1973-06-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English j

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the manner in which the Minister of Transport has consistently refused to allow members of the House to investigate the affairs of the publicly-owned corporations, Air Canada and Canadian National Railways. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the unaudited annual reports of Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways for the financial year ended December 31, 1972, laid before this House on June 5, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with an instruction that the committee consider the necessity of recommending that all aspects of the government's relationship, financial and otherwise, with these two public utilities be the subject of a public inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity derives from the revelation that the new head of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation intends, in his capacity as the head of a development company, to proceed with the construction of a luxurious high-rise condominium in the Ottawa area in flat contradiction both of his own expressed planning philosophy and of a recommendation by CMHC itself. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House instruct the Minister of State responsible for housing to contact Mr. William Teron immediately with a view to urging him to cancel the high-rise project and replace it with a low-rise development which is in accord both with CMHC policy and Mr. Teron's own philosophy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 41(2) to table the report of the task force on the release of inmates known as the Hugessen Report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the impending nuclear tests by France in the South Pacific, in view of the recent decision brought down by the International Court of Justice at the Hague which calls on France to halt tests until a final decision can be made by the court at hearings in September and December of this year, and in view of the fact that the Canadian House of Commons has unanimously opposed further nuclear testing by France, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House endorse the position of the International Court of Justice and urge the French government, as called for by the court, to delay the proposed tests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion, proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?

June 22, 1973
Fisheries


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is unanimous consent to put the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House on Wednesday, June 20, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the proposed-by this time it may be actual-sale of a fish cannery in British Columbia, Cassiar Cannery, to Japanese interests and to the effect this will have of further placing the fishing industry under the control of foreign interests. In particular, included in the sale of the assets of the company there are 100 salmon fishing licences granted by the Department of Fisheries. I therefore seek the consent of the House to move the following motion. I do not think there need be any debate if the motion is accepted.
That this House expresses the view that it is contrary to Canadian interests to permit the sale of Cassiar cannery in British Columbia to Japanese interests, and particularly the sale of 100 salmon fishing licences which are currently held by the Cassiar Packing Company.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will inquire again; I am not sure whether there was unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


ELECTION EXPENSES BILL
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Election Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In light of the extraordinary revelations about the financial transactions of Information Canada including the large sums of money paid for space never used, and rented at a rate much higher than what is paid for other accommodation, is it the intention of the minister to explain to this House and to justify these actions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member for Peace River that this matter-I believe he is referring to office space in Montreal-came to my attention only this morning. I am looking into it right now. I would hope, to answer further questions on this subject on Tuesday, Monday being a holiday, to satisfy the hon. member. If he will give me a further opportunity over the weekend I hope to have further facts for the House on Tuesday.


SUGGESTED ABOLISHING OF ORGANIZATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. While the Minister of Labour is conducting his meditation on this issue, would the Prime Minister consider the further usefulness of Information Canada in light of the present disclosures which support what has been maintained all along? Further, in light of the fact that Information Canada is a creature of the government and has never been approved of or supported by this House or parliament, would the Prime Minister give effect to abolishing this particular institution and dividing its responsibilities among the information services of other departments which might have time to involve themselves in the subject after their other duties?
June 22, 1973


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question is based on an allegation and the minister has said he will look into it. Contrary to what the hon. gentleman has suggested, I will not make up my mind until I know the facts.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is not allowed to distort what I said. I indicated that this is in addition to other actions of Information Canada, that this is only one part of the mess of this institution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. gentleman will ask a question about the other parts of what he calls a mess I will try to deal with it.


Gerald William Baldwin: We will get a chance to vote on Tuesday night.
ALLEGED PAYMENT OF $300,000 TO BREAK PREVIOUS .	LEASE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. While he is obtaining the information necessary for him to answer on Tuesday, will he also find out whether Information Canada paid $300,000 to break a previous lease and, if so, why does this information not appear in the documents concerning these book stores?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice relating to the questions I asked him yesterday about the application to the Federal Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent Mr. Justice Morrow from continuing to hear the case of certain claims made by the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood. In view of the fact the Land Titles Act of the Northwest Territories gives the power to Mr. Justice Morrow to deal with all claims on title, I should like to ask on what ground in this case he intends to take that right away from that judge nominated under the act?


An hon. Member:: Interference.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to argue the legal case here. Indeed, It would be improper to do so in view of the fact the matter will be before the courts. I will simply refer again, however, to my earlier answers which were to the effect that, so far as the question of the validity of the caveat is concerned that completely and plainly is within the jurisdiction of the judge named as a person to decide the matter. Indeed, it was ourselves who took the application before him. So far as any claim against the federal government is concerned, an act of parliament makes it quite clear that these matters come before the Federal Court.
Oral Questions


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister starts his answer by saying he will not give any legal opinion and then he proceeds to give one, dividing the caveat and the decision in respect of the caveat from the claim on which the caveat is alleged to be based. I should like to ask the minister whether, in any other case where a claim to title was involved, the Department of Justice took the power away from the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and, if this is the first case, is the reason that the Minister of Justice does not think Mr. Justice Morrow will give the answer he would like to have?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to ask for legal opinions, although in my earlier answer I did not say I would not give a legal opinion; I said I would not argue the case here. He seems to want to argue it here.


Gerald William Baldwin: The blind leading the blind.


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. gentleman has any indication of any case where a similar claim in fact was put before a court, I would be glad to receive that information from him. There is no problem at all in our view as to any decision on the claim. Our problem is with the case proceeding and being in fact a total nullity because of lack of jurisdiction to deal with the claim.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there again the minister and his advisers are making the decision that the case may be a nullity. I have read some parts of the statute concerned. In view of the fact it not only gives the judge the right to settle these matters but also provides for an appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories and from there, of course, to the Supreme Court of Canada, would the minister remove the suspicion, I suggest not unjustified, that the government is acting against the interests of the Indians of the Northwest Territories, by withdrawing his application for prohibition and letting the case take the course that is provided for in the law passed by this parliament?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason at all for any suspicion in regard to our position. We are perfectly happy to deal fully and at all times with any claims by Indians or, indeed, by anyone else against the Crown federal. The other part of the hon. gentleman's question is precisely the question which will be argued before the Federal Court.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently does not realize that what he has done casts a very long shadow over Mr. Justice Morrow. Why did he not proceed in the usual way? In the event that he is right and Mr. Justice Morrow has no jurisdiction, why not in the statement of defence simply say that this court has no jurisdiction and the matter would then come before the court by way of motion in the regular way and the decision would be made? Why take this extraordinary action which will always leave Mr. Justice Morrow under a shadow because of action which should not have been taken?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason at all to talk about any shadow.


John George Diefenbaker: Then why did you do it?
5016

June 22, 1973
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: If the right hon. gentleman will look at the proceedings he will find we did in fact specifically draw the matter of jurisdiction to the judge's attention.


John George Diefenbaker: If only the minister would answer the simple question, why was the ordinary course not followed by the government, namely, to state in the statement of defence that this court has no jurisdiction? Then the motion could have been made and there would have been no interference with Mr. Justice Morrow in any way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will, of course, allow the minister to reply but I am sure it is apparent to all members that these questions and answers are debate. Hon. members will recognize that I have allowed the questions to be asked because of the interest of members in the matter, but after the first questions the supplemen-taries have tended to develop into debate, which should not be the purpose of the question period. The minister may reply to the supplementary and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman repeated his question and I will repeat my answer. We did indicate as a first ground before Mr. Justice Morrow that there was no jurisdiction in him to deal with anything more than the caveat itself.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
In view of his statement on TV last night on the subject of capital punishment, can the hon. minister now tell us on what scientific study he based his statement that capital punishment will be abolished for all murderers in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The question put by the hon. member is not in order, since he is of course referring to a statement made outside the House, but we can perhaps take it for granted that the question is being put directly to the hon. minister, without reference to any statement made outside the House, and the hon. minister can thus reply.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there are several studies, including the Fattah and Grenier reports.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has given a very intelligent answer, but does he intend, for example, to table a bill which would authorize the distribution of medals to Canadian murderers?
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is one that the minister should not be required to answer.



PROPOSED ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF ACTION AND HOLDING OF REFERENDUM AT NEXT GENERAL ELECTION

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the government has now taken steps to remove the capital punishment discussion from a free vote and has made it a party matter, will the Prime Minister give consideration to suspending the debate until the time of the next general election when the voters of the nation could express their views on this matter either by way of a referendum or a plebiscite?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to agree with the premises of the question. I am not certain on what they are based and what they imply. The hon. member is asking me to withdraw something which is in front of parliament now. Surely it is not within my power to withdraw something with which parliament is seized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North on a supplementary. The question was raised originally by the hon. member for Temiscamingue who has a supplementary, and I will return to him. I apologize to the hon. member for South Shore. My impression was that he wanted to ask a supplementary to a previous question. I will return to him when we have finished this series of questions.


Robert Carman Coates: In view of the fact the Solicitor General has now indicated that he proposes to put forward an amendment to the legislation that was presented to parliament and as he is a member of the cabinet, there can be no doubt in the minds of hon. members that this is government policy, especially in view of the initial vote when every member of the cabinet voted as one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Did the hon. member rise to ask a question? I do not think he should argue the matter now. He was recognized for a supplementary. Perhaps he might ask it now.



GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING FREE VOTE ON BILL

Robert Carman Coates: Would the Prime Minister explain to the people of Canada whether or not full discussion now is still on the basis of a free vote or is it now government policy to abolish capital punishment completely in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member calls to mind what was done when the first vote was taken and he is right that all the cabinet voted for it. This was a government bill. If amendments are put forward in the name of the government, they will be government motions. There is no doubt about that. As to whether

June 22, 1973

there will be a free vote which will follow, I just want to say that on this side of the House every vote is a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Some of the boys have told me of a few conversations they have had with you, Mr. Prime Minister. Either you vote one way or the promotion does not go through. If you do not come into line, you are dead. What a laugh! The Prime Minister is trying to bring vaudeville back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Just stick to the funny stuff, Pierre; don't be serious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if this comedian from Prince Edward-Hastings will give me a chance, I see that the notion of a free vote is something which sends them all into a state of shock over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue in a moment because it was his question originally. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the right hon. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All I would add is that there are certain matters on which we have declared to our caucus that they are not matters of confidence in the sense that the government will not resign if it is defeated on them. We have drawn this to the attention of our caucus on the matter of capital punishment. In that sense they know that they can disagree with the cabinet. But I am sure that this kind of subject is away beyond the comprehension of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We know what you say to them, e (1130)
[ Transla tion]



SUGGESTED REFERENDUM ON PROPOSED ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the government is about to introduce in parliament amendments to the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty, can the Prime Minister tell the House why a referendum should not be held in order to know the opinion of the Canadian people, and not only that of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this proposal should get the support of the Progressive Conservative members; in fact, I thought the parliamentary system was of those where
Oral Questions
members assume their responsibilities with courage and conviction.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: There goes another evasive answer.
Mb. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert. Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue rises on a point of order. I will recognize the right hon. gentleman thereafter.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, here is my point of order: the Prime Minister insinuates that hon. members cannot assume their responsibilities when they should do so. To my mind, we are here to express the will of our electors and not that of the Prime Minister or the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada.



PROPOSED ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-POSITION OF THOSE CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER NOW IN CUSTODY

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extraordinary constitutional statement made by the Prime Minister I ask him this question. As parliament has voted in favour of preserving the death penalty for murders of police guards and custodial officers, and in view of the statement by the Solicitor General, corroborated by the Prime Minister, that the government intends to bring in a government measure to abolish capital punishment entirely, what about those now in custody who have been convicted of capital murder? Will the same system be followed in Canada that has been followed elsewhere, that the government's intended decision having been made to abolish capital punishment, executions will not take place of those who are at present in custody?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that at this stage the question is hypothetical. There is no law which has been passed by parliament changing the present situation. If, as a vote on the measure which is before the House, we have to make some of these decisions, we will make them.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: June 22, 1973
Oral Questions
House how this came about and what action he proposes to take to restore the power of the purse to parliament?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the response of the Minister of Labour on Tuesday would cover this point.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement by the Solicitor General that he proposes to bring in an amendment to abolish capital punishment completely, would the Minister of National Defence clarify whether he intends to apply this to the National Defence Act, under which capital punishment applies for certain misdemeanors at the present time?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Department of National Defence will be consistent with the over-all government policy in this respect.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as a result of the startling revelation by him yesterday that no meetings were being held by the advisory committee in Toronto in June. In light of the minister's confidence in the chairman of the committee, whom he described as very conscientious, was the minister informed in advance and did he approve of the fact that four of the members of the committee would be away in June and public meetings with claimants would in effect be delayed?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, several of the members of the committee are away attending an International Labour Organization meeting in Geneva. They are part-time appointments. They are not on full-time assignments. There is no way, under the terms and conditions applicable to the advisory committee, that they could be compelled to serve full time. So we must, under these circumstances, do our best to accommodate the requirements we have placed upon them for this investigation in relation to their other responsibilities and activities. We regret the delay. It is an autonomous body making its own decisions. They are doing their best to accommodate all requests made to them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Did the minister know and approve of four members of the committee being away in June, keeping in mind that this is an extremely urgent matter to claimants, that the committee had already investigated the commission, and there was some urgency and necessity for them to investigate the claimants? Did the minister know of this plan and did he approve of it?


Robert Knight Andras: I cannot impose this kind of restriction on the advisory committee. I asked them to investigate the matter without such detailed containments as the hon. member suggests. There is no way in the world that I could deny the right of members of the committee to go to Geneva or anywhere else, because they are not on that kind of assignment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact it is extremely important that we have a full-time advisory committee, in light of the fact that at least four of the committee members are serving their own interests at the sacrifice of the public interest, and in view of the fact that their term of office expires on July 18, I believe, which does not leave them very much time, will the minister now remove or restructure the advisory committee in order that we can have a full-time working committee that will face up to and give answers for the specific problem to which they should have directed their attention and to which we have a right to expect answers immediately?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would have no intention of bringing forth the necessary legislation to make this a full-time additional bureaucratic group. I do not think that is necessary. Second, I would advise the hon. member that we have taken many steps to improve the situation relevant to the investigation of the benefit control operation to which the advisory committee was assigned. I am just as anxious as the hon. member to see the advisory committee's report completed and tabled, but I would emphasize that we have not waited to take action to improve the situation to which they were addressing themselves.



AIR CANADA


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the telegram he received from the government of Manitoba, I wish to ask the minister if he can tell the House whether Air Canada has made a decision to create a computer centre and centralize all computer operations for Air Canada at Dorval?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have answered this question. The answer is no. The personnel are not going to be decreased in Winnipeg, and no function is going to be transferred to Montreal.


David Orlikow: In view of the past record of Air Canada regarding assurances to its employees at Winnipeg-I refer to the overhaul base move which was denied until the move was consummated-will the minister take up

June 22, 1973

with Air Canada the justifiable fears of the employees in Winnipeg that verbal assurances are not enough and see whether Air Canada will give written assurances to the employees that their operation will not in fact be moved in the near future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think each employee in Winnipeg received a letter from Air Canada assuring them that they will not be moved and that they are not going to be transferred to Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I would call on hon. members to try to exercise some degree of discipline to limit the number of supplementaries. The Chair would like to make an effort again today to see a number of members who have been waiting for days to ask questions but have been prevented from doing so because of the large number of supplementaries asked at the beginning of the question period.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that in former years Air Canada had plans of which the government did not seem to be aware, will the minister take steps to make sure that the government knows what Air Canada has in mind with respect to a possible move away from Winnipeg?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I got in touch with Air Canada two or three times on this same subject and I think I answered on the basis of what I learned from Air Canada. I hope Air Canada is going to respect what they told me.



AIRPORTS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's decision to have a review of air transportation needs in the Toronto region and in view of the further representations received regarding the proposed expansion at Mount Hope airport, can the minister advise if he is planning to allow a similar independent review of air transport needs for the Hamilton-Wentworth region?


Jean Marchand: I do not
think anybody has asked for that, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE



REASONS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF BILL IN ORDER TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the capital punishment questions directed to the Solicitor General. Would the minister explain why he wants to change the capital punishment bill in such a way that he sends it in a new direction, in such a way as to needlessly inflame public opinion again, and in such a way that he is deceiving those who voted for the bill on the strength of the continuation of the five-year period?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to inflame public opinion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: The amendments that I put forward to the committee were based on recommendations made in the long debate in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Danforth:: That is not true.


