1973-06-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders in the two official languages-Mr. Duquet (Quebec East).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
May 28, 1973-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on February 23, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My purpose in having placed this motion on the order paper was to prod the government to give notice of its bill to amend the Pension Act. That notice having been given as of yesterday, we shall get the bill tomorrow for first reading. Therefore I am pleased to have this motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view
or the statement in the speech of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg on June 15, relating to what the government proposes to discuss with the four western premiers, that "the whole Crowsnest rate structure might come under review," I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That this House unanimously supports the maintenance of the present Crowsnest rate structure on grains.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of great urgency.
In view of the constant increase in prices and the financial difficulties faced by the producers, and bearing in mind the need for controlling this situation which could become calamitous, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the government adopt economic policies designed to achieve a balance between production, services and the purchasing power of the people, with a view to fighting both inflation and unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be put.
Order Paper Questions AGRICULTURE

June 20, 1973


MEASURES TO STABILIZE PRICE OF FEED GRAIN- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter.
In view of the constant rise of feed grain prices, the damages already incurred as a result of bad weather and the uncontrollable rise in food products costs, I move, seconded by the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That a special debate be held, following an agreement among parliamentary leaders, in order to develop in the shortest possible time some genuine aid policies to farmers, in order to cope with the great difficulties now met by those producers who are the pillars of our Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be put.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-199, to amend the Criminal Code (Penalty for cattle rustling).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to stiffen the penalties for cattle rustling which has become a very serious problem in the prairie provinces and British Columbia.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
LIP PROJECT No. H-1700
Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1700?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1959


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1959?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1960


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1960?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-2128


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2128?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-2478


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2478?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-2727


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2727?
June 20, 1973


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-2827


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2827?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it is one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-2832


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2832?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-2859


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2859?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-2867


