1967-02-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects my position here and also my integrity. Today's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail recites that I, among others, endorsed a cheque I received from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I did receive a cheque from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Speaker, and I would not want to take the time of this house to tell the house how hard I tried to get rid of that cheque. I was told by a producer of the program that I should sign what was called a cast sheet because union regulations required every participant in a program to sign one. As a Progressive Conservative, of course, how could I possibly cross a picket line, so to speak, and fail to obey the union's directive in this regard? Therefore I signed the cast sheet.
I was assured, Mr. Speaker, that no cheque would be sent. A cheque was sent. I telephoned the producer in Toronto, who said that there was a memo on this subject which would be reactivated. I said that I was endorsing the cheque to the Canadian University Service Overseas, that I would neither put the cheque into income nor use the receipt as a deduction for income tax purposes. I also wrote to the financial office of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation telling them this, also saying that it was both illegal and unethical for me to accept a cheque. I thought this manner of dealing with the matter would show the corporation and anybody else that no personal impropriety on my part was involved.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I wish to table copies in English and French of regulations made today
as part of Canada's compliance with the mandatory security council resolution on Rhodesia of December 16, 1966.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government has authorized the agricultural stabilization board to support the price of sugar beets for the 1967 crop by a deficiency payment program at a national support level of $15.50 per standard ton.
The over-all program will include an added stabilizing feature designed to standardize returns in Ontario, which in the past have been adversely affected by low world prices for sugar.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to hear the government announce the increased payment for sugar beets. Certainly the $15.50, the figure quoted by the government is more in keeping with the expenses of the industry today than the $14.35 which prevailed up to this time. This increase will give the industry in Ontario a chance to contract for the necessary acreage for this year.
This is just a temporary measure. In no way does it settle the vital problems facing this industry today. The sooner the government enters into an international agreement on sugar to enable producers to obtain enough from the sale of their sugar beets, removing the need for constant subsidies, the more stable will be the sugar industry not only in Ontario but in the other affected provinces of this country.


Mr. Howard  Johnslon@Okanagan-Revel-stoke: I should like to comment briefly on the announcement regarding the stabilization price for sugar beets. We welcome it. I also reiterate the desirability of having a Canadian sugar policy that would make this type of continuing stopgap arrangement unnecessary.
13274	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



HALIFAX-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO SHIPWRECK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I have given his office notice. Will the minister arrange an inquiry immediately into the tragic loss of life by shipwreck on the Sisters' shoal outside Halifax harbour this morning? Would he ask his officials for a departmental review at once of the navigational aids covering the approaches of Halifax harbour, to decide whether more buoy markings are needed immediately, bearing in mind that this is the second marine accident there in less than nine months?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am sure we all heard with great distress the news on the radio this morning that this ship was in trouble, and I am sorry to have to report to the house that this is a very serious disaster indeed.
The investigation has already begun and every aspect of the matter, including the question of aids to navigation will be looked into. I am sure the hon. gentleman will not expect me, with the paucity of accurate information I have at the moment, to go beyond what I have just said, but I know I will be expressing the view of everyone in the house when I say how deeply we regret this loss and how sympathetic we all feel toward the relatives of those who have lost their lives.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour following the question I asked him yesterday, which he took as notice. It has to do with the 900 employees who have been permanently laid off by McKinnon Industries at St. Catharines and who have been unable to secure their transitional assistance benefits. I want to ask the minister whether any arrangements have been made by which local 199 of the United Automobile Workers can have access to the adjustment assistance board, and whether they will be able to get information respecting those who have been certified and those who have not been certified.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Following the questions which were asked on this subject yesterday I had my deputy minister or his officials communicate with the transitional assistance benefit board. My information is that the union is not asking for additional certification in numbers but is suggesting that persons actually affected within the numbers authorized are different from those named by the board. We have been in touch with Mr. Burt, the spokesman for the automotive workers, and the matter was to be brought to the attention of the adjustment assistance board this afternoon. I can make no further statement until I have heard what took place at today's meeting of the board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether the board has agreed to meet the representatives of these employees who belong to local 199 of the U.A.W. and who have asked for a meeting to discuss this matter and find out why the TAB payments have not been made?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I can ask that question and will be glad to pass on the information to the hon. gentleman. I would assume that the chairman or some other representative of the board would be willing to hear representations, but I will be glad to verify this or otherwise.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I have a question for the Prime Minister in connection with the report of the Auditor General. Is it the intention of the government before the end of the present session to look into the 151 findings, action on which the Auditor General has stated is long overdue, and which were contained in the 1963 Glassco report? Does the government intend to look into these findings and make recommendations before the end of this session?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: All these recommendations have been examined, and I think there will be an opportunity in the appropriate committee of the house to explain the position with regard to those which have not yet been implemented.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
ask whether this recent report will be referred to the committee on public accounts as soon as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is where it invariably goes, Mr. Speaker.
February 21, 1967	COMMONS



CANADA LAW REPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry following the question asked by the hon. member for Wellington South. It is based on the New Democratic policy of non-discrimination.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister inform the house why the Canada Law Reports are sold to members of the legal profession, who have one of the highest income rates per capita in Canada, at an annual rate of $5 while members of the general public are required to pay $15 for the same reports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: In the absence of the Secretary of State I would ask the Prime Minister to ascertain from the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation whether an answer to the question is to be given regarding colour television sets and the individuals who became the beneficiaries of the action of the C.B.C. in acquiring them. The information was denied in the reply placed before the house the other day by the Secretary of State. Will he communicate with the president and ask him whether that information will be forthcoming?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course an answer has already been given. However, I will be glad to advise the president of the corporation that it is the feeling of the right hon. gentleman that the answer is quite unsatisfactory. As a matter of fact the Secretary of State has been in touch with him on this matter, and perhaps she will be able to reply in greater detail tomorrow.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the house whether his department has initiated talks with various labour union leaders in an effort to forestall compulsory arbitration of the outstanding matters in the rail dispute, and if so what progress can be reported?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, at my request the president, who is also the secretary treasurer, and the vice president of division 4 of the railway workers, the craft workers, came to Ottawa yesterday. I spent the better part of an hour with them. They have returned for further discussions with the officers of their particular division, and I am waiting to hear further from them.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him when the government expects to advise the country regarding the tariff reductions on manufactured goods entering Canada which will come into effect as a result of the Kennedy round of negotiations which are now nearing completion.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): The Kennedy round of negotiations should be completed by mid-year. Any concessions that Canada may win will be announced at the same time as any concessions that we might have to give in exchange for concessions from other countries.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN PRICE UNDER INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to the international wheat agreement, negotiations for which will take place in Switzerland this year. Since there is great need for an increase in the price of wheat under that agreement, which directly affects our price, would the minister be prepared to ask for an increase of at least 40 cents per bushel in the high and low prices, which will correspond very closely with the price for which the farmers and
February 21, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry farm organizations have asked under the international wheat agreement?


Hon. Roberl Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is true that international market conditions justify a substantially increased minimum price under any new international wheat agreement. However, the hon. member knows that there are buyers and sellers at the bargaining table, and any agreement reached will have to be on the basis of a price range that is acceptable to both sides.



ABIGAIL HOFFMAN-WORLD RECORD IN WOMEN'S 880 YARD RACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is he aware of the fact that Miss Abigail Hoffman, an honours student in economics and science at the University of Toronto, won the 880 yard women's race at the Achilles meet at Vancouver on February 18 and established a world record time of 2 minutes 8.4 seconds?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to address my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs as a result of correspondence which I have received since the public announcement that 70 to 75 Vimy veterans will travel there at government expense for remembrance ceremonies on April 9. Can the minister advise the house how this group will be chosen? Will there be representatives from each province and each unit, and will all ranks be represented?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the delegation will be composed of representatives of each of the units that participated in the battle of Vimy Ridge. The selection of the persons going to France and of the persons attending the ceremonies in Ottawa will be made by the commanding officers of the units now in existence with the aim of continuing the tradition of the units which fought at Vimy Ridge. The commanding officer in each case will select the actual representatives to travel to


Vimy Ridge in France or to come to Ottawa to take part in the commemoration services here.


Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the persons who will be representing the different units be notified before the specified time?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: A letter has gone out to all the units concerned. It is our hope that we will have the information before the end of this month so we can complete our arrangements.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. I am sure the minister knows that many of the units which took part in the battle of Vimy Ridge have since been disbanded. How will representatives of those units be selected?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: My understanding is that those units which have been disbanded do have a continuance in other units now in existence in the country. Every effort is being made to make sure that representatives of all units are included in the official delegation.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he could inform the house concerning the possible effect of the recent oil agreement among a French company, South Africa and Iran on the mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia established by the security council of the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend's question undoubtedly has been provoked by the statement made last night on television by a commentator. For some days we have been examining this problem. The secretary general will be making a report to the security council by March 1, when I expect there will be some comment regarding this question. I too will perhaps be in a position to say something about that time.


David Lewis: Since Canada now is a member of the security council, could the minister say whether any reports have been made to him concerning the immediate effect of these sanctions or is he awaiting the report on March 1?
February 21, 1967	COMMONS


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The right hon. gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me this question I think on Thursday or Friday. I replied that while it was possible to make an assessment of the effectiveness of commonwealth sanctions, I was not in a position to make an assessment of the results of United Nations sanctions. That report will be made by the secretary general when he reports to the security council on the first of the month.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister stated that he would not be able to report on the general situation, but on the basis of the documents the minister filed today, can he report on the success of Canada's embargo? Could he tell us what the trade between Canada and Rhodesia was during the past year and what it is today?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the embargo was placed on exports and imports the total trade was roughly in the neighbourhood of $5 million annually. Since the embargo has been in effect the trade is negligible; it is non-existent except for supplies for humanitarian purposes which must be in very small amounts. With regard to the regulations I tabled today, these are in pursuance of the security council resolution of December 15. After an examination of the steps we had taken under the voluntary security council resolution of the year before last, it was felt that to comply with the new mandatory selective sanctions resolution we would have to provide for the application of the selective mandatory sanctions to Canadian operations outside of Canada.
An examination of the regulations tabled today will show that we have now complied fully with the terms of the security council resolution of December 16, 1966, which is mandatory.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There was the initial embargo placed by Canada, then the further one pursuant to order and direction of the security council in December. Has there been any further reduction in the exports from Canada or imports from Rhodesia in consequence of the security council order of December last over what the situation was on a non-selective basis prior thereto?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, I believe there has been, but I cannot give the exact
Inquiries of the Ministry dollar amounts. I will be glad to try to give them later.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would ask the minister whether the government will authorize the negotiation of a contract for the miners in Nova Scotia whose contract expired in August, 1966.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, DOSCO has announced its willingness to sell the coal mines to the Canadian government, the Canadian government has announced its willingness to buy them, but no agreement has yet been reached between the two parties. In the meantime it is impossible for the Canadian government to intervene in labour negotiations between the company and the employees.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister a supplementary question. Since the government has announced the take-over of the mines-this buying and selling is something new-under a crown company, how are the men going to negotiate their working conditions unless somebody takes authority to establish a contract?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that negotiations between DOSCO and the employee members of the United Mine Workers union are going on now, and I have reason to believe that they will come to a happy conclusion.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question. Am I to understand from the minister's answer that DOSCO had the authorization of the federal government to negotiate such a contract?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just said I was informed that the two parties were negotiating.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brefon Souih):: I hate to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask the minister to clarify his statement. If the minister has been informed that
13278	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry DOSCO and the union are negotiating a contract, under what authority can they be so doing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Under the authority that exists when one party is the employer and the other the employees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the proposed crown corporation. Is it the intention of the government to let the present management continue in that capacity?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that particular, detailed question.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
ask a supplementary question, since the government is not in a position to answer that one. Does the government not think the miners of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia are entitled to a contract negotiated in good faith, and that authorization for such a contract should be given?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they certainly are.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house what steps he is taking to settle the current wharfage rate dispute on the west coast?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked a senior officer of my department, not in the marine services, to undertake an investigation and make recommendations about this very vexed and difficult problem. I have here a copy of the letter I addressed to him, and if I could have the permission of the house I would be glad to table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

DEBATES	February 21, 1987



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. Has the minister any information about the plans to merge or close out the individual C.N. and C.P. telecommunications offices throughout the country, in particular the C.N. office in Saint John which will affect 20 to 30 employees?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not receive the hon. gentleman's notice. I will have to take his question as notice now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understand that the 18-nation disarmament conference is reconvening at Geneva and that the President of the United States has urged all the nations concerned to move quickly toward a treaty for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Is Canada taking any steps or initiative in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has said, this morning the disarmament committee opened its proceedings in Geneva. Yes, Canada has been actively engaged in consultations with certain countries, with the expectation that there will be tabled during the disarmanent committee meetings a draft proposal for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. I believe I can say that the discussions which have taken place between the Soviet union and the United States, the major nuclear powers, have progressed to the point where there is every reason to believe that agreement may be expected between those two nations.
While there are some problems with regard to certain phases of the agreement, particularly with regard to safeguards, I believe that progress in this whole area should be anticipated. Certainly Canada has been very much engaged in the discussions.
February 21, 1967


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As an indication of Canada's interest in the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, is the government making any progress in negotiating Canada out of the agreement for the maintenance of Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That question is, of course, not related to the question of an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.


Mr. Knowles:: It is a good question, though.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister anything further to report to the house with respect to Mr. Justice Woods' report on the administration of the Canadian Pension Commission?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for asking that question, because it permits me to apologize to the house for misinforming the members of the house some few weeks ago when I answered a similar question and indicated that the report was completed but there was a delay in the matter of printing. The error occurred in relaying this information to me. Of course I take responsibility for perpetuating the error, but there was no intention on the part of anyone to mislead the house, and I apologize for passing on that misinformation. Yesterday I communicated directly with Mr. Justice Woods in his office in Regina, and he informs me that it will be May before the report can be completed.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister assure us that every recipient of old age security will receive a copy of the explanatory booklet on the guaranteed income supplement?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In that case, can the minister tell us why it was necessary to spend $380,000 to advertise this measure?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend realizes that repetition is an important part of education.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially when you have a weak case.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I would ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article headed "United States Oil Colonists Outwit Walter Gordon", written by one James Gray, wherein it is indicated that the $250 million natural gas industry is able to juggle its books, in effect, so that it escapes the payment of corporate taxes. If the minister's attention has been drawn to this matter, has he any comment to make on the action his department has taken?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the article, but I will read it. I would like to assure the hon. member that not many people in Canada avoid paying income tax that is due to the crown, and as long as I am Minister of National Revenue I undertake to try to collect all the revenue that is due to the crown under the legislation enacted by this house.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would mind inquiring in detail into the allegations contained in the article if I send it over to him, because it points out that there are certain arrangements between companies which exist in the United States and have subsidiaries in Canada, and that this book juggling that takes place is on an international scale.


Edgar John Benson: I would be very interested in reading the article. I can assure the hon. member that I will not only look into it, but if there is any illegal book juggling we will certainly take action in this regard.
13280	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received any representations from Canadian dairy farmers requesting that the direct grant on manufacturing milk be raised to $1.40 a hundredweight, which would guarantee a price of $5.00 per hundredweight of milk with a 3.5 per cent butterfat content, and has he given an affirmative answer to such request?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the federal dairy policy will be announced before April 1.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand for the second reading of Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening I had just commented upon the significance of the changes in immigration procedure and administration represented by this bill. That drastic changes are needed, I have no doubt. In no department of government is a minister subjected to so much paper work or called upon to exercise so many discretions or subjected to so many pressures-pressures from members of parliament, from candidates, from ethnic groups, from religious and philanthropic organizations and just about everyone conceivable. The very volume of paper work, the incredible amount of time a minister of immigration must spend examining individual files in order to exercise wisely the discretions vested in him, actually deprives him of an adequate amount of working time for the consideration of policy, major issues and promotional activities which are the real prerogative and responsibility of the minister.
Indeed, I believe it is arguable that the system which has been built up compels the minister and the deputy minister to spend so much of their time contemplating the trees that they are unable to see the policy forest, and therein lies much of the difficulty the

DEBATES	February 21. 1967
department has experienced. My hope is that this measure will succeed in relieving the minister and the deputy minister of much of the tedium of labouring over great mountains of individual files, and will enable them to devote their thought and attention to policy matters and to the greatly needed expansion of immigration into Canada.
I believe, as I have said in this house many times, that our whole immigration policy needs to be much bolder; that there needs to be much more original thinking than is represented in the white paper. If Canada is to achieve her potential in this century a much more aggressive, a much more dynamic immigration policy is essential, something which goes much beyond the feeble and halting steps of the white paper.
Personally I believe the present minister has the imagination to conceive and execute such a policy if he were given the leisure and opportunity. However, he has been loaded with the additional responsibility of acting as Quebec leader of his party. The result inevitably will be that he simply will not have the time to attend to his immigration knitting. I do not believe the immigration portfolio can be a part time occupation.
Now, sir, last night the parliamentary secretary painted a rather glowing picture of the potential benefit of the proposed immigration appeal board. We can hope his expectations will be realized. The existing immigration appeal board is without real status or authority. Its terms of reference are so restricted that it is little more than a respectable front for the department, if indeed it is that. It can deal only with questions of law, and it is safe to say that with the sweeping powers vested in the department errors of law inevitably are rare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member and I apologize for doing so, but the conversations going on make it practically impossible for the Chair to hear what the hon. member is saying.


Richard Albert Bell: As I have said, sir, I believe it is safe to say that with the sweeping powers vested in the department errors of law inevitably are rare. The existing board has no discretionary authority. The moment the board finds the department has acted within the law it has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. I know this is a frustrating experience for members of the board, particularly since the members of the board
February 21. 1967	COMMONS
are conscientious and dedicated public servants. My principal contacts have been with the distinguished chairman, Colonel J. C. A. Campbell, Q.C., a first class public servant; and the vice chairman, Mr. E. B. Tim Reid, an equally sincere and capable public servant. They have struggled, in my view, against great odds on the existing board.
The proposed new board, of course, will be a very different body. It arises, I suppose, directly out of the report of Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., one of the most distinguished and sophisticated counsel in Canada. It is but one of the many recommendations of the Sedgwick report, though perhaps the most important and most palatable.
There are some obscurities in the bill as drafted, Mr. Speaker which I believe need to be clarified before it finally passes. It is nowhere clear whether what is intended is an appeal from a special inquiry officer under ordinary appellate rules or a genuine hearing de novo. It is true that the board is given power to summons and hear witnesses, which appears to indicate a hearing de novo, but the operative provisions in the bill on the other hand, seem to contemplate an appeal on the record. An appeal on the record, in my view, would be obviously unsatisfactory because very often the prospective deportee has almost no preparation and probably very little advice at the time of the inquiry before the special inquiry officer. I think the nature of the intended appeal procedures will need to be explored in some detail when we are in committee of the whole.
I believe it was Mr. Sedgwick who pointed out the importance of building up a body of jurisprudence in the field of immigration practice. Today it is an impenetrable maze in which only departmental officers can venture with confidence. I am not suggesting that precedents be on any rigid, inflexible basis, or indeed that the board establish the principle of stare decisis. However, I do believe the board should give reasons which should be published and from time to time would be annotated so that principles could be readily ascertained by appellants. Building upon these precedents a flexible body of immigration jurisprudence would be achieved.
If this is to be done it is obvious that the quality of board membership is of the greatest significance. The board cannot achieve its objective and be a real success unless the men and women who compose it are persons of ffexible mind, devoid of the rigidity of departmental administration, persons of compassionate and humanitarian instincts.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board [DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The role of successive ministers of immigration has been to bring fair and impartial administration to the department, coupled with-and I emphasize the words "coupled with"-a warm, sympathetic, compassionate understanding of the basic human problems which are involved in all immigration cases. It would be a sad day, sir, if we were to take away ministerial discretion and landed up with a rigid, legalistic, dispassionate approach on the part of the board.
From that statement, Mr. Speaker, arises what I think is the basic issue that I have had to settle in my own mind relating to this bill. Ought the board's decisions to be final, or ought there to be a residuum of discretionary authority left with the minister after the board has decided? Mr. Sedgwick reported very strongly that the board's decisions should be final, and he gave four reasons to which I should like to refer. I quote from page 8 of the report on immigration, part II, by Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C.:
In recommending that the board's decisions be final I do so for these reasons:
1.	To make appeals to the board subject to review and final determination by the minister is to render the board essentially sterile. If the board's decision is unfavourable, recourse to the minister is almost automatic in a great proportion of cases and the board is reduced to a mere stepping stone between the special inquiry officer and the minister.
2.	This would relieve the minister of a great deal of pressure of an undesirable nature. My inquiries satisfy me that the pressures brought to bear have often dictated the disposition of cases.
3.	Ministerial duties and commitments are onerous and such that it is impossible for the minister to give careful consideration to a multitude of individual cases.
4.	I would expect that an independent board exercising discretion along the lines indicated above would soon, on the basis of precedent, evolve intelligible and reasonable guide lines which would be made known to members of the legal profession and others particularly interested in immigration matters as well as to the public generally.
These, sir, are very cogently and intelligently expressed reasons, yet I am not fully convinced. While Mr. Sedgwick was doing the research for his report I argued this issue with him in detail, as did the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), I believe, based upon his experience as minister of citizenship and immigration and as, I believe, did other former ministers of that department.
I understood that the Minister of Transport took a very strong position in favour of the finality of decisions. On the other hand I argued for a limited, carefully guarded
13282	COMMONS DEBATES	February 21. 1967
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board residuum of ultimate ministerial discretion. My fear was, and still is, that finality of decision in the board may lead to a more rigid, inflexible administration. To put it simply, I say that I have never seen any board, commission or civil servant, however senior, who is prepared to stick its or his neck out as far as a politician frequently must and will do.
I know there are many persons in Canada today, sir, making good citizens who were admitted by me in the exercise of ministerial discretion, or I should say ministerial instinct, and who I doubt very much would ever have gained admission from any board, however enlightened and superior that board might have been. It is a simple fact of life that politicians must learn to take chances, chances which others in less rigorous occupations do not take.
Without question, sir, the majority opinion is against me; that is to say, the majority opinion of those who have served in this field and who are expert. I press the matter no further. My purpose in raising the issue is really to state a warning and an admonition to the new board that it must import into its consideration of appeals a warmth of human understanding, a compassionate and humanitarian approach, a readiness to take chances, attributes which are not usual, if I may say so, among public tribunals.
Now, sir, a very genuine advance in this bill is the provision for appeals by sponsors. But I am somewhat concerned by the safeguards with which they are hedged in. The authority given to the governor in council to make regulations limiting the classes of relatives in respect of whom appeals may be made is really a power to render the legislation nugatory. I do not suggest for a moment that the minister has any such intention, but I do submit that the house ought to have a clear undertaking from the government as to what are its intentions in this respect. For example, to what classes of relatives is it the intention to limit the appeal; how far does the government propose to go; how limiting will the regulations be? I say to the minister in this particular aspect the government must not give with one hand and take away with the other.
There is an interesting constitutional problem raised by the bill, Mr. Speaker. Departmental decisions on admission to Canada are taken in the name of the minister and may well be taken by the minister personally. Under this legislation, then, there is an appeal to an independent tribunal from an exercise

