Kennedy: From its inception to the end of the year 1968, what was the amount of federal assistance, per year, paid to each province, or producers in each province, as assistance to sheep producers (a) through transportation assistance to sheep breeders (b) through premium on "A" and "B" graded lambs (c) deficiency payments on wool (d) any other assistance in respect to sheep production?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for papers No. 211 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers.
Notice of motion No. 213 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and to the authorization of the governmental authorities concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motion stand.

March 1, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
[English1



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING FORT NO. 1. LAUZON, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 211-Mr. Caouelie:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the city of Lauzon, the school board and any other body, Mr. Raynald Guay, M.P. (Levis), and all departments concerned with regard to Fort No. 1 in Lauzon.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 213-Mr. Herridge:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all communications exchanged between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the minister of recreation and conservation, or any officials of his department, of the province of British Columbia, with respect to the development of Duck lake as a waterfowl sanctuary.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The minister may want to revert to motions, but for the moment I recognize the hon. member for Oxford.']
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a bill has been introduced in the Quebec legislature to set up through legislative action what might be termed a department of external affairs empowered to deal with other countries. I ask the Prime Minister whether any consultation took place in this connection, and whether the government is of the same view as that expressed when the Lesage government was entering into treaties a couple of years ago. What is the government's attitude in this regard, and what does the government intend to do?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a copy of the bill in question, but when I do receive it I will study it with some interest. I do not think a copy of the bill has been received by any member of the government.
We have not been consulted as to its contents, but in view of the reports that have appeared in the press, which may or may not be accurate, based on the terms of the bill, I feel I should say that to the extent that such

a bill purports to set up the administrative machinery which the Quebec government feels it requires for the performance of the functions assigned to its competence, this is a matter for the Quebec government to decide and I have no comment to make.
Inasmuch as the new department being created is reportedly to be entrusted with responsibilities in the external field, such as relations between Quebec and foreign countries and the negotiation of agreements with those governments, I can say this. Our view of the constitutional position in Canada in respect of the federal government's exclusive responsibility for the conduct of the country's external affairs has been put clearly on record in the statement issued on April 23, 1965, by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and has been reiterated on other occasions in this house by myself and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There should be no doubt as to the position in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that the Quebec government entered into treaty arrangements? Did not the government of Canada-and as I recall it this was expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister-take the view that under the British North America Act there was no provision for exclusivity in so far as foreign affairs are concerned because at the time the British North America Act became the law of the United Kingdom and the constitution of Canada our foreign affairs were handled in the United Kingdom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has not stated the situation accurately in so far as the actions taken by the previous government of Quebec are concerned. Any agreements made by that government with other countries in respect of cultural and educational matters have been made under a master agreement entered into by the federal government with the countries in question.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Does this situation not again point up the desirability of setting up a parliamentary study of our constitution as quickly as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. It underlines the desirability of observing the existing constitution.
March 1, 1967


Maurice Allard: I wish to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it not true that the
Statute of Westminster rendered null and void section 132 of the constitution of Canada, which concerns the signing of treaties with foreign countries and that in view of the lapsing of this provision, the provinces have also international authority.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Sherbrooke will agree that his question is argumentative.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister has just stated that the present constitution must be respected, would he say whether this also applies to the federal government?
[English1



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas! Burnaby-Coquiilam): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to the speech made by the Minister of Industry to the Reform club of Montreal on Monday, February 27 in which he stated that wage parity with the United States was not realistic at the present time? Does this represent considered government policy and, if so, will this be applicable in respect of those industries where there is parity of productivity per man hour with the United States?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical and a very important question. So far as the first part is concerned, it is the government's feeling that it would be inadvisable to try to bring about general wage parity with the United States at this time. So far as the second part is concerned, I should like to look into the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister agree with the implications of the statement by the Minister of Industry to the effect that this pressure for parity of wages where parity of productivity is apparent is the result of international unions wishing to make Canadian production non-competitive with the United States?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is now asking for an expression of opinion, and the question to this extent is not acceptable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not asking the Prime Minister for an expression of opinion. I was asking him whether the Minister of Industry was expressing government policy.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a different question, and I find it difficult to reconcile the hon. member's explanation with the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be permitted to say that I am very interested in the hon. gentleman's acceptance of the principle that wages should be linked to productivity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Ontario.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I be allowed to rephrase
my supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has
recognized the hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the enunciation of the policy of wage parity in the automobile industry by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago, will he now indicate if it is government policy not to have price parity in respect of the automobiles being manufactured by these workers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not say that.


Michael Starr: Will the Prime Minister say whether it is the policy of the government that there should not be parity in respect of prices of automobiles manufactured by these workers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that as a result of action on the part of the government this industry is moving in that direction.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Have Professors Hawthorne and Tremblay reported to the government
13622	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry recommending that the Caughnawaga Indian reserve be leased to a trust company for development, and that the Iroquois people of Caughnawaga be moved elsewhere? If such a recommendation has been made will the minister reject it as preposterous, monstrous and completely contrary to our concept of human rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first part of this question should be placed on the order paper and the second is out of order.


Frank Howard: With all due respect I agree with the second part of your ruling, but this question involves a matter which is of immediate importance affecting the human rights of a number of Canadian citizens who are liable to be moved from their home lands. I think the minister should be given an opportunity to answer.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Does the hon. minister intend to grant the urgent request of the C.F.U., asking that the price of fluid milk be set at $5 per hundredweight.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, our dairy policy will be announced before the beginning of the dairy year.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister without Portfolio regarding a restricting order in relation to altitude and pressurization in respect of DC-6 and DC-7's as a result of the serious accident in the United States. The minister took the question as notice, but in view of the number of these aircraft being used in western Canada in regular passenger service I should like to ask him whether these planes will be permitted to fly only at the altitudes directed by the Department of Transport, which may cause serious discomfort to passengers, or have altitude