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2867?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What products are purchased from Canadian producers by the government for contribution to the World Food Program?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Does the government use the World Food Program to provide a subsidy to any producers of commodities or products used in the program?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows: 1. Wheat (Bulk and Bagged), Wheat Flour, Feed Oats, Barley, Dried Beans, Dried Peas, Skim Milk Powder, Evaporated Milk, Dried Egg Powder, Potato Granules, Canned Fish, Dried Fish, Canned Turkey, Cheese, Butter Oil. The above represent commodities that have been purchased from Canadian producers by the government for contribution to the World Food Program since the Program's inception in 1963.
2. No. It should be noted that when the World Food Program credits donors for commodity shipments made under their respective pledges it is always at a rate which is the nearest equivalent to the world market price for that particular commodity.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to prohibiting professional strikebreaking agencies?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No. This has not been a problem in industries under federal jurisdiction.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What is the total amount of the development loans and/or gifts that Canada made to foreign countries during each year 1950 to 1972?
2.	What percentage of the Canadian GNP was represented by this sum for each of these years?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows:
Part 1 and Part 2 Official Development Assistance
Fiscal Year	Disbursements ($ Cdn. million)	Percent of G.N.P.1950-53'"	67.4">	.101953-54	32.8	.131954-55	29.0	.111955-56	28.7	.101956-57	49.0	.151957-58	65.6	.201958-59	73.6	.211959-60	76.0	.201960-61	79.2	.211961-62	69.3	.171962-63	62.2	.141963-64	66.8	.141964-65	100.3	.201965-66	146.3	.26
June 20, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Part 1 and Part 2 Official Development Assistance
	Disbursements	Percent
Fiscal Year	($ Cdn. million)	of G.N.P.1966-67	207.3	.331967-68	193.4	.291968-69	186.3	.251969-70	310.3	.381970-71	354.3	.411971-72	369.6	.391972-73	449.0"'>	.43<cl
a>
Breakdown not available <i.* Preliminary Estimated
Note: The total figure for disbursements of Official Development Assistance (ODA) includes amounts made available to multilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations and the International Development Research Centre as well as to foreign (developing) countries. While the amounts appropriated by Parliament for these purposes were mainly derived from CIDA's estimates part of the total was authorized through vote items of the Department of Finance and, in earlier years, of the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Has the government decided to phase out the position of cleaning servicemen at any and/or all Army bases throughout Canada?
2.	What is the reason for such change by the Department of National Defence?
3.	How many people will be thrown out of work by such policy?
4.	How many people will be employed from outside sources due to this policy?
5.	With whom will these cleaning servicemen be replaced?
6.	What will be the total dollar saving to the Department in each case by the change in policy?
7.	Is the Department presently engaged in negotiations to contract out the work previously done by cleaning servicemen?
8.	In each case, what are the names and addresses of the firms engaged in such negotiations?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. In so far as the Department of National Defense is concerned, no new policy is contemplated at this time with respect to contracting with commercial firms to provide the cleaning services required on DND Bases across the country. No further contracts for such services are being entered into pending the completion of a survey currently under way of existing contracts and discussions of the results of the survey with the Union of National Defence employees.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt;: 1.	Was an application for summer employment at the Port of Landsdowne, Ontario, received by the Canada Manpower Office in Gananoque, Ontario or the Canada Manpower Office in Brock-ville, Ontario from Mr. J. D. Belfie of Gananoque, Ontario and, if so, was Mr. Belfie advised by the Department of Manpower and Immigration that his application had been misplaced?
2.	Was Mr. Belfie previously employed for three years in such seasonal employment at the Port of Lansdowne?
3.	If an error has been made by the Department in dealing with Mr. Belfie's application, is it the intention of the Department to take steps to rectify such an error as soon as possible?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. An application for seasonal employment of eight months duration at the Port of Lansdowne was received by the Canada Manpower Centre in Gananoque from Mr. J. D. Belfie. It was transferred to the Canada Manpower Centre in Brockville which was responsible for screening applications for this employment. Mr. Belfie telephoned a Manpower Counsellor in the Brockville CMC who informed Mr. Belfie that his application could not be located at that time.
2.	Mr. Belfie was employed in the summers of 1968, 1969 and 1970 at the Port of Lansdowne while he was a student.
3.	Mr. Belfie's application was located immediately following his telephone call to the Brockville CMC. The Counsellor tried to inform Mr. Belfie by telephone but could not contact him. However, Mr. Belfie's application was considered along with 35 other applications for this employment but he was not among those selected for referral to the employer.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Was a LIP grant given to Mr. Robert Fry and Mr. Shelby Goodman for the purposes of establishing a Resource Centre at 1104 6th Avenue, Calgary, Alberta?
2.	What was the amount of such grant or any extensions or renewals thereof to date?
3.	How many people (a) were employed at the outset (b) are now employed by the Resource Centre?
4.	(a) What are the names of these people (b) are they all Canadian citizens?
5.	Is this particular programme monitored and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how regularly?
6.	Is the Resource Centre or any of its staff involved in organizing public boycotting and/or picketing of business premises in the area?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Federal Funding was given to project P-1137, The Resource Centre under the sponsorship of Mr. Robert Fry. Mr. Fry, however, due to previous commitments could not act as the project's principal and the sponsorship was changed to Mr. George Goodman.
2.	$30,888 and to date no extensions have been granted.
3.	(a) The project was contracted to employ 12 persons; (b) lion May 3, 1973.
4.	(a) The Department of Manpower and Immigration does not have this information as the sponsor is the "em-
June 20, 1973

ployer"; (b) yes. (Either Canadian citizens or landed immigrants).
5.	Yes. (a) to provide assistance and to ensure that the terms of the federal contract are being observed; (b) The program officials have visited this project on three occasions; the Department of Supply and Services, Audit Services Bureau, have conducted an audit visit.
6.	The Resource Centre has conducted its activities within its agreement with the government of Canada. We have no knowledge of the activities of individual staff members, other than when working on the project.


Mr. Hellyer: What statutory responsibility is vested in the Minister of Labour by the Corporation and Labour Unions Returns Act?


John Carr Munro: The Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act gives no responsibilities to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Mather: In dollars, what is the amount of any federal assistance expended for the development, production and/or distribution of tobacco, including aid by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding overseas markets?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce did not provide financial assistance to the tobacco industry in the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. However, the normal trade services of the department in Canada and abroad were provided to the tobacco industry in export market development and trade promotion. It is not possible to place a dollar value on these continuing trade services that are used by all industries.