William Warren Allmand: There were recommendations that we should do something-


George Harris Hees: Put forward by you.


William Warren Allmand: -to toughen the parole proceedings for people convicted of murder. I proposed amendments on that point too, but I hear nothing about that. The other recommendation was that we should either have an abolition bill or a retention bill, one way or the other. Many members said that and in response to them I put forward the amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we are again involved in a series of questions and answers anticipating an order of the day. I wodld think this is the kind of debate, questions asked and answered, that should be taken up either in committee or when the bill returns to the House.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the previous question before the other supplementary was leapfrogged in. It is to the Minister of Transport and relates to the tabling of the terms of reference for the examination by an independent board of airport needs in the Toronto region. As this was originally announced on March 2 jointly with the province

June 22, 1973
Oral Questions
of Ontario and in the minister's statement on January 30 he indicated that the inquiry would be a tri-level inquiry with the co-operation of the province, and as it would appear now that the province is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking a question? I seek the co-operation of hon. members to ask questions as briefly as possible. The hon. member might come to the question now.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Can the minister assure us that every effort was made to have the province of Ontario participate fully in this inquiry under the terms of reference and the composition of the board?


Jean Marchand: Everything was done, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the province of Ontario, even if they did not participate in the terms of reference for the board or the nomination of the commission, will appear before the board and make a contribution so that we will have the best report possible, if ever it is decided that we have one.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General perhaps I could direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the latest innovation of the Post Office Department involving a complicated arrangement of four different postboxes, described as long-term planning and streamlining, and the disastrous results of similar innovations of this kind in the past, and in view of the Prime Minister's expressed interest in speeding up the mails, would the right hon. gentleman urge the Postmaster General to emphasize policies concentrating on efficiency rather than gimmickry?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to draw that question to the attention of the Postmaster General and ask him to reply to the hon. member.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Postmaster General has gone out for a few seconds, I shall await his return.



AIR CANADA


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trans-

port. Has he anything to report to the House on the accident involving a DC-8 jetliner at Toronto airport last evening?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I know is that a team of inspectors is in Toronto now. I hope I will get a report before the end of the day, but I do not know anything else.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister assure the House and the country that a full scale independent inquiry will be launched into this accident and that the findings will be made public in view of the loss of lives that could have occurred?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall wait for the report of the team of inspectors and we will then see if it is necessary to go farther.



COMBINES


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister indicate to the House what progress is being made in investigating the allegations made to him by independent tobacco and confectionery wholesalers with regard to loss leader efforts being undertaken by grocery wholesale distributors in the Montreal and Ottawa areas?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the combines branch are studying the material provided to them by the distributors to see if a question arises under any of the provisions of the act. This work is not completed yet.

[ Translation]



AGRICULTURE


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
My question concerns the one which I asked yesterday afternoon, and I quote:
Considering the continuing and very rapid raise of production costs for farmers, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, does the minister intend to announce soon a new increase in grants for industrial milk?
Since the hon. minister replied that he was meeting with the officials of certain boards yesterday, I would like to ask him whether he intends to make a statement on this matter soon, in the House?
June 22, 1973


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I did meet with these people representing both the Quebec producers and the Ontario producers. We discussed many problems that they are facing because of an over 200 per cent increase in protein costs and lower production of milk and milk products in general. They made many suggestions which we are studying. If a decision is reached it will be announced in the proper fashion.
[ Translation]


Léonel Beaudoin: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the hon. minister tell us whether he will soon reach a conclusion and whether he proposes to make a statement in the House on this matter?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, part of this is a provincial responsibility. The province of Ontario has already outlined a program to try to help to increase production of industrial milk. We will be working closely with them on the different programs they are suggesting and if we come to a conclusion it will be announced.



FEED GRAIN PRICING POLICY-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO AMEND WHEAT BOARD ACT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in regard to the cost of feed and feed grains. In view of the continued speculation and rumours that are rife regarding changes in the pricing policy for feed grains and suggestions that pricing practices and control may be removed from the Canadian Wheat Board, will the minister say whether he is preparing legislation to bring before the House in regard to the Wheat Board Act?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the government intends to announce a policy in relation to feed grains in Canada in the fairly near future. When a decision has been made it will be announced and at that time it will be apparent whether legislation is in fact required.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the importance of this question, will the minister give the House the assurance that when such an announcement is made it will be made in the House and will be subject to discussion in the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that we would ordinarily bring this matter to the attention of the House as soon as a decision has been made. Certainly I will welcome discussion on it because it is such an important matter as we try to assure justice to all farmers in Canada.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS



PICKERING-COMPETENCE OF BOARD OF INQUIRY TO STUDY NEED AND LOCATION

Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the way the terms of reference for the board of examination of the Pickering airport give certain instructions to the board but fail to instruct it to study the question of airport need and location, will the minister inform the House if the board is being directed to study this vital question or if it is even authorized to study it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the terms of reference are clear on this. There is no doubt that the board can receive evidence on need and location of the airport.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: While the minister is correct in saying that according to the terms of reference the board is free to accept evidence, I ask him whether he is directing the proposed board to study the question of airport need?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this board has been constituted in order to allow interested parties to make representations and bring evidence before the board. If no one appears before the board, it will not mean anything. If people are really interested in having the decision of the government changed or having their point of view known, I hope they will appear before the board. Otherwise, all those who claimed a board was needed were lying to us.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that brucellosis or Bangs disease in cattle herds is completely out of control in the province of Saskatchewan, especially northern Saskatchewan, with new herds being infected daily and as proper precautions and regular policies have not been followed by the department and the department has proved to be incompetent and incapable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask the question.


Norval Alic Horner: Would the minister take immediate action in view of the fact a meeting was held last night in Debden, Saskatchewan, at which the chief veterinarian and eight other departmental veterinarians again failed to comprehend the problem?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the regular program is being followed. There is no tremendous increase in brucellosis in Canada. I received a report yesterday. The Minis-

June 22, 1973
Oral Questions
ter of Energy, Mines and Resources has some idea about energy, but I think he is talking about biomass material.



REQUEST FOR PROGRAM TO ASSIST YOUNG PEOPLE WISHING TO BE FARMERS

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that capitalization costs for young farmers have increased by 66 per cent in the past ten years and young farmers cannot always get Farm Credit Corporation loans or afford 10 per cent plus interest rates, will the minister be announcing a program soon to help young farmers stay on the farm or get started in farming?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the record shows that more young farmers have received farm credit loans this year than for many years. We are working on a program. We will be meeting with our provincial counterparts to discuss this program on how we can aid more young people who really want to enter farming or remain in farming to do that.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the Grand Trunk Railway, a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways, is running a subsidized commuter service because of losses, into Detroit from Pontiac, Michigan?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Is it the minister's intention to instruct CNR and Grand Trunk officials to seek subsidies from the American government rather than CNR?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the same as I did for the first question.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. As the Solicitor General has said that negotiations are taking place with the provinces with a view to improving accommodation for prisoners, can he inform the House whether greater use is to be made of provincial correctional institutions such as the one at Bowden, Alberta and, if so, will present staff be retained?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Bowden institute is one of the provincial institutions we are looking at. We have not concluded any negotiations or agreement so far. I cannot tell the hon. member what may happen to the provincial staff if we take over such institutions. I would have to look into it.



MANPOWER


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State whose visits to the House are always welcome. Is it the intention of the government to unite the LIP and OFY programs into one new program and, if so, will that new program be administered by the Department of the Secretary of State?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, this is now a subject of discussion between my department and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. With regard to the snide reference to my absence for the past few days, I might point out to the hon. member that I was out west and I had a marvellous reception.



FINANCE


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the reports last week of high interest rates being paid by rural borrowers. In light of the fact the Minister of Finance was asked to report to the House on this matter, can the Prime Minister indicate whether the government has received any report yet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer this question. I have not discussed the matter recently with the Minister of Finance.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the Prime Minister indicate if an investigation has yet been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not call my ministers every other hour to see if they are doing what they said they would do.

June 22, 1973

Oral Questions INFORMATION CANADA



TRANSPORT


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. For several years I asked the former Minister of Transport what action was being taken by his department with regard to placing flashers on locomotives. I was informed that further studies were to be made. Can the minister indicate today or some time in the near future what action is being taken by his department to implement that policy which is necessary to provide safety and avoid accidents?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if, as the hon. member says, this subject has been before the department for many years, possibly he will give me an opportunity to look at the file and give him an answer.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As there was a considerable delay in tabling the terms of reference from the date that expropriation was originally confirmed for the Pickering airport site, can the minister now indicate that the same delay will not take place between the tabling of the terms of reference and the naming of the board as it is very important that the board gets to work as quickly as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the response of the minister, if there was one.


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will see to it that the board is convened as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Ontario for a supplementary, then the hon. member for Athabasca, the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Champlain and call orders of the day.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Is it reasonable to assume that the board members will be named within the next couple of weeks?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we can find people who will accept appointment.



ALLEGED UNJUSTIFIED RENT PAYMENTS FOR OFFICE


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Peace River. In view of the fact a good deal of doubt has been cast on the procedure followed by Information Canada in renting space in a Montreal building, will the Prime Minister consider referring this and the whole matter of procedure in government negotiations for rental of new buildings to an appropriate committee for study and report to parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to hear the report the Minister of Labour said he would be making to the House early next week before making a decision on this.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government received information that four persons were rearrested by the South Vietnamese police for making statements to an American and Canadian delegation, including Bishop Guy Belanger, on the question of political prisoners detained in South Viet Nam? If the facts are as alleged, will the minister protest this breach of fundamental human rights?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My under secretary has received a letter from the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada in which such an allegation is made. The difficulty is that there is only secondhand information in this letter about the incident. We are trying to ascertain whether it is true. Of course, we would only have a basis for protest if it were true and if Canadians were involved in some way. But I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are pursuing the investigation.

[ Transla tion]



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether new developments have occurred or are expected concerning the Quebec-Ottawa dispute on the cablevision issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the matter is not litigious. We
5024

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act have published a green book and the Minister of Communications will be meeting with provincial officials this fall to discuss the contents of the proposed policy. I know that lately the correspondence about applications for licences by the Quebec Minister of Communications has been made public, but I do not know what happened afterwards. I will readily inquire and if the minister is not in the House next week I will gladly answer the question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-197 to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is an important bill, and these amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act are important amendments affecting the lives of many people in our country. It is with great pleasure that I rise to support these amendments.
I should like to say right now that I read with interest two good speeches made in this debate on Wednesday, one by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the other by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). Both these members have obviously given the subject of immigration a great deal of thought. I believe we could all accept the advice of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and resist the temptation to indulge in rhetoric on the question of immigration. Nothing positive is achieved by castigating the government for what, in my opinion, has been a genuinely enlightened attempt to establish fair and open immigration policies.
It is not a simple matter to reconcile the fact that we, in comfortable Canada, want on the one hand to maintain our high standard of living while, on the other hand, we have a duty to accept people from lands less fortunate than our own. I wish to emphasize my view that we have a duty, a moral obligation, to extend our wealth and our welcome to people from countries where the poverty is so grinding that we in Canada cannot even conceive the kind of human indignity into which people are forced. As the hon. member for Greenwood said on Wednesday, we are dealing with individuals. I wonder whether any department of government, other than the Department of Immigration, deals with individuals at such an elementary level where the difference between passing or not passing an interview can mean the difference between a life of hope and dignity in a country like Canada or returning to a country where all is hopeless, all is despair.
For some time, now, it has been evident that the right to appeal an order of deportation was being abused. In my area, the word started to get out just after Christmas that

this loophole existed in our immigration law. I must say, the loophole was abused not so much by the would-be immigrants as by their various consultants, some legitimate and some not legitimate. I believe it was Sir Thomas More who, describing the habits of the Utopians, said:
They have no lawyers among them for they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters.
It is certain that over the last few months a lot of lawyers have done very well out of our Immigration Appeal Board Act. I am sure I am not the only member of the House who has come across occasional instances in which not only was a hopeless case being taken to the Appeal Board, but right up to the Supreme Court of Canada at great cost to an unfortunate person who could ill afford such an expense. For some time it has been obvious to me that we should do two things if we are to clear up the immigration problem.
First, we must take away the right of appeal against a deportation order, except in the case of certain categories explicitly laid down. This is being done by the bill before us. We cannot allow people to get off airplanes in Montreal or Toronto airports and, on the strength of being then on Canadian soil embark on a prolonged legal procedure which becomes more seedy as it progresses. By removing this right of appeal we are, in fact, doing those concerned a favour. This action is not being taken to help the immigration officials. It is simply not right to allow a man to get himself involved in a complex legal procedure in a strange country, whose language he does not usually speak well, where the habits are different, where he is often without friends or family. In desperation he is likely to work in some sweat shop for far below the minimum wage and is continually put upon because he cannot defend himself. He has no recourse to the police. As the minister said the other day, he waits for the tap on the shoulder.
So, in fact, by this amendment we are protecting the rights of individuals who cannot protect themselves. I should like to add that I believe it is the general consensus of the people in my area who involve themselves with the immigrant community and their problems, that this amendment is absolutely required, that without it there is no solution to our trouble.
It is my opinion that no person, other than those originating from the United States or St. Pierre and Miquelon, should be allowed into Canada without having first visited a Canadian consular authority abroad and receiving some form of stamp in their passport indicating that some form of check has been done in their country of origin. The corollary is, of course, that we must open more consular offices abroad.
In this context I should like to point out to the minister and to hon. gentlemen opposite-the minister is doing such a fine job in difficult situation, as I know hon. members opposite will agree-that Portugal is one of our largest current sources of immigrants to Canada. Sixty-seven per cent of Portuguese immigrants come from the Azores. The Azores are a group of islands 1,000 miles out in the Atlantic from the mainland of Portugal. In Lisbon, we maintain one of our largest immigration offices overseas. We have four full-time immigration officers in Lisbon. Yet
June 22, 1973

in the Azores where, as I say, 67 per cent of our Portuguese immigrants come from, 1,000 miles away from the immigration office, two or three years ago we closed our consulate. We rent-I emphasize this-space on a yearly basis in the Azores in the Mexican honourary consul's house. An immigration officer visits the capital of the Azores a minimum of 11 days every month. Reservations are made at the principal hotel on a yearly basis. I should just like to bring once more to the attention of the minister my hope that, as we are embarking on this enlightened approach through these amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act, hopefully leading to a white paper on immigration and a revamping of the Immigration Act, and opening consular offices abroad, we might give very positive consideration to reopening our consulate in the Azores.
I should like now to address myself to the other half of this package which I think will be successful in cleaning up our immigration problems. On the one hand, the minister will have erected, when these amendments have been passed, a barrier against new people coming into Canada without having first obtained proper documentation. We must now turn to those people who are already in Canada, that other half to which I have referred. As I have said, we have a double operation here.
I think the minister has taken a first class step in allowing people who were here by midnight, November 30, 1972 to apply for landed immigrant status. This is a decent way for us to accept our own responsibility. I am one of the people who have been pushing for this kind of decision that will allow those caught by the November 4 deadline a fair opportunity to apply. I have about 50,000 immigrants and new Canadians in my riding. Over the past few days I have spoken to various people concerned with this problem and received an overwhelmingly favourable response. November 30 in the opinion of most, and certainly in my opinion, is a satisfactory and fair date.
I should like for a moment to direct the attention of the House to those people who were caught by the November 4 deadline. In my area of downtown Toronto they have mostly been Latin Americans. Reflect for a moment, Mr. Speaker. These are people coming from countries where the average annual income is often less than $300. These are people who have sold everything and are making a final attempt to escape to Canada. We owe them this right to apply, and I compliment the minister for taking such a decent position in this regard.
I should like to add one note, and that is this. As I see the amendments, anyone who can prove that they were in Canada on November 30 will be able to apply for landed immigrant status, and this is very important. It means, for example, that ship jumpers will be able to apply for landed immigrant status. This is a move that I know will be well received in certain downtown areas of Toronto and Montreal. In my area, I know there are several hundred ship jumpers, some of whom have been living in Canada for up to 10 years. This legislation will give these people a once in a lifetime opportunity to regularize their situation, and again I heartily endorse this move. Certainly, I hope this step is made public. So far in this debate and in reports in the newspapers I have heard or seen no reference made to this unfortunate class of immigrant or potential immigrant in Canada.
Immigration Appeal Board Act
This is not the time for me to express my strong reservations about the way that the points system operates and is applied. In fact, I feel that the points system itself discriminates against the working man in the way it is applied, but this is a matter which will be considered during the review of the Immigration Act which we hope will be forthcoming.
At this time, I want to thank the minister for taking this attitude toward a problem that is a serious one in major urban areas, particularly in my own. I want to express my hope that the points system will be relaxed so that few people will in fact get to the appeal stage. I hope that 98 per cent of those who arrived here before November 30 obtain landed status, and I want to assure the minister of my support for the legislation.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, approving the principle of Bill C-197 is like approving motherhood. The minister has pre-empted opposition members from saying "I told you so" because it was he who told us the condition the immigration department was in as a result of the changes that have taken place.
Bill C-197 is really phase two of the department's attempt to clear the backlog of immigration appeal board cases. In June of 1972 the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) was minister of manpower and immigration and it was he who set the machinery in motion to clear up about 12,000 or 13,000 of these backlogged cases. Therefore, this is phase two and most members of the House welcome the legislation which has been presented. Canada is fast becoming a microcosm of the world, embracing races and nationalities from every corner. We are quickly changing from two founding nations, and our strength in the present and in the future lies in developing understanding and harmony amongst our people. Bilingualism and bicul-turalism are being quickly changed to multilingualism and multiculturalism.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) set forth the different races and nationalities he has within his constituency. I could do the same for my riding of Broadview. When I moved into the riding roughly 25 years ago it contained probably 80 per cent Anglo-Saxons. Now, that percentage has changed dramatically and we embrace many nationalities and races including Greek people, Italian people, Germans, Chinese and black people from the islands. What we really have is a mosaic of different races and nationalities. Young people within our riding are rubbing shoulders with children from different races and nationalities, appreciating their languages and cultures and enriching their lives as a result. In other words, Broadview is becoming a United Nations of the world and the young people are enjoying the experience.
This dramatic change really began in the year 1967 when two changes were brought forth by the government. The first was a change in immigration regulations allowing visitors in Canada to qualify for landed immigrant status. The second was the establishment of an Immigration Appeal Board which permitted appeals in respect of deportation orders on various grounds and shifted the discretionary power from the minister to the appeal board in
5026