of judgment by a minister of the crown. To many this is constitutional heresy, although the same situation now applies to appeals to the tax appeal board from decisions on fact or law or on mixed fact and law taken by the Minister of National Revenue. I think there may be others in the chamber who may wish to comment on this interesting, indeed novel, constitutional development.
I return, sir, to the principal point I wish to make this afternoon. I venture to repeat myself by saying that the board must tiring warm hearted, human understanding to the cold print of immigration laws. Humanitarian and moral considerations are basic, and they must have respect rather than lip service.
Canadian life has been greatly enriched and our culture expanded and advanced by the diverse peoples who have entered Canada both before and since world war II. Each day each of us is reminded of how these new arrivals, filled with enthusiasm, energy and the will to succeed, have enriched our culture and expanded our Canadian tradition in fields such as science, the arts, education, yes and even politics. We need, in my submission to this house, many, many more immigrants from abroad. We on this side intend to press consistently and regularly for a greatly expanded immigration flow and a much more aggressive immigration policy.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister said last night, it is obvious that the problems affecting immigration are often very difficult. I suppose they are difficult because of three factors. The first is the need for immigration in Canada. I think we are all agreed, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has just emphasized, that our country can expand more effectively by the admission of appropriate immigrants in as large numbers as the economy of the country can accept.
Second, in order to make sure that admission to Canada follows some kind of objective test we must, of course, have rules to govern such admissions.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Third, there must be human compassion. For the officers of the department each case necessarily is a number, not because the officers are heartless-they are not. In my many dealings with them I have been much impressed with their decency and compassion. But they deal with thousands of applications every week and it necessarily follows that
February 21. 1967	COMMONS
they are less concerned personally with each application than any member of the house would be who has been asked to assist in particular instance.
The requirement to apply human compassion to the merits of each case often conflicts with the equally important requirement of following objective rules and standards which cannot easily be violated or avoided. The bill is inadequate in dealing with the human factor. I want to make clear that I am not criticizing the minister and his department for the sake of criticizing them; nor do I get pleasure from criticizing. I do not for one moment question the minister's sincerity of approach in bringing this legislation before us. But I wish to say that in several important respects the legislation just does not achieve what the parliamentary secretary last night said it does and what I hope the minister wants it to achieve. Perhaps when we are in committee the minister may accept suggestions for amendments so that the objectives may be realized effectively.
I say, as everyone else has said and will say, that in the past the minister has had the discretion to act in human situations, in compassionate ' humanitarian appeals. They may go all the way from some very unhappy person who has been left alone somewhere to some young person who has arrived here under one set of circumstances and wants to stay under another set of circumstances.
From my limited experience in these matters and from the greater experience of many people with whom I have had discussions, it is evident that the application of the act and the regulations has followed a meaningless and almost humiliating course. For example, the regulations required that before a person could be admitted as an immigrant he must have a visa. If a person came to Canada without one-he might have applied in another country for a visa-and applied for immigrant status, he went through the silly exercise of a special inquiry. An officer would ask, "Have you a visa", knowing perfectly well that the applicant did not have a visa because that officer or some other officer, had refused it. The man went throught the silly exercise of being asked whether he had a visa and, when he said he did not have one, of being told, "In that case you cannot stay."
After that followed the equally silly exercise of going to the old appeal board. The old appeal board would look at the situation and say: "You do not meet the requirements because you have no visa. Our department
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board refused to give you one, therefore out you go." This was what happened in most instances. If security matters were involved you did not really know that this was so. You could only guess that the refusal was for security reasons, because you were not given any reasons at all. Every time the department refused to give reasons one could assume that security was involved. I have always suspected that even the minister did not know what those security reasons were. Possibly all that he and his officers had on file-and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong. -would be a note from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the relevant section of that force, saying, "Mr. A is a security risk." I doubt that whether the minister himself would find out what the evidence was behind this note from on high.
One argued, of course, until one was blue in the face. I have not acted in any of these matters as a lawyer, only as a person who knew some people in the immigration department before I was a member, and since. When you tried to help someone, when you inquired into the matter and delved into things, you faced a blank wall. You had no information. You did not know what the evidence was. You did not know the source of the allegations and you argued as if you were punching a pillow. Occasionally, by producing all sorts of affidavits and evidence showing the man was not guilty, you were able to prove his innocence. I have had that kind of experience dozens of times.
The important question in this legislation is: Has the appeal board under this legislation the authority to act compassionately, to use its discretion, to consider the particular circumstances affecting the human being before them, appealing through a sponsor, say, or with respect to a deportation order? Despite what the parliamentary secretary said last night, under clause 17, if my memory serves me correctly, the board is not given such discretion in appeals by sponsors. The board is not given the right to consider the human values and elements involved in a case. The parliamentary secretary said last night that this time the board would be able to consider the human elements. I say to the minister that if that was intended this bill does not realize that intention.
On second reading I cannot deal with the precise words of clauses, but I say to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary that clause 17 of the bill gives the appeal board authority to decide whether a sponsor
13284	COMMONS DEBATES	February 21, 1967
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board and the applicant he sponsors meet the regulations under the Immigration Act with respect to an application. That is exactly as it was before. If the appeal board faces a situation where the sponsor and the prospective immigrant he seeks to sponsor to Canada have not met one of the regulations, it has no alternative but to reject the appeal. This becomes clear if the minister will look at clause 15 and then at clause 17. If he looks at the clause dealing with deportation orders he will see that the appeal board has specific authority to consider special circumstances where a person might suffer injury in the country whence he came should he be deported. No such authority is given to the appeal board where there is an appeal by a sponsor with respect to a prospective immigrant he is sponsoring.
This part of the bill, and all matters surrounding it, ought to be substantially changed when we go into committee. I may be wrong, and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong, but in my opinion the appeal board has no authority to deal with, as the parliamentary secretary last night called them, humanitarian or compassionate considerations. Under this bill the appeal board has no more authority to consider the humanitarian aspects than the old board had. I say that because of the particular language in the bill.
This, it seems to me, could not have been an accident. I believe that those advising the minister still think that in applications for entry into Canada, as distinct from deportation orders, the rules and regulations must be strictly complied with without regard to the humanitarian considerations to which the parliamentary secretary referred last night.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This is my first objection. If the parliamentary secretary was right when he said-hon. members will find this in the left hand column on page 13268 of Hansard of yesterday-that one of the distinctions the minister seeks to bring about is the one I have been discussing, if he is right in saying that the old appeal board had no authority to apply humanitarian or compassionate considerations and it is now desired that this board of appeal should have the right to apply such considerations, then all I can assert is that the legislation does not in fact carry out that intention. What has happened, I believe, is that somebody persuaded the minister to reduce the authority of the appeal board in relation to a sponsored immigrant to the point at which it

may deal only with legalistic considerations, not with the merits of the case on human grounds at all.
My second objection in principle to this bill-I am still dealing with sponsored immigrants-is the unnecessary limitation as to appeals which is carried into this legislation. What is the purpose of this limitation? The parliamentary secretary suggested last night, if I remember correctly, that unless some limitation were imposed the appeal would be swamped with sponsored cases. Those were not his words but I think I have given an accurate paraphrase of his meaning. If that is the case, I say: so what? We are asked to approve a full-time board of seven men, if I understand the bill correctly. All of them do not have to sit at the same time. Obviously the intention is that they should sit in panels. In fact, the bill provides that one member of the board may deal with certain cases. Thus there is no reason to assume that the work load will be such that the board will be unable to cope with it. Nevertheless, the minister saw fit to include in clause 15 words which will enable the governor in council-mind, I do not say this will necessarily be done-to reduce the numbers of sponsors or classes of sponsors who may appeal under this law.
Why should this be the case? Why not make the right of appeal automatically available to all sponsors in all classes? Why give power to the governor in council to issue regulations prescribing which of such classes of relatives referred to in those regulations may be the subject of appeal under this legislation? I am not persuaded that the possibility of the board being swamped by appeals justifies our taking this power to say to some sponsors that they cannot exercise the right of appeal because their relationship to the applicant is of a certain kind.
My third objection is that there is no right of appeal at all for persons who are not sponsored and who are living in Canada. I appreciate fully that it would be impossible from an administrative point of view, and probably undesirable, to attempt to extend the right of appeal to an unsponsored immigrant in Italy or France who had made application and whose application had been refused. But as the minister well knows, there are thousands of cases in which people arrive in Canada as tourists or jump a ship or enter in some other way. Later they apply for immigrant status and their applications are refused. I cannot understand why they should not have the same right of appeal as is given to others.
February 21. 1967	COMMONS
It may be suggested that in such cases they would, in accordance with the normal procedure, be asked to leave the country voluntarily by a certain date that if they declined to do so an inquiry would be held and a deportation order issued and when the deportation order was issued they would have the right to appeal under clause 17, But why leave it until that point? If I have stated the position correctly I can well understand that these people will eventually have the right of appeal from the deportation order. But why should it be necessary to reach that point? There will be some cases when it is reached, but why put people to the anxiety, the delay and the pain involved in waiting through the period until they are confronted by an order which they must obey or else forfeit their right to come to Canada again either as a visitor or in any other capacity? Is it not perfectly just, reasonable and sensible to give a person who resides in Canada and whose application for immigrant status has been refused, the right of appeal in the same way as it is given to a sponsor in the case of a sponsored immigrant?
Another point which worries me and my colleagues a great deal is the question of the grounds for appeal. The parliamentary secretary to the minister said last night, as reported on page 13269:
You will wish to note particularly, Mr. Speaker, that the Board will render written reasons for its decision to allow or dismiss appeals.
I do not see any such requirement in the bill and I think it is of the utmost importance that there should be such a requirement. If I am told, as has been suggested by someone, that the fact that there is a right of appeal from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada means that the board will have to give written reasons for its decisions, I suggest there is no such requirement in the law. In the case of administrative tribunals, whether quasi-judicial or not, it is well established that they are perfectly free to issue what the courts have called "silent orders" rather than "speaking orders", and when a man goes into court faced with a silent order he is in an awful fix because he does not know what he is appealing against or appealing from. There is no requirement for written reasons.
I will take the house one step back in the process, Mr. Speaker. Before the appeal board is even reached, where is there a requirement that the person who is refused admission to Canada or who is faced with an order of deportation has to be given the particulars
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board upon which the deportation order was issued or the particulars upon which the decision to refuse admission was reached? There is no such requirement in the law and I see no reason why there should be any change in the practice simply because there is to be a different apDeal board. In the past no such reasons were given beyond the cryptic expression: You do not meet the requirements of the act or regulations. That is the umbrella which is thrown at the person concerned and it is an umbrella which is full of holes. It does not protect him at all. I foresee that exactly the same thing will happen again.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
My third objection to this bill, then, is that it does not provide statutorily the elementary justice to which everyone is entitled, the right to a bill of particulars as to the reasons for refusal of admission or the issue of a deportation order. I chose my words carefully. I did not say that a person should have the evidence against him or the sources of the information made available to him. I am not concerned about that at this point because this is not a criminal proceeding. What I said was that under the statute we should have the right to require and to obtain the particulars of the grounds on which the action was taken so that a person can be told in general terms that he does not meet certain particular requirements of our law or that he suffers from certain particular disabilities, and that is why an order for deportation has been issued or his application has been refused. Unless this information is available to him the appeal will prove to be a sham, which I am confident the minister and the government do not intend it to be. Unless this person has the particulars he cannot prepare a proper case for the appeal board, and unless the board is given the right to exercise some discretion and to apply humanitarian considerations the appeal by a sponsor will be a snare and a delusion, which I hope the minister did not intend it to be.
In such a case the board would simply be going through the exercise of discovering whether or not the legal requirements were met, and of course they would not have been met or the case would never have reached the board. The board would be going through the exercise of discovering whether or not the officers of the department applied the regulations in every case and not what are the humanitarian considerations. I am quite certain that the officers follow the purely routine
13286	COMMONS DEBATES	February 21, 1967
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board technicalities involved in immigration matters and they do this meticulously, with great rigidity and sometimes, in my experience, with too much satisfaction and glee. An appeal is not worth anything if all that an appeal board can do is to deal with the legal requirements without taking into account all the facts concerning the person involved and the humanitarian and compassionate considerations that must be the basis of any law, as they are of most of our laws which deal with the state and condition of human beings.
My major objection to this bill, however, is directed to a provision which carries forward in the new law an idea which is vicious, basically undemocratic in every sense of the word, and destroys much of the good which the minister intended to achieve through this legislation. I say this with words which are not chosen with ease. I am referring to the clause which says that notwitstanding everything else in this act the board simply cannot proceed when it is faced with an alleged security case. The board will receive a statement signed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) stating that on the basis of security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them it will be contrary to the national interest to admit such a person or not to deport him, and that will be all. The statement cannot be questioned and they are not required to produce the particulars on which their conclusion is based. They simply file a statement with the board that in their opinion a man is a national risk for security reasons or on the basis of some criminal record which they say is in their possession. The certificate which they file is conclusive proof of the matter and no further evidence is required-"no nothin' ".
Please forgive me, Mr. Speaker for such illiterate language, but I wonder what kind of a charade we are playing? If this bill means what it says, then what nonsense is this? If the minister and the Solicitor General make the final decision in any case, then why do they not make it in their offices instead of producing a certificate before the board and putting the person to the expense of obtaining legal assistance in order to put his case before the board, only to be faced with a certificate which tells him nothing except that he is undesirable? If that is the minister's intention, why does he not issue the certificate from his office? This would be evil enough, but to play the charade of bringing such a certificate before the board seems to me to compound the evil.

Why do we do this? I find that every time something is said about security reasons every one of us, myself included, stands up, beats his breast and speaks about the welfare and security of Canada, while rights, freedoms and civil liberties go out the window. I remind the house that in the middle of the last war large numbers of people were arrested under the defence of Canada regulations. Later, as a result of agitation throughout the country, internment tribunals were established and despite the fact that we were at war the regulations which established those internment tribunals gave them the right to demand and obtain from the relevant minister particulars of the charges against a person. They had the right under the legislation to obtain those particulars concerning the person affected. Thousands of internees were able to come before a tribunal with a piece of paper which told them what they were accused of. By definition they were all security risks or they would not have been interned in the first place. Some ministerial authority had already decided that they were security risks and that is why they were interned. We gave them the right to know the nature of the charges against them despite the fact that we were in the middle of the war. They were not given the sources of those charges, the names of the people who made the allegations or the details of the inquiry or investigation that had been made, but they were acquainted with the nature of the charges so they could meet them.
I challenge anyone in the house to tell me how our tremendous and admirable national war effort suffered because we gave people the rights to which they should normally be entitled. Was any part of that war effort eroded or affected in any way by the fact that we gave internees the elementary rights to which I referred? This was done by a government of the same party which is now in power. If we had the courage and vision to act like a civilized society with regard to those whom we interned in the middle of a war, governed as they were by the defence of Canada regulations which took away all normal processes of law as had to be done in time of war, can we not do it now for people who attempt to come to Canada in time of peace? The number of people affected is likely to be very small indeed in comparison with the number of people who were interned during the war, and the dangers to our country's security and our country's future are minimal in peacetime.
February 21. 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Why should there not be this kind of provision in the legislation? I respectfully submit that the minister would do a great service to this country if he included the provision to which I have just referred. Someone in the department could easily find for him the orders in council which dealt with the internment tribunals during the war. If we had something in this bill so that when a person was accused of having a criminal record or of being a security risk he could make his appeal knowing that he would be provided with particulars of the allegation against him, then I think we would meet the requirements of justice. Otherwise the same kind of thing which has happened heretofore will continue to happen.
I have on my desk a letter from the department about someone who asked me to assist him. The letter simply says that they are making inquiries, that some of the reports they have are confidential and that they cannot really tell me why this particular application was refused in a foreign country which I shall not name. They advise that they are making further inquiries to see whether a mistake may have been made. 1 do not know what allegations are made against these people. Their relatives and sponsors in Canada do not know. They and I are in the dark. I am not at all sure that the minister's officer is not in the dark concerning the precise nature of the allegation against these people who made application to come to Canada. I see no excuse in peacetime for having this kind of a provision in an immigration appeal board bill such as the one now before us.
Those are my major objections to this legislation. It imports into this process an entirely undemocratic and arbitrary procedure which is unjust to the people concerned and totally unnecessary for the security of Canada. If anyone can prove to the members of my party that this kind of thing is necessary for security and, if the officers of the department will forgive me for putting it so bluntly, is not just something which some bureaucrat thinks would affect the security of the country but is based on nobler facts and reasons, then we might be persuaded to accept the principle involved in this bill. But we cannot see any such reasoning. We cannot see that Canada will not be just as protected against security risks if the person concerned is given an opportunity to meet the case against him.
I am not saying that such a person should be admitted. I am not saying that he should
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board not eventually be deported as a consequence of the decision of the appeal board. I am not suggesting that the doors of Canada be opened to security risks. Not at all. All I am saying is that when you provide a procedure for appeal it either ought to be meaningful, democratic, fair and just or it should not be there. If there is to be a ministerial ukase in any event, then let the minister make it in his office. I do not like the pretence of an appeal which in fact is no appeal at all but is merely a process by which two ministers file a certificate with the board, which certificate says to the board that this is what they shall do. You cannot see it, you do not know what is in it, and you do not know why the thing has been done to you. If it were decided there should be no appeal I would disagree, but at least I would respect the forthrightness of that position. I must say frankly that I do not respect a pretension that there is an appeal when in fact there is none at all and when in fact the decision is made by the ministers on the advice of the police and some officer of the department.
In concluding my remarks I should like to say that I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the idea of the appeal board embodied in Bill C-220 is a great improvement over the appeal board which we had under the Immigration Act. I agree with him that the apparent objectives are excellent and I admire and support them. But I am beginning to feel more and more, as I grow older and study the art of political science and government, that all of us, ministers and members alike, are much more in the hands of our officers and the bureaucrats than we like to admit. I cannot help but feel time and time again that as members of parliament or as members of the government we set out with good and sincere intentions to achieve a desirable social result and then on the road the bureaucratic fear and distrust of human behaviour, the bureaucratic desire to bundle everything up in a nice, neat package, the bureaucratic urge to be certain that every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed, regardless of the human values which are involved, gets in the way of the governmental and parliamentary intention to have a piece of legislation which really expresses their objectives. You then have a piece of legislation which so fences in the objectives with legalistic and bureaucratic requirements as to leave very little of the sincere desires of those responsible for the original idea.
13288	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
I say to the minister, with the respect which all of us have for him, that I am afraid this is what has happened in the case of this bill. A genuinely humanitarian objective has been truncated by the fears to which I have referred and the result is a bill which has not achieved its objectives but provides even greater difficulties for many of the people concerned than they had before.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) was absolutely right that when we hand these final powers to a board and set out with great meticulousness the limits of their authority we do not increase the chances that human considerations will play a part; we decrease them. Whatever minister we have had to deal with, whether the hon. member for Carleton when he was minister of immigration, Mrs. Fairclough who was minister of immigration during the preceding government, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay), the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), or the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), my experience has been that when a matter reached them, whether they agreed with it or not one was certain that human factors were given weight. One cannot be certain that this will be the case under this legislation. The results under this legislation may be less desirable than they were when the minister had discretion in respect of the final decision in such matters.
I hope with all my heart, therefore, that when the bill comes before the committee of the whole some of the objections I have raised which I believe to be important and valid, if I may say so, will find a responsive ear on the part of the minister and that some attempt will be made by all of us to amend this legislation so that the desirable objectives we had in the first place will be fulfilled.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we now are considering a bill which has to do with what I believe is one of the most important aspects of government administration, namely, immigration to Canada and the development of our national economy. I am sure too that many members of this house recognize the importance of a continuous stream of new immigrants. There are several reasons for this, one being the fact that we have an extremely large land area and a very limited population. It would seem to me that the only way we can hope to continue to develop our country and make it what it ought to be is by having an increasing