Mr. Godin: Does the government intend to reduce the staff at its nuclear stations and, if so, will this measure apply to the whole of Canada or only to the Quebec area?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited owns nuclear stations at Rolphton, Ontario and Douglas Point, Ontario, which are operated by Ontario Hydro, and at Gentilly, Quebec, which is operated by Hydro-Quebec. Ontario Hydro owns and operates a nuclear station at Pickering, Ontario. Staffing at all four stations is the responsibility of the operators.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Sunset Ceremony been removed from Canadian Navy ceremonials?
2.	On what date was the decision made, and for what reasons?
Orders for Returns
3.	What ceremony will replace the traditional Sunset
Ceremony?
4.	Does the government plan to erode all military traditions in Canada in favour of USA practices?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The Sunset Ceremony which is a combination of three ceremonies-lowering the National Flag of Canada; the ancient ceremony of Beating Retreat; and Tattoo-is still performed by members of the Canadian Forces on special occasions. It was performed on Parliament Hill on July 1, 1971 and 1972, and it is anticipated it will be performed there again on July 1, 1974.
2 and 3. Not applicable.
4.	No, the Canadian Forces today continue to perform ceremonies which have evolved from traditional ceremonies used by the various Services prior to unification. Full details may be found in the Canadian Forces Publication 201 (CFP 201) Manual of Drill and Ceremonial promulgated August 15, 1968.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): In the interest of public protection, is it the intention of the Solicitor General to reconsider his Department's decision to abolish the wearing of uniforms by the majority of custodial staff in penal institutions?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the implementation of this decision has been postponed to allow for its reconsideration as a result of representation made by some of the personnel concerned.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many acres of land have been expropriated by the government during each of the years 1960-72 inclusive in each of the provinces and territories of Canada?
2.	What was the cost of such acquisitions of land in each province and territory of Canada for each of the years 1960-72 inclusive?
Return tabled.



CIDA-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	To what countries is CIDA presently providing economic development assistance?
2.	What were the allocations of funds for each of these countries for the fiscal year 1972-73?
3.	What is the total number of Canadian personnel serving abroad under the auspices of CIDA?
Return tabled.

June 20, 1973
Oral Questions



FINANCING OF PROJECTS BY DRUGS DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

Mr. Reynolds: What projects has the Drugs Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare been financing or approving and what are the terms of reference being used for these projects?
Return tabled.



LIP PROJECTS-PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

Mr. Stevens: By federal constituency, in the Province of Ontario for the 1972-1973 period (a) how many applications for LIP grants were received (b) how many projects were approved (c) what was the total amount in dollars involved (d) how many man-weeks of employment were generated by the projects approved?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 77.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO AUDITING SERVICES FOR AIR CANADA AND CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the Minister of Finance and/or other responsible Ministers, and the auditing firms of Touche, Ross and Co., Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, in connection with the auditing services for Air Canada and Canadian National Railways.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand. Shall the remaining notices stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. However, I am sure the Prime Minister is familiar with the matter as it relates to the study on energy policy that the minister is to table soon, possibly next week. Is the study which is to be tabled to be confined simply to the major objectives of an

energy policy as opposed to specific packages of proposals? Also, is it simply a study by the department or does it involve outside consultants as well?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I believe the minister has made it clear several times that the papers will be in the form of an analysis of factual data, a presentation of all the relevant data rather than policy proposals at this time. The intention is to put all the relevant data and the analysis before the public so that reactions can be heard from the other levels of government and the public, including consumers and producers. With regard to the second part of the question, my impression is that it was prepared by people in the department alone, but I would have to check this with the minister. Perhaps he can supplement that answer when he is back in the House. The minister is accompanying Mrs. Gandhi in Toronto today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Was the scope of the study to be published and the approach adopted with regard to any findings modified by order of the cabinet or of a cabinet committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not believe this question has any relevance from the point of view of the House of Commons. All decisions are made by cabinet and every minister is jointly bound by the decisions of cabinet. Many subjects are treated beforehand in committee and then referred to cabinet for confirmation or further discussion. Quite honestly, I cannot remember the particular critical path of this one, and if I did I do not believe I would be inclined to inform the House about it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I certainly think it is relevant to the House if in fact the scope of the study to be tabled has been modified by order of the cabinet or a committee of the cabinet. However, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in light of his answer to the first question, it is correct to say that the House will have to wait for many months, perhaps until 1974, to receive any recommendations with regard to a package of specific proposals, and that all we are to get now is a study related to the major objectives of an energy policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to my first answer and to what the minister has been saying for many months now, that there are many policy provisions in place at the present time relating to energy and he has detailed them at various times. This particular study will be one which will put all the facts in front of the people; it will remind them of the existence of the policies that are now in place and it will provide time for the discussion I mentioned in my first reply. As to the date of the next document, I cannot answer that question.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It is based on a statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on January 16, as reported on page 330 of Hansard, in answer to a question I put to him. I asked the minister whether he could now be more specific and tell us when he intended to make a statement to the House outlining Canada's national
June 20, 1973