DEBATES	March 1, 1967
regulations been changed? I might say the minister was good enough to send me a partial answer this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister without Portfolio was about to answer my question, or at least that was my assumption.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I took it from your posture that you considered the question out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I may say that I do not consider the question out of order, but the hon. member himself indicated that he had already received at least a partial reply from the minister, so I took it that he would want to place his question on the order paper, or that he expects to receive the balance of the reply from the minister in due course.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I say to you with respect that I did not expect to place it on the order paper. I think it is urgent because, as I said, a number of these aircraft are being used, and if a restriction is placed in a certain regulation I should like to ask the minister whether the altitude at which the aircraft can fly and other regulations have also been altered so that people can travel in these aircraft without serious discomfort as a result of the restricting order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify th;s situation. Following the recent DC-6 incident in the United States and pending further investigation, the Department of Transport has issued, as a precautionary measure, an airworthiness directive restricting DC-6 and DC-7 aircraft registered in Canada to unpressurized operation. The department will be reviewing this situation; consequently I am unable at present to answer that part of the question just put to me.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the regrettable absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the action of the United States federal reserve board reducing the reserve requirements from
March 1, 1967	COMMONS
4 per cent to 3 per cent on savings deposits, will the government even at this late date take into consideration a reduction in the reserve requirements under the Bank Act amendments, which have now been reported back to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any truth to the report that the government intends to present an amendment to the Bank Act to reduce the shares which Citibank may own in the Mercantile Bank from 25 per cent to 10 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot ask for confirmation or denial of a report.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It has to do with the new documentation system which provides a record of the arrival of visitors and confirms their departure. I should like to ask the minister why this was brought into effect during Expo year, when we want to secure as many visitors as possible. The second part of my question is why this system is not made applicable to the United States, yet applies to the United Kingdom.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it was not decided to implement this policy because of Expo. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last spring when we decided to make special regulations concerning visitors to Canada who had no status it was mentioned in the house that in the future we would try to gather more information with regard to such visitors and exercise better control over them. We have enacted these regulations to prevent a recurrence of this situation. It is absolutely accidental that the regulations come into effect in the Expo year.
They will not apply to United States citizens and residents for two reasons. The first is that about 34 million or 35 million visitors from the United States come to Canada each
Inquiries of the Ministry year, and of course we cannot control such a large number, so that only United States citizens and residents will be exempted from this regulation. The other reason is that since the United States is so close, it is not too difficult to send back the unwanted visitors. However, when visitors from European countries or other more distant parts of the world come here and decide to stay in Canada, it is much more difficult to send them back. For this reason I think the difference in treatment is justified.


John George Diefenbaker: My question to the minister is whether the purpose of this regulation is to ensure that people shall not enter this country unlawfully. If so, would it not apply with greater force when 35 million visitors arrive here from one part of the world? Yet these visitors do not come within the ambit of the regulations, while those coming from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries find themselves discriminated against.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the regulation is to control visitors who come here on a visitor's visa and decide to stay. Most of them, or 99.9 per cent, come from countries other than the United States. We have no trouble with those who come from the United States and it is very easy to send them back home. Our main problem is with visitors who come here with the intention of staying. We want to be able to exert some control over them, and we do not wish the situation which existed in the past to be renewed in the future.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether those who come here from central Europe on a visitor's visa are now required to post a bond of $1,000?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this requirement applies only to those who we have reason to believe intend to stay here, not to all visitors who come from countries behind the iron curtain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that since we are running short on time we might go on to another subject.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister said a moment ago that these regulations apply only to those who the department has reason to believe will stay here. Since this matter affects the applicants
March 1, 1S67

Inquiries of the Ministry and members of parliament who intercede on their behalf, I think it is imperative that we should know how the government can recognize those who intend to stay here when they apply for visitors' visas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question of privilege, and the point made by the-'hon. member is argumentative.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a public statement yesterday the chief of defence staff, with the approval of the Minister of National Defence, stated that the defence white paper of 1964 proposed a transformation in the role that Canada wishes to play in international affairs.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman, as an experienced member of the house, knows perfectly well that it is not within the rules of the house for any hon. member to ask a question in respect of evidence given before a committee which is sitting while the house itself is in session. That is the rule of the house, and no one should be expected to observe it more closely than the hon. gentleman himself.


Michael Starr: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs brought this up himself may I say that when he was in the opposition he did more to evade the rules of this house than anyone else.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member wishes my discarded opinions he may have them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in agreement with the point made by the minister in so far as the rules are concerned. Perhaps if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is seeking information, which should be the purpose of asking questions, he might rephrase' his question in such a way as to elicit information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to infringe on the rules, but this was a public


statement made at a public meeting. However, I will pay attention to the susceptibilities of the minister and will rephrase my question.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will have to apologize.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was there a proposal contained in the defence white paper of 1964 that there would be a transformation in the role of Canada in foreign affairs, and that that transformation now requires the destruction of the identity of the navy, army and air force and the formation of a single service with a common rank structure and a common uniform?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the white paper was brilliantly conceived and has been brilliantly executed.


John George Diefenbaker: It has certainly been executed.


Mr. Fairweather:: With apologies from those hanged.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister supported the white paper in a public address made in September 1964. May I ask the following question. When he suggested that one of the proposals made in the white paper would be the formation of a small, highly trained force for effective deployment in peace keeping operations under the United Nations and for other purposes, was it his intention to provide intervention by force of arms in some trouble spot in the world?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is speechless.


NATO-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN CANADIAN MILITARY CONTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I can address, I think, either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence, because it refers to the responsibilities of both. In the light of the hopes expressed in the recent United Kingdom white paper on defence estimates that by the end of June, 1967 there will be discussions and revisions of NATO commitments which will produce an agreement on the size and composition of forces and the military roles of the various partners, has the government made any proposals to the other governments with regard to the size, composition or military role of the Canadian contribution to NATO forces in the future?
March 1, 1967


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member should agree that this question is much too large in context for a question on orders of the day.


An hon. Member:: The question is too large for the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has a prepared statement in answer to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may want to revert to motions, but for the moment I recognize the hon. member for Oxford.



SUGGESTED JOINT MEETING OF DEFENCE AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The question is on the main motion.\nMotion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.\nRoyal Assent']
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the observations made by General Allard before the defence committee yesterday, which observations involve the foreign policy of the country, would the minister recommend to his colleagues in cabinet that in the immediate future the defence committee be joined by the house committee on external affairs in a joint meeting to study the armed services unification bill?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago I addressed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning a joint meeting of the defence and external affairs committees. I believe, Your Honour, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was just extricating himself from his seat when Your Honour gave the floor to another member. I was wondering if the minister might have a chance to reply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the running interference immediately opposite I would have been able to deal with the question right away. The external affairs committee may meet at any time, and I think this type of question could be dealt with in that committee. However, I see no reason for the suggestion made by my hon. friend.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. In the unavoidable absence of the member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, who I understand is of Welsh ancestry, may I take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the house the importance of March 1, the day when Welshmen and those of Welsh ancestry honour their patron saint, St. David. The contribution of the Welsh people is well known, especially in the field of arts and music. So may I say to those lovers of the land of the leek, "I echyd da".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has anything to report on his negotiations with regard to the surcharges on freight entering the port of Vancouver proposed by the shipping conferences of Japan and San Francisco, which surcharges were to become effective today?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): In the case of San Francisco I understand that the surcharges will not apply. The proposed arrangement has been cancelled. The same applies for Hong Kong. In so far as Tokyo is concerned, the date of application has been deferred until March 17 and we are hopeful it too will be cancelled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since the date of March 17 has been mentioned will the minister give it the "good old Irish" in his negotiation, to assure the outcome?