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
population to accept the challenges that exist and to work together to achieve the development that we all desire. On the other hand, I think we must recognize the fact that with an area such as ours and in view of the very crowded conditions in other parts of the world, we cannot expect to keep such a large land area confined to such a small population. Therefore it would seem to me that we must recognize our responsibility to open our doors to immigration and accept into our country those who desire to come here.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Of course, we must also realize the importance of some guiding principles in the acceptance of immigrants. I do not believe we can adopt a wide-open door policy. This would be a disservice not only to our country but to those who seek to enter Canada. But with the conditions that exist in Canada I feel that if government policies were established and implemented to facilitate the absorption into our economic and social life of those who desire to come here, there is no reason why we should not continue a very vigorous program of immigration.
We must acknowledge the fact that those who have come to our shores have made a tremendous contribution to our country in practically every area of life, in industry, agriculture, commerce and finance, as well as the contribution they have made in the sharing of their various cultures. On numbers of occasions in this house statistics have been placed on the record to indicate how Canada and the lives of Canadians have been enriched by these new Canadians. We know this situation will continue as we accept them into our country.
Suggestions have been made from time to time to the effect that our economy is being adversely affected by the entry of those from abroad. I do not believe this is so. In times past our immigration policies have been so restrictive that I do not think there has been any indication that the country has been adversely affected by their entry. Therefore I believe that a broadminded and widely implemented immigration policy will continue to admit an increasing number of people into Canada and will result in nothing but good for them and for us.
However, I believe there have been some contradictions or paradoxes in the various government policies in relation to immigration and their effect upon immigration as a whole. I should like first of all to refer to a statement made by Professor Eastman in his
February 21, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13289
critical analysis of the position taken by the Economic Council of Canada in its third annual review. As I have indicated, Professor Eastman was sharply critical of the council for encouraging governments to step up the immigration of skilled workers during times of shortages as a complement to domestic manpower and adjustment programs. He said:
The consequence of that policy is to reduce the inducement that is offered to members of the labour force in Canada to enter an industry or to acquire a skill, since foreign substitutes are provided as the acquisition of that skill or status becomes relatively profitable. It also reduces the need for public investment in training for that particular skill and thus reduces or eliminates the opportunity that local labour has to obtain the skill in question or the higher relative income that it implies.
This kind of immigration policy has been on a sufficiently large scale in Canada to have very much wider repercussions than merely meeting a shortage. Indeed, a good case could be made that it has markedly affected the opportunity and terms on which some young Canadians enter the labour force. Encouragement to this kind of opportunity-reducing immigration policy should not be given under the guise of meeting "bottlenecks" until much fuller study has been made.
I would also call attention to an article headed "Centennial Plan To Mobilize Thousands In Foreign Aid Programs" which appeared in today's Globe and Mail. The first paragraph reads:
Two new centennial projects to mobilize thousands of Canadians in foreign aid programs are being planned.
I am not saying I object to the present policies of the government but the paradox is that, on the one hand, they encourage the entry into Canada of skilled workers and those in other categories-but I believe one of the qualifications is that they must be skilled or have reached a certain standard of preparedness in order that they may fit into the Canadian economy-while, on the other hand, Canadians are to be sent out of the country on foreign assignments, to assist other countries. This seems a rather paradoxical situation. I hope that the words of Professor Eastman will be noted and very serious consideration will be given to reconciling some of these problems and resolving them in the national interest and for the national good.
There is another aspect of immigration policy that should be subject to question. I refer to the situation in which agriculture finds itself at the present time. It seems almost impossible for those engaged in agriculture to obtain the workers they require to [DOT] carry on the agricultural industry. I have
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board special reference to periods of seasonal employment. We all know that in the last two or three years there has been real difficulty in securing the number of seasonal workers required to meet the needs of the agricultural industry. I know that the immigration department makes provision for some workers to be brought into the country, but then they turn around and ensure that they are sent back to the country from which they came. I believe that with a redirection of immigration policy it would be possible to bring into this country those who would fit into our agricultural economy and perhaps overcome the difficulty we are having with regard to seasonal employment.
I understand, of course, that the bill now before us has special reference to the establishment of an appeal board. The history of immigration in the past emphasizes the necessity for some type of body that will bring to bear upon immigration a degree of human warmth and understanding that perhaps has not been evident for some considerable time in the operations of the department.
In introducing this bill last night the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration outlined in some detail the terms under which the appeal board will operate. There was an indication of the various fields in which the board will operate, the extent to which it can go in the handling of appeals and the type of appeals it can handle. I suggest there are additional fields that need consideration and study. I think of people who have made application for entry into Canada and there is such a long delay in processing their applications that they begin to wonder whether they will ever have the opportunity of coming to this country. There should be some way in which applications can be processed with a minimum delay in order that a decision can be reached so that those who are applying will know whether or not they are going to be able to make plans to change their residence and take up life in this land of opportunity and challenge.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Some reference has been made today to those who have applied for permission to enter Canada but have been denied entry and wonder why their applications have been denied. Some of these people must be placed in a very difficult position psychologically. They have made their applications but for some reason their applications have been rejected. They do not seem to be advised of the reasons they are not allowed to come to this country.
13290	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board Questions immediately arise in their mind about what has been said of them or what the situation is. I believe it is imperative that those who have made applications and have been denied entry know exactly why and under what conditions their applications have been denied.
I am thinking as well of those who are desirous of coming to this country but who are in a country in which there are at the moment no facilities for processing their applications. One inquiry was made of me recently and I was advised that at the present time there are no facilities in that particular country for processing applications and there is no immediate prospect of any being established. These are some of the things which I believe ought to be considered when we are considering the administration of the department and overall immigration policy.
I believe the parliamentary secretary made reference to those who enter Canada illegally and then desire to stay in this country. This is certainly a field that requires attention. I understand, of course, that the appeal board will be able to handle such situations. I do not hold any brief, however, for those who for ulterior reasons gain entry into Canada and then seek to carry on illegal practices or illegal activities while they are in the country. Certainly these people should be deported to the country whence they came. Those who have entered Canada without knowledge of all the ramifications of the immigration law, who have perhaps come to this country seeking refuge from an intolerable situation in their own country, should receive the fullest consideration. I believe these are cases in which the warmth of human feeling and compassion ought to be evident. These people should be given every opportunity to prove themselves and to make their contribution to the development of our country.
These are the only general remarks I wish to make this afternoon. Once again let me say that this department is one of the most important departments of government. It is perhaps one the most difficult departments with which to deal because of the human element that is involved and the fact that individual cases and a variety of personalities are constantly being dealt with. It is a very difficult department, but no doubt when we have given attention to it we will finally arrive at a policy that will be adequate and fair and will be in the best interests of our nation and of those who would join us in building this country.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Matapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly pleased to see Bill No. C-220 coming back to the house for second reading.
When that bill was introduced, last July, I believe, I was away unfortunately and I was unable at that time to take part in the debate. I must say first of all that I am sincerely pleased to see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) submitting this bill to the house now for approval.
One knows that a white paper was prepared by the department of immigration on every aspect of the Immigration Act and that it is now under consideration by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. We are now awaiting its report to evaluate the amendments which will have to be made to the Immigration Act which has not been amended since 1953 and of which certain regulations have been amended from time to time by the successive ministers of immigration.
We can, therefore, expect that fundamental changes will be made in the Immigration Act after the publication of the white paper and the evidence given in committee. As drafted in 1953 that act met the particular needs of the time.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Since that time, major changes have occurred not only throughout the world, but in Canada also, and the method of dealing with the increasing number of immigrants to Canada is surely different from what it might have been in the past.
Before opening the debate on the Immigration Act in general, we have a special bill dealing with a particular aspect of immigration, namely the question of appeal in the field of immigration.
In order to understand clearly the reason for the present bill, it is perhaps necessary to review the history of this ministerial discretion which, in fact, the bill before us proposes to change substantially. This ministerial discretion is the very basis of the Immigration Act. There is not one section of the Immigration Act which does not show that the minister may, at his discretion, reverse decisions handed down previously at the administrative level. This went on for years and I was appointed minister of immigration at a time when this ministerial discretion, following various well-known events, was severely
February 21. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13291
criticized in this house and in newspapers throughout the country.
I became head of the department of immigration in February, 1964. It is no secret that * I was to be placed in charge of the department of agriculture for eastern Canada and not at the head of the department of immigration. However, on February 4, 1964, I was sworn in as minister of immigration.
As was previously pointed out-I believe it was the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) who made the statement-being responsible for the department of immigration under the present legislation, is one of the most difficult tasks, mainly because of the considerable amount of work involved. The minister must investigate all appeals and decisions, with respect to immigration matters and, in view of the human nature of problems involved in the field of immigration, he cannot always discharge his responsibilities in what could be called a mechanical way.
I do not think any minister of immigration has ever dealt carelessly with immigration records, knowing that the life and future of individuals, children and friends could be completely changed in just overnight because of a decision handed down by the Minister of Immigration. Reviewing immigration records is, therefore, a difficult and delicate task, where all factors, which are often contradictory, have to be taken into consideration. We have to consider security conditions in our country, economic requirements, social, human and political circumstances involving human beings.
But I know that that task must be performed and it has been by all the ministers who have assumed that responsibility. However, as someone said before and as the Sedgwick report states, that takes so much of the time and efforts of a minister of immi-gation that, very often, he is unable to devote enough time to the consideration of general problems concerning immigration policies.
When I assumed my office, the department included the Indian affairs division which, as you know, embraces a great deal of problems that are as human and complex as immigration. I say this merely to point out that, at the time I became head of the department of immigration, I was aware of taking upon myself a heavy and extremely delicate task.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that certain explanations are in order to make clear why the problem of ministerial discretion was at one point referred to Mr. Sedgwick who later prepared
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board a report which was used as the basis for the bill now before us.
The first problems I encountered as minister of immigration-I refer here to the public aspect of the problem, later on, when I speak of security, I shall deal wfth specific security problems-concerned ship deserters, which gave rise to many debates in this house.
At that time, it was mainly a matter of Greek deserters, several of whom had been brought before the courts, particularly in the Toronto area.
One remembers the campaign initiated then by the Toronto press. The way they dealt with this problem; the scandalized approach which the Toronto press mainly the Telegram, followed by the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, took to this problem of ship deserters who were rotting in jail, at the Toronto Don jail and whom the poor officers of the Department of Immigration in Toronto held in jail inhumanly. At that time, the Minister of Immigration was being held responsible for all the sins of Israel in regard to this problem of ship deserters.
In view of the opposition voiced in Toronto newspapers and in this house, the government decided, on my recommendation, in order to set matters straight, to appoint an investigating commissioner to look into all those cases brought up day after day on the orders of the day and to determine exactly if the good Toronto newspapers were justified in launching an attack against a Liberal government and a young minister who was just gaining his first experience in immigration.
The choice of Mr. Sedgwick was quite sensible and was commended by all parties in the house. He was an outstanding Conservative who had no reason to make things easy for the Liberal government, but he knew a great deal about immigration matters.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This was a man who had practised for many years and was still practising, and who was capable of judging facts objectively, without taking sides, and of giving a ruling based on the facts as represented.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the first part of the Sedgwick report which was tabled in the house on April 2, 1965, came in very late at a time when I was ill-my first illness, Mr. Chairman, not the second. I was in the hospital at that time, and the first Sedgwick report which I hold in my hand,
13292	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board was tabled on April 2, 1965, that is on the eve of a recess, at two o'clock in the morning, approximately, by the parliamentary secretary of the then minister of immigration.
No comment was forthcoming from the opposition! I can well understand that, because the report corroborated the position I had held for months in this house on every case that had been criticized by the various members of the opposition except in one case where delays had occurred in the department of immigration and this I had admitted the day after the case was brought up in the house.
In all the other cases, commissioner Sedgwick confirmed the procedure which has been followed. It was the right one. It was the position taken by the department of immigration in those cases, the only one warranted in the circumstances and the only one in accordance with the powers of the minister of immigration and his officials.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the other aspects of the legislation. With your permission, I will simply read the last paragraph of the first Sedgwick report which has never been read in this house by the hon. members of the opposition who at that time so strongly denounced the procedure of the department of immigration but never made any comment on the judgment that commissioner Sedgwick made on the cases related to ship deserters. And I quote from the Sedgwick report, part 1, pages 37 and 38, and this brings us back to what I said about the Toronto newspapers which championed all those immigration cases in the name of human dignity and all those great principles which it was easy to proclaim at the time.
Commissioner Sedgwick said this:
I have perused a great number of newspaper reports relating to these cases. While I am tempted to comment at length on the manner in which some segments of the press chose to represent the "facts" to the public,
And the word "facts" is in quotation marks.
I refrain from doing so as I do not conceive an exhaustive examination of press comments to be within the ambit of my retainer. I will, however, cite one example as indicative of what I have in mind. In the Toronto Telegram of May 23rd there is an article dealing with the Hooper case under the heading "Man's Crime Was Silence". The tenor of the article is that Hooper was being made the victim of some unique and outrageous law. That is not so. Refusal to answer questions is punishable, and quite properly so, under many statutes, federal and provincial.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
It is contempt of court, and punishable, for a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding to refuse to be sworn or, being sworn, to refuse to answer questions, and there is no reason why a person suspected of being in this country illegally should not be required to give a true account of himself or be punished if he refuses. In the sense that it is an offence and punishable, silence is a crime, but the article erroneously conveys the impression that silence is peculiarly an immigration offence. Indeed, the courts could not carry on if every witness could with impunity decide for himself whether to speak or be dumb.
While I have found occasion to level some criticism I should express my opinion that the fault did not arise from any positive or deliberate intention on the part of those concerned to act in an improper manner.
Many of the attacks which have been made in this affair have been ill-founded or exaggerated, and I regret to say I am left with the impression that a good deal of the criticism is based on nothing more than cynical catering for a variety of motives, to so-called "ethnic groups".
Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure the Toronto newspapers took that stand at the time to please ethnic groups. I am rather inclined to believe that they wanted to destroy the then minister of immigration, because at the same time, those three Toronto newspapers were trying to keep in Canada-the N.D.P. members are well aware of it for they protested repeatedly to me in this regard-those three Toronto newspapers tried to keep the American strikebreakers they had brought over because of the printers' strike. In spite of the representations made by those three newspapers I took the traditional stand of the department of immigration: that of not allowing strikebreakers to stay on the job while the strike was in progress and of refusing the landed immigrant status to those strikebreakers.
I was informed that the people involved were really strikebreakers and I upheld-I did not make the decision personally-the decision of my departmental officials to deport some of the employees of the Toronto newspapers, which naturally was bound to displease these gentlemen of the Toronto press.
I was expecting attacks, and I was not surprised to read constant attacks against the minister of immigration in the three Toronto newspapers each morning. But in the case of those ships, I think their attacks were unfair and unjustified. The first report of commissioner Sedgwick showed that the position taken by the department and which I had defended in the house was eminently defensible and complied with the existing Immigration Act and the current rules.
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
If there has been procedural delays, this was the fault of the courts and in no way the responsibility of the department of immigration, except in one case where there really was a delay occasioned by the department of immigration; this delay was corrected by a procedure which I announced in the house several days later.


Mr. Mongrain:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


René Tremblay: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I should like to address a question to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if it is a little personal, but it would be important to see the hon. member's reaction. Was it after that adventure to which the hon. member is now referring that the novel on the furniture deal was invented or before?


René Tremblay: After. The furniture adventure is related to another problem, namely the problem of national security. This is another problem on which I will speak extensively immediately.
The second problem which faced the department of immigration, at that time, is security cases. They are well known, because some of them have been referred to in inquiries; there is the well-known Bonanno case, one of the leading figures of the Montreal underworld; the Minaudo case, the Windsor, Ontario underworld chief; the Violi brothers case in Montreal, the Stonehill case and so on.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, under the present act to be amended by Bill No. C-220, the minister of immigration, as I said, is legally empowered, among other things, to reverse a decision of the department or even of the present appeal board in cases of deportation.
It is a known fact that every time a case is appealed before the board and even before a ruling is made, representations are made to the minister of immigration. Such representations can be quite legitimate. It is quite possible for a member of parliament, a political organizer of any party, a religious leader, to have contacted the person concerned or one of his relatives, and to submit representations in writing or in person on behalf of that person to senior departmental officials who exercise that discretion through delegated powers, either the director of Immigration, the deputy minister or the minister.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
Experience often proves that new facts can be presented to the department or to the minister as a result of such representations. And it may happen that in view of these new facts, the minister may quite legitimately reverse a departmental ruling.
But, Mr. Speaker, as shown in the second Sedgwick report, that is the danger for the minister who, in addition to being responsible for the department, is a politician who must receive representations often unfounded, from anybody, from people who, for monetary or other reasons, put the pressure on the minister.
It will be said, Mr. Speaker, that in such a case, the minister must act impartially- and I believe this is what every minister does. However, as has often been said, it is not enough for the minister to make a fair decision, his decision must also seem fair.
We see the situation in which the minister of immigration finds himself when he reserves a decision, convinced that he has good reason to do so but who, due to more or less doubtful or biased representations made on the subject by public opinion or political opponents, is accused of taking a position for political reasons, interest or other motives.
Mr. Speaker, I experienced this situation whenever deportation cases were being discussed. I lived through this period when, precisely because I was in the midst of problems such as these, I had to make a decision and did, in fact, make such decisions at a time when all kinds of criticisms or suspicions could be directed against me.
And it is precisely on account of those criticisms that notwithstanding the fact that, in all cases before public opinion, I had made the necessary decision-and I am prepared to place my record as minister of immigration before any committee of the house at any time.
In all cases, such as Bonanno, Stonehill, Minaudo and Violi cases, I acted in the interest of this country. Those were security cases and I explained a while ago the stand I took in such cases.
But, irrespective of the stand taken in individual cases, the fact remained that I recognized, that the government recognized that the minister of immigration was in an extremely delicate situation in security cases involving the underworld, since he could be criticized politically be it rightly or wrongly. It made it very hard for him to justify his stand, particularly in security cases.
13294	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
That is when, under circumstances I need not describe as everyone is aware of them, it was decided that commissioner Sedgwick be asked to prepare a second report. The letter of the Prime Minister, dated January 27, 1965, asked Mr. Sedgwick to prepare a second report on ministerial discretion in the case of the minister of immigration.
And it is the second report which is before us and which precisely contains commissioner Sedgwick's recommendations on ministerial discretion.
In fact, the commissioner made recommendations with which I am generally in agreement. He recommended that ministerial discretion in immigration matters be abolished.
I shall quote his reasons, if you will allow me, because I think they are basic if we are to understand the bill before us. On page 8 of his report, commissioner Sedgwick says this:
In recommending that the hoard's decisions be final I do so for these reasons:
In other words, it means that any decision by the Immigration Appeal Board would be final and that the minister would have no authority to quash or change the board's decision.
1.	To make appeals to the board subject to review and final determination by the Minister is to render the board essentially sterile.
That is very true. My one year experience at the department of immigration showed me that cases are usually dealt with very quickly, at the board level, for an appeal is then made directly to the minister, and this reduces the prestige and authority of the present Immigration Appeal Board.
If the board's decision is unfavourable, recourse to the minister is almost automatic in a great proportion of cases and the board is reduced to a mere stepping stone between the special inquiry officer and the minister.
The second reason:
2.	This would relieve the minister of a great deal of pressure of an undesirable nature.
The undesirable pressure referred to a while ago.
My inquiries satisfy me that the pressures brought to bear have often dictated the disposition of cases.
Thus, commissioner Sedgwick indicates here that the decisions were made after pressures had been brought to bear and the cases were solved according to those pressures.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, that influence is legitimate or it is not; often, it is very difficult for the minister himself or the deputy

DEBATES	February 21. 1967
minister or the director of immigration to make a difference between the simple compassionate grounds which may exist in an appeal case and the other reasons which may incite people to act.
The third reason is as follows:
3.	Ministerial duties and commitments are onerous and such that it is impossible for the minister to give careful consideration to a multitude of individual cases.
It is a real problem which I mentioned earlier. It was also pointed out by the hon. member for Carleton. It is that the minister of immigration has so much responsibility in the field of general immigration policy that his time could be more usefully spent otherwise than in making decisions, which is something really useful and important but that other people can do possibly as well as he can under more favourable conditions than those in which the minister finds himself most of the time.
And the fourth reason is as follows:
4.	I would expect that an independent board exercising discretion along the lines indicated above would soon, on the basis of precedent-
That is the jurisprudence we talked about.
-evolve intelligible and reasonable guide lines which would be made known to members of the legal profession and others particularly interested in immigration matters as well as to the public generally.
Mr. Speaker, commissioner Sedgwick's report contains several recommendations, but this basic recommendation, along with changes we shall discuss later, is embodied in Bill No. C-220, establishing a new Immigration Appeal Board which will be granted much more authority than the present board. With the exception of security cases only, the decision of the board will be final; however, appeal to the Supreme Court is possible on points of law.
A special commission must be maintained with respect to immigration appeals in security cases. I realized very early, upon becoming head of the department of immigration, that security cases are very serious. A report on security problems in Canada regarding immigration had been prepared for me, when I was appointed minister of immigration. A conference was called immediately by the minister of justice, now President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) and myself, including all senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the department of immigration and the Department of Justice, in
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
order to elaborate a new and aggressive policy with regard to the underworld and all elements considered as a threat to the security of our country.
This report I have before me was discussed during that meeting and the general conclusions dated March 12, 1964, were to the effect that first the Chinese amnesty should be ended, and this is a secondary problem- secondary compared to the one on our mind now-with which I do not want to deal here. But the main conclusions of that meeting were precisely to set up in the department of immigration a special division which would check all the security cases outstanding and try to detect, in co-operation with the R.C.M.P., the underworld and mafia leaders in the various cities of our country, precisely in order to deport them.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr, Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I assume that the report to which he has been referring is a departmental document, not a public one?


René Tremblay: That is right, Mr. Speaker, that departmental report was never published but it formed the very basis of a policy within the department of immigration which was actually implemented through the establishment of this special centre in the department. As a matter of fact, in November 1964, Mr. L. E. Lefaive was appointed head of the enforcement division of the department of immigration which maintained relations with the Department of Justice and the R.C.M.P. precisely with regard to the deportation of special security cases, involving mainly the underworld and the mafia. In fact, at that meeting, authorities of the justice department and the R.C.M.P. were asking the department of immigration to set up a unit designed to help in the fight against the underworld, for deportation purposes.
In fact, the unit, headed by Mr. Lefaive, and his men uncovered Bonanno a few weeks later in Montreal and some weeks later he was deported to the United States. It was precisely Mr. Lefaive and his men who, independently of the R.C.M.P. had succeeded in uncovering Mr. Bonanno who was on the list we had received.


David Lewis: Is Mr. Lefaive still the head of that division?
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


René Tremblay: Yes. I think he is still the head. In any case, he was until recently.
Mr. Speaker, this important function fulfilled by the department of immigration in matters of security is one that must be maintained and the new bill in fact provides that the minister of immigration and the Solicitor General may conduct very serious investigations in cases brought to their attention. I think the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) indicated that normally the minister of immigration makes decisions in matters of security on the basis of very slight reports. Well, I think that the minister of immigration, in all cases involving security, has all the necessary reports to make a decision and a serious investigation is made for the minister. From now on, there will be two ministers, the Solicitor General responsible for the R.C.M.P. and the minister of immigration who will jointly sign a deportation order. In those cases, the right of appeal will be suspended. I submit that, for the security of the country, this power of the minister of immigration and the Solicitor General jointly to suspend the right of appeal is absolutely necessary if the department of immigration is to continue -and I am convinced that it will, because the minister of immigration has already made a statement in the house on the subject -to co-operate very closely with the R.C.M.P. and with the Department of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allowed to him is over.


Some hon. Members:: Keep on.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I am almost through with my general remarks on Bill No. C-220.
I believe the indications I gave permit an understanding of the context in which the Sedgwick report on the minister's discretion was prepared and the motives that let to it. I think I have succeeded-at least I hope-in showing that this bill meets a need that was felt by all ministers of immigration, that is to unload themselves as much as possible of their discretion on an organization of officials or commissioners where no criticism could be made, whether or not they would be justified. I think the upholding of personal responsibility on the part of the minister in security matters is absolutely essential and I am convinced that with the changes in details which may be made during the debate, Bill No. C-220 was a must.
13296	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
It was better, on account of the urgency of the situation, to call it at once, even before the report of the joint committee on immigra-ion was submitted, and if this bill is given legislative form, I believe the minister of immigration will be happier from now on than I have been myself in the past and that this country will greatly benefit from it.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house allow the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) to ask a question?


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member if he can tell us whether the information concerning the orders for the deportation of members of the underworld or the mafia are sent to him directly or spontaneously by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or whether they must be passed on to him by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) at the request of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand).