energy policy. The minister's reply was: "Late winter, Mr. Speaker." I can give the Prime Minister six other references to show that the minister has given the same type of answer to the same question at different times. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this change in recent weeks, this reference to energy studies being tabled rather than a statement on national energy policy being made, is the result of the cabinet meeting on April 12 when apparently it was decided to postpone the whole matter of making a declarative statement on national policy until 1974?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the hon. member gives me the six other references to which he referred-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -I will give him as many references to very clear statements by the minister that this present series of papers will be a presentation of facts. It goes back well before the date in April which the hon. member mentioned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the minister has repeatedly made definite commitments to bring down in late winter or this spring a clear and definitive statement regarding the government's national energy policy, may I ask the Prime Minister why this commitment has not been kept? Will he also tell the House when it will be kept, and when we may expect the statement on national energy policy which we have been awaiting for the past four years?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No policy.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the fact that both in the House and outside it the Minister of Transport stated yesterday that he intends to discuss with the railways the question of adjusting some freight rates to which he referred as anomalies. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Transport was stating government policy, and whether it is the intention of the government that such discussions with the railways take place before the western economic policy conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some such discussions have already taken place, as I understand it, and have indeed taken place with the various provinces. As to the date of any announcement of policy in this connection, I cannot inform the House. It may be before the western economic opportunities conference or it may be at that time.
Oral Questions


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's answer I would ask him to make clear to the House whether these discussions with the railways at this time, if they have already taken place, are a substitute for discussion of the whole question of freight rates and transportation at the economic opportunities conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not say they were substitutes; they are part of the over-all review of transportation policy upon which the government is engaged.


CROWSNEST FREIGHT RATES-POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSION AT WESTERN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES CONFERENCE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister another question arising out of a statement made by another minister, namely, the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, in Winnipeg last Friday. During his speech the minister said, as has already been drawn to the attention of the House, that the whole Crowsnest rate structure might come under review. May I ask the Prime Minister whether this is government policy and is it the intention of the government to place a review of the Crowsnest rate structure before the conference next month in view of the fact that if a review takes place it can only be to increase the Crowsnest rates because it cannot possibly reduce them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the latter part of the question, the hon. member will have to wait to see what our policy position is. With regard to the general question, whether we are reviewing every aspect of transportation, the answer is yes. We are attempting to review every aspect of transportation in so far as we have time and to make a thorough assessment of all aspects of these problems.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


CROWSNEST FREIGHT RATES-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING ALTERATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Is it a fact that consideration is being given today by the government to altering the Magna Carta that protects western farmers and agriculture by bringing about changes in the Crowsnest pass rates? This is a very, very serious step and one which will be widely condemned in western Canada.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was ever the intention of the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport to review this agreement. Of course, if in the west some suggestions are made about it we are ready to look into the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if there has been no discussion of this subject, would the minister bring the

June 20, 1973
Oral Questions
matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice who spoke so freely in Winnipeg and tell him that if there are any changes in the Crowsnest pass rates there will be an explosion in western Canada that will make a nuclear blast look like a firecracker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There appear to be a number of members who wish to ask supplementary questions on this subject. We will return to the question after the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Temiscamingue.

[ Translation]


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Since the Indians of James Bay, and particularly those of Fort George, receive from the federal government housing allowances and rather appropriate salaries, is the minister in a position to tell us why-and let it be noted that I appreciate what is being done for the Indians-the department does not grant to the white people of Fort George or the James Bay area the same advantages that are granted to the Indians, because, after all, they are full-fledged Canadians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to thank the hon. member for saying that we are providing good services for the Indians, and I hope that the opposition is listening. Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to be able to provide the same services for white people living in that region, I would have to be not only Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but also premier of the province of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that there is some affinity between the minister and the premier of the province of Quebec, but this is no solution. The minister is congratulating me for telling the government that he is providing very good services for the Indians of James Bay. Why does he not provide the same quality of services for the white people of that region? This is what I want to know.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that with regard to these services the white people are under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trans-

port which is supplementary to those addressed to the Prime Minister earlier in connection with transportation. It deals specifically with the duties of the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of establishing railway freight rates for those shippers who are classified as captive to the railway companies, as provided under Section 278 of the Railway Act. Is the Canadian Transport Commission complying with the provisions of the act in that the CTC was asked to review and examine, through public hearings, the application and operation of this section of the act and report back to the Governor in Council? This was to have taken place four years after the implementation of the National Transportation Act which was


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a report from the CTC and also from the Department of Justice. After that I will give an opinion.