Mr. Winters:: One way or the other.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. In view of the great decrease in car sales in Canada and the large number of

March 1, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry unemployed people in industry, as well as the minister's statement that the prices of Canadian cars would be reduced, can the minister assure the house that he has made firm requests to the car manufacturers that prices be reduced?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think the car manufacturers are as conscious as anyone else of the desirability of reducing the sale price of cars to the lowest level possible with a view to stimulating sales.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Can the minister assure the house that it was part of the agreement that prices would be reduced?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which agreement the hon. member is referring. It is quite clearly understood by the motor car manufacturers that one of the principal objects of the automobile agreement and its concomitant arrangements is lower manufacturing costs and consequently lower manufacturers' sale prices of automobiles in Canada.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, and I wish to put it in the form of a plea on behalf of those who are continually being laid off as a result of the auto pact signed with the United States. In view of the announcement yesterday that 300 more workers are being laid off by General Motors, 250 in Oshawa, 20 in Ste. Therese, 10 in Windsor and 20 in London, will he not agree now, in the interests of all of these people, to bring the auto pact before a standing committee of the house so we can find out why these people are being laid off and perhaps stop these lay-offs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman quite unfairly and misleadingly, though he may not mean to be misleading, attributes all these lay-offs to the automotive agreement, and that is not the fact.


Michael Starr: Let us find out the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend says "Let us find out the facts". He has already made up his mind. He says these lay-offs are due to this pact, so what more does he hope to find?


Michael Starr: Then prove you are right.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Will he explain to the house
[Mr. Hales.1
that part of his answer which he implies is not the fault of the auto pact?


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I
ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister inform the house how many of the models previously produced in Canada are now produced in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for statistical information.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the Minister of Industry is anxious to answer questions. In view of the fact that this agreement was to bring about cheaper cars for Canadians, how does he explain the fact that motor cars manufactured in Canada are sold in the United States at prices competitive with the lower United States prices? Why do you not give the same right to Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State related to the question she answered about television sets. Could the minister tell us whether television sets were supplied by the C.B.C. to the secretary of state and the prime minister of the previous government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that this question is in order.


IMMIGRATION
Jean Marchand: the third reading of Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reiterate too much of what was said at earlier stages of the present bill. However, we cannot let the bill receive third reading without again expressing our protest against some of the thoroughly undesirable features which the minister insisted on retaining.
March 1, 19B7	COMMONS
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure all of us on this side of the house were grateful to the minister for accepting a number of suggestions and implementing them in amendments.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
One of the suggestions which he accepted and in respect of which he introduced an amendment was to broaden the area in which sponsors could launch an appeal to the appeal board. You will perhaps recall, Mr. Speaker, that the original proposal in the bill would have limited the right of appeal to citizens of Canada. After a great deal of discussion on the floor of this chamber the minister accepted suggestions from this side and came back with an amendment which changed the word "citizen" to "person". So that as far as the general right of appeal contained in the first sentence of clause 17 is concerned, any sponsor, citizen or non-citizen, it would seem from the wording, would be able to appeal to the immigration appeal board in accordance with the provisions of the bill and the regulations which are to follow its passage.
Having done that, Mr. Speaker, the minister then turned around and took to the governor in council the power to limit the area in which that right may be exercised. He took to the governor in council the power by regulation, as I understand the amendment that the minister brought in, to state which classes of sponsor may use the right of appeal. In answer to an interjection of mine at one point to the effect that it seemed to me that he intended by regulation to limit the right of appeal to citizens and to exclude non-citizens, the minister stated, if I remember his words correctly, "It may be". So it seems that that is the intention of the minister and his department.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, having used language in the first sentence to extend the right of appeal to all sponsors, the minister then takes upon himself or upon the government the authority to limit the class of sponsor that may appeal. He also gives to the governor in council the authority to state in respect of which classes of proposed immigrants such an appeal may be made. In other words, clause 17 as now worded in the amended bill gives a general right to all sponsors to appeal if they feel aggrieved, and it reserves to the government the right by regulation to limit the area within which that appeal may be exercised.
I do not think I use language too strong, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I find that an odious provision. I find it odious for several
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board reasons of principle. First, it seems to me axiomatic that if you give a right of appeal to a class of person, every member of that class ought to have the opportunity of exercising it if he so wishes. Any proposition whereby parliament lays down a general rule giving everyone in a certain class a right of appeal and then gives to the government the authority to say which persons within that class can exercise that right of appeal is completely unacceptable and thoroughly reprehensible. If parliament does recognize that people have the right of appeal to the immigration appeal board, then parliament should be the one to decide which groups of people within that class may or may not appeal. That decision should not be left to the governor in council.
Second, it seems to me that this will lead to the exercise of a kind of arbitrary, bureaucratic discrimination, and this also is unacceptable. What will be the criterion used to decide which class of sponsors may use the right of appeal and which may not, or to decide in respect to which class of relative the right may be used? This decision will be made by the minister and his advisers. They will decide to start at a certain point, and I expect that at the beginning this right will be limited to citizens only. It will be limited to the closest of relatives, perhaps mothers and fathers, and all others will be excluded.
In these matters, Mr. Speaker, you cannot make decisions arbitrarily. I say that to the minister with the utmost respect to him. You may easily have a case whose elements and characteristics are a great deal more urgent but which falls into the group that is excluded rather than the group that is included. It may be more important, though from the humanitarian point of view more heartbreaking, to keep out someone who is a little more distant than a mother in certain cases than to keep out someone who is a mother. The circumstances of each case are separate and distinct and have to be dealt with on their merits in each particular case. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the arbitrary decision which is going to be made under the proposed clause 17 of the present bill is unacceptable.
Third, Mr. Speaker, the bill is unacceptable to me because the whole purpose of the immigration appeal tribunal seems to be vitiated by this power which is reserved unto the government. I understood that the purpose of the bill was this. Under the present act you have to go through the procedure of making application to the officers of the department, then to an inquiry officer, then to an appeal
13628	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board board, and then beyond the appeal board to the minister. It is that situation which the minister sought to correct, if I understand aright. In effect, what the minister said to parliament-and I commend him for it-was that he wanted to place appeals on such matters in the hands of a tribunal which will have the final decision; the decision should not be shunted from the appeal tribunal back to him to have the final word on the matter.
It seems to me that by reserving to the government the right to limit the classes of people who may appeal, or on whose behalf an appeal may be launched, the minister is preserving precisely what he sought to get rid of. The old procedure will still be there. It will be possible to go through the officers of the department and up to the minister for a decision. The old appeal board, of course, will not be in existence, so that in cases where the present appeal procedure is excluded the appellants concerned will have fewer avenues of approach than they had before. They will be able to go through officialdom to the minister only without any appeal tribunal being available to them.
What is the purpose of this? As I understood the minister, he said that we have to do this in order to find out how the new appeal procedure will work and whether it will work happily. As I asked the other day, Mr. Speaker, work happily for whom? The minister is concerned about the number of appeals. He came to the committee and the committee agreed unanimously that he should have the authority to appoint up to nine members to the appeal board instead of only seven. We have agreed to the provision in the bill that one member of the board is sufficient to hear the evidence, even though a panel of members of the board will have to make the decision in the matter.
I should like to repeat what I said to the minister at an earlier stage, that we ought to give everybody who so wishes the opportunity to use the right of appeal which is provided for in clause 17. If at a later date the minister finds from experience that his policy is not working, that some harm is being done, that something untoward is occurring, then he can come back to parliament with a new plan.
I would hope that that plan would be one to increase the number of people who sit on the appeal board, perhaps to establish a number of panels at points across Canada to deal with appeals instead of merely having the one board with panels travelling across the country.