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, since I have no responsibility as a member of the government, I do not wish to answer this question. I shall merely say, in reference to the past, that when the department of immigration was my responsibility, the establishment of this unit under Mr. Lefaive within the department of immigration was an initiative taken by the department. This initiative, of course, cannot be taken alone and there is constant cooperation between this unit within the department of immigration and the authorities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The Bonanno case, which I mentioned, is one where the procedure and discovery initiated in the immigration branch. In other cases the opposite may be true and police authorities may be the ones to discover the matter.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Trembley) and to my good friend the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and in anticipation of what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) will say, because I assume he will participate in this debate before it has been concluded, let me say at once that I have always held the opinion that in the cases which have concerned me and with which they have had to deal in their capacity as

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
ministers they have given the most careful, anxious and detailed study to the problems involved. As the hon. member who just resumed his seat said, problems which involve the status of people, the status of their families and questions of property are the most serious and difficult problems in respect of which any other human being has to make decisions. I am quite satisfied that in any of the dealings I have had concerning such cases nothing but the greatest consideration has been given by the ministers involved.
Nevertheless, this bill is a recognition of the fact that no one pair of shoulders is broad enough and no one person has the physical or mental capacity to be placed in the position of being compelled to make the kind of decisions which in the past these hon. gentlemen have had to make. The fact is that these problems involve people and also involve hearsay evidence, not first-hand evidence but rather second, third and fourth-hand evidence.
The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane said that certain reports came to his desk. True enough. But as one who has been concerned in the practice of law and who has appeared before the courts for 40 years I still marvel at the infinite capacity of the human mind to twist and turn things and even deceive the person who is making the report. I am not saying this with any intention of castigating people concerned with security or other civil servants. This is a fact of nature. To expect a minister who has administrative responsibilities of considerable scope in addition to his duties in respect of immigration and who also is a member of this house and a politician-a word which I think has a very desirable connotation-to make these decisions is positively repugnant to me. I am very glad to see that at long last this bill has recognized that fact and has taken away from one man these responsibilities which the various ministers have had to try to discharge over a great many years. I only hope that this will be extended to other matters.
Despite the sanctimonious claptrap sometimes uttered in this house about the sacred liberties of people and the rights of parliament, all too often what we see is a bald exercise in divorcement from reality. All too often governments in the exercise of their power arbitrarily seek to make their decisions in the darkest recesses and cubbyholes of government bureaucracy. When there is a choice between legislating through order in council and legislating by coming openly and boldly before parliament, too frequently the
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
first choice is made. I hope this bill is a beginning and that the government will recognize that this is the best way to function. For this reason we now have removed from the minister what always should have been an area of either judicial or quasi-judicial decision. By this bill we purport to set up a board as a court of record with certain judicial functions.
There are still some exceptions about which I am not happy. The hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) have dealt with these. I do not know to what extent the bill is susceptible to amendment in committee. I am inclined to doubt that it will be. I had hoped that when the government went this far it would have been prepared to take more giant strides. After I have finished and other members have spoken the minister probably will speak in closing the debate and I hope he will indicate the degree of flexibility he intends to exercise when the bill reaches the committee because I think there are some very important changes which should be made, some of which have already been touched upon by other hon. members who have participated in the debate.
We now have established the principle, which I think is very important, that there must be an examination by an independent tribunal. This is a very far reaching innovation and I am very happy to see it. Some mention was made by the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Carle-ton of the speech made last night by the parliamentary secretary to the minister who told us that the bill came forward a little more rapidly than was anticipated. I question, as do other hon. gentlemen, some of the statements he made. It is not only this bill we must examine but rather this bill read in relation to the present Immigration Act and regulations and also having in mind some of the judicial interpretations which have been made in cases which have been the subject of discussion, some of which have gone to the Supreme Court. I think we must take all these together. There are concentric rings involved.
Quite frankly, I have not been able to inform myself as well as I should have and it may be that the criticisms I am now making have been made. I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary. I thought his speech was well delivered and included many
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board pertinent factors. However, as found on page 13268 of Hansard, for instance, he said:
The board will be authorized to deal conclusively with all appeals against deportation orders. The one proviso is that provided the deportation order is found to have been legally made, it must be carried out where in criminal or security cases the board is provided with proper certification from the Solicitor-General-
And so on. Then again:
The discretionary authority of the board is defined according to two types of deportation cases. Where a legal resident of Canada has been ordered deported and has appealed, the board can decide what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. On humanitarian or other grounds it can set aside a deportation order, however legally valid.
I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for York South that there does not seem to be anything in the bill to justify this. True enough, under clause 15, once the appeal is heard and a decision made there is a right to stay the execution of an order on the grounds set out. Under subclause (1) (b) (ii) of clause 15 the board can take into consideration the existence of other exceptional circumstances. But this is in connection with a stay of proceedings. So far as the exercise of the authority in the present act by the board is concerned, there is no right other than to examine the provisions of the Immigration Act as modified by this bill and then act accordingly. Once a decision has been made then, with certain exceptions, I think the board has the right to take into account exceptional circumstances. In the decision as to what are exceptional circumstances the board may be compelled to follow the other provisions of clause 15. I do not know. I hope the minister may be able to convince me that I am incorrect in my view about this.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
However, my position is that when the rights and liberties of people are dealt with the whole apparatus of the state is arrayed against the individual. As one who has been active for 40 years in proceedings in which I have consistently acted against the crown, I know what is involved in this question. I know that the crown, with all the money at its command, with all the expert advice, assistance and witnesses it can call, with all this great apparatus at its hand, poses a very considerable threat to any individual, not deliberately but merely because of its sheer weight and bulk.
13298	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
Over the centuries we have conceived under our criminal law some very sound and sensible principles with regard to the rights of individuals, except in cases where the revenue of the state is involved when the situation is reversed. But where the rights and liberties of an individual are involved, under our criminal law we say, first, that the crown must prove its case. The onus is upon the crown to prove its case and that onus can only be discharged by producing evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed.
It would seem to me that if we are setting up this board to make decisions with regard to matters which are in many respects on the same footing, because they involve the rights and liberties of people, the same type of principle could have been inserted in this legislation without any great harm being done. A provision could have been inserted to the effect that under these proceedings the onus would be upon the government to establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt and the responsibility would be upon them to initiate the steps to discharge that onus. I think such a provision would meet some of the objections which have been raised by the hon. member for Carleton and others.
Second, there is the right of appeal from a decision of the immigration appeal board. That right of appeal is given to the individual on facts or law, or mixed facts and law, if I am correct. The same right is given to the crown. I believe that the government, having seen fit to appoint as members of the board men in whom they have confidence as to their integrity, knowledge, capacity and depth of human feeling in assessing and evaluating the facts in a given case and reaching a decision, must be assumed to have decided that they will respect their judgment.
I suggest that in cases of appeal the government should be limited to matters of law alone. Once the immigration appeal board has heard a case and come to a decision in favour of the individual, I suggest that the same principle should prevail as prevails with regard to a great many criminal matters and that the right of appeal of the government should be confined to questions of law alone. I do not know whether the minister is open to suggestion; I do not know how flexible he is. We will have an opportunity to find out before this bill is passed. But I hope he will give these suggestions consideration.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
I wish to make only one more point. This bill has been very adequately dealt with and there will be far more suitable opportunities to deal with the various matters involved when we are in committee. I am concerned about the effect of clause 21. I must not deal in detail with this matter but I cannot speak on the principle of this bill on second reading without expressing my repugnance to the principle involved in clause 21. This problem was before us yesterday with respect to another matter.
I know there are cases when the security and safety of the state must be considered. I agree with other hon. members that sometimes this factor is overemphasized. Sometimes there is a tendency to exaggerate its importance, using it as a peg on which to hang the argument of handing over to the government a far greater degree of power than is required. Nevertheless there is a problem in this area. I admit quite frankly and honestly that we cannot apply the same rules in these cases as apply in ordinary cases under criminal law or where the safety of the person or property of an individual is concerned vis-a-vis the state. Nevertheless, to leave this discretion to ministers of the crown is simply repeating the mistakes of the past.
Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the government, its law officers and the civil service to devise a means by which cases which are certified to involve security matters can be heard by this board or a special panel of the board sitting in camera if necessary. These people are human beings, as are the two ministers involved. I assume that the members of the board will take certain oaths at the time of their appointment. Surely there is no reason why, with certain limitations and proper safeguards, the immigration appeal board could not entertain these cases.
I know that the government is now waiting for the report of a committee dealing with the whole question of security, but it seems to me to be repugnant to an orderly state of affairs that people who are properly in this country should be subject to orders which affect them and their families without having any idea of the general tenor of the accusations made against them, without the source of the accusations being in any way disclosed and without having the fullest opportunity to answer to accusations.
I assume that the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) and the minister will attempt to
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
turn themselves into a court and decide, as the immigration appeal board will do, on the facts given to them whether the provisions which protect these people should be withdrawn and they should be subject to a deportation order. But I suggest there is no reason why, with safeguards and limiting conditions, the opportunity should not be given to a panel of the immigration appeal board to give careful and earnest consideration to these extremely difficult problems.
We must grow up about these things, recognizing the dangers which exist. Surely we have now reached the stage in our development as a country and a people where we can face these dangers and provide for them. We should provide for them without in any way interfering with the operation of the rule of law, modified, of course, to meet the special circumstances. I do not know whether it is intended that this clause and what is involved in it will be changed when the government's committee dealing with security matters has brought in its recommendations. I hope the minister will consider this aspect of the matter. If there is to be no willingness on the part of the minister to change the provisions of clause 21 now, I hope he will assure us that when the committee has reported and the whole matter is brought before the house for at least some measure of debate he will be sufficiently flexible to advise the government that if changes are possible in the light of the report the committee brings down he will not oppose such changes in the legislation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in
opening my remarks on Bill No. C-220, to establish an immigration appeal board, I should like first of all to join preceding members in offering to the minister our appreciation of the way in which he has approached the problem of providing an appeal for people who are faced with deportation. We all believe that he is sincere in his very good intentions to provide an adequate appeal board to deal with these very difficult cases. The objectives of the bill are very high but as you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, in the case of the previous speakers, I too would like to voice some fears that the bill, as it stands, does not have all the necessary powers to achieve these high objectives.
As I have said before, I do not doubt the .sincerity and concern for justice of both the
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board minister and his advisers. In my personal experience with persons ordered for deportation, I was appalled at the failure of the immigration authorities in some cases to accept arguments on moral and compassionate grounds. I do not find any clause, for example, in this bill which gives any authority to members of the new appeal board to act on submissions made on the grounds of compassion or humanitarian considerations.
The act as it now stands empowers the present appeal board to hear cases only on legalistic considerations. It is true that the act provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but again only on questions of law. I ask the minister, where in the bill is there any provision to allow the hearing of submission on moral, humanitarian or compassionate considerations which the parliamentary secretary told us would be available?
Another observation I should like to make to the minister is that the provisions in this bill are limited to the hearing of appeals of Canadian citizens only in respect of such classes of relatives as are referred to in the regulations made by order in council. Here again, the new appeal board's decision will be final. Is this the best way that we can treat our Canadian citizens? Is this compassion? We members of parliament, especially those who are members of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on immigration, have heard numerous representations in person and through briefs to the effect that the present and proposed regulations are in so many cases so restricted that they have often been called unfair, heartless and even discriminatory.
There is another problem in connection with immigration cases, and that is the problem of the deportation of refugee seamen and other refugees who seek asylum in Canada because they fear to return to their country of origin. Some of these refugees have suffered a lot, and some of them are survivors of Nazi concentration camps. There are provisions in certain international conventions dealing with human rights demanding that countries do grant these refugees and political persecutees asylum. I urge all those concerned, therefore, to be guided by the principles in these international conventions, even if formal ratification of them by Canada has not yet been given.
Last week the members of the special joint committee on immigration were in Toronto
13300	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board and heard some interesting and important briefs. One of these briefs was presented by the Canadian Mental Health Association. It stated that mental disorders should no longer be considered as grounds for deporting immigrants or even for barring would be immigrants. Spokesmen for the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Canadian Association for Retarded Children agreed that immigration laws and regulations which bar the way of those who have been in mental hospitals, including epileptics and retarded children, should be swept away. They should be done away with because they are outdated and inhumane.
A new approach based on individual assessment and humanitarian considerations for the immediate members of the family as well should be adopted. These cases should be referred to an independent tribunal of experts in psychiatry, psychology and sociology. Many persons are entering mental clinics of hospitals without being seriously mentally ill. Persons with various levels of education and training enter such institutions for a short time for the treatment of emotional depression. Such persons may recover within three or four weeks and remain well for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, and unfairly, the present Immigration Act labels these people with the horrible and obsolete terms insane".
I should like to suggest to the minister that he update the medical terminology in the act and regulations and remove the word "insane". This stigma should not exist in any Canadian statute.
I have knowledge of immigrants, Mr. Speaker, who on arrival in a strange country suffer a culture shock. This is the shock of trying to adjust to new customs and to a new culture. It could happen that this shock causes a mental breakdown. However, such persons can recover with treatment. I ask again the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), why should these people be deported? The United States government has relaxed is immigration laws by removing the provisions which used to prohibit epileptics entry into that country. United States laws now permit the entry of retarded children up to the age of 14 who are accompanied by an admissible family. The new United States laws also permit former mental patients to come to that country after the surgeon-general decides they have been free from mental illness for a certain period of time.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
With regard to the position of the appeal board, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to give us more information about the set-up and especially tell us how only seven members, only two of whom will be barristers, can inquire as a court of law into all these appeals. I venture to say that the board will really be swamped with appeals, especially with those based on humanitarian grounds. The board will find it very difficult to deal with these cases swiftly. Again I say, I believe these cases will be submitted mostly on compassionate grounds. I believe, therefore that a full time staff of lawyers should be engaged by the department to deal with these inquiries which have to be conducted. Immigration officials should be doing other tasks.
Another observation I should like to make to the minister is that interpreters should be provided at public expense at these inquiries. From time to time I have received complaints from citizens and from potential immigrants that the interpretation services which exist today in this country and abroad are either unavailable or inadequate. I believe that these observations, along with others made by previous speakers this afternoon, are worthy of the most urgent consideration by the minister.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I appeal to him to give urgent and closest attention to the requests of so many Canadian citizens and of their elected representatives in parliament. It is our duty to offer constructive criticism and to try, in the crucible of debate, to make the changes which will improve that which we are given. It behooves us to maintain our high standards of Canadian justice.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to join with the former speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), in his words to the minister. I for one have often been known to be a very harsh critic of immigration policy and procedures. Perhaps it may be said that on a great many occasions I have been justified in my criticism and that at other times I have not been justified. However, I am sure the minister will believe me when I say that I applaud him for the courage he has shown during his tenure of office and for the drive on his part to get before this house not only the white paper on immigration but the legislation presently before us, for which there have been cries from many quarters both outside and inside the house.
February 21, 1987	COMMONS
I also applaud him for his efforts to revamp his department. There have been times when I was perhaps one of the strongest critics of people in the department. However, I must say

and it would be very remiss of me not to say this-that in the past year there has been not a marked improvement but a sensational improvement, and I no longer feel I have to deal directly with the minister's office but can deal, with some hope of success, with the department itself. For this I think the department also deserves a great deal of credit.
I make this commendation, Mr. Speaker, even though I and perhaps others may not agree with many of the things contained in the white paper or with some aspects of the bill presently before the house. Nevertheless I assure the minister that my remarks are directed to some grave reservations I have with respect to certain sections of Bill No. C-220. Others have made comments on many aspects of the bill which I will not reiterate. My main concern is with clause 17 which deals with appeals by sponsors.
I am also one who agrees with the very high objectives set out last evening by the parliamentary secretary. I was not able to be here at the time but I have had the opportunity of reading them. As has been said already, objectives are one thing but putting them into practice is another. Trying to establish an independent tribunal to carry out these high objectives is yet another thing altogether, Mr. Speaker. This is because the members of the tribunal are not required to pay attention to these high objectives. For example, I cannot imagine the minister going to the members of this independent tribunal after they had taken a particular decision and saying: "Gentlemen, you are not following the intent that we had in our minds". It would be impossible for the minister to do this. I fully realize the difficulty he faces, but at the same time I am sure that the humanitarian and compassionate objectives envisaged cannot be legislated. I suggest that in no way can we impose upon this seven-man board any obligation to carry out these objectives. Certainly they have not been carried out in the past and I see no way they can be carried out in the future.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I realize the problem. At the same time I am not one of those who believe that ministerial discretion should be removed completely from the office of the minister. I know that a great many persons,
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board myself included, go to see him about exercising his discretion in a given case. But I am sure that those of us who visit the minister or go to the department seeking a review of a case do not do so simply because the immigrant or constituent in question has asked that it be reviewed. We screen many of these cases ourselves. We do not wish to deal with all of the hundreds of cases which come before us. I would be most happy to tell these people to go to the department but it is very difficult to tell a person who is knocking at your door every week end to go away. Indeed, he may have a justifiable complaint.
In many cases when the department is asked to review a particular file a positive answer is made. Therefore when a sponsor who has made application for a brother or sister or whoever it is he wishes to bring into the country has his application refused, I do not see why he should be put to the expense of retaining counsel. He cannot be expected to appear before the tribunal alone, and although the tribunal deals with both fact and law an appeal to the Supreme Court lies only on a question of law.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, though I hope my fear is unfounded, that this provision will further restrict immigration by sponsorship. According to the provisions of the bill the appeal must be made by a Canadian citizen. According to the white paper a landed immigrant has some rights, but under the bill before us he has no rights in the matter of an appeal because it is a Canadian citizen who has to make the application. Why we should put a sponsor to some expense if he wants to appeal a decision to the Supreme Court, I do not know, and I do not agree with this provision.
I disagree with my colleague from Parkdale on one matter. The board will not be swamped with a great many appeals from sponsors because many applications will not even get to the board even though certain cases may be justified. I believe it was disclosed before the joint Senate-House of Commons committee that sometimes a letter from the department rejecting an application gives reasons for the rejection. I hope this is the case but I do not think that in all cases every reason is given, particularly in cases involving security. Others have dealt with that matter.
I do not know how it would be possible to present such a case. Is a person expected to appear before the board with just the letter he has received from the department stating
13302	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board that the applicant does not meet the requirements of the law or fall within the regulations and therefore the application cannot be accepted, with I presume, the reasons set out? What about documents in the country of origin of the immigrant which may be of assistance to his case? Is this information to be made available to the sponsor so that he can plead a case? These are reservations about the bill that I think many of us have and which create real fear. As I say, one of my fears is that although it is not the intention the bill may further restrict immigration by sponsorship.
With regard to the humanitarian and compassionate aspects, Mr. Speaker, who can deal with such considerations? The independent tribunal? Of course not. These considerations can be dealt with only by the department. The department may say that these matters will be taken into account when the case is considered by the department, and I am sure they will be; but there is no way of establishing this before a tribunal.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I must say that every application made by a sponsor invites a certain amount of pressure being placed upon the minister. I know that parts of the bill have arisen from the Sedgwick report but I have yet to find any editorial writer who approved of the report. With all due respect to Mr. Sedgwick-I articled with him in my final year at Osgoode Hall-not many people agree with his conclusions. The department seems to agree with them. We realize there are problems in regard to ministerial discretion, but where do you draw the line? Pretending the problem does not exist does not wipe it out. One must remember that we are not dealing so much with statute law as with human beings, people with emotions. Some people want to join their families and it is not enough to say to a sponsor that his brother, sister, mother or father cannot come to this country for certain reasons unless you can prove to his satisfaction, which at times may be difficult to do, that it is impossible for the relative to come to Canada.
What is the good of sending out a form letter saying that an appeal must be launched within a certain time? How many people take advantage of such a letter? I can see people coming to our offices screaming that they want to appeal when the time limit has expired. An extension is impossible because we

DEBATES	February 21. 1967
are bound by the law. I feel that the provision respecting appeals by sponsors might inhibit immigration through sponsors.
The present appeal board is not satisfactory. Its decisions may be reviewed by the minister. In sponsored cases the minister has discretion. I ask the minister and his staff to devise some plan whereby a line can be drawn so that people may be helped without the board or department being swamped with appeals. I find it difficult to accept that the ministerial discretion with respect to sponsored appeals should be done away with. I agree with many of the contentions on this subject raised by the hon. member for York South. I hope the minister will review this matter. He must have some answers to the problems.
In all conscience I could not let the opportunity pass of expressing my fear in regard to appeals by sponsors. Under clause 23 an appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada deals with the law. The regulations are based on the law. Certain conditions are set down in the act and any tribunal will know about those, including the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada cannot look at humanitarian and compassionate aspects and it will be impossible for the appeal tribunal set up under this bill to do so.
Canadian immigration procedures throughout our history have always considered humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Ignoring those grounds in this bill is to take a cold-fish attitude to immigration by sponsors. We shall have turned in a full circle. Families will not be reunited. I do not agree with my good friend from Parkdale that we shall be swamped with appeals by sponsors. This bill will have the reverse effect. I fear that such an effect is the purpose of this measure.