REASON FOR INCLUSION OF CROWSNEST FREIGHT RATES IN GENERAL REVIEW
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an additional question to the right hon. Prime Minister. If I understood his response to the question asked by the hon. member for York South correctly, it was in the affirmative, that the Crowsnest rate structure was included in the total review of transportation policy by the government. If that is the case, may I ask the Prime Minister what earthly reason there would be to review the Crowsnest Pass rate structure since it is the only rate structure in respect of which western people get a break on freight rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear that western people recognize they do get a break through the Crowsnest Pass rates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: They don't get any break from this government.


An hon. Member:: It is not a joke.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: And you want them to vote for you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead now, Pierre.


John George Diefenbaker: That's the complete answer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to hear what answer, if any, the Prime Minister gave. I should like to direct another supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he assure the House that under no circumstances will there be any review of or tampering with the Crowsnest Pass rate structure?
June 20,1973


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we were asked repeatedly by people interested in the welfare of the west to have a basic review of all our transportation policies.


An hon. Member:: No, not the Crowsnest Pass rates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand they now want to except some systems from that review. If it is the desire of the west not to have a total review I will listen to such representations from the premiers. But I cannot satisfy everybody on this. If the premiers want to have a total review of the whole system, and I now hear from members of the opposition that they do not want any tampering with the Crowsnest Pass rates-


John George Diefenbaker: You bet not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -I will have to refer to the premiers themselves and see whether they want a total review or not.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It has to do with the conduct of the advisory committee to date. Having in mind the fact that the interim report of the advisory committee indicated that it was entirely one-sided in its investigation, and in light of the fact that an organization based in Toronto has indicated that the committee refuses to hold meetings with claimants, would the minister advise now whether in fact the advisory committee will be submitting a report on the conduct of the benefit control officers as a result of interviews with claimants? Has the minister had discussions with the chairman of the advisory committee whose conduct has now been brought into question, and has he asked for his resignation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have not asked for his resignation. The basis of the article is incorrect. The chairman of the advisory committee agreed to a public meeting and undertook to advise those concerned at least two weeks in advance of the date of the meeting. So far the advisory committee has been unable to set a date because four of the eight members of the committee are unavailable during the month of June. As soon as a date has been finalized, taking into account the other priorities of the members of the committee, representatives of the citizens' organizations will be advised. Furthermore, as previously agreed, the advisory committee will undertake to publicize this meeting well in advance. There is no intention to ask the very conscientious chairman of the advisory committee for his resignation because the premise of the argument is totally incorrect. He has already undertaken that such a meeting would be held outside of regular working hours, I might say, to ensure maximum participation by
Oral Questions
interested parties. I expect that a report will follow that. That is one of the reasons it is held up.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for anticipating my question. In any event, I thank him for the answer. Can the minister advise me when in fact he will be in receipt of this report? Can we expect it to be tabled prior to the summer recess whenever that may be- I hope by July 15?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I already indicated an answer to that and the problem inherent in giving a precise date which is related to the holding of this public meeting. That is related to the availability of the members and a satisfactory and mutually convenient date for all concerned.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the RCMP to move one of its patrol vessels from Sydney harbour, its home base where it has operated so successfully for many years, to another location?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that the RCMP Interceptor which has been stationed in the Sydney harbour area will be transferred to Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, within the next month. This transfer will improve the efficiency of the vessel in that it will allow it to operate on a 12-month basis. Up until now it was not able to operate during the winter months due to the conditions in Sydney harbour. In addition, the water traffic in the Mulgrave area has increased considerably in recent years and it becomes necessary to move it to that area.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the statement regarding Sydney harbour. The vessel has not been affected in all these years. In view of the strong protests that are being voiced regarding this proposed move-it sounds like it is confirmed today by the minister-would he confer with the senior officials of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and ascertain whether this decision cannot be reconsidered and reversed? The business that goes on on the water in Sydney harbour at the moment is far greater than at Mulgrave in the constituency of the President of the Privy Council.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to discuss this further with the RCMP officials, but I must say the reports we have are to the effect that the water traffic now in the Mulgrave-Port Hawkesbury area is much greater than in Sydney harbour.