DEBATES	March 1. 1967
I submit that the minister should not at this point start by introducing what I can only describe as the deliberate creation of a delusion in the minds and hearts of the people affected that they have a right of appeal, only to find that the governor in council will tell them that they do not have that right as a result of an arbitrary decision having been made which is entirely unrelated to the particular circumstances and merits of the case. This we cannot accept, Mr. Speaker. Neither can we agree to third reading of this bill so long as this undemocratic, undesirable and reprehensible reservation of power to the government is retained in clause 17 of the bill. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
That Bill C-220 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 17 thereof.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall not go over everything that was said on second reading in committee of the whole. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) did not bring up any new arguments. It was more of the same. All I can do, obviously, is to repeat what I have already said.
There is only one point I should like to stress. I can only agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for York South when he deals with the merits of the case. We have asked, or rather, I have asked that this section might be applied progressively by order in council for a very good reason: a new right is being granted Canadian citizens, Canadian residents. As I have said, we are trying out something new. What will be its impact? Will the Appeal Board, as we are setting it up, as we see it, really suffice to take this into account? Perhaps it will be necessary to change it. Then, if such a move is imperative, it will have to be made. Therefore, all I asked and all we ask, is a chance to conduct experiment and to extend it progressively until everybody is on the same footing.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be sensible to give certain classes of citizens in Canada certain rights which would be denied to others.
Canada is the first country, as far as I know, to give a right to sponsor, a legal right, a right with a right of appeal to a court, and what we are asking the house is merely an
March 1, 1967	COMMONS
opportunity to experiment in order to ascertain exactly what impact this may have on our policy.
The board itself will have much to learn in this respect. I feel it is only reasonable that the house let us make this experiment in a broad-minded way, contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. member for York South. We want the governor in council to extend this right to a maximum. Therefore, we are not providing restrictions to this right.
I suggest that this right can and should be granted to everyone, and we should not use the word "limit". Why should this right appear in the bill, if we do not want to grant it? No one forced us to do so. We felt that it was-and we realize that it must eventually be considered,-a matter of right and we simply ask to proceed step by step in order to find out whether the proposed structure is really the right one. If we have to change it, if we discover that we are swamped because of the inadequacy of our structures, the process will be temporarily halted, so as to enable the house to change the structure, the sponsoring, the right of a sponsor to appeal, to make adjustments concerning the board. That is the only purpose.
When the member for York South deals with merit, I shall not answer him, because I agree with him. There is only one point-he used what may not be called a misleading argument, but could become one-which is that we never suggested in the house that there would be distinctions within a given class. Should we state that Canadian citizens are entitled to sponsor, then it would mean that all Canadian citizens are entitled to do so; if we were to say, at a given time, that landed immigrants are entitled to sponsor, then we would be extending this right to all landed immigrants, and the governor in council must in no way discriminate between Canadians and immigrants. Therefore, we have no intention of discriminating, or using discretionary powers; all we want, and this seems quite reasonable to me, is the opportunity to experiment something new, which was never tested before in any country, and of embarking ourselves in a venture which is at present unknown to us. That was the spirit in which it was submitted, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I believe, with great respect, that the minister has missed the whole point of the amendment. I will not argue again the case put
23033-862J
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board forward in committee when the minister moved certain amendments to clause 17. Immediately thereafter what he had given with one hand he took away with the other. In response to criticisms from this side he presented amendments which I styled sophistical. I still think they were sophistical. The ministers' amendments extended the category of appellant from a Canadian citizen to any person, including a landed immigrant. Then he took the power away. Behind the closed doors of the cabinet chamber he has the right to say that it shall be only a Canadian citizen or some class of Canadian citizen who may appeal. The minister retained the power to determine what classes of relatives shall be included. As I say, he gave with one hand and took away with the other.
I do not doubt the minister's personal sincerity, but he will not be minister very long. He will not retain his present portfolio for long because I do not think anybody could take on his leadership responsibilities in Quebec and retain the responsibilities of the portfolio of manpower and immigration. Frankly, I think to do both things is impossible. The minister will have to leave a portfolio as heavy as that of manpower and immigration. That portfolio is no part time job.
For these reasons he may not be the minister for much longer. We do not know who may be the new minister, who will be the person with the right at any time to present a recommendation to the cabinet to close the door on the class of persons who may appeal. We do not know who may close the door on classes of relatives. It is not good enough to give power to the governor in council sitting behind closed doors to reduce this clause to a total nullity, because that is what is happening.
Even at this late date I suggest that the minister should reconsider the position of the government. He should adopt the reasonable position suggested to him by members on this side during debate in committee of the whole house. In many particulars the minister showed considerable flexibility as the bill went through committee. As the bill stands at third reading it has been greatly improved over the bill which received second reading. On few occasions have I seen as many useful amendments adopted in the committee of the whole house. The bill has been improved and would be improved more if the minister allowed it to go back to the committee of the whole as proposed by this amendment, and if he gave effect to the representations which I had the privilege of making in committee.
13630	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board Those representations were made by other members also. If the minister did that we should pass a bill of which he would be proud.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I waited during the remarks of my colleague from York South and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) to see what some hon. members on the other side of the house who were so vocal in the special committee dealing with the white paper and in their espousals of a fair system of immigration would say. I have waited to see whether hon. members like the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) and the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) would rise to protest even midly a provision in this bill which is to my mind contrary to the whole spirit of the immigration policy we have ostensibly espoused.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Amid great fanfare the government came to parliament with a white paper on immigration and this bill and announced that for the first time in Canada it was intended to eliminate the practices of the past whereby people from some countries were considered to be better than people from other countries, practices which gave citizens of Britain, France and other northern countries every opportunity to enter while making it much more difficult for prospective immigrants from countries farther south to do so. Government spokesmen said that additional provisions would be made. Educational qualifications and qualifications based on skills would be introduced but they would be the same for everybody. I believe I am right in saying there was almost unanimous agreement both in the house and in the country that this attitude was the correct one to take.
But lo and behold, here we have a clause which leads one to the conclusion that the statements made on behalf of the government did not really mean very much. The minister is proposing here that the government shall have the power to restrict the rights of certain people compared with other people. He says this provision is experimental and that as time goes by it will be made more liberal. If I could be sure that the present minister, for whom I have considerable regard, would stay in his job longer than past ministers of immigration have done, I might not be so worried about this clause as I am. But we have no assurance that this minister will be