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act relation to the exercise of that discretion on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in hardship cases.
The principle of allowing visitors to Canada to apply for landed immigrant status was a very enlightened and good one. Unfortunately, the application of that principle has created difficulties leading to chaos, confusion, disaster and despair in many cases. Little did the government know when it brought forth these changes it was making it very difficult for itself to find solutions. The mere fact of having five ministers from 1967 to the present time did not help. It really accentuated the complexities of the problem and decreased the possibility of solution. The changes added to the administrative mess we have today in which, as the minister said in his own words, we have a backlog of roughly 17,500 cases awaiting appeal.
The minister knows it is difficult to blame either the government for that enlightened principle or any one minister, least of all the present minister or the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), who attempted to deal with this very complex problem. When the hon. member for Verdun brought in phase one of the administrative clean-up last June, he realized that something had to be done quickly. In very short order between 12,000 and 13,000 cases were handled with a less rigorous approach than had been the case in the past.
The other important date was November 3. The results of the October 30 election had a very chilling effect on the present government, and it was confronted with an ever-increasing number of appeal cases coming before the board. It attempted to pass a regulation denying visitors within Canada the right to apply for landed immigrant status. This step was absolutely necessary, even though it worked hardship on many people. We in the NDP, and I am sure all members of the House, welcome the provisions the minister has set forth in the bill permitting people who came to Canada prior to November 30th, and who are still in Canada, the right to apply for landed immigrant status. This is one way of softening the hardship that was imposed on November 30th. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this change on November 3 failed to stop many applicants from taking advantage of the deficiencies in the act, and there is no quick way of stopping a visitor from remaining in Canada and using the appeal procedures to delay his departure. This is why all members of the House welcome the changes presented by the minister.
The three principles that have been set forth in the bill are: The opportunity for a person to regularize his immigrant status; the provision to eliminate the existing backlog of cases; and the procedure to modify the appeal system for the future.
In regard to the first principle, the opportunity for persons in Canada to regularize their immigrant status, there has been a steady and increasing flow of visitors from all parts of the world. Some apply and qualify, some apply and do not qualify but take advantage of the appeal machinery, putting it into motion in the way of special inquiry hearings and hearings before the Immigration Appeal Board. Even though some had deportation orders made against them, those orders were not enforced because the officials were unable to apprehend those persons to send them back. In some cases visitors to Canada never applied, and became lost in the woodwork, as the

hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said earlier this week. This has made it very difficult for the immigration department to deal with them.
As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has said, we are not only dealing with human beings, with all the emotional feelings they embrace, but also with their relatives and loved ones. They had the idea when they came to Canada there would be an opportunity to better themselves. In some cases persons came to escape political prosecution, whether real or imaginary. The result of this administrative mess has been terrible abuse by many visitors who have taken advantage of the loopholes and deficiencies in the law. This has created ill feeling among visitors, landed immigrants and Canadians, particularly because of the strain put on the employment situation, the shortage of housing and the shortage of school facilities.
At this time I should like to give credit to the government. When it was in this administrative mess it permitted a group of Ugandans to come to Canada. This was not a very popular move because of the strain this put on employment, housing and school facilities. It took a fair amount of courage at that time to recognize the humanitarian needs of these people who had been ousted from their own country, but who came to Canada and were welcomed by the government. This took great courage and I give the hon. member for Verdun full credit for taking the initiative in welcoming these people to Canada.
The administrative nightmare of the backlog of cases created a tremendous strain on the Immigration Appeal Board. As the minister has said, this seriously affected the integrity of the board. May I say without hesitation that the members of the board are conscientious, capable and concerned. I have had the privilege of appearing before them many times on behalf of constituents and have found them to apply the principles in a very fair and democratic way. I think they have built up a body of law with regard to immigration which has been to the advantage of Canadians and which provides some groundwork in respect of applications.
The second principle with regard to the elimination of the backlog, which has been dealt with by the minister, is the appointment of seven temporary members to the Immigration Appeal Board for terms of up to two years. In addition, the appointment of two additional vice-chairmen will enable panels to sit in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, so that all individual members will be permitted to determine appeals until the backlog is eliminated. When one looks at what has happened in the past when a person in British Columbia had an appeal, one realizes that this meant he or she had to come to Ottawa to present the appeal. This involved hardship and probably also involved additional cost. Now, we have moved slightly by the setting up of appeal boards in Montreal and Toronto and, in addition, are to have the benefit of the additional vice-chairmen sitting in the four major centres across the country, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. We welcome this because of the experience of the past.
The final principle with regard to changing the appeal system in the future, allows persons seeking admission at the port of entry who have been issued an immigrant or
June 22, 1973

non-immigrant visa overseas the right to avail themselves of the appeal provision. Refugees and those making a claim of Canadian citizenship also may appeal. This narrows the field of appeal. I believe, on the basis of experience, this step is a very necessary one. The further step in respect of refugees and people claiming Canadian citizenship will impose upon these people the duty to file a declaration at the time of filing their appeal setting forth the facts upon which they rely in proceeding with their appeal.
In the past there have been many frivolous applications and it is excellent that the government has moved to tighten this particular situation. This means that in the future the appeal system will be far more rigid, and we should not become involved in the same mess we have been in for the past three or four years. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) outlined for the minister, and the minister pointed it out in his speech, that the right of appeal in respect of sponsored dependents continues. I am sure this is a section which should be retained, and we welcome the retention. I hope the minister will come forward with a review of the act in the very near future, either in the form of a statement on motions or a detailed study in the committee when his estimates come forward next year.
The other matter that has been pointed out to the minister concerns a total review of the act. The original act was passed in 1952 and many things have taken place between 1952 and 1973. There have been studies and recommendations. Those recommendations have yet to be implemented. Canada is really becoming a united states, not of America, but of the world. Our strength will be in the accommodation of the differences of the people whom we embrace. In so doing we must have development, understanding and harmony. I think this bill is a step forward with regard to this accomplishment. We cannot afford to have a restrictive immigration policy. We must have an expansive immigration policy, but it must be planned, regulated and reasonable. On that note, I look forward to the minister coming back and giving a detailed account concerning the good results of these provisions and an undertaking that in the near future we will have a total overhaul of the act so that we may be proud of our Immigration Act.


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, once before, earlier this year, the federal government set a deadline of March 31 by which date those not legally in the country were encouraged to come forward. Fewer than 10,000 of the estimated 50,000 to 200,000 made themselves known to the immigration officials. I know, and the minister knows, that if only 10,000 more of those now not registered with the immigration branch come forward I, as a Member of Parliament for the Toronto region, in the months following the 60-day amnesty will receive representations from individuals and associations on behalf of those who have not registered. Some of these will be cases deserving of great sympathy. Others will involve persons who are illegally in this country who have married. At stake will be the lives of Canadian citizens, the ones who have married them, and the children born in this country fathered by those not registered and now to be deported.
Immigration Appeal Board Act
Unless the majority of those who have now been asked to come forward do so, we will be involved in another crisis in the months and years following the 60-day amnesty. I will receive in my constituency office hundreds of letters and callers, and the minister will receive thousands of pleas from all over the land. Once again, we will be faced with a dilemma in respect of whether to deport them, as the act says, after the 60-day period. Once again, as at other times when the act has been strengthened or when an attempt has been made to strengthen it, the accusation of heartlessness will come forward. Placardbearing people will be at the doors or inside the doors. Associations, churches, letters to the editor and heartbreaking and human accounts in the daily press will once again make it necessary that either a new amnesty be announced or that the government, whichever might be in power at that time, will be denounced and there will be turmoil. And yet, if under those circumstances another amnesty were to be granted, the credibility of not only the government of Canada but of Canada itself would be seriously questioned. The farce of anybody from anywhere being allowed to come to this country and the onus being put on the government to get rid of them would once again be played.
The purpose of making these remarks is not to be negative. I have what I consider to be a positive proposal to make, if in fact this new amendment to the act is to work. When the previous call for the thousands who had not registered was advertised, I, personally, saw in the subway trains the notice in English. I would suggest that coincidental with our passing of this amendment there be launched public advertisements on street cars, on buses and on subway trains in the three or four major languages of the 50,000 to 200,000 people now illegally in the country.
In addition, all of us who are interested in putting our immigration policies on a feasible footing, all of us as members and citizens, should make contact through whatever church or temple to which we may belong, should make a continuing contact with ethnic associations, with societies and clubs, and with employers whose employees are mainly recent arrivals to this country. Probably each would-be immigrant is known or related to one or more Canadian citizens, and as an act of citizenship each one of us should emphasize what the minister has emphasized over and over again, that is the positive message that most people who come forward during the 60 days after the proclamation of Bill C-197 will qualify for landed immigrant status provided they have no criminal record. I think it is important that they be reached and that the band of friendship be extended to them. In order to achieve this purpose, we must use all the resources possible in the various departments of the government.
The Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism has been criticized in certain quarters for having earmarked a large proportion of his budget for advertising. Let us use some of that money for this particular project. Let us follow through the idea we had of not only putting the advertisements in the ethnic press but also of encouraging the editors of these various publications to speak warmly as established citizens to the increasing number who could be citizens.

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has recently announced a citizenship program under which his department will go forth into communities and put up storefront offices and kiosks for information. Let that too, I suggest, be a means whereby the message of warmth, friendship and welcome can be extended to these people. I suggest it should be an inter-departmental and inter-party program to finally solve this situation and to cease this increasing dilemma of "throw them out" or "be merciful", because unless the situation is cured now with this new project, we will be involved in a continuing crisis. Instead of a multicultural mosaic, it will truly be a multicultural mess, with hard feelings and antagonism between ethnic groups, with misunderstandings-and this is the real danger- between established Canadian citizens and newcomers. There will be antagonism between government and its citizens and credibility will be lost. If this program is a failure, no matter how the government might act in the future, it will be very difficult to establish ourselves once again as having a credible immigration policy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address further remarks in relation to plans for the future. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) mentioned today that the Immigration Act has not been changed since 1952. The hon. members have also spoken of the enrichment of Canada by those who have come since 1952. Most of my life has been spent in western Canada, although I am the member for York East in greater Toronto. When I was out west in times past we used to regard Toronto as a place which you would not even want to visit, let alone live in.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: But since that time the colour, the variety and the accent on living rather than just porridge, prayers and perseverance in one's station in life, added a new dimension so that even though today many westerners and even Torontonians may be critical of their city, the rest of the world sings its praises. We criticize the new city hall, Ontario Place or whatever is done for the advancement and enhancement of Toronto, but after a while when Toronto has been praised round the world we usually get around to doing so ourselves and see that it is unique. So, Toronto today is regarded by many as not only a place one would want to visit but a place in which you would want to live if you would want to live if you wished to be in the most outstanding metropolitan centre of North America, thanks in large part to immigrants.
I should like now to speak about the dangers of immigration as it affects our large cities. I hope that in our immigration policies for the future we will remember that we are living in times unlike the days of old. When an immigrant came to Canada, at that time he went out west or to various places in Ontario and Quebec where there were wide fertile places, where only trees needed to be cut down and the ground prepared for the harvest ahead. We must keep in mind that when we speak of increased immigration what we are truly speaking of is not filling up the vast spaces any more. What we are truly saying is, let us make our big cities bigger. Let us be prepared for the consequences of further complexities, because the immigrant today heads for Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, primarily. The main problems then to be

faced with respect to immigration are those that have to do with urban problems.
If we feel, as some have expressed today, that our duty is to the whole wide world, then let us remember New York and the dangers of opening one's doors completely to the disadvantaged who now form close to the majority population of that city. Let us remember that if we choose, through a points system, to accept people from other countries, that we are often drawing off the best talent of those countries and that we are not, in fact, doing those countries a favour. If on the other hand we were to take hordes of those who are unskilled and whose social conditioning is not that of the work ethic, we could be well on the way to reducing our own standard of living to the standards of those whom we sought to help. In the early years of immigration into Canada we needed people to settle our rural lands. Strong muscles, strong will and a knowledge of farming, with an adaptability to rural life in general were the main requirements. Today, the move is off the land as farms themselves become big business operations or small uneconomic family farms.
The wide open spaces that are left are mostly wide open spaces of rock, of swamp, of lake. Immigrants are not likely to want to take on Canada's north. The third of the Canadian land mass that is the Canadian Northwest Territories supports today, and supports poorly, only about 35,000 people. Plans are being made for development, the mid-Canada corridor plans and others for the north, but first let us be sure there are proper priorities in this case. Let us be sure development comes first and then the people, rather than as in the old rural situation, where there was farm land to be tilled, where the people came and did the productive work. In our modern technological age our own development should come first, and then the people should be brought in remembering at all times that a nation's first responsibility is to its own people.
In case some of those remarks might be accepted rather negatively, I would like again to emphasize the necessity of making an interdepartmental project out of what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) is bringing forth with his amendment. As I have said, unless this program receives co-operation from the Ministry of State for Citizenship, co-operation from the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), co-operation from all parties in this House as well from all who are now citizens, we will be doing a grave disservice to people now in the country who are afraid to come forth now but who later on will come forth and to whom, if we are to remain firm, we will have to be cruel. I hope the minister will heed the absolute necessity of at least having all notices printed in the major languages. If this project costs money, then let us all get behind him with more money than is allocated; let us take this opportunity to set a course for the future, a course which will work.
Often a member will say how tremendous he feels the current minister is, or some project is, and then he comes in with his "howevers" and his "huts". I have finished with my "howevers" and my "buts", and I would like to say that under the present minister much has been done. And in almost all cases where I have written on behalf-I am sure it is hundreds by now-of those who have some