Raymond Langlois: 
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, listening to the speeches made over the last few days on the last four bills considered, I could not help thinking as an independent member-if you will allow me this digression-that there is a new climate in the house.
We started our proceedings last year in a climate of distemper and some days, we heard more partisan speeches than objective discussions, to such an extent that after a few months, the press started some kind of discriminatory campaign against this parliament. However, if the reporters have followed our deliberations in the last few months, particularly in the last few weeks, they undoubtedly noticed that there is truly a new climate since the discussions are held on what I might call a high level. Objections, or rather interventions, are objective and I think it is very
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
interesting to follow them, to listen to them from both sides. Members of the party in power have even expressed well detailed and well grounded criticism. Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to say, as an independent member, that all this bodes well and is probably of a nature to bolster the reputation of the House of Commons, of parliament in the mind of Canadians, in short to give them back the real confidence they should have in the seriousness of their parliament.
I take the liberty to congratulate all those who took part in the debate, not only on this bill but also on the three bills on the public service which were considered.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen earlier, like all hon. members of this house, to the speech made by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay). It made quite an impression on me, it was, for me, a source of information I did not have, it made me understand better the background of the legislation which is now before us and of the other which will be introduced later. At one point I allowed myself a more personal intervention as far as the hon. member is concerned and I did it with some hesitation because I did not want to reopen a painful wound.
However, after hearing the hon. member say that following his firm stand on the deportation of some members of the underworld, deportation which irritated some Toronto newspapers, he had had to endure the torment of a campaign of criticism during weeks, I began to wonder if the furniture case had not come to light after that and I found that it was so. In fact, the furniture story arose after the minister had done his duty and sent away people whose departure evidently jeopardized certain interests of Toronto newspapers.
In my opinion, this is a revelation which, I think, gives us a better understanding of the indignity of that smear campaign against the minister and some of his colleagues. It is also a justification of the bill before us which will protect the minister of immigration against such persecutions. If we have reached a point in our country where newspapers as important and as responsible as those mentioned a while ago can afford such campaigns, I think it is an alarming situation and we will have to tighten our security measures in other fields.
Mr. Speaker, I read the bill as carefully as possible, just like other members of parliament. I do not claim to have any special 23033-8411
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board competence. I simply listened to those of my colleagues who know more about this matter and who spoke before me. I wish to point out to the minister that one thing in particular does not seem clear to me; it concerns the appeals. Are time-limits provided -at least, I do not think so-not only to lodge appeals but also to hear them? Are time-limits provided also for execution of the decisions made by this court of sorts, by this board? Are there also some provisions for some special cases where human factors might intervene and involve additional time? I do not intend to give particulars, for I know that the minister can guess what I mean, but I mention this simply because it occurred to me while I was reading the bill.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) at one point attack the bureaucrats and tell the minister that some measures are absolutely necessary to prevent abuse of authority among them. Then, and not without some malice, I drew a parallel. I wondered: How can a propagandist of socialism, that is, of the theory of government through bureaucrats, allow himself, even before succeeding in establishing the system in this country, to criticize the bureaucrats? There is a sort of irrationality or inconsistency in such a remark. This might suggest that if our friends in the New Democratic Party ever came to power, they would have to create other bureaucratic institutions to watch over all the bureaucrats that are already in office. We can see from here the unseemly bureaucracy which all this would entail.
I was nevertheless amused-I say this without malice-because the comments made by the hon. member for York South were, in my opinion, timely and of great value for the most part. What worries me most-I believe you will find this is a constant concern of mine-is the persistence with which the hon. member for York South champions the cause 

this may not be the most accurate expression-the extraordinary tenacity with which he defends Canadians under suspicion or accused of being security risks, demanding that excessive precautionary measures be taken, fettering the government hand and foot in order to protect the rights of those citizens presumed to be or accused of being a threat to public security.
I know the hon. member for York South means well, because he believes precisely in the rights of individuals, and I think it is a
13306	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board part of his philosophy to protect individuals against abuse of government authority.
Such a concern is worthy of praise in general. I also believe one must not carry it too far and that community rights will nevertheless always come before individual rights.
I think that if that reasoning goes too far and the government is deprived of the means at its disposal to protect society against security risks, then the whole common good is liable to suffer disastrous effects.
I believe the appeal board will surely have a part to play in the case of immigrants of merit, the ones that have been carefully selected; I think those immigrants are a real wealth for this country. I am going to add a comment that runs counter to standing orders, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to point out to the minister that publicity should probably be emphasized so that the public understands very well the value of selective immigration in this country. Unfortunately, people are unaware of it. People still think that immigrants come here to fill jobs and cause unemployment in this country, which is not true.
I believe the minister should accede to the requests of those organizations which call for the establishment of reception committees for immigrants, try to create a better atmosphere, to prepare for them a propitious psychological climate and follow them afterwards, during the first months and the first years, to help them become Canadians as soon as possible and as well as possible. I think that in the case of the normal immigrant, great importance should be attached to the human considerations I mentioned a while ago.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I feel that in the case of security risks, the government must be allowed at least some discretion. Let us not require of the government that it make public, for instance, its methods of investigation, with the result that once more the members of the underworld, or the mafia, whatever you would call it, will resort to every possible means to protect themselves against the machinery the government uses to protect the commonweal.
I am of those, who have yet to understand why the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and his colleagues, at the beginning of the session last year, insisted on defending Victor Spencer who, to my mind, seemed quite content with the way he had been treated and who, once again, as far as one could see, was forced to a certain extent to demand a

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
new investigation. I wonder if all that did not contribute to hasten his death, although he was ill already. Still, I feel that this matter of protecting the individual against the state is being overdone, carried too far, exaggerated. It must not be pushed to the point where troublemakers, security risks, wrongdoers, notorious gangsters, members of the international mafia, are shielded against the legitimate protection the government wants to give the public.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine any government, regardless of the party in power, trying to lessen the chances of any acceptable immigrant to settle in Canada.
We may have different concepts of the commonweal, but I for one still believe in the principle of authority and not in the abuse of authority. I do not believe in despotism nor indietature, but I believe that democracy must accept certain barriers, certain limitations and decide on the authority it has chosen and established legally. Let it have at least the power to use this authority for the commonweal in cases as extreme as security risks.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. minister could do more as concerns departmental employees at the lower level, for instance, officers in various centers who, it seems, have not received proper training and who seem to lack the necessary tact in matters relating to human considerations such as those involved in accepting immigrants to this country. Some of these officers seem to take the liberty of giving a personal interpretation of government policy, sometimes applying regulations with excessive authority. I am not saying this is a crime, I am not saying this has taken scandalous proportions so far, but I feel that those who mentioned earlier that human factors had to be taken into account were right in doing so.
It might be advisable to submit immigration officers to periodical instruction, having them particiapte in forums at regular intervals, so that they will become aware of the fact that the problems they are dealing with are related to an individual with a family and relatives, who has his life to live and who, therefore, must be treated with great consideration.
It sometimes happens that these people are detained in intolerable conditions. While I am not calling this crime, I feel it must be said, and the hon. minister surely must have given it some thought, even though he has not had time to take action so far.
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
I have in mind a specific case which I do not want to detail here, in order not to impose upon the patience of the house, but where, it seems to me, a local immigration officer took a certain attitude which I do hot think the minister would endorse eventually.
That is to say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the bill now under consideration is not perfect; indeed, I do not think we will ever see any perfect legislation in this house, even though one is convinced this is the best parliament there ever was. There will always remain differences of opinion about the ways to correct situations. I believe that, generally speaking, it is good, provided that emphasis is placed on this human aspect of the problem and things are not carried too far. And I want to repeat this so that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who is here, may realize that there is nothing mischievous in my approach, but that I differ with him as regards the defence of those people known as security risks. Let us not go so far as to take away from the government every weapon at its disposal, for it is its job to protect the common good. I suggest that from that point of view, democracy must not deprive the legally elected representatives of the people of the authority they need to act, to act well and quickly.
Besides, if there should be excesses, Mr. Speaker, well, we are 265 here and surely someone would realize it some day and we would hear about it. I believe I know enough people in this chamber who are diligent and who are aware of all these problems, that it would not take long before we hear about it and before the minister in fault would be tried promptly.
That is to say, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, even if I associate myself with certain constructive criticisms that have been made and which the minister will probably take into account in the practical administration of the act, I am one of those who will vote in favour of the bill before us, which provides for the establishment of this Immigration Appeal Board.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Regina City, who is about to rise, might permit me at this time to inform
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board the house that the questions to be raised on the adjournment proceedings this evening are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), External Affairs-request for bilingual personnel in Canadian embassies; the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), Housing-meetings of study groups respecting shortage; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Canada Law Reports-sale price of.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand for the second reading of Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an Immigration Appeal Board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.
Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take very long in making my remarks because I am anxious to see the bill reach the committee stage so that we can discuss it clause by clause. Generally speaking, in my experience in dealing with matters such as are covered by this bill I have received excellent co-operation from the staff of the department, the various officers and the minister concerned with these problems.
I believe we must realize that the departmental officials are faced with limitations which have been established under the law and by practice. When these cases reach us, in most instances they have been considered by the departmental officials. If after reviewing the file we find that in our opinion some legitimate representation can be made, it must be remembered that it is not because of lack of co-operation or lack of consideration by the departmental officials that we refer cases to the minister's office or to the office of his parliamentary secretary.
In our discussion of the bill I believe all of us have benefited from the fact that three former ministers have participated in the debate. I should like to say how pleased I was that the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) took part in this debate. I found him to be a very responsible minister. He had to leave the cabinet because of a disability. I am pleased to see him back in the house and participating in this debate. While he was in office my experience was that he gave that careful consideration to these matters which benefits a responsible minister of
13308	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board the department. I should like to say to the present minister and his parliamentary secretary that the same consideration has been shown by them.
After listening to the parliamentary secretary present this bill last night I wish to congratulate the minister for getting out of town and letting him introduce this very important legislation. I think the parliamentary secretary did a capable job. I cannot share the confidence he exhibits in respect of the bill because I have grave doubts whether it liberalizes

with a small "1"-the problems of these people. I believe that in fact it may place greater restrictions upon them. I shall listen with interest to the minister when he closes the debate today after hearing our representations. I have a feeling that if portions of the bill are retained in their present form the result will be to create rather than lessen discontent among Canadian citizens who are interested in sponsoring immigrants to this country.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
With regard to the set-up of the board I notice that the chairman or the vice chairman and not less than two other members shall constitute a quorum of the board. As I read the bill I see no provision at all for the board to travel. I notice that travelling expenses can be paid while a member of the board is absent from his normal home, and so forth, but as I read the bill the indication is that all the hearings and appeals will be heard in Ottawa. If this is the case, I suggest to the minister that if we can afford to have appeal boards of the government travel across the country when dealing with matters of dollars only-I am thinking of the appeal boards under the Income Tax Act and the revenue act-surely to goodness when human considerations are at stake the same provision should be made so that this board when hearing appeals could go to the different centres where the appeals arise.
I am not speaking of security cases but of sponsorship cases with which this bill deals. It should be possible for the board to travel on the basis of a reasonable fee being charged that would not work hardship on the people who wish to make representations. It seems to me that in view of the growing establishment of citizenship courts the facilities of these courts might be used for the hearing of appeals by the board. The board will be dealing with cases concerning human values, they will be dealing with people who have come to Canada from other countries, have worked

DEBATES	February 21. 1967
hard to establish themselves, made a success of their lives and contributed to the welfare of this country. I am sure that to impose burdensome costs on them when they wish to launch an appeal concerning a member of the family they are interested in sponsoring is not really the intent of the minister and should not be the result of passing this bill.
We are not dealing with regulations changing the tariffs on goods. We are not dealing with commodities as such. We have to show in the bill that we are dealing with human beings, human values, the consciences of people and the deep emotions that are involved in families concerned in these matters.
I hope that when we reach the committee stage of the bill the attitude of the minister will be similar to that of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) when we were dealing with the transportation bill. I think we came out with a good bill because the minister accepted proper criticism and constructive amendments to that bill. I believe amendments could be made that would be constructive and broaden the scope of this bill, humanize it and make the work of the board much more efficient. The board could also be given much greater scope, which I believe is necessary, than is provided in the terms of the bill now before us.
I hope that when the minister closes the debate he will indicate his willingness to consider amendments to the bill. By "consider" I do not mean superficially consider them and say he cannot accept them. I hope he will seriously consider amendments that I believe can and should be put forward that will make this bill a better instrument than it appears to be in the form in which it is presented to us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the house that if the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) speaks now he will close the debate.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether before the minister launches into his remarks I could, I suppose on a point of order, suggest to him and other hon. members that it might be sensible to suspend the sitting now and listen to the minister at eight o'clock, so that the remarks which he makes are not interrupted by the dinner hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that pursuant to an order of the house made yesterday, the house would suspend its sitting from seven o'clock until
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
eight o'clock. If it is the wish of the house to suspend its sitting from now until eight o'clock, the unanimous consent of the house will be required.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, it depends how long the minister will take in his remarks. If he can give us an indication that he will finish before seven o'clock, perhaps he could make his remarks now.


Mr. Marchand:: I do not intend to go beyond seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether when the minister concludes his remarks we could by leave suspend the sitting until eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps we had better wait until the minister concludes his remarks before making any decision on that point.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to thank my parliamentary secretary who introduced second reading of this bill. I should state that I am in perfect agreement with the statement he read to the house last night. I also wish to thank the house for the way hon. members have discussed the bill and the interesting suggestions that have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, at the outset, to put the bill now before the house into proper perspective.
Obviously, every one understands that a general immigration act is not involved here, but simply a very limited piece of legislation to establish an appeal board different in character from the one now in existence and to extend the rights provided for in the present act concerning sponsorship.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Those are the two purposes of this bill.
I have listened with particular pleasure to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) when he spoke of the mentally ill, of psychiatric cases. There is not the slightest doubt that I am in complete agreement with what he said. However, I believe it will be possible to deal with such cases during the discussion on the general legislation, after the white paper has been adopted by the house, not on a bill to establish a particular body.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house eliminates none of the existing rights. Not only are none of the rights removed, but new ones are being added. To start with, for the first time, we will have a board which will be independent from the department.
I believe every one knows that the existing board is part of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and that it is not an independent board. In fact, its members are appointed by the minister, and as far as administration is concerned, it is entirely dependent upon the department, that is upon the minister and the deputy minister.
We are setting up a truly independent board whose members will be appointed during good pleasure and be independent from the department. The chairman will be the chief executive officer of the board; it will no longer be the minister or the deputy minister.
Mr. Speaker, the powers of this board will be more extensive than those of the previous board, in that the latter could only settle or disnose of points of law, whereas the present board will dispose not only of points of law but also of points of fact. Therefore, the board will actually have more authority and be more independent than the former one. It cannot therefore be inferred from my remarks that this legislation contains restrictions which did not exist in the former act. On the contrary, I am under the impression that this board provides guarantees that the former one could not offer under the constitution.
I have taken note of all the main points raised in the house and I think I can arrange them into groups. I am sorry, however, that I shall not be referring to each one of the hon. members who made comments in the house. The main point which struck me and which strikes all who deal with immigration concerns the human nature of immigration problems.
It is true that immigration problems, like many others within our society, are human problems. Mr. Speaker, this new and independent court will comprise two lawyers only. It may consist of more, but to show clearly that this court will not merely judge according to the law but use other criteria, most of the members of the court may be not lawyers but people from other professions. If I am to make a recommendation to the cabinet, I would make this court representative of both those directly concerned
13310	COMMONS
Establishment o} Immigration Appeal Board with immigration and other social groups concerned with this problem.
The only way to obtain human decisions is to allow these people to decide, to give them full authority and jurisdiction to judge the cases as presented.
In my opinion, this jurisdiction is established by the legislation. The court will be able to judge not only legal problems, but factual problems and then make a decision according to the exceptional circumstances. It will be empowered to do so.
Will the court do it, Mr. Speaker? I cannot swear it to this house and I see no legislation which would allow anyone to swear that a human court, or even a man, will behave in all circumstances in a humane manner. The only thing is that the structure, as it is, gives all the safeguards that human problems will be taken into consideration in the field of immigration. Even if we inserted in the very legislation the word "humane", and asked the court to judge in a humane way, it might not do so, as there would be no real guarantee. We have to know whether the court can do so if it wishes; I think it could and I do not see what we could add to the bill to strenghten our purpose. In that field, I am not satisfied that the text does not offer the safeguards announced in the statement made yesterday by my parliamentary secretary (Mr. Munro).
I should like to say now that, with two specific exceptions mentioned in section 26, the minister retains all his rights; in other words, he will have the power to admit into Canada, by virtue of a permit or under his own authority, people who do not strictly comply with all the conditions spelled out in the act. He will still be able to do so; this ministerial privilege has not been taken away from him. The only privilege withdrawn from him is that of reversing a decision taken by the Immigration Board, as it is, or modifying such a decision. Otherwise, the minister has the same powers as before, and he may, on humanitarian grounds, accept into Canada people who, normally under the act, would not be admissible.
Therefore, even in that respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are worse off than before. I would say to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), who said that he was afraid just the same, that I do not see how we can legislate against someone's fear. I try to understand the reason for it and I do not see how we can give greater protection than this.

DEBATES	February 21. 1967
Now, in the field of sponsorship, Mr. Speaker, we are making an experiment. It must be realized that Canada is, to my knowledge, the only country in the world which gives such a legal right as that granted in Bill No. C-220. I know of no other country which allows its citizens to sponsor by right people, non citizens, with an appeal before the courts, and even up to the Supreme Court, on a point of law. That is surely an innovation.
Now, we can be told, and we have been told, that we could go further. I think there is no harm in saying here, Mr. Speaker, that we would like Canadian citizens to have the right to sponsor all the people that the landed immigrants, as defined in the white paper, can bring into Canada now.
Take the white paper for instance. Look at the category of people that the landed immigrants are allowed to bring into Canada. Well, citizens will be able by right to ask that those people come to Canada. This is only an experiment. We prefer not to include it in the act because we can easily extend it in the future, if the results are satisfactory. How many people will come under that arrangement? We have no idea, however we believe that we must try it with one category of people and then go further if the experiment is successful and if there is need to. Therefore we are not removing any of the present rights included in the act. The immigrants and the citizens will have the same rights they had under the former act.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
We are simply adding that legal right to bring someone in, a legal right with appeal before an arbitration board which decides on the case.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) pointed out a legal heresy allegedly found in the text. Since he is a lawyer and I am not, I must admit that I cannot give him an answer. The fact that at one point the minister is acting in contradiction with one of his own officials does seem a bit strange. I cannot say if it is really an illegal or incongruous provision. In any case, it is a matter that can be studied.
Mr. Speaker, there is another very important matter, namely the security cases. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) dealt with that and I think that personally all the values he mentioned are as dear to me as they are to him. I know what he is aiming
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
at, but nevertheless, there are problems that he cannot ignore and could not overlook even though he were in my present position. In matters of security-I do not think I am revealing any secrets-but in any case, everybody knows that we obtain a great deal of information from sources which would soon dry up if we brought such information before the court. As soon as we would make use of that information in public, its source would dry up overnight. Such is our problem.
I thought that we might at a given time have some evidence accepted in camera and even, eventually, deny admittance to certain persons, if you like, in order to protect our sources of information, but then, this would be a mockery of the law, and I would rather have none of it. Of course, the responsibility lies with the minister. But in order that the discretionary power be as restricted as possible, we decided upon this certificate, which would require the signature of two ministers. Thus, at least two ministers would see the file and the rights of the individuals would be protected to the greatest possible extent. Now, in that connection, I may not be ready to die for that formula, but I feel it is my duty to tell the house that I am forced to protect what I referred to a while ago.
An inquiry on security is now under way in Canada. That problem will doubtless be discussed. We may eventually find a way of conciliating the rights of the people, the security of Canada, as well as the sources of information which no police force can do without, whether it be in communist, socialist, capitalist countries or any other, including those governed by dictators. In any case, that is the problem we have to face; we have not found a better solution because we are unable to do so. Now, when we discuss the bill clause by clause, if a workable suggestion is made in this connection, guaranteeing what we want to guarantee, I will be the first to accept it. However, it is not easy to do so at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, many other points have been raised. I will take them up when we examine each individual clause of the bill. I simply wish to say that the object of the bill is the establishment of a court which will be independent of the government, the minister, the department itself; in my opinion, the bill does precisely that.
Now, I was asked to be flexible. Just to show how flexible I am, Mr. Speaker, my first gesture will be to inform the house 23033-842
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
that, when the bill comes up for consideration in committee of the whole, I will move an amendment to clause 10 (1), which provides that the chairman of the board may delegate the powers of the board to any member.
I feel this power should not only be given to the chairman, but to all members of the board, since a designated member will exercize the powers of the board itself. I feel it is only natural that the board and not exclusively the chairman, should delegate its powers.
I also intend to move an amendment to clause 28, which enables a special inquiry officer to review and reverse its own decision, in order to provide for more flexibility in the text.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to clause 15-


David Lewis: What is the number of the clause?


Jean Marchand: The new clause 28, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I should like to move an amendment to clause 15(2) so as to empower the appeal board to allow a person under a deportation order to remain in Canada. If it is so decided, if the board feels a person can remain in Canada, it can also decide, under the same principle, that a person involved in that appeal may come to Canada, that is, not only will a person be allowed to remain in Canada, but, under the same principle, the person concerned by the ruling will be able to come to Canada from outside the country.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to move those three amendments when we shall study the bill clause by clause.
Many of the questions raised are more relevant to the white paper and to the general immigration policy that to the bill now before us. In due time, we shall have, no doubt, the opportunity to discuss this matter.
At any rate, I feel the bill ensures additional rights, provides guarantees and is worth a fair trial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[English}