DEBATES	March 1, 1967
on the job for very long. Nor have we any assurance that a future minister either in this or in some other government might not wish to use the power provided in this clause to impose a restrictionist policy as followed in the past. There would be nothing to prevent another minister getting an order in council passed to the effect that all non-white people who have the right to sponsor relatives shall not enjoy the right to appeal when the department says that the applicant sponsored may not enter this country. Or the minister could secure an order in council to the effect that no Italian who is sponsoring the entry of a relative into Canada should have the right to appeal an adverse ruling of the department.
This is wrong in principle. I am not saying the minister would propose anything of this kind. But having adopted a principle that there shall be no discrimination on the ground of race, colour, religion or nationality in respect of immigration, and having set up an appeal board so that a sponsor can appeal against a decision reached by the department, it seems to me completely wrong that the minister should be able to say by order in council at some future time that certain people who have the right to sponsor immigrants shall no longer have the right to appeal when the decision is one with which the department does not agree. This cannot be justified.
The minister says this is a temporary thing. But the provision in the bill is not temporary. It is not stated that the right of the minister to obtain an order in council shall exist for two, three or five years while the government considers how the system is working. For as long as the bill is in force the governor in council will have the right to decide what classes of people shall have the right to appeal. This kind of provision ought not to be approved and the minister should agree to remove this clause from the bill. As 1 say, I am surprised we have not heard from members on the government side who disagreed with such a provision in the committee. We have not heard any objection from them.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues I am somewhat reluctant to extend the debate, but things have been repeated which I think call for the repetition of certain arguments that are not in agreement with those advanced a while ago.
So, we have before us an amendment moved by one of our colleagues of the New
March 1, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13631
Democratic Party, who proposes that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred to a committee of the house with spceific instructions to reconsider clause 17.
The argumentation of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and some other colleagues is that the bill does not entitle everybody to equal treatment as regards the right of appeal in immigration matters.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I listened to the minister's explanations and I thought I could detect in them what I would call a conciliatory attitude which at times bordered on the desire to apologize. Mr. Speaker, I feel that there is no need for apologies. Some principles have apparently been forgotten and the fact is that, first of all, the right to immigration is a privilege that no country has to grant to anyone.
If I decide to bring a child into my home and adopt it, that child has no right to force anything on me; in short, no one can force anything on me unless freak accidents happened on the way, which is not the case in immigration.
I believe that an immigrant who wishes to settle in Canada is unable to assert his claim to remain in the country if the government feels there are some objections. It is not impossible for the government to have some information causing it to refuse the right of citizenship to an immigrant, perhaps not necessarily because of his shortcomings or weaknesses, but on account of incidents which, without involving him personally, make him all the same a risk for the security of the country. That is why I say that the government should retain such powers of authority.
I fail to understand why some relentlessly object to the government exercising the authority conferred legally upon it by our constitution. It has been said on several occasions: We have a lot of confidence in the present minister, but he will not be there forever and we do not know who will be there at a later time.
Mr. Speaker, I should not be concerned if the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) or any of his colleagues, except one or two I will abstain from specifying in a spirit of Christian charity, or even the hon. member for York South, were to be appointed Minister of Immigration. I should not be concerned, I say, to allow them discretionary powers in cases
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board that must precisely be handled with discretion and settled expeditiously, because if settlement of these cases were to be delayed by unending procedures, the security of Canada would be endangered for all kinds of reasons.
Mr. Speaker, I think that power of discretion must be left with the government in some instances. Besides-and now I am almost tempted to be mean-I would say to our friends of the New Democratic Party that they are casting stones while living in a glass house, since not later than today the Ottawa Citizen reports that two young men, who were members of the New Democratic Party, for reasons which seem to me quite insignificant, have lost their membership cards and find it difficult to get them back. I notice also that a representative of the New Democratic Party stated this:

"We don't like giving reasons for why we would refuse membership." Mr. Harney continued. "We don't like leaving ourselves open for libel suits."

If this is true for the New Democratic Party, it could be true, all the more, for the government, whichever it is-today it is a Liberal government, maybe some day it will be an N.D.P. or a Conservative government. But I think that the principle remains the same. We must preserve in our country the principle of authority, and establish an arbitration principle among authorized representatives. The Canadian people want to be protected against what I could call the use of force, even against individuals who can, through all kinds of resources and assistance from learned legal advisers, drag out procedures with the risk of seeing those undesirable people stay here longer than necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I confess that such obstinacy in always doubting the objectivity and the professional ethics, the concern for the common good of the responsible members of government, surprises me greatly. To me, it is a kind of moral revolution which tends, in the long run, to undermine the confidence of the Canadian people in their administrators.
What is the reason for that obstinacy in suggesting that there might be something more "arbitrary" in the decision of one minister or even two ministers who base their decision on reports which have been prepared by serious people, from various sources and various bodies. I cannot believe that any minister, whoever he is, to whatever party he
13632	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board belongs, can be influenced by personal reasons and refuse to a person of good will, who would be an asset to this nation, the right to citizenship.
Even if it were just a doubt that cannot be disproved by unquestionable facts, I think the government should give the benefit of the doubt to the Canadian nation rather than to the immigrant who wants to come and live in our country.
I think the door to our country has been opened wider to immigrants. I believe that, as a rule there is no limitation for any group of people, except in very special cases. I think it would be unwise to go further than that for the time being or, at least, until the present legislation has been tried.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am looking at the situation as objectively as possible. I do not believe I am prejudiced against anyone in this house, and it sometimes happens-I said it the other day-if things come to the worst, that I correct the views expressed by some members of the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservative party. I do not worry at all about saying frankly, in public, that the more I listen to their arguments concerning this matter of granting to the immigrants the open door treatment, the more I find they are adopting a disturbing position and the more disquieting their arguments are, because they are in danger of damaging in the public mind the trust that should be placed in the administrators of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is not right to attack the authorities on the basis of possible discrimination. In my opinion, this amendment should be rejected and the motion for third reading of Bill No. C-220 should be passed without further delay, thus putting this legislation to the test for the next 12 months. I am sure that if discrimination exists, we will hear about it during the next 12 months, for I know we have watch-dogs of democratic rights who will surely bring the matter to our attention. I hope I am not offending anyone by using the term "watch-dogs", because this word is to be found in the Scriptures referring to silent dogs, blaming silent dogs. I am sure there will not be any silent dogs here if ever a government abused its powers in this field; hon. members will not hesitate to bring up this matter in the house, thus enabling parliament to reconsider and amend the legislation in the light of new developments.