problem with immigration that they want to have corrected, such as a plea for the union of a family that is separated, primarily Ugandan Asians,-perhaps there is a wife in England and two members of the family out here who don't have landed immigrant status because they took a plane before they could get a medical-these problems have been straightened out.
I am personally looking forward to working on the committee and bringing forth suggestions with the support of other parties. Good suggestions have been made which the minister has noted, and hopefully we will be able to make the twentieth century and the dawn of the twenty-first Canada's era as a result of the unique assem-blance of people from all over the world as our citizens. May I, Mr. Speaker, call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Mr. Speaker, in thinking over what I said prior to the one o'clock adjournment, I find that I said, in fact, what I wanted to say so, in the interests of listening to other views, I will give up my right to speak now.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate unduly, but I would like to make a few remarks.
I must say, first of all, that to my mind Bill C-197 will benefit the immigrants and improve their treatment. It is a fact that in many provinces, at the federal level, of course, there are too many delays.
The bill before us is entitled "An Act to amend the Immigraton Appeal Board Act", and its recommendation reads as follows:
Recommendation
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act to give the Governor in Council the permanent power to appoint up to seven temporary members to the Board and the temporary power to appoint such number of temporary members as the Governor in Council considers necessary to eliminate the Board's backlog of appeals and anticipated appeals.
We should therefore proceed with more haste than in the past. In fact, we have seen cases pending for three, four and even five years, before being dealt with by the Immigration Appeal Board.
Mr. Speaker, there is however a deficiency in the bill which should deal somewhat with the importance of
Immigration Appeal Board Act
Canadian provinces as far as immigration is concerned. There is not only a board to be set up in order to determine whether the immigrant is accepted, but the wishes of the Canadian provinces must be taken into account. For example, to settle in British Columbia is not the same thing as to settle in Quebec. It seems to me that there should be consultations between the federal authorities, the Immigration Appeal Board and the provincial authorities before any decision is taken in consideration.
We have immigrants, Mr. Speaker, arriving from every part of the world. We have Russians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, people from Lebanon, Africa, South America, Ukraine, Japan, China, etc. It is understood that under the new legislation relating to mul-ticulturalism, these people will always be respected by the Canadian people at large and by parliament in particular.
Mr. Speaker, some problems are cropping up in almost every country. I happened to visit many European countries and read some advertising relating to immigration to Canada. One could read a few unthinkable things. An applicant who decided to settle in Canada thought that he was coming over here to do nothing and that everything would come to him from Heaven like manna in the desert, at the time of Hebrews. When he arrives in Canada, the situation is quite different. They should be put before their responsibilities, their duties, when arriving in Canada.
For instance, there is in our country multiculturalism, as I said, as well as bilingualism; there are two official languages in Canada. It would be wise, I suggest, to point out to immigrants, before they leave their home country, that there are two official languages in Canada: French and English; we should no longer act as we did in the past.
I am a French-speaking Canadian and I will fight as long as I can so that my language rights are respected; I will even fight so that language rights of English-speaking people are respected. Today, especially in Quebec, one can hear some bawlers say: A few immigrants did not want to learn French; we should force them, force them, force them-
Mr. Speaker, this reminds me a little of the Quebec history, and I lived this history. I will give you quite a striking example.
I come from the northwest of Quebec, from Abitibi, more precisely from Amos. In 1924, Mr. Horn, from Toronto, who only spoke English, discovered the deposit of Noranda.


An hon. Member:: In the province of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: -in the province of Quebec! The border between Ontario and Quebec did not stop him. He went through in a canoe.
Mr. Horn put his mine up for sale. It is not the Montreal people who bought it; they could have done it, but they did not. It is the Toronto people, the English, who bought the mine. Then, the operations began. I am speaking of the Noranda mine that we know now.
In 1924, Mr. Speaker-I had reached the age of reason, I was aware of what was happening-the officials of the Noranda mine were looking for miners; they were going through villages of Abitibi: Amos, La Sarre, La Reine,

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act Taschereau, Senneterre, and inviting people to go and work in the mine. Well, the people who did not know mines, of course, were saying: We will be long enough underground after we are dead, we don't want to go there while we are living. And they would not go.
I am not telling you a story, I am merely stating facts. What, then, were the authorities of Noranda mines compelled to do? They had to hire Polish, Ukrainian, Yugoslav and Dutch immigrants, and when we look into the Noranda records, we soon realize that the first citizens, the first workers, the first miners ever of the Noranda mines were immigrants who went underground to work.
Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis of 1929 was felt in the Abitibi area as well as anywhere else. As plants were closing, laid off workers became unemployed. In those days, there were no unemployment benefits, no social security, and people from Amos, Senneterre, La Sarre and other communities were knocking at the gates of the Noranda mines begging for work. They said: We have our employees. Then our people were all offended and, quarrelsome as ever, accused the directors of Noranda mines of having hired immigrants in their place, of having given immigrants jobs that they did not want. And that is not all! Today, in Quebec, I hear people asking why those people from Europe did not learn French.
My story continues, Mr. Speaker. The first immigrants arrived in Abitibi between 1924 and 1935, and they had young children. Now, when Polish catholics, Ukrainian catholics, Italian catholics, in fact catholics from any European country, applied to send their children to catholic, French-Canadian schools, they were turned down; they were called European "block-heads", because they were not wanted in our schools, and they were sent to the English protestant schools. And I am not talking through my hat, it is all true. Our education system worked that way. So after refusing them access to our schools, they are being blamed 25 or 30 years later for not having learned French. Now I ask you if that is a sign of intelligence. We have lame-brains like that in the province of Quebec. Today they say to the Europeans: You did not learn French.
Mr. Speaker I would be very pleased if everyone were required to learn French in Quebec or both official languages in Canada, for that is something I have wished for a long time. However, we are not going to encourage immigrants to become better Canadians by teaching one language to the detriment of the other.
Mr. Speaker, this language question is of the greatest importance. I knew French-Canadians in Wolfe's Cove in Quebec who welcomed immigrants from Europe who could not speak English or French, and these French-Canadians would say: if you want to get by in Canada, learn English instead of French. And 25 years later they are saying: Why did you not learn French?
Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong in this business, and it is neither your fault nor mine, but that of people who could not take their responsibilities at the proper time.
That is why I insist that the provinces be consulted before the immigrants are accepted or turned down, because I believe that according to the Constitution, the 
provinces have something to say in this respect. They may not perhaps have the final word to say, but if the federal authorities wanted to be a little bit conciliating, they could, without hurting anyone, without wrecking anything, consult with the provinces, so that they may have something to say in the selection of immigrants.
Right now, any immigrant may land in Montreal, spend two or three years there and then move on to Hamilton or Toronto. Because while in Montreal, he learns enough English to transfer to a job in Toronto, albeit in the States, in some cases.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be very important that the Immigration Appeal Board make sure that the immigrants are aware, first, that in Canada, there are two official languages and a number of various cultures who tie up with the two official languages, French and English, our normal vehicles of thought, and that the publicity intended for immigrants should not be a soap publicity like the one we see on television-saying that Tide is better than Comfort or things of that kind-but should give them adequate information on Canada. We would avoid seeing for instance Hungarians arriving in Montreal and saying two months afterwards: "They lied to us at home and we want to go back as soon as possible". We should realize the existence of such problems and see to it that our selection is sound. We should not gather the scum of the earth in those countries or people wishing to flee from their country to come to Canada and repeat here their condemnable acts done at home. We must be watchful yes, but prudent also, and our publicity in foreign countries should be true and reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, one must take into account the bilingual fact and multiculturalism in this country and indulge in an honest publicity instead of merely saying: Come to our country to stay. And if we invite them to stay in one province or another, we should also invite them to adapt themselves, to acquaint themselves with the manners and customs of the province where they will live, for all provinces are not alike. A citizen from British Columbia or Manitoba is not at all like a citizen from Nova Scotia or from Saskatchewan. We are all Canadians, but we belong to a ten-member family. One must realize that there are not two provinces alike and that is why provinces should be consulted when there is a decision to be made regarding the admission or the refusal of an immigration application for Canada.
In concluding, apart from the recommendation to appoint seven temporary members to eliminate the board's backlog of appeals and anticipated appeals, I would like to quote subclause (7) of clause 3 which appears in the explanatory notes. Here it is:
(7) The Chairman and at least two other members shall be baristers or advocates of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province.
I wonder why barristers would be appointed instead of businessmen or union leaders who meet the public as often as them. It seems to me that it should not be a question of showing preference to barristers in that matter, and what I find ridiculous is the provision in clause 3 of the bill stipulating and I quote:
June 22, 1973

This amendment would provide that the Chairman and not less than two other permanent members of the Board constitute a quorum for the making of rules and that one permanent member and not less than two other members constitute a quorum for all other purposes.
This means that the chairman, who must be a barrister, can hire two other barristers whom we are compelled to appoint, thus constituting a quorum with three barristers, and it will be ruled under these conditions about the admittance of immigrants who intend to come and settle down in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think my judgment is as good as any lawyer in Quebec and elsewhere to determine if an immigrant is desirable or undesirable. Why should we designate lawyers; this is not a struggle, but discrimination against other social classes.


Mr. Isabelle:: Because there are starving lawyers.


David Réal Caouette: I think that the explanation migh be good. The hon. member for Hull just told me a good one. We would allow three starving lawyers to make their living.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: There are too many.


David Réal Caouette: There are too many. Mr. Speaker, these are considerations that I would like to make this afternoon on Bill C-197. I believe that the bill would improve immigration conditions in Canada. But once again, let us be careful, and let us bring here people who will be good Canadians, whatever their culture.
They have to know that in Canada we have two official languages: English and French. Moreover, I hope that the federal government will consult the provinces concerning immigration in the "respected limits" of those provinces.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, short as it may appear, this bill has nevertheless important consequences because it affects so closely the lives of thousands of people who are presently in Canada and whose destiny has still to be decided-people who have come to this country because they want to settle here and provide a future for their children.
The bill aims at the restricting of appeal rights to people who seek admission at the port of entry who are in possession of an immigrant or non-immigrant visa issued abroad, or to landed immigrants or to persons claiming to be refugees or Canadian citizens. Once law, the bill will have the effect of withdrawing appeal rights from those who are ordered to be deported at the port of entry and who do not possess an immigrant or non-immigrant visa as well as from all visitors who are deported after being admitted to Canada, and all who are in Canada illegally. Finally, I understand the bill continues the existing appeal rights of all visitors, illegal entrants and other persons who are ordered deported after the bill comes into effect if their further examination or inquiry was ordered before first reading was given to this bill. This bill also permits people who came to Canada up to November 30, 1972 to apply for regularization of their status and to have access
Immigration Appeal Board Act to the same range of appeal procedures as exists under the present act.
This legislation has been arrived at gradually, and drawn up rather reluctantly, perhaps. The measures of last November and June were efforts to find a solution without having to revoke the right of appeal from visitors. The legislation now provides for a speedy decision as to the fate of some 17,000 people. This is a figure which seems large in a domestic perspective, but which really represents only between 10 and 15 per cent of the average annual flow of immigrants to Canada. Thus, I cannot join with other hon. members in expressing dismay, shock and criticism, as so many have done. While hardship is being, and has been, suffered by persons who chose to come to Canada as visitors and to stay here, we have witnessed over the past six years an interesting period during which people have come to Canada freely, understandably producing a backlog in immigration cases.
In the limited time available to me this afternoon, I should like to put forward three observations with regard to the bill before us. First, I should like to express the hope that clause 10(1)(3) will be used frequently and without hesitation, particularly by the newly-appointed members of the board, namely, the referral of a case by one member to the quorum of three members. This is a sound and desirable provision. It seems to me that unless the single appeal board member is very experienced, a hearing by three members would tend to produce a better quality judgment. It would also give the person being judged the reassuring knowledge that he had been accorded the fairest examination he could possibly get anywhere in the world in the determining of his or her future. Efficiency may be important, but more important still is the elimination of possible errors and a reduction of the effect of unlikely but possible sub-conscious negative attitudes which may exist on the part of one individual who has to determine whether or not another person is to be admitted permanently to Canada.
Second, in order to avoid the pitfall of 1967 when a rigid, maximum number of nine board members was legislated, thus tying the hands of the board when it needed to expand, it seems to me it would be better legislation if section 3(1) were worded so as to permit the appointment of any number of temporary members as may be required, rather than following the same approach adopted in the 1967 legislation.
Third, another aspect of an administrative nature but yet of some weight relates to the fact that a number of cases would not be in the appeal system, either below the special inquiry level or before the Immigration Appeal Board, if the adjudication of units for occupational demand for prospective immigrants reflected the labour market demand of the moment and the demand of the regions, instead, as is presently the case, of being three to four months behind the reality of the demand of the labour market which, to make matters worse, is applied to the national average. At the present time this means that an applicant in June could be given zero units for occupational demand in his skill because the survey of the labour market for his particular occupation carried out in February indicated that there was no demand. If this were not

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act bad enough, there is added distortion created by the fact that units given for occupational demand reflect national averages. This means that zero demand for, say, waiters, machinists or carpenters in Yellowknife or Moosonee could virtually wipe out even a strong demand for the same category of people from employers in an urban or metropolitan region of this country.
To me, Mr. Speaker, this hardly makes sense and it does have some bearing on the number of people who received an insufficient number of points and therefore chose to follow the route to the Immigration Appeal Board. Points for occupational demand in this day and age of instant communications should reflect the demand of the present and not that of the past. Further, they should reflect regional demands instead of national averages which are unrealistic.
The bill, it seems to me, comes to grips with this so-called backlog, which indeed is a human backlog, consisting of thousands of people who have come here and who otherwise would not have undertaken to come to this country had it not been for that generous provision for visitors which went by almost unnoticed in 1967. The result has been that we have witnessed in these past years a perhaps unwanted yet fascinating experiment in quasifree immigration from all corners of the world.
People have come to Canada from the poorest regions of the world where we do not have immigration offices. People have come to Canada because they did not want to wait, or because they knew they would not make it in terms of points. People have come to Canada because they felt that, despite limited education, they had enough drive and vigour to happily resettle in this land. To them, circumventing the law to come to Canada was either a non-existing factor in their set of values or it was just irrelevant, considering the odds that they were facing in their own country. To them, it meant a chance to break the vicious circle of poverty in their own country. To them, Canada meant the country of promise and hope that would provide them and their children with a decent future. We find in this category of men and women the peasant from Peru, the stevedore from Guiana, the fine looking women from India, the incredible Punjabis, the strong-backed Portuguese, the Greeks, the Italians-you name it. It was perhaps naive for Canada to believe that people facing the spectre of hunder and misery or the lack of opportunity would not avail themselves of every possible means at their disposal to come to this great country.
So, Mr. Speaker, in years to come perhaps we will think of this period in Canada's history of immigration as fascinating years of significance in our understanding of the phenomenon of immigration, years that have enriched Canada with new cultures, with new types of immigrants that have made us aware of how strong the motivation of men and women can be when they decide to break away from poverty and know that there is a good land to reach and to settle. The 1967-1973 period has, therefore, provided positive facets, some interesting patterns and some lessons that could lead us to useful conclusions in the revision of the present Immigration Act that hopefully will soon follow the bill before us today.
From this perspective the fact that the government has waited so long before introducing this bill does not disturb

me in the least. We have now in Canada a number of women and men who otherwise may not have been able to be here. They may not be those who abroad would have made the necessary number of points because of their education or because of their low age or because of their good knowledge of English and French. But that does not mean they would not make good Canadians, and since we know very little really about the history of immigrants who come from the ranks of this category of visitor, we need to find out about them, about their ability to settle and to integrate into Canadian life. If we do so, we might discover some useful criteria and perhaps new guidelines for the development of an immigration policy for this country in this decade. It may be that we will discover further approaches to a humanitarian immigration policy for Canada, a natural extension to Canada's generous attitude vis-a-vis refugees.
Another feature about the people who are in this so-called backlog is that they have readily found employment when permitted to do so by the department. They have followed others who have come here before them. Either by word of mouth or by letter through a simple system of communication established within their own communities, one person has followed another, one finding employment in a certain industry and drawing another after him, and so forth, in rather quick succession after a timid and hesitant beginning. And this, Mr. Speaker, without the help of sophisticated and expensive "occupational shortages surveys" and "job vacancy surveys", but simply by sheer word of mouth. In a way this is a remarkable feat.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. I thank the minister for his extension to November 30 and for his 60-day provision. Both are fine liberal measures and demonstrate Canada's goodwill and tremendous sense of fairness. When qualities like these prevail across a land which displays the generosity and potential of Canada, how can one blame people for wanting to come here at all costs, regardless of uncertainties and hardships. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration has expressed his intention to produce a bill creating a new Immigration Act which will follow this bill in the near future. I support the minister's announcement because it will mean that we will have a fine opportunity to come to grips with demographic objectives for this country, to redefine the points system, to review our position vis-a-vis developing countries and their need for well-trained human resources, to give a humanistic imprint to our screening of people with handicaps. But this, Mr. Speaker, is another story and will be the subject of another debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are so far past even the 11th hour in respect of the provisions of this bill, with the administration now trying to hurry up in putting it through, is the God-awful mess that has developed in respect of immigration. I find it rather odd that this minister now comes forward asking us to cure these ills in a hurry. The government is trying to take drastic action in spite of the fact that the symptoms and these problems were pointed out to them not last year, not the year before but the year before that. If the minister and the Cabinet had been wide awake to what was developing, we would not be in this situation today.