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
13312	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-220, an act to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to go ahead but I understand that the Minister without Portfolio wishes to call it seven o'clock.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think it was the feeling of the house before the minister spoke that we might adjourn the committee, by leave, until eight o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to an order of the house passed yesterday, I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose at seven o'clock it was considering clause 2.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, seldom have I heard a more useful and pointed debate on second reading of a bill than that Which occurred this afternoon. It was a debate which defined, I think, three basic areas of disagreement with respect to the principles of the bill. I venture to suggest that on clause 2 we should come to grips with these three basic principles.
On all sides of the house there is unanimity of opinion that a new Immigration Appeal Board should be established. There is undoubtedly a desire that that board should be genuinely effective, and that in the administration of immigration procedures and laws it act with that degree of human understanding and compassion which I think is essential.
Some of us on this side of the house feel that the bill, as drafted, is too rigid and too inflexible. It does not permit that degree of warm-hearted administration so necessary in immigration matters.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
The first area where some of us disagree with the minister has to do with the powers of the Immigration Appeal Board, and what it may do on an appeal. On this side we feel that the powers of the board are much too restricted; that they are too legalistic; that here it is purely a matter of an appeal from the special inquiry officer, with the ordinary rules of appeal applying, and with little opportunity for the board to consider other factors not directly related to the legalistic approach. This is evident when we find that the board can only allow or dismiss the appeal. If it dismisses an appeal, deportation is ordered. When deportation is ordered a clause in the bill permits the order to be suspended or stayed. This is permitted in two circumstances-and here I refer to a person who is not a permanent resident. It is permitted where there are reasonable grounds for believing that if the order is carried out the person concerned will be punished for political activities in his country or will suffer unusual hardships. An example is deportation behind the iron curtain. That can be most difficult, particularly where a man has deserted from a ship.
The second situation is where exceptional circumstances exist. The use of the expression "exceptional circumstances" in that context, leads me to believe the the board would interpret those circumstances as ejusdem generis with the other circumstances involving activities of a political character, or where unusual hardships will arise. It will be the rarest type of case where there would be a stay of the deportation order.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Of course, once a stay is granted it might be extended and ultimately the board might make an order to admit the person as a landed immigrant. It would seem to be much preferable that this question should not be approached in such a negative way but that the board should be given authority to grant immediately the status of a landed immigrant to a man who appears before it as an appellant, if the circumstances are right. This is a positive approach. It would not simply be a case of staying the deportation order and subsequently, perhaps years later, admitting the man as a landed immigrant. By doing as I suggest we could remove all the suspense and anxiety felt while the fear of deportation was hanging over a man's head. This is the first area of disagreement. We on this side of the house would like to see the board given a positive right to make an order when a case
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
is before them, granting landed immigrant status at that stage.
The second area of disagreement relates to appeal by sponsors. Many of us on this side have the feeling that what the minister is granting with one hand he is taking away with the other. He says there will be an appeal. But he limits the right of appeal to those classes of relatives which the governor in council may prescribe. He says that if this is not so restricted, the board will be swamped with appeals. I must say that if they are legitimate appeals and if their number is likely to swamp the board, the board should be expanded so that it is able to deal with all the appeals which will be forthcoming. I do not want to see this back-door method used to restrict the concessions which are made in the bill-the process of going behind the doors into the cabinet chamber and saying "Today we will cut out this class of relatives". I do not think this is good enough.
Right of appeal is confined to Canadian citizens, but in the present circumstances a landed immigrant has the right to sponsor a relative. However, he has no right to appeal under this clause. Mr. Chairman, as long as a landed immigrant has the right to sponsor I suggest he should have the full right of appeal, exactly as everybody else. When he is under the shelter of the laws of this country he should enjoy every right that they provide.
I hope the restrictions that the minister proposes to establish in relation to sponsorship, confining the privilege to Canadian citizens, will not be adopted finally, and I am concerned that this clause should confine itself entirely to Canadian citizens. I repeat my concern with regard to the power to confine appeals to certain classes of sponsors as a result of executive action which undoubtedly will be taken on the recommendation of the minister of manpower and immigration concerned.
As one looks at the procedures proposed in the event of appeal, it becomes apparent that in fact there will be no necessity for appeal in cases involving sponsored immigrants who meet the requirements of the Immigration Act and the regulations. I am satisfied that generally speaking the department administers the sponsorship procedures fairly and honestly. The department does not try on frivolous grounds to deprive people who are eligible for sponsorship of their rights. Therefore it is my view that unless some discretionary power is placed with the board 23033-8421
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board the provisions of the bill for appeal in relation to sponsorship will be virtually meaningless.
The minister knows that the appeals which are made to him today on behalf of sponsors are for the exercise of discretion and judgment in relation to applicants who do not meet the requirements in full. Occasionally the minister may have to turn a blind eye when he is satisfied that a person who may not meet the full requirements of the regulations may yet become a good Canadian citizen. What I fear is that the appeal procedure will turn out to be of very little value.
The third principal area of disagreement which was defined during second reading this afternoon related to the handling of security cases and cases where there is a criminal intelligence report. This is perhaps the most difficult of all the areas. All of us can understand-and one who has been a minister himself can readily understand-the problems which are involved. But I have certainly never been satisfied with the provision in relation to security as far as the old Department of Citizenship and Immigration was concerned. I have said in this house before that had I remained in the department there would assuredly have been changes made in the procedures, especially the procedure relating to citizenship.
I believe that the procedure which the minister is now advocating-simply the presentation of a certificate signed by himself and by the Solicitor General-is just not good enough. I do not believe one can deal with people on that basis. The minister is opening up the procedure, but it still does not conform to what I believe to be natural justice. I know that the sources of security information cannot be disclosed to an appellant; to disclose those sources would in many cases make it impossible to secure information at all. But I say there must be an examination by an impartial tribunal. As I recollect it this is what was advocated by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick in his report. He considered this problem and this is what he had to say:
In making their decision the board will have to be made aware of, and take into consideration, any adverse security report. For reasons already stated, it will not be possible for the board to disclose the report to the applicant. The result will be that in some cases where an appellant might otherwise have been successful he will fail without having had the opportunity to challenge the grounds upon which the adverse decision is based. As a matter of general principle this is not a desirable course of action, but in the context of national security I am convinced of its necessity and justification.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
Mr. Sedgwick was suggesting that this information should be available to an independent and impartial tribunal-the board itself. I think that if we were to follow the channel which Mr. Sedgwick indicates we would at least reach an interim solution until such time as the royal commission on security under the chairmanship of Mr. Max W. Mackenzie presents its report to parliament. I trust that this field of security information in relation to immigration and to citizenship is one in which this royal commission will dig and delve very deeply indeed.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
These are the three basic areas in which differences of opinion have developed during the debate this afternoon. I propose, as we come to the appropriate clause, to move certain amendments. I had hoped to give notice of them before the dinner hour so as to give the minister an opportunity to consult with his officials, but perhaps he will permit me to give such notice now. This will give the minister an opportunity to consider them at the appropriate time.
In dealing with what I call the first basic area of disagreement I propose to move an amendment to clause 14, a copy of which I will send to the minister, to the hon. member for York South and to others who are interested. The amendment reads as follows:
That clause 14 be amended by numbering the present clause as subclause (1); by striking out . the word "or" in subclause (b) in line 4; by substituting a semicolon for the period in line 7 of subclause (c) and adding thereafter the word "or": by adding subclause (1)	(d) as follows:
"(d) making an order pursuant to subsection (2) hereof."
and by adding subclause (2) as follows:
"(2) In disposing of any such appeal, the board shall have authority, in its absolute discretion,
(a)	to make an order authorizing the landing as an immigrant of the appellant, notwithstanding anything in the Immigration Act, if the board is of the opinion that it might be anticipated reasonably that such person would become a satisfactory Canadian citizen;
(b)	to make an order granting the appellant the right to enter Canada or, being in Canada, to remain therein for such probationary period as the board may determine and to renew any such order from time to time or to cancel, rescind or amend it, or at any time when such person is on probation, to make an order pursuant to subsection (a) hereof;
(c)	to make an order permitting the appellant to remain in Canada for such length of time as the board may determine, if the board is satisfied that the deportation of the appellant might endanger his personal safety or security and to renew any such order from time to time or to cancel, rescind or amend it, or at any time while such an order is in effect, to make an order pursuant to subsection (a) hereof."

February 21, 1967
I recognize that the adoption of that amendment would probably require some consequential amendments to clause 15, although I do not think that they would need to be very substantial in nature. What I suggest is a direct and positive approach. I believe that the minister's approach, which is not only negative but very fainthearted, will not meet the situation and will not give the board the discretionary power which is so necessary.
In relation to what I defined as the second basic area of disagreement I wish to give notice to the minister of the following amendment:
That clause 17 be amended by substituting a period for the comma after the word "approved" in line 21 and by striking out all the words thereafter in lines 21 to 24 inclusive; by renumbering the remainder of clause 17 as subclause (1) and adding as subclause (2) the following:
"(2) In disposing of any such appeal, the board shall have authority, in its absolute discretion and notwithstanding anything in the Immigration Act or the regulations, to make an order authorizing the landing as an immigrant of the person sponsored if the board is of the opinion that it might be anticipated reasonably that such person would become a satisfactory Canadian citizen."
The effect of this amendment would be to eliminate the power of the governor in council to make regulations which would confine the class of relatives which have the right to appeal, and as well, it the would enable the board to take a positive and discretionary approach to the situation.
I confess that I have been working on a proposed amendment, which is not yet ready, to the clause dealing with the security or criminal intelligence reports. I claim no particular excellence in the amendments, except that they represent a point of view which I suggest to the minister we should attempt to meet. Let him draft them in any way he will-I have no pride of draftsmanship what-sover-but I suggest that since he himself said this afternoon that he would be submitting amendments, he demonstrate flexibility by incorporating these principles into this legislation. If he does that, then I believe we will have made a great step forward in making this legislation work to the advantage of immigrants and of all the people of Canada. If it stays in its present rigid and inflexible position, then I am afraid the future immigration administration may well prove to be much worse than it has been in the past.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to repeat what I said before the dinner recess in this general discussion, but I do want to

February 21, 1967	COMMONS
make a few remarks, partly in comment on the minister's reply on second reading and partly and more specifically with regard to some of the clauses.
If I remember correctly, the minister said-and I agree with him-that this is a bill dealing with a narrow matter, namely the establishment of an appeal tribunal, and that all the other matters with respect to immigration in general have to wait for a report from the special committee studying the white paper, and legislation that may follow it. He said also that whatever discretionary power the minister may have under the Immigration Act he will continue to have. As I remember, he did qualify that by saying "subject to this bill", but the point that concerns some of us is that once this bill becomes law, the department will naturally and properly refer to the appeal board any matter in which there is a right of appeal under this bill, namely a deportation order or the sponsorship of immigrants in certain classes.
Any request that the minister consider the matter and apply the discretion which he may still have under some sections of the Immigration Act would, I imagine, be answered by the suggestion that instead of bothering him to use his discretion the person concerned take the road of appeal which is now provided under this bill. What concerns us is that under this bill the role of ministerial discretion is closed in practice if not in law. I find it very difficult to imagine that the deputy minister or any official in the minister's department will consider a case which can properly be placed before the appeal tribunal. It seems to me that they could very well say: This is a matter for the appeal tribunal, you had better go there for your remedy.
With regard to clause 17, the minister said that the reason for the limitation of the class of relatives in respect of which a sponsor may appeal to the board under that clause is that certain classes will be established, and he indicated what they would be. He said that if that works happily-I think he used the French word for "happy"-then we will expand the area.
As I listened to the minister I asked myself for whom it was to work happily. What are the criteria by which one decides whether the appeal board works happily? It works happily only if it functions in accordance with the rules laid down by this bill, and if it gives the parties concerned what lawyers and courts call natural justice. I do not see why the minister needs to arrogate to himself the decision-because it will be he who will make
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board it-as to whether in fact the appeal board works happily. How will he determine whether to expand the list of classes of relatives in respect of whom an appeal may be made, or to reduce it. It seems to me that if sponsors are to have the right of appeal, all of them should have that right and I am afraid I was simply not impressed by the argument of the minister on this point.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Although they are not in typed form, because I scribbled them between six and seven o'clock while sitting at this desk, I too have amendments to clause 17 which I will either propose or put to the minister in the form of a suggestion. One of these is that the landed immigrant, as well as other Canadian citizens should have the right to appeal. I see no reason at all for having this distinction, as the hon. member for Carleton has properly said. If my memory serves me correctly-and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong-the white paper proposes that only persons who have been citizens for a certain period have the right to sponsor immigrants. It may be that this was the reason for the limitation in clause 17. Personally I object to that limitation, if I am correct in understand-ding that it is in the white paper, and I object to the limitation here.
I know for a fact-I am not dealing with theory-that in my constituency and in other constituencies in metropolitan Toronto-and I am sure members from any metropolitan area in Ontario or other parts of the country know likewise-that there are landed immigrants who have made an excellent contribution as workers in this country, many of whom have developed a business, and who for one reason or another have been here for eight or 10 years without becoming citizens or without seeking citizenship. I have spoken to many of these people. I have argued with them that they ought to seek to become citizens. More and more of them will be persuaded to do so.
Some time last year I spoke in this house on a resolution which appeared on the order paper in my name urging the government to change some of the requirements in an application for citizenship, because I am convinced that in many cases with which I have been acquainted the landed immigrant does not seek to become a citizen because the requirements in respect of language, the fact that he has to take time off work to go to a certain place, and the fact that there are no citizenship courts, frighten him. Now, however, they have the right to sponsor the kind of relatives
13316	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board which fall into the classifications for which the regulations permit sponsorship. Why should they not have the right to appeal? The minister may say that if they do not have the right to appeal under this bill, they still have the right to go to him and plead for his consideration. If I understand it correctly, I believe that is the case. I think that whatever is excluded from this bill will remain for the minister to deal with at his discretion.
If there is any validity, and there is, and if there is any logic, and there is, in having an independent appeal tribunal to deal with these matters, instead of having the minister loaded with discretionary obligations-and two ex ministers have said that this is too heavy a load for the minister to carry, and I did not hear the present minister deny this-then surely there is logic in having for a sponsor one who is a landed immigrant, who is not a citizen, and who has the right under the regulations to sponsor relatives coming to Canada. I do not understand this. I do understand the reasons for some cases. I hope the minister will be able to explain the reason that the right to appeal is limited to the Canadian citizen under clause 17.
I had intended to suggest an amendment. Whether or not I will do it now in view of the amendment of the hon. member for Carleton remains to be seen. I was going to suggest an amendment that clause 17 provide no more than that a sponsor has the right to appeal a refusal of an application for admission; put a period there, and then go on to say that the board in disposing of such an appeal may either allow it, dismiss it, or render such decision or make such order as in the circumstances of the case the board deems just. This would leave the discretion with the board to deal with a particular case on the merits and on the particular circumstances and facts which are presented to it. Only then will you have a genuine appeal on the merits where the human considerations which everyone has stressed will properly be taken into account.
Mr. Chairman, the minister in his speech in reply on second reading gave notice of something which he intends to propose in respect of clause 10 dealing with the point provided for in that clause, namely that a single member may be able to do the work which the board itself is empowered to do. If I remember correctly-and again I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong-the amendment he intended to move was that the board as a whole, rather than the chairman, would designate the member who can do that work.

DEBATES	February 21. 1967
I should like to say to the minister, so that he may think about it-if he considers it worth thinking about-that I have very grave doubts in my mind about whether one member of the board should be given the authority to determine an appeal. I have no objection to the other part of the clause, namely that instead of the board as a whole or even a panel of the board having to make all the inquiries and hear all the evidence, the work could be expedited if one member of the board does that job for the board as a whole. In other words, he may make the inquiry, hear the evidence and make a report to the board. I have grave doubts however as to the desirability of not only having the one member hold the hearing but also determine the case on behalf of the board. He may at his discretion refer the matter at any stage to the board; but he is the one who decides this, if I remember the particulars correctly.
I asked the minister to consider whether it is wise to have one member of the board, not necessarily even the chairman or vice chairman, not only hear the evidence but also determine the matter in final form. According to this bill which is before us, the decision if final.
I have another matter which, I am sure the minister has guessed, worries me about clause 10. This provides that the member or members shall make the preliminary inquiry or report to the board as a whole, and the board may make a decision on the report or it may hear further evidence if it so wishes. Nowhere in this clause is there any provision which states that the appellant is to receive a copy of that report. I think this is another detail which is of the utmost importance. If evidence is taken by one or more members of the board and the board is given the authority to make its decision on the report alone-it does not have to ask for any further evidence-then I submit that this clause ought to provide that the appellant must have available to him a copy of the report on which the tribunal will rest its decision. Otherwise you do not have the kind of justice which we proudly boast about in our country, and which I am sure the minister and his officials are as anxious to have as are those of us on this side of the house.
Finally, I should like to say a further word on the security matter. I have not been a member of parliament for long, and before I came here I heard-and I hope you will forgive me for putting it in this
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
way-the same excuse for refusing people who are charged for security reasons, with no meaningful opportunity to have their say in respect of such charge. Again, if I am correct, the minister said that everyone must understand that the sources of information are widespread, and that if any of the evidence which the department has becomes public, those sources of information will dry up immediately and the situation becomes impossible.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This is the kind of story one has heard time after time after time. I do not think there is any validity to it. I did not suggest, nor have I heard anyone else suggest, that the minister should be required to provide the person concerned with the sources of the information, the details of the evidence or the precise allegations made. What I suggested, and surely what is possible without hurting the process of security in the slightest, was that the person concerned be given in general terms the particulars of the grounds on which the action against him had been taken. Second, I suggested that he have an opportunity to meet those particulars.
Clause 20 of the bill provides that the hearings of the appeal board may, on the request of the appellant, be in camera. I for one would have no objection at all if the minister amended clause 20 to give the board the authority to hold hearings in camera in security cases. I am not interested in giving publicity to these matters. I agree with the minister that if we started dictating to the board how the evidence was to be taken, we might make a farce of the hearing. But I see no reason in the world why it should not be possible to give the person concerned an idea, in general terms, of the grounds on which the action was taken. I see no reason why it should not be possible for the appeal board to hear the appeal in camera, if it so decided, and the board ought to be given the authority to hold it in camera and conduct the hearing in any way that it found adequate and reasonable in the circumstances. Otherwise, I repeat what I said earlier today, that clause 21 is a delusion; it has no place here.
If the decision is to be made by the two ministers, let them make it. I will object to it as a bad principle, but at least let them make it. Then we will have-and this is the point-the situation wherein if the decision is made by the minister and the Solicitor General, they become responsible for it, and those of us who are concerned with these
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board matters can go to the minister and make an appeal that he use his discretion, in the way that such appeals have been made in the past. But if the matter comes before the appeal tribunal and it is seized with it, and the minister and the Solicitor General plunk a certificate on the desk of the board, that ends the matter; there is no further appeal. I am certain the minister will tell me to go jump if, when that has been done, I come to him and ask him to reconsider the matter. The door is closed at that point.
Therefore it would have been much better, if this is what the minister intended to do, to take this provision out of the bill altogether and let the matter be dealt with by ministerial discretion, as before, so we would know who is responsible and could go to the minister and ask him to consider the case of any person who felt he had been aggrieved. But I want to make clear that I do not recommend that course. I think there is a place for an appeal in security matters, in this case as in connection with the Public Service Employees Act with which we dealt the other day, and as in other cases. I think this excuse about the drying up of the sources of information is not valid; it simply does not impress me.
Perhaps the reason it does not impress me is that I have not had to administer these matters, and there are matters that the minister and those around him know about that are not known to me. But I have exercised whatever mind and imagination I have, and I cannot for the life of me see why it is not possible to devise a simple procedure for giving the man charged an opportunity to be heard before an independent tribunal in camera, in secret-I have no desire for it to be made public-and without disclosing the sources of information but placing him on notice, more or less, as to the precise grounds on which the action was taken. We would thereby be giving him an opportunity to make his answer to those grounds, and counter them with facts regarding his behaviour and life. He has this right.
I think we also need amendments to this bill. I was going to move an amendment as a subclause to clause 19. We need an amendment that will provide that every appellant under the relevant clauses of the bill shall be provided by the minister with particulars of the grounds upon which the deportation order or refusal to approve an application for admission was based, in such manner as prescribed by the rules of the board. It is simply nonsense to tell me that I can appeal to the appeal tribunal, if I do not know ahead of
13318	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board time what I am appealing against. I should not have to guess it. I should not have to rely on a letter from somebody somewhere, which may be complete or may not be complete. I see no reason why as part of the rights of the appellant-the appellant has to give notice under clause 19-in return the minister should not be required by the law to provide him with particulars of the grounds for the action against which he is appealing.
I will be prepared to suggest that perhaps such grounds should be given in such manner and in such form as is prescribed by the rules of the board, so that the board will have such rules and everybody will know precisely how to proceed. I shall repeat what has already been said, and then resume my seat. I think, as I said earlier, that the idea of the independent appeal tribunal is an extremely excellent one, but it will not be a good one in practice if we do not take some steps in committee of the whole to bring the procedures a little more in consonance with the demands of proper hearing and natural justice.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to say just a few words. I shall certainly not take up much of the time of the committee. However, having been a member of the immigration committee ever since I have been in the House of Commons, and as one interested in these matters, I should like to make my stand clear on immigration and the bill that is before us. Before doing that I wish sincerely to congratulate the minister, our fourth successive minister of immigration in as many years, for bringing forward at such an early date after becoming minister the white paper on immigration and Bill C-220.
Speaking about Bill C-220, I should like to enter a protest at this time that a bill as important as this one dealing with immigration, and the first time anything like this has been done for years, is not available to all hon. members because there are not sufficient copies to go around. I think this is uncalled for and I should like to enter my protest in this regard.
I have no intention, as I stated when beginning these remarks, of taking up the time of the committee, but I should like to lend my support to the over-all principle of the bill. I do not agree in detail with the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Carleton, but they have made some good suggestions, as did the hon. member for Parkdale and the hon. member for Hamilton West. I just want to let it be known

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
that I feel some changes should be made in the bill. I can say that during the time I have been in the house and have dealt with men in the immigration department, I have found them to be very fair. However, I have never in my life seen one civil servant make a decision against the government. They just cannot do it.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I want to congratulate the minister upon making it possible to bring about this neutral appeal board. However, I am worried about the fact that the appeal can be taken on the law alone. I am sure that during the short time the minister has occupied this portfolio he has attended a number of meetings and has become aware of feelings such as those expressed on both sides of the house this afternoon. Surely therefore he will take a broader view of this matter and take some advice from members as well as from his department. These members represent different constituencies across Canada, some of which contain as many as 50 per cent of people of European origin who, in many cases, make the finest citizens. I know there is no one here who does not admire the minister, so perhaps he will take a little advice from some of us, as well as from the members of his department.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, many of the things about which I spoke in a general way before the dinner recess have been mentioned by the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for York South. However, I am still concerned about clause 17, in spite of the minister's reply. In my opinion, this provision is restrictive. When I look at it I think of the cases with which I have had to deal since I became a member. I think of the times I have communicated with officials of the department to ascertain whether or not the facts given to me were correct and the basis upon which the denial had been made. Then, I have had to make a decision as to whether or not there was a legitimate reason for going to the minister, knowing that the officials had gone as far as they could go.
I do not suggest for a minute that every case referred to the minister's office results in the decision being reversed. This would be beyond expectation, and there is no basis for it. I have found from my experience with various ministers that the case does get a consideration beyond that which can be given by departmental officials. I do not mean that these cases have been outside the regulations
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
under which an official could act, but the minister's position enables him to make a favourable decision.
In looking at this clause I notice there is a reference to an application for admission into Canada of a relative, pursuant to regulations made under the Immigration Act. If there is a refusal, a person may appeal. If the board decides that person comes within the regulations made, the application shall be approved. The officials look at the matter in the same light, and they sometimes approve and sometimes deny an application. If you go to the minister you get some approvals and some rejections. I am disturbed by the limitations in the act. If we look at the statement the parliamentary secretary made we find he said that we should treat people with equality and consistently; that no law can be fair unless it provides a considerable area of discretion because sometimes there will be humanitarian or compassionate reasons for admitting people who, under the general rules, would be inadmissible. These are the things about which I am concerned.
In reply to my submissions on clause 17, the minister said it was an experiment in recognizing legal sponsorship. He said we were the only country in the world that gave this right. We set up a board that is independent and which cannot be overruled. These things are fine. However, if I knew of a case in which I thought there was some validity for an appeal, I would hesitate to say to those people, "We have a board and you should present your case to this board. The decision of the board is final."
Clause 26 reads in part:
The minister may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada or, being in Canada, to remain therein, other than
(b) a person in respect of whom an appeal under section 17 of the Immigration Appeal Board Act has been taken that has not been successful.
This is the particular clause of the bill that concerns me. I have not been involved in security cases, but I have been involved in cases of sponsorship. I can think of many cases which do not fall directly within the regulations, but the use of ministerial discretion has allowed the application.
I suggest that the amendments, of which the hon. member for Carleton has given notice, do enlarge the clause and permit a discretion. It is easy to say the board will give humanitarian and compassionate consideration to these things, and that they will do so with equality and consistently. I can think of another board, The Pension Commission with
Establishment oj Immigration Appeal Board which we have to deal. Time and time again the position of the house with regard to it has been stated by members on both sides. It takes refuge in its interpretation of the regulations and the law.
It is for this reason I say to the minister and to his parliamentary secretary that I feel what we are trying to do is to be more flexible and provide these things; but I am afraid of clause 17. Although it appears to give some of these things, I am afraid it might not do so.