DEBATES	March 1, 1967


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say a few words at this point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) made a certain statement about members on this side not speaking. I am going to speak on the subject but first I would like to correct the impression being created by hon. members on the other side of the house that it is only they who are taking a stand with respect to the proposed immigration appeal board.
Since first being elected to the house some four and a half to five years ago the committee on immigration on which I have served has been united and of one mind so far as immigration is concerned. Politics has played absolutely no part in its proceedings. But here in the House of Commons hon. members on the opposite side, including our good friend from Carleton, have hardly ever opened their mouths on the subject of the white paper simply because it was the Liberal members who were taking up all the time in presenting ideas to improve the white paper.
I notice that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is now doing quite a bit of talking on the subject. I think it would be very nice if the New Democratic Party would let some of its members who served on the committee carry the ball. Do those members not have the ability to carry the ball or do they intend to rely on the person who is supposed to take over the leadership of that party from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas)? Is this the only way that the hon. member for York South can gain recognition in the House of Commons?
Hon. members opposite must acknowledge that there has never been a minister in charge of any bill who has co-operated more fully than the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) in devising a new policy, a new idea, and a white paper such as the Conservative and other previous governments never even thought of bringing into being.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: When I finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with something new, new thoughts and new ideas introduced by the minister, his department and the committee of the house. I have to agree that from the moral aspect there is a point to the
March 1, 1967	COMMONS
amendment; there is certainly good in it. I am not arguing against that.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The present minister is a very hard worker and I am sure there will be radical changes in the white paper. He is a man who has stood on his feet before and I am sure will stand on his feet again in opposition to anyone who opposes necessary changes. This man has spoken until three o'clock in the morning about what the government intends to do to improve this legislation. Let me appeal to hon. members opposite to give him a chance to see what he and his department can do. If they do not propose beneficial changes and I am in the house I will vote in opposition to the government for an amendment of the type suggested. Again I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to work with this man who is trying to work with them.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member who has just concluded whether he is aware of the fact that the bill now under discussion was not referred to the committee on immigration which discussed the white paper on immigration?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that fact.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks made in the house this afternoon on third reading of Bill C-220, I feel compelled to make some observations. I do not intend to prolong the debate because I know the government and the minister want the bill passed, but I should like to state, especially to those hon. members who have made remarks concerning me, that they should read my speech made in this chamber last Monday. At that time I tried to direct the attention of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) to the representations which have been made, not only to me but also to other members of the house, to the effect that many Canadian citizens believe the present classes of relatives who can be sponsored for admission to Canada are restrictive.
I paid a tribute to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration last Monday and the week before when speaking on this bill. He is making history in this country as a result of bringing in the white paper on immigration and Bill C-220.
I appreciate the views of hon. members opposite and I share with them their concern
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board that, althought it is entirely possible to eliminate irrational forms of discrimination from Canadian legislation, as the white paper proposes to do, certain legislation we now have makes it possible to discriminate by setting certain criteria or standards which erect barriers to admission to Canada. What I should like the minister to do this afternoon is tell hon. members again how we as members of parliament can explain the last three lines of clause 17 of Bill C-220 to assure our constituents and those Canadian citizens who make representations to us that they will not be discriminated against if they desire to bring to Canada relatives who are inadmissible according to the white paper which limits admissible relatives to unmarried nieces and nephews under age 21.
Many Canadian citizens wish to bring their next of kin to Canada. They may have no brothers, sisters, nieces or nephews alive in the old country. They may want to bring their first, second, third or fourth cousins here. These Canadian citizens should have the right to do so. If the regulations are interpreted in such a way that they are prevented from doing so, they should have the right to appeal and explain the circumstances to the appeal board. If that board turns them down, they should have recourse to the minister. At this time the minister should again explain to us how we can handle complaints from our constituents in respect of the problems I have just raised.
Let me join with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) who is a very faithful member of the special joint committee on immigration with very strong views in respect of justice as it should be dispensed in matters of immigration. I should like to see this bill passed in order that its benefits will become available to Canadian citizens and the country as a whole. I realize that the minister is sincere in his approach and will find some way out of this dilemma. Let me say also that as a member of the committee on immigration, like the hon. member for Norfolk, I will see to it that the recommendations we bring in dealing with classes of relatives who may be sponsored will be wide enough to satisfy the representations of our constituents.
Again let me emphasize the necessity to widen the classes of relatives who can be sponsored. The people of Canada desire this change. We are here to legislate for the people rather than for certain theoreticians. In closing my remarks let me say I consider it my duty, when we bring in our recommendations in respect of the white paper and have

March 1. 1967
Division
an opportunity to discuss the government's bill, to do my best to see that any discrimination which may exist in Bill C-220 is eliminated.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel compelled in any way to take part in this debate but I wish to say a few words in connection with the apprehensions expressed about the last three lines of clause 17. There seems to be a general impression that this appeal board will be the panacea to all our problems. That is not the case. There also seems to be an impression that immigration matters should be removed from federal government responsibility. I am sure the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) would be the first to object if he could not pin down someone in this house in connection with immigration problems.
With the establishment of the appeal board we will establish two classes of appellants and two classes of relatives. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said that in a court such as this, and it will be a court, great emphasis will be put on precedents. Obviously smart, good lawyers, and therefore expensive ones, will do a better job than mediocre lawyers, so that before we know it we will have a class of immigration lawyers who will charge big fees. If such is the case then automatically we will have two classes of applicants.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On the other hand, I cannot accept the minister's point of view which he expressed in the words "we will try it and see". I cannot accept legislation based on trial and error. I am sure the minister did not mean that, because any legislation which we pass in the house is enforceable and should mean exactly what it says. We should not take the attitude that we will see what happens and if it does not work out we will do something else. I am sure the minister did not mean that.
I have no objection to retaining the last three lines of clause 17 because it will give me and other members of the house an opportunity to question the minister from day to day, whereas if these lines were not included the minister could say, as we have been told in the case of the C.B.C., "It is out of my hands. It is in the hands of the appeal board." On the other hand, I do not think that these three lines will provide the solution which some members in the house feel they may.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the hon. member?
(Mr. Haidasz.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister will require the unanimous consent of the house to speak now. Is there unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Richard Albert Bell: If the minister speaks again some of us may wish to say another word.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in the affirmative.


Mr. Rynard:: I was paired with the hon. member for Renfrew. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, 1 was paired with the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was paired, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Haidasz: I was paired with the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu).