It is a scandal that there should be a potential of 25,000 people queuing up for appeals, yet since 1967 we have witnessed this blind insistence by this administration on its methods of admitting people to Canada, either under the point system, which is faulty both as to concept and administration, or by allowing visitors to apply for landed immigrant status from within Canada. Of course, there were bound to be abuses and we have seen this. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), by myself and by colleagues past and present. The hon. member who has just taken his seat agreed with me years ago that there was a problem. This was stated at hearings on the estimates, but not a blessed thing was done. Now, we are rushing in an attempt to stem this flood when there should never have been even a breach in the dyke.
Let us consider whether the provisions of this bill will deal with the problem. An expansion of the Immigration Appeal Board is not really going to cure the situation. We are to have seven new commissioners but, just as with the Canadian Pensions Commission when an attempt was made to deal with a backlog by appointing new commissioners, it will take four or five months for whoever is appointed to become familiar with the situation, get into operation and show some progress. By that time, we will be more than 20,000 appeals in arrears.
I have had some experience in taking appeals before the Immigration Appeal Board and, as far as the present members are concerned and the consideration given the appellant, I have no cause for complaint. I have no adverse comments to make as far as the staff and the administration are concerned. You could not find a more co-operative group.
Having regard to this problem of appeals, it is at the special inquiry level where the difficulties develop. This is the stage where appeals are generated. I do not think the special inquiry officers are in all instances properly trained. I have read transcripts of the proceedings before special inquiry officers which included questions that would not be allowed in any kangaroo court. The transcripts contain hearsay evidence and breaches of all the rules designed to protect witnesses. Far too many decisions are made on the basis of these inquiries, with the result that many persons are disqualified.
We also have an open door in respect of deportation orders being made so that cases can be heard by someone else. In this way responsibility is shifted. I suggest to the minister there is a concerted movement, involuntarily induced by the mechanics imposed upon the special inquiry officers, to merely shift the decision to another level, namely the Immigration Appeal Board. This is particularly true in cases where there might be some difficulty. One can read the transcripts and see that there is an almost automatic shift of responsibility. The officers ask individuals if they want to appeal, and provide these potential appellants with a great deal of assistance. They then must queue up for three, four or five years for disposition of their appeals. Surely, this is wrong.
I suggest that the main difficulty starts at the special inquiry level. Too many special inquiries are improperly conducted. I suggest this is not because of ill will but the result of lack of training. The officers ask questions and
Immigration Appeal Board Act arrive at decisions based upon the answers to questions which would not be allowed by the Immigration Appeal Board. These questions would not be allowed in the most fundamental of our courts in this country, where the rights of individuals are protected. Why should these inquiries be far more ranging and more prejudicial to the individual? It is absolutely wrong to make an appellant follow the deportation route to an appeal. The stigma of a deportation order is not readily apparent to a native-born Canadian. Does the minister realize that on the application forms for citizenship there appears the question: "Have you ever had a deportation order made against you"?
Let us assume that a deportation order is made and an appeal is commenced, following which the Immigration Appeal Board quashes the order. That does not alter the original answer "yes" to that question on the application for citizenship: "Have you ever had a deportation order made against you?" The quashing of a deportation order is not the equivalent of a pardon granted by the Solicitor General. In this case, if a person has been found guilty of an offence, has paid the penalty and has been of good conduct during a period of prohibition, an order is made which wipes the slate clean, after which an individual in entitled to answer "no" to the question: "Have you ever been convicted of an offence?" That is not so in respect of a deportation order.
I find it extraordinary that such a stigma should be imposed on innocent bona fide people who dispute the assessment of points with an immigration officer. If they should have 45 out of the potential 50 points required, they are turned down. They have the right of appeal before a special inquiry officer, but probably 95 or perhaps 98 out of every 100 original assessments are confirmed by the special inquiry officer. The only avenue open is the deportation route. That is a shame; it is a punishment. I would say it is sort of an administrative blackjack that is put to the head of the potential immigrant who, first of all, has a natural repugnance, the same as any of us, to be subjected to a deportation order. There is a social stigma attached to that. This may discourage people from taking these appeals because they would have to be subject to a deportation order. If there is a deportation order made against a person and the appeal cannot be heard for four or five years, that person cannot put a big toe out of the country for even five minutes without voiding the appeal.
If a person were to do so he would be deemed to have left the country and could not be re-admitted because there is a deportation order against him. He would be deemed to have left the country voluntarily. I had a case not so long ago involving a man in Edmonton. He was a skilled tradesman. There was an honest dispute between himself and the immigration officer concerning the number of points he had been assessed. He went before the special inquiry officer and did not win there. Then, he filed an appeal. However, his wife in India was seriously injured in an automobile accident and out of natural concern, of course, he took the first plane he could get in order to be at his wife's bedside. That man is forever kept out of this country because of that. He does not have the chance of an icicle in Hades of ever getting back into this

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act country because, first of all, having had a deportation order made against him he requires a ministerial permit to come in, notwithstanding that he has now the right of the ordinary application route.
A deportation order has been made against him. Why? Because he had an honest difference of opinion with an immigration officer concerning the assessment of points in respect of his qualification. I know I have been overly long, Mr. Speaker, in trying to establish this point, but if the minister and the government want to reduce the number of appeals I say they should carry out, shall we say, some natural justice in respect of potential immigrants. They are not all criminals. They are not all people who have tried to come into Canada by illegal means, and yet they are all classified the same under a deportation order; their rights are the same, no more, no less, and this is simply because they have an honest difference of opinion concerning their capabilities. These are band-aid and ad hoc proposals put forward by the minister to deal with a problem which arose, not in spite of the government but with the connivance of the government. The government should stand condemned for its practice during the last three years with regard to immigration.
Hort. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun): Mr. Speaker, it is hardly my intention to become involved in a partisan debate with the hon. gentleman who just sat down because, surprisingly enough, I agree with many of the opinions he has expressed. I think it is a real shame that for a period of 11 years we have had no less than 10 ministers of immigration. It is hardly an indication that the government of the day really considered immigration as anything more than a necessary nuisance. It is ironic, for instance, despite the small attendance here today that there are no less than three of us present who at one time or another were ministers of immigration in recent years. I speak in a non-partisan manner from the lofty seat I have at the end of the row, what I might call the outside wing, or the flying wing or split end if we are talking in football parlance.
The other day some reporter, who I suppose needed filler for page 38, came to see me about which job gave me greatest satisfaction, labour or unemployment insurance, and I said neither. I said that the job which would give me the greatest satisfaction or greatest challenge if I were to be given the job of my choice would be that of Minister of Immigration. It would seem to me that the Department of Immigration should be separated entirely from the Department of Manpower. I never saw much logic in the two departments being together. It would seem to me that the statistics required by manpower and immigration in respect of the shortage of skills and things of this nature, should be readily available whether or not manpower and immigration were separate departments or under the same minister. I believe it would be much more logical to have manpower, labour and unemployment insurance together, and then to have citizenship and immigration in one department under the control of one minister.
If I say some things which may rub some of my colleagues the wrong way, they certainly are not directed at the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) or the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who brought a great degree of humanitarianism to the

whole subject in cabinet. I want to speak really of my own experience in a non-partisan way, provided the opposition will let me do that. I hope what I say will be considered constructive criticism relating to a very important department of government. When I assumed the role of Minister of Immigration I also assumed an archaic, outmoded law which had been adopted in the year 1952. It was hardly a set of rules that was suitable to meet the challenge of a contemporary society. So, consequently, as some of the lawyers in this House know, including the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and others, many of the practices of the past three years have been based on regulations rather than on any concrete, specific provision within the law of 1952.
Regulations do have a tendency to run well beyond the intent of the law. This present bill-and I should like to devote my attention to it for a moment-is a good bill. It is a good bill because it rectifies injustices in respect of innocent people who came to Canada when I, as Minister of Immigration, found it necessary on November 30 to close, rather abruptly and without prior notice, free access to Canada for those people who intended to come here and then apply from within Canada for immigrant status.
I was able to do that abruptly because that action was based not on law in the first case but on regulation, and by rescinding the regulation I was able at the time to prevent further people from coming to this country in good faith but ill-equipped, underfinanced, and semi-literate; the victims, as the minister stated in his opening remarks, of unscrupulous profiteers, airline companies, tourist bureaux, travel agencies and anybody who could tell the people who desired an opportunity to come to what they consider the land of plenty that if they got an airplane ticket or a steamboat ticket, once they got into Canada it was virtually impossible for them to be deported. So these people came naively and in the belief that once landed in Canada it was only a matter of time before they could get that desirable immigrant status.
Hon. members, however, can well remember the hysterics, the panic and the degree of racism that the press reflected in September and October during the election campaign. I do not trace this to the opposition; I have no concrete evidence of it, nor did I ever come across any particular statement during the election of any member opposite voicing this type of discrimination or prejudice. If I did, I would say so; I think most hon. members know this. But, when you look at the statistics of the last week of November-I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) quoted some of them the other day; I do not have time to look them up now-you will see it was obvious that in anticipation of some type of controls, as a result of public opinion, of public demand and of newspaper articles it was only a matter of time before we would have to remove this particular feature of our immigration policy, in order to take stock of the situation.
In order to do that we could hardly give anybody one week's notice, let alone one month's notice because it is obvious that we would have been flooded with more people, ill-equipped, as I mentioned, and ill-prepared to earn a living in this country.
June 22, 1973

So I am very pleased to see this bill, because the minister has done something to alleviate the plight of people who quite innocently came from Peru, Haiti, the Caribbean area and Portugal with their life savings only to find that when they got here the provision permitting them to apply within Canada for immigrant status had been temporarily removed. The minister is to be congratulated for this.
One of the things that appalled me when I was minister of manpower and immigration-I do not think too many people who are now in the House are aware of this-was that most of the backlog, or a sizeable number of cases to be heard by the Appeal Board did not comprise visitors who had applied for immigrant status in Canada and were refused because of the points system; most of them were persons hiding from something. In many cases they were criminals who crossed the border illegally, but once in Canada could not be legally deported because they were entitled to every step of the appeal process, including appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If you have the funds to do so-and the underworld certainly has that kind of money-you can gain many years of postponement by simply taking advantage of the legal procedures in this country, not to obtain immigrant status but simply to prevent your deportation back to the country of origin.
I am not unaware of criminals coming out of jail after a two or three years' sentence and immediately launching an appeal against their deportation to the United States or some other country. We could not close that off at the time because the situation was not covered by the regulations, so until the passage of this bill it is still one of the most flagrant loopholes in our legislation. I was a member of the House at the time, so I am also guilty; but I do not, frankly, understand why this flagrant loophole was not noticed by the lawyers or the people on the committee at the time the bill creating the establishment of the Immigration Appeal Board was drafted.
I do not know why they did not realize that not only was the appeal system made available to those people who had applied for immigrant status in Canada and had been rejected, but was also made available to visitors who had no intention of becoming immigrants, who never applied for immigrant status and who simply said they were not going home when arrested by the RCMP or the provincial police and immediately took advantage of the law to appeal their deportation order. Hence we have, as the minister said, more than 17,000 people waiting for appeals before the Immigration Appeal Board. The board, under its present make-up, could probably hear under the best of circumstances 100 cases a month, which is probably double the realistic figure.
The important feature in this bill, other than the minister's humanitarian gesture, which takes into account the plight of those people who arrived prior to November 30 and who in effect were travelling here at the time we closed the door on applications for immigrant status from within Canada, is clause 5 of the bill which finally limits the right of appeal to certain classes of people, such as landed immigrants who have run afoul of the law after they have been granted immigrant status. This is a very limited number but it dramatically reduces the number of people who in future will take advantage of the appeal
Immigration Appeal Board Act system under the Immigration Appeal Board to appeal what could be a faulty decision at a lower level. What it will do is to eliminate from the appeal system or the right of appeal those visitors who have no intention of becoming Canadians, the criminal types, if you like, who are just resisting deportation back to the United States or their country of origin. I mention the United States because it is obvious that many people come in from that country illegally.
As I said, there is no department that gave me as much satisfaction. One of the problems I was faced with, which is fairly similar to what the present minister is facing, but not the backlog of appeals before the Immigration Appeal Board-one which I had no competence to do anything about-was a problem which I could do something about, namely, the number of cases considered by immigration officers where people are really judged for the first time to see whether they can acquire the status of landed immigrant. I recall that there were no less than 9,000 or 10,000 people in that particular category.
If I may refresh the memory of the members of the House, what we did was to review the 9,000 cases of those who came in, not in light of their original status or in light of the points they could accumulate, but in light of what had happened to them in three years. It was not amnesty, as the editorials were saying. The same editorials which this week are applauding what we are doing were castigating me at the time. What I was trying to do was to clean up the 9,000 cases that were impossible to adjudicate and that could only be added to the 17,000 cases that had already accumulated before the Immigration Appeal Board. I sat in on some of them in Toronto particularly to see the quality and the degree of humanitarianism that existed or did not exist in the hearings.
I remember a Portuguese gentleman coming in one day. I thought I would sit in quietly on his review only because I travel to that country fairly frequently and I understand the language passably. The gentleman in question had been rejected three years previously for very obvious reasons. At the time he spoke very little English and no French. His education, by our standards, might have been third grade. He had about $85 in his pocket and a return ticket to the Azores. He was married. His family was in Portugal. He had no particular skill that the immigration officers felt was worth very much in the way of points. I think he may have amassed about 20 points, no more.
Three years later when I sat in on the appeal proceeding and listened, he spoke impeccable English. He was well dressed and assured. When questioned about what he was doing in Canada he confessed he had learned English through the YMCA and because of that had become very active in boys' work. When I asked him personally about his financial status he proudly showed me his bank book which contained about four times what I had. He had around $18,200 in a Canadian bank. I asked him how much he had in Portugal and he admitted he had around $12,000 which he had sent home to Portugal. I asked him the $64 question which was, "Where did you get that kind of money in three years?" He said, "If you would like to come down the street ten blocks away, I can show you." Because I was curious I went along with this gentleman and found

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act he had a large confectionary with 18 people working in it, 11 of whom were Canadians in the sense that they were born here and the other seven were from Portugal. They were making the finest of sweets for which his establishment was well known. In other words, in three years he had developed a very flourishing business. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, would you send that man home? I doubt it. This is not an exceptional case; it was typical of at least two-thirds of the cases that came forward.
In Ottawa, for reasons which I cannot divulge, I discovered that there were no less than 86 illegal immigrants, if you want to call them that-illegal visitors to this country-working in two hotels in the city, and in all probability at below the minimum wage. This is the other side of the story, the exploitation of these people through fear of discovery, fear of deportation, fear of being sent home to a type of existence that means perpetual poverty. They prefer to work in a hotel for room and board and 50 or 60 cents an hour, plus whatever tips you and I deign to hand over when they serve us drinks.
One of the things that saddened me as minister was the attack on our immigration policy in Toronto, not by members, not by candidates but by people in the press who should have known better. I have in my office, if anybody wants to come in and see it, a cartoon from one of our leading newspapers which is the most racist piece of propaganda I have ever come across. Its message is unmistakable. I do not try to indicate or describe it, but it was in print when I insisted that 5,000 Ugandans should come into this country.
I say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, for whom I have the highest affection and friendship, that he should take up with his colleagues in cabinet the possibility of bringing in another 1,000 Ugandans who are in refugee camps in Europe and who would love to come to Canada because their mothers, brothers, sisters or friends have settled in this country and are readjusting well within a relatively short period.
If you look at the Ugandan people you will find that in every hamlet and town in this country, from Vancouver to Halifax, they are readjusting. In a very short period they have mastered the French language voluntarily in Quebec and those who are in Montreal are there to stay. You will find them in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Toronto, and in every case you will find they add something to the culture, dignity and prosperity of this country.
One of the great things about being a Canadian, about being a parliamentarian of any rank, of any party, is that we can say that as a nation we were the first country to spring to the help of the refugees in the late forties, the refugees from Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. They came to this country because the doors were open, and everyone knows the contribution they have made to the country. We did the same thing for the Hungarians in 1956, and we did it for the Czechs. We did it, as I have mentioned, for the Ugandans. This country will be a greater country by reason of the fact that we have an enlightened immigration policy. We should remain that way and we should not bow to the political pressure of the press who cannot see beyond the ends of their own noses.