Jean Marchand: May I say to the hon. gentleman that, as I see it, all the rights and privileges that exist under the present law are being retained. This means going to the department to appeal to the minister. Nothing is removed. However, if you come to me and I say "No, this person is not going to be accepted," you can still appeal to that board. This is an added right. We are not suppressing anyone.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I thank the minister for his explanation. Perhaps I have used too many words in an effort to make clear my concern. I was going to ask the minister directly if he would tell the house whether this clause removed the right to ask him to intervene in a case before it went to appeal. If it does not, then I do not have the concern I was expressing.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, I think the
Minister of Manpower and Immigration should be commended by the members of this committee for the aims he is obviously seeking in his attempt to bring a greater degree of humanity and fairness into various aspects of the operations of his department. However, I think it is the duty of the members of this house to try and make sure-and in so making sure to assist the minister-that these aims are in fact carried out by this and other legislation presented by the minister regarding his departmental responsibilities.
For example, if we look at the wording of clause 17 it appears to widen the rights of sponsors by providing for further consideration of applications that are turned down. I should like to suggest to the committee what has also been suggested by other members, namely that under certain circumstances this clause as it is presently worded may in fact narrow these rights.
There is nothing in this bill that defines what is a refusal, or who should determine at what stage a refusal occurs. I think it is important to note that the minister has just
13320	COMMONS DEBATES	February 21. 1967
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board told one hon. member that as far as he is concerned there is nothing in the clause that narrows any existing rights, that takes away existing rights; that the section is designed to provide an additional right.
But, Mr. Chairman, not only is it important that the minister should make this statement in the committee at this time; he should also make sure that this is a matter of departmental policy and is an attitude which will be adopted by his officials. Because if the officials were to say to an applicant who wished to sponsor a relative, immediately after the initial letter refusing his application was sent out "That is the end of the matter; you must now go to the board", then in effect this clause does narrow or take away existing rights.
The concern of some in this regard has been allayed, at least to some extent, by what the minister has said; but before this debate is over I hope the minister will go on to assure us that in fact this will not be the approach of his department under any circumstances. I hope the minister will again assure us that there will continue to be the possibility of an administrative review of initial refusals of sponsorship applications, including a personal consideration of the matter by the minister himself.
If this is not to be the case, Mr. Chairman, and a person has recourse only to the appeal board, then as soon as the initial letter of refusal is sent out the obvious problem arises for the sponsor of having to come to Ottawa,, to hire counsel to speak for him, with all the expense that this involves.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the bill does not make clear-though this seems to be hinted at in some of the clauses-that the board can and may hold sittings outside of Ottawa. This is one aspect about which the minister should give the committee some assurance. It seems to me it would be unduly expensive, indeed difficult, for a person in Vancouver or in Windsor or in Halifax to have to travel to Ottawa to have his appeal dealt with. Particularly in the case of appeals by persons of foreign extraction who have not been in this country very long-even though they may be citizens-people might be somewhat fearful and concerned about having to appear before this court. If an administrative review were not available, then in the case of people who might be fearful about coming to Ottawa to face this new type of court, appeals that might otherwise have been made under some administrative procedure may not 
be taken, and to this extent existing rights may be narrowed.
There is another point that I should like to make at this time, Mr. Chairman. At present when somebody applies to bring in a relative from Europe for example and the department refuses the application, no reasons are given for the refusal. All the applicant receives is the bald statement in a letter that the requirements of the act have not been met. Specifically in the case of sponsors I should like the minister to explain how a person can decide whether or not he would want to appeal a case without his having some clear initial statement of the reasons the application for sponsorship has not been accepted.
Certainly this bill should make very clear, or we should be assured that the regulations will make clear, that if a sponsor does decide to launch a formal appeal he should have at the initial stage the necessary information on which to ground his appeal. There would indeed be a narrowing of rights and a deprivation of justice if an applicant were to file a formal appeal and then have his appeal turned down on the basis of insufficient grounds or facts on which to base it-grounds and facts which would not be within the knowledge of the sponsor who is appealing because the information was not made available to him at the outset.
If this clause 17 is to remain in the bill there must be at the very moment the law comes into effect a change made in the administrative procedures of the department so that the reasons for turning down an application for sponsored immigration are contained in the initial letter of refusal. Of course, I recognize there is an area of difficulty where a refusal is based on security grounds, and this may be an exception to the rule. But where reasons for refusal are based on, for example, lack of training or skill-which may be the case if proposals contained in the white paper become law-or on a lack of funds, a lack of economic strength on the part of the sponsor-or even on reasons of health of the immigrant, then these reasons must be clearly set out in the initial letter of refusal written by the department. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that clause 17 will have little meaning.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that except in the case of security matters the basic criteria on which decisions are made-I do not refer to the broad statements in the present law itself or its regulations, but to the basic and detailed criteria-should be made
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
available through the Queen's Printer to members of the public who wish to buy them in the same way that the equally detailed customs tariff is made available to the people of Canada who wish to purchase a copy from the Queen's Printer, or who wish to consult it in a public library. Again, Mr. Chairman, if this step is not taken then the right of appeal will not have the meaning that I think the minister wishes to place upon it.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that something else could possibly happen if the change I have suggested in connection with stating the reasons for refusal is not implemented at the time the bill becomes law. Some people, rather than file an appeal, may merely file a formal notice of appeal, and the board would also find itself swamped with numbers of appeals which would not be brought before it if the criteria which are generally applied by the department, and its reasons for refusal of an application, were clearly stated and made available to the applicants at the outset.
Clause 17 does not make clear that an appeal taken under it can be decided on the basis of law or fact or mixed law and fact, in the same way that appeals with respect to deportation can be decided in other parts of this legislation. It could be argued that questions of fact would have to be taken into account under the wording of clause 17, but this is not clear. Therefore one area in which an amendment to clause 17 might be made is in making clear that appeals under that clause could be heard on the basis of law or fact, or mixed law and fact.
I think there is much merit in making the provision that decisions of the board under clause 17 should take into account compassionate or humanitarian considerations, something which is not possible under the existing wording of clause 17, the board being restricted to a consideration of whether or not the requirements of the Immigration Act and the regulations made thereunder have been met. These requirements and regulations, it seems to me, do not leave much area for consideration on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, especially if the right under the present law for the minister to grant permits is eliminated if an appeal is heard by the board. This has been mentioned by another member.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I ask the minister why an appeal on questions of law with respect to decisions under clause 17 should be only to the Supreme Court of Canada. The board itself can hear
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board questions of law and fact. Perhaps I should backtrack for a moment and say that I should not be applying my remarks at this stage only to clause 17, as it is not yet clear whether appeals under that clause to the new board can be on questions of law and fact. My remarks here should be related to the act as a whole, and include questions of deportation.
As I was saying, under clause 23 there is a right of appeal from a decision of the board to the Supreme Court of Canada, on a question of law. But the board itself has jurisdiction to hear questions of law and fact. It iseems to me that if the board can make an error on a question of law, it can make one on a question of fact. This seems to be a useful area for amendments-to widen the right of appeal to the Supreme Court to take in questions of fact as well as law.
While I do not claim to have at my fingertips the rules of the Supreme Court it seems to me, if my memory is correct, that appeals to the Supreme Court involving property rights can be made on questions of law and fact. If appeals on questions of fact and law can be taken with respect to matters of property, those rights should be equally available when dealing with the rights of human beings.
It has already been noted that clause 17, as worded, limits the right of appeal to citizens. There is much to be said for extending the right of appeal to landed immigrants. I do not think it would be fair or equitable to limit the right of appeal to citizens unless and until changes have been made in our existing citizenship laws, to make sure that procedures which are uniformly fair are available in every citizenship court across Canada, and give people rights of appeal from decisions of citizenship court judges, rights which do not exist at the present time.
I can understand how the present minister and his predecessors have been concerned about the burden placed upon them by the existing powers under the Immigration Act, which give them opportunity to use discretion. As has been said by other members of the house, much can be said for a power of discretion vested in the minister, especially when it comes to considering matters of humanitarian concern and compassion. It seems to me that the burdens presently placed on the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, because of the opportunity and ability to use discretion, would be lessened to a great degree if there were sufficient highly
13322	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board trained and well paid staff in the field to administer a set of fair and reasonable rules. If there were those rules and officials in the field in Canada and around the world the numbers of cases coming to the minister for the exercise of discretionary powers would decline and be limited to a relatively small number.
There have been suggestions that we move amendments to widen the proposed power of this board to deal with cases having to do with refusals to sponsor immigrants. We should be very cautious about moving any such amendments until we have answers to the questions asked by myself and other hon. members and the views of the minister as to whether the amendments that I have suggested would be useful.
I ask the minister to consider either not having this clause in the act at all, or to add a provision that it be not proclaimed until a proper order in council is passed, in order to make sure that the special joint committee of the house and Senate on immigration, which has been taking a special interest in matters of sponsored immigration, has a chance to study the implications of clause 17. That committee should first have the opportunity to study the clause and to make its report.
Some hon. members have expressed concern about clause 17 being applicable only to such classes of relatives as are referred to in regulations, made by the governor in council. It would be useful therefore if we could receive the assurance that this clause is not made available to the department, the minister, and the new board until the special joint committee presently sitting has had a chance to recommend to this house and to the other place what should be done with respect to sponsored immigration. I am sure that we would want that committee to have the opportunity to say something about this power of appeal in general.
I wish to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I, and I think all members of the house, commend the minister upon his aims of seeking a greater degree of humanity, fairness and justice in all aspects of the administration of his department. But I think we should look very carefully at this clause, and the other clauses I have referred to that are linked to it. We want to end with something which will be helpful, instead of something that will have the reverse effect. I and other members of the house will await with interest the answers to the questions we have asked about this clause.
DEBATES	February 21, 1967


Mr. Fairweather:: I will not take many minutes to say that generally I support what has been said about clauses 10, 17 and 21. It seems to me that we should hear more from the minister about the reason for one member of the board hearing an appeal, and one member of the board designating, then, that the entire board hear the appeal. Were this to happen midway through a hearing, the fuD board would not have the important advantages of having seen and heard some witnesses.
I commend the hon. member for Essex West for suggesting that the appeal board be peripatetic. Such a thing has worked well with appeals under the Income Tax Act. There is no reason why this board should sit in Ottawa. Many appellants find it easier to appeal in their home milieu. Could the minister answer this question? Will the board be restricted to this city with its appeals?


Jean Marchand: No; the board can travel. It can go anywhere in Canada.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That answers that. I hope the board travels. As to clause 17, I protest that only citizens have rights under this clause. From what I read, it seems doubtful that the immigration committee of the Senate and House of Commons will support that section of the white paper restricting to Canadian citizens the sponsorship of immigrants. I believe only what I read in the papers, about this. As other members have said, this situation must be cleared up by the committee, or it should be cleared up before this clause becomes the law of the land.
Referring to the matter of security, I abhor this business of ministerial certificates preventing people knowing what they are accused of. I hope that the hon. member for Carleton or other members will move an amendment-the minister might move it

that if a person is refused on the basis of a security problem, that fact will be communicated to him. I do not say that there must be full disclosure of all reasons.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I commend the minister as others have done on this reform in the law and I hope the illiberal provision now in the act, the security aspect of section 21-and it is an illiberal section-will not be continued.


Richard Albert Bell: Before the minister replies perhaps it would be convenient if I were to indicate the amendments I propose to move dealing with security. When I spoke earlier in

February 21, 1987	COMMONS
the evening I said I was in process of drafting such an amendment. Now I have completed it and perhaps I may read it. I intend to move:
That clause 21 (1) be amended by striking out all the words in lines 5 to 10 inclusive and substituting therefor the following:
"if the board finds, on the basis of security or criminal intelligence reports filed with them, which reports the board shall keep secret but the existence of which it shall disclose to the appellant, it would be contrary to the national interest to stay the execution of the order, continue or renew the stay or render the decision, as the case may be."
And that clause 21 (2) be struck out.
I would then propose a consequential amendment to clause 20 as follows:
That clause 20 be amended by inserting the following words after the word "discretion" in line 38, namely: "or if reports have been filed pursuant to section 21 shall"
I am not proposing to argue this at the present time. I am only putting the amendments on record so as to facilitate the minister's consideration of the matter.


Mr. Wahn:: Like other members I am concerned about clause 21 and hope that an amendment can be introduced by the minister which will avoid any possibility of arbitrary action under that clause.
I welcome the intention to provide an appeal procedure for Canadian citizens who are sponsoring relatives. In general I believe the departmental officials have been fair and reasonable in such cases. Nevertheless it is in accordance with sound principle that there should be provision for appeal from the exercise of this type of discretion, and I am delighted to know that this bill when it becomes law will provide for such appeals in the case of sponsored immigrants.
It is because I welcome this provision for appeal by Canadian citizens that I urge the minister to extend this right to all residents of Canada. It is possible that for some time the immigration regulations may permit persons who are not Canadian citizens to sponsor the entry of relatives, and in such cases there is no reason at all why residents of Canada who sponsor the entry of relatives should not be placed in exactly the same position in this regard as are Canadian citizens. Indeed it would be unjust to give Canadian citizens who are sponsoring relatives the right of appeal while denying Canadian residents who are not Canadian citizens the same rights. So I strongly urge the minister to extend clause 17 to include all persons who under the regulations are permitted to sponsor relatives.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
Moreover I would hope that when the regulations are laid down they will permit applications to be filed in Canada on the part of persons who may be here legally, but on a temporary basis, for example as students or visitors, and who wish to become permanent landed immigrants. Presumably such persons would be entitled to obtain permanent landing privileges, provided they have the skills or the other training which will enable them to become good Canadian citizens.
If, by any chance, an application by such a person should be refused by the officials, I would suggest to the minister that the applicant be given the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. In other words, I am asking that the right of appeal under clause 17 should be extended to all Canadian residents who sponsor relatives, and further that it should be extended to all persons who are here legally on a temporary basis and who have filed an application for permanent landing. I do not think the extension of the appeal facilities in this way would overburden the appeal board. Moreover such an extension would be in accordance with sound principle, and I urge the minister to agree to it.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, just a few short remarks on clause 21, concerning security cases.
The minister mentioned a few minutes ago that the government was carrying out an inquiry on security in Canada and that he considered it slightly repulsive to observe that someone who constituted a security case could not in any way present a defence. On this, it might be appropriate, under clause 21, if the ministers required to sign such certificate were to give a general reason for their refusal in the security case involved. It could be done in a general way, without having to supply evidence to the board, and by filing the certificate in camera, simply to enable the appellant to present a detailed defence, which would be submitted to the ministers concerned who, in turn, could re-examine the record in the light of this defence and then issue either a negative certificate, one that would cancel the first one.
In fact, there is no doubt that in cases of security, it is difficult to introduce detailed evidence to give the opportunity for a defence. But if, at least, the appellant were to get an indication of the general reason why the minister rejects the appeal, the appellant would have the possibility of presenting a
13324	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board defence which might help to make a better balanced and a better informed decision.
In fact, if clause 21 is maintained as it is, once again, the basic right of any citizen to justify himself on a charge laid against him is being denied. All that is involved, then, is giving the appellant an opportunity to present a detailed defence to inform the minister and to prevent misuse of authority.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Many suggestions have
been made which could probably be accepted.
I think that the first amendment suggested by the hon. member for Carleton, concerning the board of appeal, is already contained in the law. His wording is different and I have no objection to considering some drafting which will suit us both and will suit the house. I do not quarrel with his intention; this is what we are trying to achieve.
So far as his second amendment is concerned, this is something quite different.


David Lewis: Could the minister indicate which was the first and which was the second amendment? I do not remember the order.


Jean Marchand: The first amendment is to clause 14 and it concerns the jurisdiction of the board of appeal.
The second amendment is much more serious. I do not think it would be wise for this house to outline a new immigration policy in this bill, and this is what the hon. member's amendment is suggesting. This is the amendment to clause 17 concerning sponsorship. From the very moment that this board is given the right to accept anybody, notwithstanding the law, it will have more power than the department or parliament. I think that if the only criteria according to which a new immigrant is accepted is that he should become a good Canadian citizen, then the basic law will have to be amended so that the department will know what criteria it has to follow. Otherwise it will be operating under a restricting law, because the board of appeal will have overriding powers. In such a case it will cease to be an appeal. Clause 8 provides that a person can be admitted on humanitarian grounds. This is a very exceptional case. Apart from that case the law must be followed, and it is the law of the land. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Carleton will give to this board more power than is given under the Immigration Act. If the house wishes that, it will have to achieve

DEBATES	February 21. 1367
this purpose through an amendment to the act and not through this bill.
Perhaps there is good reason for extending this right of appeal, but I do not see how the law can be changed through an amendment to this bill. My first reaction to the amendment is that it would amend the policy and I do not see how this can be done through such an amendment to this bill.
Concerning clause 21 which refers to security-


Richard Albert Bell: Before the minister deals with another matter could he indicate his view on whether this clause should be expanded to include the right of appeal for landed immigrants?


Jean Marchand: I am ready to consider that, but we must be clear on this. The landed immigrants continue to have the right to sponsor relatives. We do not take away this right from them. This bill gives them the right of appeal, as well as the right to sponsor.


Richard Albert Bell: We understand that.


Jean Marchand: I think it was the hon. member for Royal who said that landed immigrants will no longer have the right to sponsor. That is not so; they continue to have that right. Perhaps I did not understand him well but I will be able to check it in Hansard.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What I meant was that there was some reference to it in the white paper.


Jean Marchand: I think it would be wise, before modifying the policy, to wait for the white paper, at which time we can incorporate such amendments. I do not think such amendments can be made to this bill.
With regard to the matter of security under clause 21, the hon. member for York South used the phrase: "We want particulars in general terms". I wrote this phrase down because I wanted to be sure that I understood him. I do not know what he meant, but I am sure he said it. Perhaps his thinking was so fluid that this was the only way in which he could express it.


David Lewis: I do not withdraw those words, because I think they make sense. One can give particulars in general terms, despite the minister's surprise. As a matter of fact I think it was the hon. member for Dollard who made the same suggestion, even though he did not use those precise words.
February 21, 1967


Jean Marchand: I think this phrase expressed very well the state of mind of the hon. member for York South. However I know that lawyers in this house will agree with me that one cannot give access to part of the evidence, because the argument will be advanced that the appellant was only able to see part of the file and this would give rise to frustration and to a feeling that in fact he had nothing at all on which to base his appeal. If this house is to make a decision it will have to decide whether to produce all the evidence or none at all.


David Lewis: Will the minister permit a question? Suppose the reason for which a person is not admitted is that he was a member of the communist party in a certain country. Is there any reason why that person cannot be provided with a piece of paper saying that the refusal of his application was due to the fact that he was a member of the communist party in such and such a country from 1939 to 1950? This is the kind of particular to which I was referring. If he obtains this information, he will be able to meet it. He may not know the evidence on which that conclusion was based but he will be able to produce whatever evidence he has to show he was not a member of the communist party during those years, if that is the truth. These are the kind of particulars in general terms which would enable a person to meet the general charge against him, with whatever evidence he may have at his disposal.


Jean Marchand: Knowing the hon. member for York South as well as I do, I am sure that if ever a board told him that his client was refused permission to immigrate on the basis of a report to the effect that he was a communist, the next step that the hon. member for York South would take would be to ask for proof of such allegation. Otherwise he would be greatly frustrated. Is that not so?


David Lewis: If I am frustrated, it will not be the first time. I will ask the minister whether he recalls an earlier debate with regard to the Spencer case when I cited to the house an actual case involving a security matter in which I was involved? If the nature of the charge were indicated to the appellant he might not get all he wants, but he would get something on which to base his defence.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: I think, in this case, the hon. member for York South has chosen his example very well and in general terms. You know very well, however, that there are some
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board other cases which will be much more complicated. If we were to say to a prospective immigrant, for example, that he is refused because we think he is a criminal or related to the organization called the Mafia, this would be stated publicly because it would come up before the seven members of the board. They would know it, the clerks would know it and the lawyers who were present would know it. Even if it were not a public hearing this would be known. Do you think this man woud stand for that? We would have to prove that our report is well founded, and this might lead to many complications. It might even go much further than that, because if this information is revealed some man may be found murdered. I know what you want to cover and I have the same desire. This is the reason I had hoped the house might be wise enough to wait until after we have the report of the royal commission on security. I am sure the New Democratic Party will make its opinions known to that commission. Perhaps at that time we might be able to find a solution which will be satisfactory to everybody.
I do not say that we are trying to put the responsibility on one institution, because in the end we take the responsibility. The Solicitor General and I say that we make the decision. We do not place the responsibility on the board or on any immigration officer. We take the responsibility because we have seen the file. It is we who take the responsibility and say that it is not possible for the person to be admitted. We are not hiding behind the board or any immigration officer. This is a difficult matter and I am not very much at ease in discussing it. I am sure the hon. member for Carleton knows very well, and possibly better than I do, what we are referring to and the difficulties which are involved in getting around this. I do not say there are no ways and means, but it is not easy to have a reasonable law. This is the reason I think, if we are not to produce all the evidence to the prospective immigrant, that it is much better not to give him any. In any event, we are trying to go a little bit further.
So far as clause 19 is concerned the hon. member for York South mentioned that he wanted the report to be made available to the applicant. This sounds reasonable to me. I think this is what is intended. Possibly it would be a good thing to introduce this into the law. We must recognize, according to the Canadian law, that only Canadian citizens have rights; the others do not have rights.

13326	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board This is the reason we have stated that Canadian citizens who wish to bring relatives or dependants here to Canada shall have the right of appeal, and not the prospective immigrants themselves.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Does the minister really mean what he said when he said that only Canadian citizens have rights and that noncitizens in Canada have no rights? I am sure he did not mean that.


David Lewis: That is what he said.


Jean Marchand: If you refer to landed immigrants, of course they have rights here in Canada; but those who are not here in Canada do not have any rights according to the Canadian laws. Therefore, we are not depriving anybody of their rights. To my knowledge-and someone may have other information-we are the first country to give a legal right of appeal against a department in this field. This is the reason we are endeavouring to make the experiment in respect of one class. Even the members are not in agreement concerning the consequences of this clause. One member stated that the board will be swamped and the other said that they would not have any appeals under those circumstances. The truth probably is that it would be busy as usual, but we really do not know. We have to make the experiment. I do not think the house has any interest in putting a burden on the board when we do not know whether it will be able to carry that burden.
I am ready to consider a few amendments along the lines I mentioned with regard to some other points. I do not think it is in the interest of this country to make a substantial modification. I am ready to look at this, but I say again that if the house wishes to modify the immigration policy of this country, it will have to do it through the basic law in respect of immigration and not through this special legislation, the purpose of which is to set up a board of appeal.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, may I put just one further question to the minister dealing with this general discussion. Earlier, in answer to remarks I made, he said that actually clause 17 was in addition to the present avenues we now have. I was pleased to hear this. However, I am looking for this in the person of another incumbent minister. I am wondering whether this is a personal assurance or whether there is anything which indicates it would be incumbent on the new minister. I do not see such an assurance in the bill itself.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967


Jean Marchand: This discretionary power is given by section 8 of the Immigration Act. It is reproduced, with two exceptions, in this new bill. It appears in clause 26. There are only two exceptions to this discretionary power;
(a)	a person under order of deportation who was not issued such a written permit before the coming into force of this subsection, or
(b)	a person in respect of whom an appeal under section 17 of the Immigration Appeal Board Act has been taken that has not been successful.
This means that if a person appeals to the board to be permitted to bring a relative to Canada and is turned down, at this moment I have no discretion; but prior to such a procedure I have all the discretion I have now.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: That is exactly the point on which I should like to have assurance.