Mr. Macaluso:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Munro:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Skoreyko:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I was paired.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in the committee stage and at second reading various spokesmen from our party, myself included, stated objections to clause 21 and proposed amendments which were not accepted. Because important and fundamental principles are at stake I propose to move an amendment dealing with clause 21.1 shall not repeat in detail the arguments made in committee.
The bill as a whole, especially with the amendments moved in committee, in my view is excellent. The minister and his department deserve considerable credit for it. The bill provides for an appeal from orders for deportation to an independent tribunal.
Unfortunately clause 21 creates a grave and gaping hole in this admirable principle. In effect the clause says that in security cases the matter may be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the appeal tribunal and the appeal in those cases is rendered useless or inoperative. It is precisely in these types of so-called security cases that the right to a fair hearing and a real appeal is important. It is because of alleged or real security reports that many immigrants have been rejected without any possibility of proving that objections to them are based on mistakes of identity or on misapprehensions of the significance of political activities contained in police reports.
It is a fundamental human right to which the house has solemnly subscribed in the Bill of Rights that when a person's rights or future are being dealt with he shall be given a fair opportunity to meet the case against him. Such a person must know the outline at least of the case against him and the objections he has to meet. There are reasons, of course, why security reports from confidential sources cannot be made public or even disclosed in full at the hearing. But that is no reason for denying a fair hearing and denying a meaningful right of appeal in security cases. It is perfectly possible to maintain the right of appeal and yet to pay attention to the need of guarding security sources.
I proposed an amendment in committee which would have achieved the end I have just outlined. The amendment would have
13636	COMMONS DEBATES	March 1. 1967
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board given authority in security cases for the board to hold its appeal hearings in camera and to exclude the accused and his counsel when evidence of a security nature was being given. It would have required the Department of Manpower and Immigration, on the order only of the appeal board, to give particulars of the objections to admission.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is no point in beating our breasts about human rights in theory and then denying them in practice. Reasons of security of state are always used in an effort to excuse breaches or denials of rights acknowledged in theory. Admittedly there may be occasions when genuine reasons of state may require the suspension of normal rights, but this is not such an occasion. Security in wartime even in regard to internment did not require the total denial to those interned of any reason for their internment. In this instance security does not require that the beneficial right of appeal conferred by this bill should effectively be denied.
Fundamental rights are not for the majority alone. They are not for the popular. They are not for the accepted. Fundamental rights are for minorities, for unpopular minorities. They are for harried, would-be immigrants who are seeking admission to this country. It is important in the interests of Canada, not just of the immigrants, that our immigration procedures should be fair and in accordance with the best of our traditions.
This bill is a significant advance in the fair treatment of immigrants and sponsors of would-be immigrants. It is too bad that in the interest of security there should be a blot place upon what is otherwise good legislation in the very field where the rights conferred by this measure are most urgently needed. I have heard the explanation given by the minister in committee. He argued that there is no half way house, that there must either be a full hearing with evidence or there can be no appeal at all of any value. I said then that I believed him to be wrong and I repeat that he is totally wrong. Practice has shown that there is a half way house where the interests of security can be balanced against a desire to be fair to those concerned. For this reason I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill No. C-220 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 21 thereof.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, we made it quite clear in committee of the whole that we were not satisfied with clause 21 as it now stands. The view which we take, and it was supported by an amendment moved a week ago today-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to question whether the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood is in order. We have already had a decision of the house not to refer this bill back to committee. That amendment was that the bill be not read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for reconsideration of clause 17.
May I refer Your Honour to citation 415 of Beauchesne where it is stated:
(2) Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case the whole bill is opened to reconsideration-
I suggest that if the bill had been referred back to the committee for the purpose of reconsidering clause 17 and we had then progressed to third reading it would be in order to move another motion to recommit the bill in line with this citation. It could be recommitted then for the reconsideration of another clause. But since it is stated that the whole bill is opened for consideration and since the house has in fact rejected an amendment for recommittal only a few minutes ago, I suggest that the present amendment is not in order inasmuch as the house has already reached a decision on an amendment which is essentially the same as the one before us except that the one before us refers to clause 21 and the former amendment referred to clause 17.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the answer to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Medicine Hat is contained in the very citation from which he read. Citation 415 (2) refers to recommittal without limitation. Neither the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South nor the amendment now moved by the hon. member for Greenwood is a motion without limitation. In each case it is a motion for referral back for the purpose of considering one specific clause.
There are many examples of bills recommitted over and over again. My recollection tells me that in 1956 this happened repeatedly. I have had occasion to look up this point and see what happened during some of the early years of the history of the House of
March 1. 1987	COMMONS
Commons. In the latter decades of the last century there were bills which on third reading were referred back to committee as many as 50 or 60 times. I am not suggesting we shall be doing that today but I am saying it is completely in order to do so. The house did not reject the idea of recommitting the bill. It rejected the amendment to recommit it for the reconsideration of clause 17. This amendment is an entirely different proposition and I maintain it is in order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Medicine Hat failed to read the whole of citation 415, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In the second paragraph it is stated that a bill may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation and that in the latter case the whole bill is opened to reconsideration. But in the former case it says that the committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them. If the first amendment had carried the committee of the whole could have considered clause 17 and the instructions given by the house with Mr. Speaker in the chair.
If one pursued the argument advanced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat to its logical conclusion one could secure a recommittal on a very minor point where both sides of the house were really in agreement, but in order to bar consideration completely one could seek referral back on a point which would have no hope of carrying and then all the more important and contentious points would be effectively barred. The amendment may be unacceptable to Your Honour but certainly not, I would suggest, on the ground advanced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their expression of views in connection with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I am sure the hon. member has had an opportunity to reconsider the matter and with his usual sound judgment on procedural matters has convinced himself he was wrong in the first instance. I am certain that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Edmonton West is the correct one and that the question now proposed to the house is entirely different from the one proposed in connection with the amendment which was defeated earlier this afternoon. Therefore I cannot accept the point of order raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, when the point of order was raised I was indicating that we in this party were very far from satisfied with the existing provisions of clause 21. Our dissatisfaction was clearly indicated a week ago today when we proposed an amendment to it. The amendment we proposed was directly in line with the recommendations made by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., to the effect that the validity of security or criminal intelligence reports should be determined not by the certificate of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) but by the board itself, that they should be laid before the board but that before the board they should, however, be kept secret, although the appellant should be made aware of the fact that it is a security or criminal intelligence matter which is being raised against him.
In those circumstances, at least knowing the nature of the case he has to meet, the appellant would be able to bring evidence that might establish to the board that the evidence presented by the minister was not sufficient to constitute the appellant a security risk or to demonstrate that he had not the criminal record which was indicated. That amendment, which was in line with Mr. Joseph Sedgwick's proposals, was voted down by the committee of the whole.
Subsequently the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) presented an amendment which in my view was totally unacceptable. With the objective he had in mind of democratization of the procedures in relation to this matter I have the most complete sympathy, but the procedures and techniques the hon. gentleman proposed in committee of the whole were ones which would not achieve the purposes he had in mind. I can only assume, unless the hon. gentleman is prepared to say something different, that that is what he intends if this amendment is carried and the bill is recommitted to committee of the whole.
In committee of the whole I would not be able to support an amendment in any way similar to that which the hon. gentleman proposed in committee of the whole previously. On that occasion he left completely alone the question of criminal intelligence reports. Yet this is a field which in today's context may be even more important than security itself. The hon. gentleman would have left the whole field of criminal intelligence reports without any provision in the bill and without any protection of any kind whatsoever for
13638	COMMONS DEBATES	March 1. 1967
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board such reports. In those circumstances it would be impossible to vote for any such amendment.
In committee of the whole the hon. gentleman used terms of art like "particulars." He used a word which undoubtedly would be interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in accordance with the jurisprudence under the rules of practice and the Judicature Act and which, if so interpreted, could not conceivably keep secret the sources of information. Such an amendment as was moved in committee of the whole is one that we in this party could not support under any circumstances.
If the purpose is simply to recommit the bill in order to consider such an amendment, then I would look on it as an exercise in total futility in which I do not think the house should engage. Unless the hon. gentleman is prepared to indicate that he has in mind something totally different from the amendment he presented previously in committee, I for one intend to vote against this amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the terms that the hon. member has put forward his amendment and, shall we say, in the terms of the context of the debate that took place at the committee stage and the hon. member's references to the matter, I too, like the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), find his proposal far too sweeping in its ambit and I would be obliged to place some limitation on it. However, having said that I wish to add that the present practices of the department of immigration, which I am sure would carry up to the appeal board, in failing to state reasons for barring immigrants, simply saying that a proposed immigrant fails to meet the requirements or the standards of the department, are not good enough.
With modern medical knowledge it can be stated that a proposed immigrant unfortunately suffers from a tubercular infection. He may well have been a mental patient. These can be facts, but on many occasions it has been said to me, "Well, we don't want to offend the susceptibilities or feelings of the sponsoring relatives." This is a lot of nonsense, if I may say so with respect to the minister and his officials. The sponsoring relatives know the situation.
With new interpretation of the regulations and with the co-operation of provincial health authorities, diseases which previously have barred proposed immigrants can now be treated, or some arrangements can be made to

post a bond of a minor nature whereby, provided an immigrant meets certain residence requirements, he can be treated like any other resident in our country. Therefore it is not proper that such reasons should not be disclosed.
In many cases the department has said, "This is a security case and let us leave it at that." I have had experience of the department lifting a corner of the carpet or raising the curtain a little bit. Frankly, I found that the security reasons given were most specious, and following discussion with the minister and his officials in a number of instances they have agreed that the person involved should not be barred.