The election days were difficult for me because of the Ugandans and because I stood for what I believe in with respect to immigration. If I closed the door in November it was for a very practical reason, because I realized that hundreds and hundreds of people, perhaps thousands of people, coming into this country were the victims of unscrupulous profiteers, of travel bureaux who misrepresented the job opportunities here or misrepresented the procedures for becoming Canadians. People would arrive in Montreal and Toronto at one or two in the morning, pathetic, bewildered, not knowing where they were going, with nothing in their pockets except perhaps a return ticket back to Italy, Portugal, Peru, back to the other countries from whence they had come-and sometimes they didn't have even that much.
It is time the government understood we are an underpopulated country. It is time the government understood the importance of the Department of Immigration and let it stand on its own two feet, with its own minister, because it is a form of welcome to people. We have a shortage of people in many ways, with only 22 million people in a country this size. We have a way of life that is unique in the world, and sometimes I wonder if we are worthy of it. We have cut back our immigration from
230,000	annually to 110,000 or 120,000 people because of our manpower policies. This is wrong. Ironically and paradoxically it is wrong, with the shortage of people for our furniture factories, the garment industry, the beverage industry, the hotels and other service industries. That arises from the fact that Canadians now must have a high school education, and having acquired it they do not want to work in those jobs. This is the case not only in Canada but in every industrialized society.
However, there are people prepared to do these jobs if given a chance. They are immigrants from Portugal, southern Italy, Greece, the Caribbean and the countries of South America. These people are saying, "Let us do the job at $1.25, 90 cents or $2 an hour. We will fill the jobs if you will give us the opportunity." But you deny them the opportunity by setting up entry barriers because the Department of Manpower is made aware that the rate of unemployment is 6.2 per cent. This should not be the measure of success or failure of this government or perhaps the next government, whatever it may be.


An hon. Member:: Conservative.


Mr. Mackasey:: It is the quality of life that Canadians live that matters-not quantity, not production for productivity's sake, but the quality of life. Unless we get this ingrained in our thinking we will always be the victims of industry which says, "If you want us to create jobs you will have to look the other way if we create a little bit of pollution."
I say the time is ripe to bring in the unskilled, undereducated people who want to come to this country and fill the jobs that Canadians do not want nor should have to work at because they were born here and have an educational standard that should entitle them to better jobs which the government has a responsibility to provide. If the government cannot provide those jobs, then it is time for the people to throw the government out.
June 22, 1973


An hon. Member:: They did, but it would not lie down.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In conclusion, let me say that the department should stand on its own. We should make it easier for people to come into this country. We should not go the other way and eliminate the provision which permits people to apply from within the country. I think the new Immigration Act-and I may know what is in it so I am not going to hint or suggest what should be in it-must pay close attention to the Sedgwick report.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, no!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Maybe the hon. gentleman from Alberta does not agree, but that is what parliament is all about. I agree that the basic concept of applying for immigration status from within the country is sound; what is unsound is the ridiculous appeal system that permits a backlog of
17,000	cases to build up only to have them dismissed or considered by 5, 6, 7 or 9 people, or whatever this bill calls for. The minister has wisely cut off further immigrant status from within Canada until the backlog is cleared. He has very wisely limited the categories of people who may take advantage of the appeal system by eliminating the criminal element who come here to hide from justice. He brought it down to tolerable levels. If there were no backlog the Immigration Appeal Board, properly constituted in panels, could travel across the country and handle the number of appeals that come to it under our normal immigration procedures.
I think the criteria have been wrong. There has not been enough room for judging people for initiative, for desire, for character, for determination to appreciate this country and to do the jobs that Canadians do not want. We blame welfare, unemployment insurance-we blame myriad reasons. Last night the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) finally discovered what I have been telling him for two years; that it is not the high level of unemployment but the low level of minimum wage that is making it difficult for some people to find workers. I am simply saying that there are people who are prepared to do these jobs. They are new Canadians, and we are making it very very difficult for them, because of restrictive policies, to come into this country.
There is no reason to cut immigration from 230,000 to 110,000. It may make sense as it relates to mechanics, machinists and electricians because there is a surplus of workers in those trades. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) had something to say in this area. He himself is a perfect example of what this country can do. He came here as an immigrant, is now a citizen and I think is destined for greater things one day. I think we should realize that there are jobs in Canada which Canadians are not prepared to fill.
If hon. members opposite do not agree, they can go back and review the debates on immigration between 1958 and 1961 when their party was in power. When people could not find jobs the blame was eventually traced to immigration policy. What about the Common Market countries? What do they do in Switzerland, Germany, France? Do West Germans, Swiss or French people fill the menial jobs? No, they invite people from southern Italy, Greece, Spain and countries with a lower level of income. We do
Immigration Appeal Board Act not happen to be located next door to those pools of inexpensive labour. We can, however, make these people welcome and tailor our immigration policy so that it is humanitarian and not police-like.
Mr. Speaker, since this may be the last time I have a chance to speak on immigration for some time, I want to say a word about the people who work in the department. The growth of air travel, which has been phenomenal in the last couple of years, has increased their workload in screening people who enter the country and in handling immigration requests. The workload of our civil servants is an intolerable one, and instead of being criticized they should be praised; their numbers should be increased; the attitude toward them should be changed; the uniform should be changed; they should be made goodwill ambassadors; the menial jobs should be transferred to some other department.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief-I am sure that will meet with the approval of the House-because most of the points I wanted to make have been covered. I refer to the shambles of the immigration system, the 17,000 backlog of appeal cases, accruing at a rate of 1,000 a month, and so on. I should like to second those hon. members who described this bill as long overdue to correct what was obviously a loophole of which many unscrupulous people have taken advantage.
I want to say a word about the Immigration Appeal Board because I have had the opportunity of appearing before it. It is to the credit of that board that it did not attempt to solve the problem by speeding up the appeals. It is the tradition of Canadian justice that the board continued to hear every appeal on its merits, to weigh the evidence carefully and to act in a proper judicial manner in spite of the increasing pressure of the public and the backlog of cases. The board has acted with a happy combination of justice and compassion for a long time. I am very pleased to say to this House that we have a first-class Immigration Appeal Board, and I should like to emphasize its compassionate nature.
I cannot say the same about the special inquiry officers and the manner in which they have conducted their inquiries. In fact, when I read the inquiries they have made I compare them with the inquiries of the benefit-control officers in another section of the department. The same kind of compassionate and judicial approach may, of necessity, not be possible because of the great administrative area, but nevertheless necessity should not overcome justice. I think legitimate criticism could be levelled against the special inquiry officers in the immigration department but for the fine nature of the Immigration Appeal Board and, to its credit, the government's own compassion and attitude toward appeals. Those injustices at the special inquiry level were largely overcome by the Immigration Appeal Board.
Canada is not a melting-pot. Thank God for that. That is one of the unique and nice things about this country, a quality that sets it apart from the United States. We are a rich mosaic of a multicultural nature. In the constituency which I represent there is a significant community from

June 22, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act the Punjab, an East Indian community and a significant Chinese community. It is interesting to note that on the west coast we have the second largest Chinatown in North America. They have made a unique and interesting contribution. Thank God they have not melted themselves into some sort of morphous North America. They continue to contribute in many interesting ways to the mosaic and originality of this country.
I am delighted that the provisions with regard to the right of sponsors to appeal has been preserved. If we ever depart from the principle of reunification of families, if we decide it is not right that we should seek a family unit even though parts of a family may be in many places of the world, that would be a sad thing. After all, we travel to international conferences and continually complain to communist countries for sealing their borders and not allowing families to be reunited. I had the privilege of attending the most recent Interparliamentary Union conference with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) who led the delegation. He was successful in persuading the communist countries to accept the principle of reunification of families. I am glad we are continuing to be generous in this area.
I am delighted with the emergency provisions. Let us keep describing them as emergency provisions, because we need an over-all reassessment of the need for immigration in this country. There are many things that are right about what we have had, but a complete review is long overdue. I congratulate the minister for coming out with a very practical and sensible solution to the emergency situation which we have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as I can. I simply want to say this is one of the few occasions in my almost eight years in parliament that I have felt such a deep spirit of co-operation among all parties to get on with solutions to one of the serious problems in this country. From my personal experience, having been directly involved, I was gratified to see the degree of support this bill appears to have, at least at this stage. Whenever I get in this mood, of course, I always fear the gods will descend and prove that one has to be immediately humbled. With the various things with which I am trying to cope, I am sure that will happen before too long, but I hope not in this area.
I want to deal with one or two items. First, I must admit to having noted a possible misinterpretation of meaning in my own remarks in Hansard which I made at the opening of the second reading debate on Wednesday. Either I did not explain myself clearly or there was an error in the printing. I refer to the first paragraph on page 4953 of Hansard. I will not bore hon. members by repeating what I said at that time; I simply want to make the point for those who wish to follow it up. I intended to indicate that the cases to be reviewed involve individuals who were in Canada prior to November 30. However, the statement which appears in Hansard indicates that they must have been awaiting the disposition of their appeal prior to November 30. That appears to exclude all persons whose

appeals were entered subsequent to November 30. That, of course, is not the case; it is not the intention. This is slightly complicated. If one reads my comment today he will understand this is my intent. I want to be very precise so there will be no possibility within human competence to get off on the wrong foot. I do not think it is a major item but I want to correct it.
There have been many suggestions of a concrete nature in every speech I have listened to in this debate. As far as I can tell, the questions were quite legitimate and constructive. I will attempt to deal with these in detail and any others that arise when we get to committee, hopefully fairly soon. There is one other question of statistics that might be useful to correct now. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol) mentioned the difficulties in connection with the new regulations issued in January and quoted a number of people who reported under the requirement for non-immigrants to register if they stayed over 90 days, and if they wished to work to apply for employment visas. At an earlier stage I had mentioned a figure of under 10,000. I was concerned about the rate of registration taking place at that time.
So that the record is clear-and I am sure the hon. member got this figure from my remarks-on that occasion there were, finally, just under 29,000 who came forward to register because of their stay of over 90 days. We applaud that. There were just under 20,000 employment visas. So there was a total of over 48,000 people by April of this year who took cognizance of and responded to this new requirement to register.
I will be seeking the support of all hon. members as a follow-up to this debate and when the bill is proclaimed to do what hon. members have suggested, namely, act as missionaries and advocates, particularly to the ethnic groups of this country, to make it clear that we intend to be very fair. We want the people affected to take advantage of this last opportunity to get their house in order and gain the opportunity to become full Canadian citizens and contribute as so many have in the past to the growth of our society.
I will work very closely with anyone who wants to help me on this. I appreciate the offers that have been made and I intend to follow them up. There will be a large publicity campaign. All the trimmings are now being put together, particularly with regard to contacting ethnic circles, ethnic leaders and the ethnic press. I will disclose the details as they unfold when we get further into that.
I wish to express my gratitude to all members who have participated in this debate. I think probably we can now put a package together that will get us out of the woods and many people out of the woodwork when this effort is completed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
June 22, 1973
[Stage Direction]
(1540)

Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-202, to amend the Pension Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope I am not anticipating what one of the ministers might have been preparing to say, but I believe agreement has been reached that instead of sending this bill to the standing committee after giving it second reading we should deal with it this afternoon in committee of the whole. I believe there is also an agreement to give the bill third reading today and get it on its way.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, there is such an agreement. We would be extremely pleased to pass this bill through all three stages this afternoon.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I understand the position-and I have been in touch with the House leader of my party-it is a term of the agreement that the bill goes through all stages this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is that agreed, and is the motion amended accordingly?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boulanger in the chair.
On clause 1-Discretionary pension to parent
Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Chairman, in the unavoidable absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I am delighted to find myself again in the very fortunate position where I can speak on behalf of our Canadian veterans. Needless to say, speaking about and on behalf of veterans brings back to me a host of cherished memories arising from my four years as minister of veterans affairs-four very meaningful years in my life. If there is one subject in this parliament which has always been received and dealt with in a non-partisan way, it is the subject of veterans affairs. All of us in the House of Commons agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to those men and women who answered the call to arms and served for the preservation of freedom and democracy in this country. I think we will all agree that the Canadian Parliament has provided some of the most advanced pension legislation in the world to fulfil our obligations, really the obligations of the people of Canada, toward those who have given of themselves in their service to the country.
I had the privilege and immense satisfaction to preside over the complete overhaul of the Pension Act some two years ago. The new Pension Act which resulted therefrom has been hailed by veterans associations in Canada and, indeed, elsewhere in the world as being very enlightened and very generous. I do not propose to speak for long since
Pensions
it is our hope to pass this bill through all three stages this afternoon. I will merely make some brief observations.
Over the years the rates of pension have been increased from time to time. The last increase in basic rate was in April, 1971, and at that time the increase was 10 per cent. In the budget of 1972 the principle of escalation was introduced to ensure that the pension rates would be adjusted annually in accordance with increases in the cost of living. So there were increases in January of 1972 and 1973.
For decades the veterans' organizations have been asking that the totally disabled pensioner be compensated to the extent that he receive, at the very least, the income of an unskilled labourer. In the summer of 1972 the then minister of veterans affairs, now Senator Arthur Laing, after discussion with the veterans' organizations directed senior officials of the Canadian Pension Commission and the Department of Veterans Affairs to form a joint study group with the veterans' organizations to consider the entire question of pension rates. This was done and the report of the joint study group was tabled in the House on January 31, 1973, and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The committee considered the report and endorsed its recommendations. The bill we have before us today is the response to that report.
I shall be ready to try to answer any questions which may be put to me during these proceedings in committee of the whole. Hon. members will note that the measure deals with all the areas covered by the report of the committee, with one exception. Because of the implications of the adoption of the principle recommended by the joint study group on the basic rate of pensions, the government has concluded that it cannot at this time tie future pension increases to possible future increases in the wage rates of selected groups but that it will continue the present system of relating annual adjustments to the cost of living. I might point out that since the base rate is being increased by 34.2 per cent, future increases based on the cost of living will be greater because they will be tied to the new and substantially higher base rate. Thus, pensions will be increased by 34.2 per cent, or $100 a month, and the new basic rate will be $4,704.
Hon. members will be pleased to know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has discussed the principles of this bill with veterans' organizations, and though those organizations are not getting all they originally sought they support this proposed legislation enthusiastically. I might add they have authorized my colleague to use those words, that they "support this proposed legislation enthusiastically".
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to all those who have been involved in the studies which led to this bill-the veterans' associations, the members of the House of Commons and the staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am sure all hon. members will agree that the proposals being put forward today merit favourable consideration. They are further concrete evidence of our desire to show the veterans and their dependants who have suffered on our behalf that the people of Canada are determined to keep their commitment to this gallant group. The bill before us is another indication that after