Jean Marchand: This is the reason, as I said, that the only thing this bill does is to add more rights. If a person in the first place comes to me and I say no, that we will not accept this person, then he still has the right to go to the board of appeal and have my decision reversed. This is a right which does not exist now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In other words the minister is assuring the house that the applicant may be told that he may go to the appeal board, and he may have the impression that the right of discretion is no longer available.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say here what the department is going to do in future years when we may no longer be here, although the hon. member for Essex West probably will be. It is not our intention to do that. We want to add rights; we do not want to take away any rights.


Ian Grant Wahn: Could the minister tell me what the policy reason is, that a person who is here legally but on a temporary basis will not have the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is no reason that all immigrants should not have the right to appeal. In the white paper we have tried to set down a new policy, according to which Canadian citizens have more rights than landed immigrants. I do not know whether this principle will be recognized by the house and integrated into the law, but this was its origin. We think that when a landed immigrant is accepted as a Canadian citizen he should enjoy more rights than a
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
recently landed immigrant. That is the only reason. The question has been asked: Why not extend this provision to all classes? This is a new procedure and we want to experiment with it and know exactly the verdict of the board and what effect it will have on our policy. We want to make an experiment in this regard. We are doing it by this clause. Through order in council we can modify it and extend it to other classes. I believe we are still a democracy, and if this house thinks at any time that this principle should be extended, and political parties think this, I do not think a government would resist that pressure. This principle can be extended. We are making this experiment without taking away any rights from anybody.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Chairman, would it not be better to write clause 17 in general terms and reserve the right of the governor in council to exclude certain classes while this experiment is continuing? If clause 17 is passed in its present form, even if the experiment proves successful the minister will not have the authority to extend by order in council the classes of people entitled to the benefit of appeal. Would it not be better to re-word the clause to provide for a general appeal for the classes I have mentioned, giving the minister authority to restrict the classes during the period of experimentation?


Jean Marchand: This is a very good idea and I will consider it overnight.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Chairman, the arguments that were made earlier this afternoon and this evening hinge on the point outlined by the hon. member for St. Paul's, and I hope the minister will bring in such an amendment to clause 17.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a short question of the minister on clause
2.	I am one of those who has a French copy of the bill. Paragraph (g) of clause 2 states:

(g) "permanent resident" means a person who has been granted lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence under the Immigration Act;

Does this mean a landed immigrant is classed as a permanent resident? Is it presumed by the minister that a landed immigrant has gone through all the stages of the probationary period, and under paragraph (g) a landed immigrant is classed as a permanent resident?
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand which clause the hon. member is referring to.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Paragraph (g) of clause 2.


Jean Marchand: Because the hon. member read it in French, I did not understand it.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: These landed immigrants will probably be like me, bicultural but not bilingual. My question to the minister is this: Is a landed immigrant, under clause 2 (g), classed as a permanent resident? Is it presumed that he has gone through all the stages of the probationary period?


Jean Marchand: This is a Canadian resident as defined in the Immigration Act. It is the same thing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister a question? What is the status of a landed immigrant if it can be proven that he gave false information to the department to obtain landed immigrant status?


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member has a particular case in mind, I will meet with him tomorrow and study it. I cannot answer that question in general terms now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Head office.
Richard Albert Bell: On clause 6, Mr. Chairman, would the minister indicate whether the intention is that there should always be one lawyer sitting with the board?


Jean Marchand: When the board is sitting there should be on it either the chairman or the vice chairman.


Richard Albert Bell: I realize there should always be sitting on the board the chairman or vice-chairman, but there is no requirement that the vice-chairman be a member of the bar. I think the intention is that on each board there should be sitting a member of the bar, but in fact I do not believe this clause carries out that intention.


Jean Marchand: I am not sure that this was the intention, but the hon. member has a point. I thought in the first place that the chairman and vice-chairman should be barristers, but this is not indicated formally in the bill. This is something I will look into.
13328	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? In answering some questions earlier the minister was quite emphatic that the board could travel. Is his advice very clear that, without saying so in the act, they could in fact travel and hear appeals elsewhere than Ottawa. If, so would there not be value in making this provision in clause 6? It is even required that the chairman and other members of the board have to live in Ottawa or within 15 miles thereof. I wonder whether it would not be better if the law spelled out the fact that the board may travel and hear appeals across the country.


Jean Marchand: This is something we can consider, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 6 carry?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to consider the question, perhaps clause 6 should stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that clause 6 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 6 stands.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to this clause, is there any particular reason why the members of this board must live within 15 miles of Ottawa?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this is because experience in connection with such boards has shown that if members live very far from the capital, it is very difficult to get them together regularly, and it is the usual practice for several of these federal agencies to require that members live within a certain distance from the city, or in the city, so that they may be convened quickly.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, are they strictly required to reside in Ottawa?


Jean Marchand: The act stipulates that they must reside in Ottawa. However, an exception provides that the governor in council may authorize a member of the board to live within 15 miles from the city or elsewhere.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question. For instance, this does not exclude the possibility of members of the board coming from other areas of the country, but they must reside here?

DEBATES	February 21, 1967


Jean Marchand: That is right, Mr. Chairman. The members can come from anywhere in Canada, but after their appointment, unless authorized by the governor in council, they must reside in Ottawa or within 15 miles of the city.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to ask. Since my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), suggested that the regulations were perhaps designed to prevent the minister from appointing some "young punk" from Chicoutimi, I ask the minister to assure me that such is not the case.


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) wants to be appointed to the board-


Gilles Grégoire: Is the minister also trying to call the people of Lapointe "young punks", as he did for those in Chicoutimi?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it understood that clause 6 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 7 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: I have some comments to make on clause 7, and I see it is after ten o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house would be willing to deal with a couple of items that were indicated for today, namely item 131 and item 130 which refer matters to standing committees? Item 131 is a motion to refer the report of the Department of External Affairs to the standing committee on external affairs. Item 130 is a motion to refer the hate propaganda matter to a joint committee.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we would be prepared to pass the resolution to refer the report of the Department of External Affairs to the committee, but I think that we would have to take another look at item 130. This should be left for another time.
February 21, 1967


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George James McIlraith: That the report of the Department of External Affairs tabled on January 28, 1966, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Michael Starr: In view of the fact that item 132 covers an amendment to a bill now before the house which changes only the number of judges and junior judges, and since it is in the form of a resolution, we would be prepared to pass that also.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps we could call item 132, then.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the proposed measure to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-267, now before the house by substituting the words "eighteen judges and junior judges of the County Courts" for the words "seventeen judges and junior judges of the County Courts" in lines 7 and 8 of page 5 of the said bill, under the heading "British Columbia".
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that this resolution be referred to the Committee of the Whole to be appointed to consider Bill C-267, An Act to amend the Judges Act?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose submitting to the house for consideration item 83 on today's order paper, item 100, item 116, item 126, item 127, second reading of the bill to amend the Judges Act, item 130 and item 122. That is the list of the business indicated last night to be considered today, plus the addition of item 122.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]

Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I put in this house the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the same time, I should like to congratulate him on his excellent appearance on the television show called "Sel de la semaine" last night, during which he seemed to say that he never refused a well-presented request. Here, then, is my question:
In view of the grievances and suggestions made by Mr. Antonio Barrette, former Canadian ambassador to Greece, would the hon. minister or the government immediately take the necessary steps to ensure that the personnel in Canadian embassies is bilingual?
I am pleased to have the opportunity to elaborate on the problem I referred to at the time.
It often happens that Canadians travelling abroad note that the staff in our embassies is composed exclusively of English speaking persons who cannot speak French, which is the other official language of our country.
I wish to point out, among other protests in this regard, the statements made recently by Mr. Antonio Barrette, former Canadian ambassador to Greece. Mr. Barrette urged the federal government to place more emphasis, in our embassies, on the bilingual and bicultural character of Canada. Some of my constituents in the riding of Sherbrooke which I represent in this house told me of similar anomalies, noted during trips abroad. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs should take immediate steps to provide all Canadian embassies with bilingual personnel, in order that ambassadors and Canadian employees dealing with citizens of other countries may speak English and French reasonably well, in addition to other languages they may cultivate.
Our bilingual and bicultural character must be displayed outside as well as inside our country. This Canadian characteristic is a source of influence and prestige on the international level, and it will likely greatly improve our relations with French speaking countries.
I understand that, at the present time, the application of Canadian bilingualism gives rise to difficulties in some countries and with respect to certain employees. But despite past obstacles and carelessness, the federal government must spare no effort to encourage Canadian bilingualism in our embassies and

13330	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion henceforth appoint to senior positions Canadians who assert themselves as bilingual, besides speaking the language of the accreditation country.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The minister should also try to appoint more French Canadians as ambassadors. The African and particularly the South American countries would appreciate such Canadian representatives, often because of a common Greco-Latin culture and the French language which is predominant in several of those countries. If the representatives we sent there speak only English, Canada is putting itself at a disadvantage in psychological and fraternal relations.
For example, I remember that in June 1966 the hon. minister for external affairs announced the appointment of nine high commissioners and ambassadors of whom only one, Mr. George-Marcel Olivier, appointed to Indonesia, was a French Canadian.
In this connection, the federal government should distribute foreign aid better and not favour almost exclusively the English speaking countries of the commonwealth.
Canadian foreign aid hardly reflects the bicultural character of our country. In 1965, of $173 million given by Canada to underdeveloped countries, $99 million went to Asian countries, belonging to the commonwealth. On the other hand, 19 African countries where French is spoken received only $5.5 million from us in the form of gifts, and only $2 million in loans. We gave nothing to South America and our loans to those countries did not exceed $10 million.
These facts, Mr. Speaker, show the lack of effort by our government to extend Canadian bilingualism to our embassies, which is so necessary, and to encourage Frenchspeaking countries materially.
I hope the hon. minister or his parliamentary secretary will recognize that the situation must be corrected and that he will announce some appropriate measures in a few moments.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary of Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) deserves to be commended for the interest he takes in the important question of Canadian representation abroad. This representation, we all agree, should consist of the most able and the most representative personnel having in mind the cultural variety and richness of this country.

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
It is no doubt because such a need has always been recognized that in the past the Department of External Affairs in its diplomatic service has reached, before most other government services, a high degree of bilingualism and of representation of our cultural variety. Of course, the need referred to by the hon. member for Sherbrooke is today, better than yesterday, universally recognized, and this permits renewed efforts which have been made and will continue to be made to improve the situation.
At the present time, from 20 to 25 per cent of the diplomatic officers with the Department of External Affairs have French as their mother tongue and 35 per cent are certainly fluently bilingual. Indeed, it may be said that 50 per cent or more of our officers are bilingual, including those who are in the process of becoming fully bilingual.
But no one wants to leave it at that. All the new recruits, of which there were 50 in 1966, who are not bilingual at the start of their service, are sent full-time, for four months, in the preliminary stages of their training, either to the French or the English schools of the Civil Service Commission. This applies to the middle as well as the higher echelons. Similarly, division or branch heads, are also sent either to schools of language in Ottawa, for full-time courses at St. Adele or for a full year in Quebec city.
The member for Sherbrooke mentioned Canadian ambassadors to Latin America. He knows already that out of 13, five claim French as their mother tongue. In Frenchspeaking Africa, Canada is represented in 15 countries, either directly or through nonresident accreditation, by eight heads of post, three of whom have French as their mother tongue and others are fully bilingual.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the deteriorating housing situation in this country, the proposed symposiums across the country would be held sooner than anticipated in order that we might get action earlier than planned.
Let me say briefly, sir, that Canada's current housing shortage is a national disgrace. Our country is said to have the second highest economic standard of living in the world,
February 21, 1967	COMMONS
yet a large part of our people remain ill-housed. This problem should have been studied months or years ago. This was not done and as a result hundreds of thousands of Canadians are today looking for a decent roof over their heads. Instead of acting, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) crisscrosses the country holding study groups and symposiums and trying to pass the buck to the provinces. The Canadian people want action today and it is action they should have, not study groups and symposiums.
It is delaying tactics of this kind which create disillusion and cynicism in the public mind. What is the problem? Right now, Canadians in the lower income brackets are faced with a real crisis. At the same time, in many areas of the country Canadians in the middle income brackets cannot find homes in which to live. People are flooding into our cities. Recent figures show a record upsurge in immigration. Young married couples born in the immediate postwar period are looking for homes.
Last year in Toronto the average price of a new house was $29,000, while in 1965, we see that 85 percent of the home loans financed by the federal government went to individuals with annual incomes of over $5,000. Where does this leave the low income worker? The answer is-it often leaves him living in squa-lour, amidst urban blight in the run down centres of our metropolitan areas. Such poverty amidst plenty must be stopped. It will not be stopped by holding cross-country symposiums.
In 1967 housing starts, instead of increasing over 1966, are falling off badly. The winter period is half over and cross-country study sessions have taken the place of the immediate action we need.
Most countries in the western world regard home ownership as a welfare and social matter. This is proper. The right to a decent home is fundamental in 1967. Home ownership should not be attached to fiscal and monetary considerations. In Canada we turn government participation on and off and use housing policy as a fiscal and monetary instrument. I maintain that we must put an end to this retrograde attitude.
I believe that every Canadian family should have the opportunity to own a home or to enjoy the right of adequate rented accomodation. Today in Canada there is a housing shortage. The problem should have been studied months and years ago. Action is needed, now; yet this dinosaur, right wing minister
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion crosses the country holding symposiums and the government tries to pass the buck to the provinces. In any modern state responsibility rests with the federal government to get things done in the housing field and I cannot believe for a moment that the parliamentary secretary, who knows what I mean by social welfare measures, will defend in this house tonight the kind of symposiums which are being held today when it is action we need.
The policies which are required should be realized in co-operation with private industry, provincial authorities and municipal authorities through practical measures which I shall enumerate. These are practical measures, not symposiums; the government already knows about them and we have talked about them for years. These are measures to encourage intensive research into new methods of building lower cost housing, and further research into co-operative building and ownership.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
We suggest the federal government should take an active part in meeting this problem in the following ways:
1.	By eliminating the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
2.	By exempting from taxable income an amount up to $500 for school and municipal taxes.
3.	By extending the original Progressive Conservative legislation providing low cost long-term loans to municipalities for sewage treatment projects and anti-pollution measures.
4.	By the establishment of a municipal capital availability fund for purposes of longterm low cost loans.
5.	By extending direct C.M.H.C. loans to include those who today cannot qualify for reasons of insufficient income.
6.	By increasing direct loans for older housing and especially where housing shortage exists.
7.	By making group mortgage insurance available to all N.H.A. mortgage owners.
Do we need symposiums and cross country tours when this is the kind of action we should take? What about low cost rental housing?
We suggest measures:
1.	To provide low cost long-term federal loans and to provide a higher federal share of capital costs and operating losses.
2.	To co-operate with the provinces and the municipalities in the setting up of minimum
13332	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion standards or ordinances for rented accommodations, and to provide incentives for both urban and rural municipalities which fight blight and decay in housing by such ordinances.
3.	To provide long-term loans to municipalities for the acquisition of land for housing and or recreation purposes.
4.	To provide such incentives as are fair to encourage the investment of capital in house financing.
These are just a few of the things which must be acted on today. What does the minister do in the face of the housing crisis? He passes the buck in the most cynical way by going off on a cross country junket in the middle of the winter to discuss the problem with provincial and municipal authorities. This is the kind of delaying tactic which creates disillusionment with political institutions and modern governments and cynicism on the part of the people.
I cannot believe for a minute that the parliamentary secretary, who is attuned to the welfare needs of the people in 1967, will get up in the house tonight and defend the irresponsible action of his right-wing 19th century minister. Let him get up in the house and say that houses will be built in 1967 so that the hundreds and thousands of Canadians who are looking for homes will have them. Let him assure me that when I bring up this question day after day all I will get will not be laughter from the front benches. I mean business, and we are here to listen to what the parliamentary secretary will say in terms of what will be done to encourage home building in 1967. I hope he will not get up and read statistics when hundreds of thousands of Canadians are looking for homes.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure the hon. member, who made such a very objective speech, realizes that I am limited to three minutes. However, I would invite him to debate the subject with me the next time the estimates of the minister are before us, or on another appropriate occasion.
I listened with a great deal of interest particularly to the beginning of his speech hoping that he would be as objective and sincere as he pretends to be about the problem of housing. To refer constantly to the minister as the right-wing dinosaur indicates to me at

DEBATES	February 21, 1967
least that the member's appeal is not a sincere one, but just a desire to seek more publicity in the newspapers now that perhaps some of his other activities are not as prominently publicized as they were hitherto.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not worthy of you.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not too sure what the difference is between a junket in the middle of the winter and a junket in the middle of the summer but it is obvious that the hon. member does not understand the reasons for the minister's tour across the country. I am rather appalled at the fact that a member who stands up in the house as often as he does and speaks about the sanctity of the B.N.A. Act refuses to realize tonight that housing is essentially a provincial matter, whether he likes it or not.
The reason the minister is touring the country is to make the provinces aware of the different clauses of the National Housing Act, of which up to date many provinces have been reluctant to take advantage. The result of one of these "useless symposiums" as the hon. member likes to call them, was to convince the province of Quebec to set up a housing corporation when that legislative assembly gets an opportunity to do so. If this is useless in the opinion of the hon. member, then I will not be able to convince him in three minutes. However, I would remind him of the fact that 90 per cent of the suggestions which he advanced tonight are already incorporated in the National Housing Act.
This proves what I have long suspected. He has never read it and is not interested in it. He is motivated by political partisanship and a wonderful opportunity to castigate the minister when he is not here. I will let the minister answer the charge of being a right wing dinosaur, and I am sure he will find suitable adjectives to use in his reply. The fact that the hon. member is now walking out is further proof that his whole motivation in asking the question was to seek undue publicity at the expense of the senior citizens.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in this inspired atmosphere. In perusing the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, I noted that Canada Law Reports were sold to certain persons for $5 while the charge for a subscription through the Queen's
February 21, 1967

Printers promotion sales department is $15 to all other Canadians.
Naturally, in view of the fact that the New Democratic Party is opposed to any form of discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex or legitimate vocation, my democratic hackles were immediately raised by this gross discrimination against the ordinary people.
This discrimination also has been noted by the press. For instance, Mr. Maurice Western, who writes philosophically about the achievements and failures of mankind, nations and governments, recently wrote a column on the Auditor General's report and particularly noted the losses to the taxpayer from the sale of the Canada Law Report to the legal profession, although this loss previously had been brought to the attention of the government by the Auditor General.
In support of my argument, I should like briefly to quote from the Auditor General's Report, which is well worth anyone's serious study. This is from paragraph 117 at page 71:
Losses resulting from the sale of the "Canada Law Reports":	The Canada Law Reports are
periodicals covering proceedings of the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court. They are prepared for the benefit of the legal profession and distributed by the Queen's Printer in two volumes per issue (one for each court's proceedings) with ten issues per year.
In accordance with agreements between the Crown, represented by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, and various law societies in Canada, copies are provided free of charge to officers and libraries of the societies and to judges and court officers, while members of the societies are supplied with copies at an annual rate of $5 per member which is payable by the societies. This subscription rate of $5 is based on a 1962-63 direct printing cost of $4.43 per subscription. It should be noted that this cost does not include any costs of compilation, publisher's overhead, postage or the value of services provided without charge by other departments.
The charge for a subscription sold through the Queen's Printer's Sales Promotion Division is $15.
For the year 1965 some 10,100 copies of each issue of the Reports were printed, of which some 460 copies were distributed free to government departments and others entitled to receive government publications free of charge, some 630 copies were distributed free to law societies, judges, etc., approximately 8,670 were sold at $5 per subscription and 360 at $15 per subscription. The paid subscriptions produced an estimated revenue of $48,750. The direct printing costs, which amounted to $99,017, equivalent to $9.80 per subscription, were charged to the appropriation (Vote 5) of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
On May 31, 1966, the Department of Public Printing and Stationery advised the Registrar of the Supreme Court that the printing costs had almost doubled since the subscription rate of $5 was set in 1963. He recommended that the price
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
to the law societies be set at not less than $10 per annual subscription commencing January, 1967.
The agreements referred to above are on a continuing basis but provide that "either party may terminate this agreement at any time, to be effective at the end of the then current year, by mailing postpaid notice of such termination to the other party not later than the first day of October in that year".
As no such notifications were mailed prior to October 1, 1966, by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, losses to the crown from these sales will continue throughout the calendar year 1967.
After reading that report of the Auditor General and finding that this gross discrimination was being practised by the Queen's Printer in the sale of these documents, I was moved to ask the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) the following question today: "Can the minister inform the house why the Canada Law Reports are sold to members of the legal profession, who have one of the highest incomes per capita in Canada, at an annual rate of $5, while the general public are required to pay $15 for the same report?"
I trust that the parliamentary secretary will be able to give me some satisfactory reply to this protest, which I think is fully justified and would be supported by the great majority of the Canadian people.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose I stayed behind to answer the question was to take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) because so seldom have I an opportunity to congratulate him on his wisdom, integrity and concern for the average Canadian. As I say, it was for that reason I stayed behind this evening to answer the question.
Obviously the Auditor General has once again proven to the Canadian public, by bringing this matter to our attention, the justification of his existence and his vigilance. It seems obvious to me that when the annual rate of $5 was established for members of the legal profession it had some direct relationship to the cost of printing. But the fact is that the cost of printing today would justify a fee of $10. 1 shall certainly add my views to those of the hon. member and through the medium of my caucus in this house suggest that steps be immediately taken to remedy this situation.
I am as puzzled as the hon. member to know why the general public should be required to pay $15. I think the least we should do in establishing the price of $10 is see that
13334	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the $10 fee is charged to all Canadians whether or not they are members of the legal profession. The hon. member and myself have in common the fact that we are not members of the legal profession, nor do I suspect either one of us would want to be. But if I wished to buy one of these books I can see no justification why I should pay any more than my colleague who sits next to me in the House of Commons.
I think the hon. member is to be congratulated, as is the Auditor General, for bringing this matter to the attention of the
DEBATES	February 21, 1967
house. I will urge on the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), under whose jurisdiction the department of printing now falls, that this situation be rectified immediately. Obviously, from the hon. member's research, it is too late to do anything this year, but I am certain we would all take a dim view if it was not made known by November 1 this year that the price of these documents will be $10 to all Canadians, whether or not they are members of the legal profession.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.36 p.m.