An hon. Member:: Or deported.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not recall running into any deportation cases of this particular kind. In this instance I am referring more particularly to people from the Orient. I fully recognize the problems which the minister faces in this regard but I cannot go so far as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) with regard to asking for particulars and disclosure of information.
I am sure the minister will recognize that tremendous frustration is caused to members of parliament and bona fide sponsors in this country in the case of an intending immigrant from Italy, for example, when he is told that he cannot meet the requirements and that it is a security case. It is suggested to the relatives that it looks like a security case. They ask why, and having scouted around it turns out that some jealous person went to the police and said the immigrant in question was suspect. I had a case recently of a person who in 1945 or 1946, just after the war when many Italians were starving, belonged to a certain organization, and in 1964 that fact caused a complete ban on his application to come to Canada even though his sons and daughters and other relatives, with the exception of his father and mother, were already in Canada. I must say that the minister and his officials had the good sense to review the situation, but I find it exceedingly difficult to accept this wide open amendment to the effect that the minister and his officials must disclose all the particulars. There must be some protection for the state for the greater good of the nation. On the other hand, I do hope to see some relaxation in respect of illness and residential requirements, and some relaxation in respect of the often criticized provision in relation to moral turpitude. I believe this involves a great deal of nonsense.
March 1, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In respect of security I go more than half way with the minister, and for the reasons I have outlined I cannot support the wide open amendment put forward by the hon. member. Having said that I hope the minister and his officials can find some way to make these restrictions humanely intelligent.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I have not participated to any extent in this debate but I should like to comment in respect of clause 21. Let me commend the minister for supporting the clause as it stands. It is very difficult to reach perfection although we attempt to do so. This clause makes an attempt in that direction and is accompanied by some success though it may not attain it. We must content ourselves with the best that can be done under given circumstances.
Clause 21 involves very delicate, tricky and dangerous circumstances. We should not allow criminals or individuals who have shown a tendency in this direction by their past records to come into the country under the guise of humanitarianism. We must always consider causes and effects and in respect of this amendment we must pay particular attention to its possible effects.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said he could not support this open amendment and its implications, and I am in agreement with him. I could agree with the clause if it related only to undesirable individuals who were security risks in a political or military sense. On the other hand, I do not think all the evidence or information should be made available to an appellant or his counsel. Once that information is made available to these people it becomes almost public knowledge. Anyone who is a member of the underworld could easily obtain this information and all the damage that could be done by making it public would then be done.
Very often because of humanity we are inclined to give more rights and opportunities to individuals than they deserve, but I think in respect of the principle involved in this bill we should be extremely careful. We must protect ourselves from an indiscriminate policy of admitting individuals who may be security risks in a political or military sense.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) are responsible individuals and until the entire cabinet becomes a security risk I will rely on these gentlemen to do their
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board duty under the provisions of the bill as it now stands.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only two or three
words about this amendment. Let me point out to the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) that neither the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) in committee nor the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) suggested that just anybody be given the precise evidence or its source.


Raymond Langlois: You have asked for all the information.


David Lewis: No. The amendment of the hon. member for Carleton suggested that the minister should file a report with the appeal board but that the information should remain secret and that all the individual concerned would be informed of was the fact that a report had been made. Neither the individual nor his counsel, if he had one, would be given the information. It would be accessible only to the members of the appeal board.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood specifically provided that the evidence against an individual would be heard by the board in camera in the absence of the concerned person and his counsel. Neither of them would know what the evidence was. The particulars to be made available under the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood are those particulars demanded by the appeal board, not by the person concerned or his lawyer. You would therefore have the safeguard that the board, in consultation with the minister, would ask for those particulars which could be given in the interests of the security of Canada and not for particulars which would be against the interests of our country's security.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Therefore may I say to the hon. member with respect-and I appreciate fully his motives and intentions-that he could not have read the amendment that was actually moved when he spoke as he did. I simply cannot understand the position taken by the hon. members for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that they will vote against the amendment now before the house because they disagree with the particular amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in committee.

March 1. 1967
Division
I am the last one to lecture them about what is obvious in this amendment. The amendment now before the house is not that the bill go back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of incorporating the amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood but that it go back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 21, which would open the door for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Carleton to be moved again.


Richard Albert Bell: Of course it would not. It having been already disposed of in committee of the whole I could not move the same amendment again.


David Lewis: With great respect and without the knowledge of the rules that I am sure my hon. friend has, my logic tells me that he is obviously wrong. If the house sends the bill back to the committee of the whole then it will be asking the committee of the whole to reconsider the clause. In such a case any amendment could be moved, that of the hon. member for Carleton which we supported in committee and would support again, that of the hon. member for Greenwood, or any other suggestion that might emerge and which might be wiser than either of those that were put before the committee of the whole. Neither the hon. member for Greenwood nor any one of us is wedded to the particular proposal which was made. What we are anxious to see is an amendment to clause 21 which would open the door to the kind of possibility about which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) spoke and which was repeated several times by the hon. member for Carleton during second reading and in committee of the whole.
I do not think the hon. member for Carleton or any other hon. member can get away with voting against this amendment on the ground that it is a particular kind of amendment to be considered by the committee of the whole, because it is just not so. If the hon. members for Carleton and Edmonton West, or any other hon. members, are dissatisfied with clause 21 as it stands, as they claim they are, then they have no logical alternative other than to vote for the amendment now before the house and leave it to the committee of the whole to decide what to do.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Pennell:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Stanley Haidasz: I was paired, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I, too, was paired.


John Carr Munro: I was paired, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I was paired with the hon. member for Renfrew. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Royal Assent



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we wish to consider item 133 and then items 119, 135 and 134.
[DOT]	(6:10 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Six o'clock. Mr. Speaker, there is no quorum.
[DOT]	(6:20 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to implement agreements for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and Trinidad and Tobago, Canada and Ireland, Canada and Norway and Canada and the United Kingdom, and to implement a supplementary income tax convention between Canada and the United States of America.
An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
An Act to amend the Judges Act.
An Act to provide relief in certain cases against loss or hardship suffered as a result of interruptions of normal postal services.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
At 6.38 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
y
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 2, 1967