June 22, 1973
Pensions
all these years the Canadian people and their parliament do not forget.
The bill provides that the changes will take effect on the first day of the month after royal assent is given. So if the House should see fit to pass the legislation in all its stages this afternoon, it could receive royal assent in time to enable the pensions to be increased on July 1, the birthday of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say it gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of my party in support of the speedy passage of Bill C-202. It is good to see the minister back in his old, familiar position in the House. As he intimated in his remarks, he was formerly minister of veterans affairs and it is only too bad that the present minister, himself a veteran of very much suffering, could not be here this afternoon to see the bill passed through all stages, which I certainly hope will be the case.
I must also say that we should pay tribute to the hon. member for Edmonton West, and our House leader who has agreed to speedy passage of this bill, as well as to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe who is the official opposition critic but unfortunately is not here today; thus, it is my good fortune to be able to speak to this bill on his behalf. While paying tributes I think I should also mention the chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Labelle, who has contributed to the fair-mindedness and fair play that have always been shown in the veterans affairs committee.
We want speedy passage of the bill, too, for the very reason that the minister mentioned, namely, that unless the bill receives royal assent this month the veterans will be deprived of their pensions for the months of July. Clause 3 provides:
This act shall come into force on the first day of the month immediately following the month in which this act receives royal assent.
So it is imperative that royal assent be given with all possible speed. The other reason for passing the bill is that it has taken 50 years-ever since 1918 when we first began to have veterans in our society-to do something really meaningful for the men who served their country so well in its time of need. The year 1968 was a landmark in that the Woods committee report was brought forward. The year 1972 brought the compilation of the joint study group on which this legislation is based. I suppose that this afternoon in 1973 will be a third landmark if we pass this bill to give the veterans their long awaited just desserts.
Perhaps we should not saddle the minister with blame for the delay in introducing the bill, for week after week we in this party, as well as the hop. member for Winnipeg North Centre, have questioned the minister regarding when we would have this legislation. This is another reason we welcome it greatly this afternoon.
The bill itself gives us almost everything that the joint study group asked for, as the minister mentioned. As a

matter of fact, the basic disability pension is $175 more than the joint study group asked for in their report. The percentages by which married people will receive additional benefit, those with one child and so on, are identical to the percentages recommended by the joint study group report. However, what the bill does not contain is so vital and so important that we must mention it, and that is the escalation principle which was recommended in the joint study group report.
In order to be assured that the basic pension will not again fall so far behind the standard of living of unskilled workers in the public service in the selected group of categories, the final report of the joint study group, in paragraph (i) of its recommendations, recommended:
Pension should be adjusted annually on a fixed date in accordance with changes in the average wage rates for the public service group selected and taking into account income tax deductions in effect on that fixed date-
I am a bit worried at this omission because at all stages of the study in committee of this matter everybody was so happy to think that at long last the government had accepted this new principle for establishing a basic rate rather than the old cost of living principle. Anyone studying increases in wages and salaries knows very well that the standard of living increases faster than does the cost of living. My hurried and rather cursory examination of the bill indicates there is no provision at all for any escalation. Granted that the $175 more than the study group asked for does represent an increase that will be satisfactory perhaps for one year or even two years, but beyond that are we going to allow pensions again to lag behind? This is what worries me. However, I notice that the veterans' organizations accept this bill. I suppose they feel that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or that a crumb is better than no bread at all.
As has been said in the House, we should give the bill speedy passage, and we are now in committee of the whole in order to do this. The only other thing that annoys me and other members on this side of the House is that the two big carrots that are held out in the bill prevent us from moving amendments and trying to put in it an escalator clause which is sorely needed. If we did not do what we are doing this afternoon, we would be denying the veterans a pension increase for July and also, in effect, denying them a $175 greater basic pension than was recommended by the joint study group.
For these two reasons it looks as though we are being blackmailed a little into passing a bill which should have another very important clause in it. I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will keep this in mind and that after one year or two years have passed will introduce further legislation that includes this very important principle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be brief but I am afraid that I will not be able to finish before four o'clock. Since I understand there are one or two other members who wish to speak, I wonder whether we could have it understood now that we will not see the clock for private members' hour until we have concluded this order of business?


Mr. McKinley:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there is any agreement, but it was
June 22, 1973

suggested that if we agreed to put this bill through all stages it would seem sensible to waive private members' hour for today and the private member's motion could come up at the next private members' hour. Either that or we will be sitting here until 5.30 or six o'clock.


Mr. Lefebvre:: That would be agreeable to us, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we just leave the matter, Mr. Chairman, and decide when we finish this bill. If there are 40 minutes left for private members' hour, perhaps we could take it; if the time is down to 20 minutes, perhaps we should forget it.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure in a debate on veterans affairs to follow my namesake, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand. I should like to endorse what he said, particularly our desire to see the bill through all remaining stages in the House of Commons this afternoon, despite the fact that we would have liked to be in the position of moving or at least pressing for certain amendments to the bill.
As has been pointed out, this bill is based on the recommendations contained in the report of the joint study group on the basic rate of pension. I remind the members of the House that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs also gave its unanimous endorsation to that report, and for the most part what was recommended is now before us.
The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand pointed out, however, and it was admitted by the Minister of Public Works, that this bill is deficient in that it does not carry forward the recommendation that future escalation of war disability pensions be geared to increases in the wage rates of the five categories in the public service that were named in the report and that are named in the bill. I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand that in this particular bill there is no reference to any kind of escalation. However, I remind him that this is simply an amending bill.
These new rates are put into the main act, and in the main act there already is a section which provides for annual escalation on the basis of the cost of living. Therefore, in 1974 and 1975 there will be an automatic escalation of the rates that are being established by this amending bill.
However, our complaint is that the escalation will be only to the extent to which the cost of living rises and will not be related to the rise in the rate of wages or, as we sometimes put it, the rise in the standard of living.
I believe it was a red-letter day when the joint study group recommended this kind of escalating formula, and I believe the proposals it made in its report are proposals which not only commended themselves to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs but should have been accepted by the government. Indeed, I should like to read
Pensions
paragraphs 36 and 37 of that report. Those paragraphs are as follows:
The study group was very much aware of the beneficial results of the recent legislative changes which tied pension to changes in the consumer price index. This amendment will ensure that the pensioners' purchasing power will not decrease as a result of increases in cost of living.
It was noted, however, that it has traditionally been stated that the pension should provide the standard of living which the average unskilled man could command for himself and his family. This relates to standard of living as reflected in wage rates rather than merely to cost of living. Traditionally wages increase at a greater rate than living costs. It would seem readily apparent to the study group that these veterans should be permitted to join in the standard of living available to other Canadians, and should not be restricted to relating future increases in pension to the cost of living today. By their service and sacrifice they have earned the right to enjoy the standards which working Canadians have as a matter of course.
It was on the basis of that reasoning that the joint study group and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended that increases in the war disability pension should not be restricted just to the rise in the cost of living, which is already in the act, but should be geared to the rise in wage standards or, as we put it, to the rise in the standard of living.
I should like to join in the tribute that has been paid to the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the effort he has made to get this bill before us. I suspect the delay is due to the fact that he has had trouble trying to get the cabinet to accept that principle. I am satisfied he fought hard for it, and I am sorry he lost, but in the circumstances it would be irresponsible on our part to delay the bill because it has not got that clause in it.
I am glad that there is a clause in the bill which names the five categories in the public service on the basis of which the new figure has been arrived at. At least this puts us in the position that, if nothing is done about this in the next two or three years, we will be able two or three years from now to point out that the Pension Act says that the pension rates are related to the wages in these categories, but that the pensions have not kept pace with that level of wages if, as is likely to be the case, wage rates continue to go up faster than the cost of living.
So we accept the bill as it is because we want to get it through. I can tell the minister and the government, however, that they have not heard the last of the recommendation that veterans pensions should be geared to the standard of living and not just to the cost of living.
Another shortcoming in this bill has to do with the date on which the new rates will commence. Again, if by holding it up we could get the government to move an amendment for an earlier date we would be tempted to do so, but we must not delay the bill in vain. This bill must get through today so Their Honours in the other place can deal with it next week and we can have royal assent not later than next Friday.
I regret there is no retroactivity in this bill. With war veterans allowances having been increased effective April 1,1 think it is fair to say that most veterans in this country took it for granted that the date on which war veterans allowances were increased would be the effective date for increases in the basic rate of the war disability pension. I am very sorry that is not there. We are going to have to

June 22, 1973
Pensions
write a lot of letters to explain to veterans why that was not done, and there is no satisfactory explanation.
I am told that one of the saw-offs in respect of the effective date is related to the fact that the amount veterans will receive under these rates will be higher than they would have received under the recommendation by the joint study group and that, therefore, in 1973 they will get more this way than if they had the lower rate retroactive to April 1. That is not really an answer because time goes on even beyond the end of 1973.
I noted, as did the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand, that the figure arrived at as the composite from the five groups set out in the bill is somewhat higher than the figure given in the report of the joint study group. That sounds like generosity on the part of the government. We have not had that explained, and maybe the Minister of Public Works will explain it while we are in committee of the whole, but I suspect the reason for that is that there has been a reduction in income taxes since the joint study group made its report at the end of 1972, and that it is because of that reduction in income tax that the net figure to be recommended for veterans is that much higher.
At any rate, we regret the lack of retroactivity in the bill but we do not want to postpone any longer the day when these new rates will come into effect. We want them to be effective in July and that is why we have agreed to put this bill through all its stages today.
Debates on veterans affairs are always debates in which we have as little confrontation as we can because we are agreed and anxious to do the right thing. It is nice to have the Minister of Public Works back with us in a veterans affairs debate. This is a way of saying I dislike having to quarrel with him, but I do quarrel with one statement he made. Perhaps I should put it this way: I am going to correct it for him. He said the new rates represent an increase of 34.2 per cent over the former rates.
If one looks at the act and at the schedule that is now in it, he will see that it provides for the 100 per cent basic rate to be $3,504, compared with the new rate of $4,704. He is correct; that is an increase of 34.2 per cent. In the meantime, however, that figure of $3,504 per year has been increased by effect of the escalation clause, so that the 100 per cent rate today is actually higher than the $3,504, being at or near $3,793. This means that the figure now being brought into effect by this bill, while it is 34.2 per cent higher than was put in the act when it was last amended a few years ago, is only 24 per cent higher than the amount veterans are now actually receiving.
I stress this point, not just because I want to argue with the minister but because I think it would be a disservice to veterans if they read in the newspapers that their pensions are going up by 34 per cent. They will all start to do the arithmetic. They will know what they are now getting and will increase their present pension by 34 per cent and assume that is what they are going to get, but that is not so. What the average veteran who is on war disability pension must do is add 24 per cent to what he is now getting, and that is the amount he will get commencing July 1.
This is better than the 19.6 per cent the veteran would have got on the basis of the figure contained in the report

of the joint study group, but let us not mislead our veterans with the notion that in July they are going to get 34 per cent more than they are getting at the present time. The actual increase over what they are now getting is in the order of 24 per cent.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: On a point order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member is correct, but that I am not wrong. What I hope I said was that pensions will be increased by 34.2 per cent over the basic rate established in 1971. However, the hon. member is correct in saying there have been raises since that time. The actual percentage increase from the last raise is 24 per cent but both these figures, 34.2 per cent over the basic rate and 24 per cent over the most recent raise, compose I believe the most important and the largest boost ever given to veterans pensions probably anywhere in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for his interjection. He has confirmed the point I was making. I quite agree with him that the increase is 34.2 per cent over the figure established in the act a few years ago. I do not wish to take away from that. As the minister has stated, it is a considerable boost. However, I do not want veterans to be mislead by reports in the press to the effect that they are now getting an increase of 34 per cent over their present rate.
With the interjection of the minister we have now taken care of that. Any reports will tell veterans what is really the case, that is, that in their July cheques-I hope it will be in the July cheques-there will be 24 per cent more than they are now receiving. I join in the statement the minister just made that this is a substantial and worthwhile boost. It will not be as helpful to some of those on lower rates as they would like it to be. I think, of course, of those whose pensions are so little that they are on the war veterans allowance. There is a ceiling which will deny them any increase at all, but that is another problem which we will get at the next time we have the War Veterans Allowance Act before us. I join the minister, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand and others who might follow in saying that we are glad the bill is before us this afternoon. We shall be happy to see it pass today, so that it can become law just as soon as possible.


Gérald Laniel: In order to set the
record straight, as previously unanimously agreed, the Chair did not see the clock at four o'clock.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Chairman, as often happens at the end of each session, we have before us Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Pension Act, aimed at increasing veterans' pensions, which has been presented to us at the last minute or the eleventh hour.
Yet we are told, I believe, that if we do not pass this bill immediately the veterans will be deprived of their pension increase for July; they would thus lose a full month's increase.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill could, and should have, been brought before Parliament much earlier; it could have been submitted in April, and the veterans
June 22, 1973

would have benefited by this increase two months earlier. I do not, therefore, believe that the fault lies with the opposition, but rather with the government, for not having presented this bill at the desired time and thus causing the veterans to lose at least two months of their pension increase.
Restraint of Tobacco


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that our veterans are worthy men, and I am very sympathetic towards them, for whenever soldiers have been needed they have received many promises and today it is important that they be assured of a suitable pension based on the cost of living, enabling them to live decently with their families depending on the seriousness of their disability incurred during active service.
I do not want to be too long because, like my colleagues, I would like to see the bill passed on second reading, that it can be studied by the Senate next week. But before closing my remarks, I would like to make a suggestion. On reading the bill, I asked myself a question because, since I have been sitting in this House, I have noticed that from time to time similar bills are introduced to increase veterans' pension as a result of inquiries. Commissions of inquiry are appointed as well as joint committees to look into the veterans' problem; this almost inevitably leads to an increase in pensions.
I agree on that point, but I wonder whether it might not be possible to adjust the veterans' pensions to the cost of living index, as is the trend in the case of other pensions or salaries for instance. I feel it might not even be necessary to appoint, every year or two, a commission of inquiry to study the veterans' problem.
I believe the increase proposed by this bill will enable the veterans to take better advantage of what life has to offer, in that sense that they will have more purchasing power to buy the consumer goods and services society has to offer them.
I therefore agree with this bill and, on behalf of my party, I would say that we are in favour of it.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in order to save the Clerk at the table from having to read 17 of these items, I think it could be indicated that there is agreement to deal with order No. 18, which is Bill C-42.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: that Bill C-42, to restrain the use of tobacco, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said; Mr. Speaker, it is now nine years since I first introduced this bill in this place. At that time a proposal of this sort was contained in a bill the effect of which was to give the government control over cigarette advertising and thereby protect the public from cigarette-induced disease. At that time, nine or ten years ago, I suppose such a proposal was looked upon somewhat in the same way as many years earlier some people regarded those who proposed that there should be purification of water or pasteurization of milk as something pretty far out. I am happy to say that at least to some degree times have changed since the first time this bill was introduced, and in the last nine or ten years in Canada some progress has been made legislatively.
The United States Surgeon-General describes cigarette smoking as North America's greatest single killer. Progress has also been made in grappling with what he states to be "the greatest cause of illness, disability and premature death, cigarette smoking". Since this bill was first introduced we have eliminated cigarette advertising from radio and television. We have stopped couponeering, that is, the promotion of cigarette sales and resulting disease through giveaway prizes. We have the beginning of health warnings on cigarette packs and in cigarette advertising, and we have some money, although not nearly enough, in the federal and provincial governmental spheres to educate, particularly our young people, against the consequences of smoking such as lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
While these steps are not without significance, particularly if you take into consideration the immense and deep rooted habit which persists not only in this country but in most countries in the world, and if you also consider the immense revenues of the tobacco industry and of the associated advertising industry, as well as the revenues of the government, in the sale, manufacture and advertising of tobacco products, particularly cigarettes, the steps which I have enumerated as having been made are not without significance. However, they do not go far enough and it is my purpose, in bringing forward this bill again, to try to stimulate interest in taking these additional steps. I think it is becoming more and more evident that they are necessary.
The Canadian Medical Association says:
The story of the health hazard created by cigarette smoking represents an unrivalled tale of illness, disability and death. The potential benefits to be derived from the cessation of smoking place it at a level of importance in preventive medicine with pasteurization of milk .. . the purification chlorination of water and immunization.

June 22, 1973
Restraint of Tobacco
They add:
There is no longer any scientific controversy regarding the risk created by cigarette smoking.
This bill takes the form of a proposed amendment to an old act respecting the sale of tobacco products to minors. The old act has been on the books since 1908. The bill which I put forward in the shape of this amendment, in its key section would empower the government to control cigarette advertising. Actually, the government has that power anyway. The Department of National Health and Welfare has been instructed by parliament to warn and to protect the public against hazards to health. I quote a former minister of that department:
As soon as we were in possession of the facts we began to warn of the hazard to health from cigarette smoking. We will continue to warn until further action is required by the public.
In my view there is now need for that further action; there is need to protect as well as to warn; there is need to eliminate cigarette advertising promotions of disease in Canada. In keeping this bill on the order paper I had three aims in mind: first, it gives me the opportunity to emphasize the dangers of smoking and disease to the country; second, it enables me to call for a new thrust in this fight against disease; third, it allows me to say a few words on the history of the struggle in our parliament to end cigarette advertising.
This bill has already been before a standing committee of the House; it went to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare in 1968. It went there in this way, and I commend the procedure to hon. members with bills which will be talked out in this chamber: at that time, in 1968, I had three bills of this type of the order paper, all dealing with cigarette advertising and disease. Hon. members from the two major parties had similar bills on the order paper. With the consent-I will not say encouragement-of the then minister of national health and welfare we all agreed to take our bills off the order paper on the understanding that the subject matter of those bills would be referred to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare. There was a Liberal, a Conservative and myself involved. This was done. As the minister stated in a speech on April 19, 1972:
The testimony-
Which was given by all the major voluntary health agencies, the tobacco industry and the advertising industry.
-was direct and pulled no punches whatsoever.
He went on to quote the Canadian Medical Association's denunciation of cigarette smoking and disease. The minister also said in his speech:
The habit is not only hurting the smoker, it's hurting all of us. It's been estimated that the cost of certain identifiable consequences of cigarette smoking in Canada in 1966 was about $400 million. Of that amount, the loss due to lung cancer was over $50 million, to coronary disease over $200 million, chronic bronchitis around $15 million, emphysema about $7 million . .. other disabilities nearly $100 million ... and the loss due to fires caused by smoking was over $12 million. These figures, moreover, do not include items such as extra costs of life insurance, disability pensions and survivor's benefits.
This bill, in my view, comes before us at a timely juncture this afternoon. I received yesterday a copy of a letter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. 
Lalonde) from the Alberta Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association which I should like to quote as follows:
The medical advisory committee of the Alberta Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association is deeply concerned with the failure of government to ban cigarette advertising. We believe that such advertising contributes to an increasing health problem. In addition to inflicting human misery by promoting disease, it is responsible for substantial, ever expanding health costs.
Recently our association has monitored printed advertising and we have observed that there is now a large amount of cigarette advertising in magazines, sometimes up to nine coloured advertisements per publication. It is alarming that many of these are women's or family publications which paradoxically try to project a wholesome image. This advertising poses a special threat since studies have shown that women have more difficulty giving up smoking than men, and of those who are successful in doing so, more return to the habit. Advertising promotes a consciousness of smoking and attempts to associate the habit with popular, pleasurable situations. It is doubtful that the public is conscious of this calculated shift in advertising policy by the tobacco industry.
If government is unwilling to ban cigarette advertising completely, then regulations should be enacted requiring the publication of anti-smoking ads of equal size in the same publication at the advertiser's expense.
The medical advisory committee would appreciate a clear public statement of the government's intentions in this regard. I am sure that you will agree that the matter is urgent.
In my opinion, the time has come for the government and the minister to go forward, in line with many other nations, in this uphill struggle against the greatest preventable cause of disease in the world, namely, cigarette smoking. I have here a report indicating what has been done in 94 countries of the world in this matter, listing their legislation. It covers ours, the British, the American, the Russian, and other countries' legislation. Some steps have been taken in this country, as I said at the outset of my remarks, to combat the cause of preventable disease, cigarette smoking. The growth of cigarette smoking has been retarded, but by no means stopped. That will take many years. In the meantime, I propose and urge that hon. members do what they can in their own caucuses and ridings.
I would set 1976 as the date for phasing out all remaining cigarette advertising, including newspapers, magazines and billboards. In the interval, a requirement should be imposed that in all permitted cigarette advertising a statement be included at the cost of the advertiser, to this effect, "Cigarette smoking has been determined by the Department of National Health and Welfare to be hazardous to your health and to induce lung cancer, thrombosis, emphysema and bronchitis. We advise you to consult your physician as to your own condition." That statement should be placed, and paid for by the cigarette companies, in a space one-eighth of the area of the permitted promotional advertising.
There are other suggestions that I can make. I think it is time cigarette firms were made aware of the toll of death and disease caused by smoking, and cigarette manufacturers should be made responsible in law to provide monetary compensation for the loss of life and health of those who become the victims of smoking.
June 22, 1973


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering when reading Bill C-42, what could be its object. It is entitled: "An Act to restrain the use of tobacco."
I will not speak as an expert in the medical or advertising fields, but merely as an educator, because I have worked 15 years in that field and let us say as a mother.
"Why such an opinion?" will you ask. It is because I learned during the last 15 years I taught, that we never attain an objective when we forbid young people to do such and such a thing. I think that with young people, we absolutely have to use circuitous means to prompt them to do someting. Thus, we can never tell them: "You cannot buy such or such brand of cigarettes, because it would be useless.
Allow me to give some examples. Till lately in Quebec, legislation prohibited the admittance of young people in a restaurant or a tavern where liquor was served. What happened? The young people, through devious means, have succeeded in obtaining some. And what is still more serious, they have been prompted to outwit the authorities, to resort to means which are not entirely honest to achieve their purpose.

With students it became a game of who could deceive the barkeeper or bartender that he or she was over 20 years of age. With the dressing habits of young people today, you can have someone aged 18 passing for 16, and someone aged 14 trying to pass for 20. How can you tell who is 14, who is 16 and who is 17?
This bill talks about not selling tobacco to a 16-year old. What criteria will you use to say that one student is 16 and another is 14? With them both wearing long hair and dressed in jeans it is practically impossible to tell the age of a particular student.
Another development with students occurred when they needed an identity card to buy a glass of beer or liquor and someone thought of the bright idea of selling identity cards. In the colleges and CEGEP we had a virtual flow of identity purporting to show that students aged 17 and 18 were 21. Bartenders didn't know what to do when faced with these identity cards. How will the hon. member solve this problem? The tobacco merchant would have difficulty in deciding who is 16 and who is 14.
I will now deal with the clauses of Bill C-42.
[ Transla tion]
Clause 2 reads as follows, and I quote:
2. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction . . . who, directly or indirectly, sells or gives or furnishes to a person under the age of sixteen years any cigarettes or cigarette papers, whether for his own use ...
I feel that this act would be almost impossible to enforce because young people can obtain cigarettes. They do not necessarily have to go to a tobacco store, they can get them in an airport terminal, from vending machines and even through someone else. An agent can buy lots of cigarettes and distribute them in school; this is almost impossible to control.
Restraint of Tobacco
Clause 3 reads in part as follows, and I quote:
... to seize any cigarettes or . . . tobacco ... in the possession of any person .. . under the age of sixteen years . . .
It remains difficult to know who is 16, 17 or 18 years old. Nowadays, all young people wear "jeans" and look alike. How, under these circumstances, does one decide who is less than 16 years old?
Clause 4(1) refers to a reprimand in the case of a first offence, a penalty of one dollar in the case of a second offence, and a penalty of $4 in the case of a third offence.
I understand that the penalties are quite small, but whom are we going to punish by doing so? To punish may be an excessive word, but who will pay the penalty? Either the father or the mother. Will this convince our youth to stop smoking? Quite the contrary.
Personally, when my mother forbade me to smoke, just to defy her, I smoked two cigarettes in a row, never to smoke again. Therefore, it is not because my mother told me never to smoke again that I have abstained.
Clause 4(2) refers to the contempt of court which a merchant would commit for refusing to give such information under oath to the satisfaction of the justice. "Contempt of court", the accusation is quite serious because it seems to me that there is quite a difference between an offence-if it can be called an offence-or let us say the act of the youth who buys tobacco, or that of whoever sells tobacco to an adolescent of less than 16 years of age, and the charge of "contempt of court"; really, that is carrying things a little too far.
In addition, clause 5 which deals with automatic machines, reads as follows:
. .. the justice may order the person on whose premises the machine is kept to take such precautions to prevent its being so used as are specified in the order, or, if necessary, to remove the machine within any specified time.
Has someone given any thought to it? I also think about public places such as restaurants or air teminals where there are automatic dispensers. How can the sale of cigarettes be controlled in those places? And, once again, since young people can ask other persons to buy cigarettes for them, that will not stop them from smoking.
Let us think also, about the police force it would take to ensure the enforcement of that law. It is already difficult to ensure enforcement of the laws concerning marijuana and alcoholic beverages; let us imagine now the police force it would take to enforce a law concerning the sale of cigarettes to young people. To me, that would have no sense whatsoever. I rather think that young people should be encouraged not to smoke by diverted means.
I would like to give an example to support my suggestion. Young people worship athletes, and if we had recourse to modern athletes such as Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe to show that the fact of not smoking has helped them during all their career-and I think, it is true,-I am convinced that it would greatly induce young people to imitate the athlete they worship. In fact, that would be better than preventing indirectly young people from smoking by forbidding merchants to sell them cigarettes. I think we would obtain better results by praising

June 22, 1973
Restraint of Tobacco
the athlete who did not smoke, and who has attained fame, than by forbidding young people to buy cigarettes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Is the hon. member risen for the purpose of asking a question?


Barry Mather: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I just want to point out to the hon. member who just concluded her remarks that my bill has nothing to do with prohibiting or regulating the sale of cigarettes to minors. That is the old act that has been administered by many governments since 1908. My bill is an amendment to it which would give the government power to control cigarette advertising. There is quite a distinction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier).


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) in saying that we must find a solution to the excessive use of tobacco, considering its deleterious effects on the health of smokers. We should perhaps forbid the sale of tobacco completely.

There is no doubt in my mind that smoking endangers one's health and also contributes to a large extent to polluting the air. It is injurious even to the health of non-smokers. But, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 is simply an amendment or a bill to restrain the use of tobacco, and in my view would have no beneficial effect whatsoever. Such an act has existed for well over 40 years, the Tobacco Restraint Act, but still there has been a steady increase in tobacco smoking through the years.
When one considers what has been done in different ways to restrain the use of tobacco, one has to admit that restraint is not what is needed. We have had the advertising code of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, the 14 clauses of which have done nothing to halt the alarming increase in smoking. In my view, the only effect of this advertising code was to save fabulous amounts of money for the tobacco manufacturers.
Even the health warnings which appear on all tobacco products have not produced the restraint we expected, nor did the statistics to prove that the major causes of heart attacks and lung cancer are related to smoking establish any positive effect. There was an anti-smoking program in the Soviet Union which proved futile. Many other countries have adopted similar anti-smoking programs or warnings of danger to health, but still they show an increase in smoking. Even if prices were higher, people would not deprive themselves of tobacco. Attempts have been made to encourage smokers to give up the habit, but we notice that those who try to give it up become heavier consumers afterwards.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the whole problem is a matter of education. As legislators, we should do everything in our power to encourage parents to take a very active part in an educational program to prevent young people from starting to smoke. I will cite a few of the questions that

smokers ask before they stop smoking, to show that they do not really want to stop: "Should I stop suddenly? Why do I get so nervous when I try to stop smoking?" He wants a reason to keep on smoking. "What about the physical symptoms I experience when I try to stop? What causes these? Are they dangerous? How long will they last? What can I do to avoid gaining weight? Is there a safe number of cigarettes to smoke?" All these questions show that they do not want to stop smoking.
Let us have an educational program to prevent people from starting to smoke. For the benefit of all Canadians I think we should think of the effect that smoking has on the health of non-smokers; we should think about pollution, about the fires caused by smoking and even the deaths. Mr. Speaker, with the good will of all Canadians, and with the thought of protecting the lives of others, I believe we should overcome the smoking habit and, more important, even prevent people from starting to smoke.
[ Transla tion]


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to discuss the matters raised during the hour set aside for private members' business. I know that the bill now before us is the work of a knight errant, as far as the problem of tobacco in Canada is concerned. I know that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) has been fighting for years in every imaginable way and it must be admitted that he has shown a great deal of imagination since he has been here to have adopted various bills to the effect that the government of Canada should make a concerted effort to show Canadians how harmful the effects of tobacco are.
So far, I know he has worked like a crusader, and that his efforts have perhaps met with some success. I agree with him that he has not been successful enough, and I hope that one day legislation will be enacted that will make it possible for Canadians, although life in Canada is now quite pleasant, to go beyond this happy state and to enter an earthly paradise, by asking people to stop killing themselves by continuing to smoke as they do.
I also hope that when pay good friend the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), who took the floor before me, is on his way home tonight, although the roads aren't too good-because he has to take quite a few detours to get home-will throw his last package of cigarettes out of his car window.
And knowing him as I do I know that he will do it, and he will then be able to join the ranks of those who, for the past few years, have perhaps gained a bit of weight, but who at least feel much better.
There are so many other hon. members who worked on the committee in 1970, when we studied the famous problem of the use of tobacco in Canada. Besides, we produced an excellent report, and as chairman of that committee, I can assure the House that I had the co-operation of all my colleagues from all sides of the House. We produced a report which has already made its way around the world. In fact, I remember that New Zealand and Australia asked for copies of it.
June 22, 1973

I also remember that the minister of Health from Singapore congratulated us, two years ago, in Mauritius- where the second medical conference of Commonwealth countries was being held-for our suggestions on future Canadian legislation on tobacco.
I think that the government of Singapore is the only one in Asia which has so far adopted legislative measures to try and defeat this scourge that is smoking.
In any event, I believe that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) touched on a very important point. She is an educator-I will not say a former educator, for as a member of this House she is still one, and always will be-and I think that to be an hon. member, particularly for the riding of Louis-Hebert, is to become some kind of an educator, but perhaps at a somewhat higher level than that at which she previously worked. I hope she will keep on working in this field so that we may support her when she talks about education because the use of tobacco in Canada is basically an educational problem.
What can you do in an hospital where doctors have a cigar, a cigarette or a pipe in their mouth while going on their morning rounds, at 7:55 and often while examining their patients, their eyes in many cases are already irritated by smoke?
Setting the example is what matters. And it is a very poor one for parents and teachers to give when they smoke like chimneys. Often also, they set their pants, their car afire but that does not seem to convince them. I recall that in committee, attempts were made to bring in figures on the fires caused by careless smokers and how much it had cost Canadians. Such figures were fantastic.
I was saying that this is a matter of education and that the parents ought to set an example. Today, parents smoke like chimneys. At night, when children come home, the first thing served is not soup, but indeed cigarettes. Everybody takes a cigarette, so children think that the use of tobacco is part of the parents personality and that everybody smokes. Small boys smoke hiding in closets. In summertime, in the old days, little boys used to hide in cornfields in order to smoke a cigarette, and it was hard for Dad or Mom to catch them in such circumstances.
We should start educating them, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare from time to time does remarkable efforts in that direction. Unfortunately, it seems that financial resources are rather limited and that a small portion only goes to education.
Whenever the federal government does something for education, those who believe we encroach upon provincial powers, when we know that education, under the constitution, comes under provincial jurisdiction, immediately raise a general outcry throughout the provinces, saying that the federal government interferes in the field of education. And God knows, when we considered that problem in committee, all the funny things we heard with regard to our recommendation, namely that we should use funds to educate, through literature, bills, audio-visual
Restraint of Tobacco
methods, especially in schools. But in order to do that, Education Departments and School Boards had to be consulted and in order to reach the pupils concerned, it might perhaps have taken two or three years.
We know that the number of smokers has decreased in Canada but that cigarette smoking has increased. We know for instance that smoking is ever more popular among young people under 20 and we also know that more men than women stopped smoking, which is strange enough.
We thought that with Women's Lib they had become the equals of men. Unless we have proof to the contrary, as regards cigarette smoking, we shall have to say that they still belong to the weaker sex.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to say to pregnant women for instance, that if they smoke like chimneys during their pregnancy, their children will be smaller. That is true, it is a fact ascertained by doctors. If pregnant women smoke more than normally, it could affect child-birth during delivery.
We studied this cigarette issue in all of its details and I encourage those who have not read it yet, to look at the report which was tabled, and I hope that, some day, it will be removed from the shelves where it is gathering dust and shown to the public and to the world. I do not really care because I do not intend, and I do not think the Canadian government intends, to influence any country. If at least we could have enough wisdom and shrewdness to convince people by all the means at our disposal that cigarette is the No. 1 killer in Canada, that it is at the root of the most devastating and killing diseases, particularly heart and lung diseases. We would have accomplished something. We must try to do something by any means, by legislative action if needs be, even though I do not like the phrase "pass legislation". We are supposed to live in a free world, we are supposed to be free and intelligent; then we should not need legislation to say: You are going to do this, you will not do that, and if you do not do that you will be punished, you will pay a fine and so on.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great country. We have good members in this House, members who, in their own field, are always working in the best interests of Canada. I congratulate those who have given the House of Commons a chance to make statements, to consider the various bills introduced in that respect. I also congratulate my colleague and friend, the member for Surrey-White Rock, especially since he is a journalist, for doing the utmost to help Canadians keep their brains "unclouded" for the rest of their life.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, pursuant to the order adopted Thursday, June 14, 1973, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday.
Have a good weekend.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 26, 1973