BOARDING OF SHIP MANNED BY CHINESE CREW IN VANCOUVER HARBOUR
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speak-

June 20, 1973
Oral Questions
er. It involves an activity reported today in the Vancouver harbour. Can the Solicitor General advise the House what the present situation is in respect of the apparently explosive problem in Vancouver harbour where a ship manned by Chinese crewmen has been boarded by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? We are informed that individual crewmen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply. I might add that this is hardly a supplementary question, although it may be related. Perhaps the minister might be given an opportunity to reply to the first part of the hon. member's question.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have no report on that incident, but I would be pleased to get one and get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for multicultural-ism. In view of the minister's statement yesterday that he was unaware of the extent of Charles Templeton's shareholding in Outreach Incorporated which received a $200,000 advertising contract from the minister's department, would the minister inform the House whom he thought he was dealing with when he promised the contract to Outreach last year and, in particular, did he know that Douglas Breithaupt was also a 25 per cent shareholder in that firm?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order. As I understood the question the hon. member asked the minister whom he thought he was dealing with in connection with a certain matter. I suggest that a question in those terms is highly irregular.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he was influenced by that fact?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question, but I draw to the attention of hon. members that we are not starting off on the right foot, if we expect to have many questioners today, when there are four or five or more supplementar-ies from a number of members on each question. Many members who are seeking to ask questions this afternoon will not have an opportunity. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has a second supplementary.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact that Outreach Incorporated was incorporated only in 1971, about the same time that the Prime Minister announced his new policy

regard to multiculturalism, would the minister table the correspondence he and his associates had with Outreach Incorporated so that the House may be satisfied as to the objectivity in the awarding of this contract, bearing in mind it was done without the benefit of other submissions?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, there was no personal correspondence or any correspondence of any kind then with Outreach. This company was highly recommended to me by other people and I made my decision based on their presentation of a possible information bulletin.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Rocky Mountain on a further supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Selkirk, followed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


AUTHORITY OF MINISTER OVER PUBLIC SERVANTS INVOLVED IN PROGRAM
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of State who seems to be a little bit responsible for multiculturalism. Would the minister tell the House if in fact he has any authority whatsoever over civil servants involved in the multiculturalism program apart from those who are on his personal staff and, if so, what is the extent of that authority?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will agree, I am sure, that a question of this kind is normally placed on the order paper. If the hon. member wants to have it considered in priority at the time of adjournment, he will be given that opportunity.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister if he is aware, in respect of the strike of the finance section of Air Canada, that Air Canada is employing non-union clerical personnel to fill positions normally filled by the striking workers and, if so, will he make a recommendation to Air Canada that it cease and desist from this practice. Second, now that Mr. Bernard Wilson has finished his commitment with relation to the machinists' strike, will he be asked to become involved in the finance section strike?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am considering lending any mediation services and personnel that would be welcomed by both sides in an effort to resolve this dispute. We will do anything that we can in the Department of Labour that will be helpful. With reference to the earlier part of the hon. member's question, I think that in terms of people hired by Air Canada the question should more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Transport.
June 20, 1973


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Again it is in two parts because of the answer from the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Transport, in relation to the fact that non-union personnel are being employed in a strike situation, ask Air Canada to cease and desist from this practice? Second, will the minister assure the House that there will be no further reduction in the number of Air Canada personnel employed in Winnipeg, which is one of the matters that are concerning the finance section at the moment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, I had a report this morning from Air Canada because someone put the same question to me yesterday. Nobody outside Air Canada has been hired in Winnipeg. I do not say that some are not working because 45 strikers went back to work and now have their jobs, but no one was hired to replace the strikers. What is the second part of the hon. member's question?


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, one of the fears expressed by union representatives is that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope we would not spend the rest of the question period on this matter. Instead of asking two questions in one, it would be easier, more proper and according to practice for hon. members to ask a question and then, if they are recognized for that purpose, to ask a supplementary. The hon. member may ask a supplementary, following which I will call on the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Douglas Charles Rowland: The two-question syndrome results from being so far back, I am afraid. One of the fears expressed by the union is that there will be a further reduction in Air Canada's staff in Winnipeg. What I want from the minister is an assurance that this is not the case.


Jean Marchand: That is not the case, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Still concerning the re-opening of the old CIP mill at Temiscaming, we have in fact been witnessing a ball game for the last six months between Quebec and Ottawa. And now-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question?


David Réal Caouette: My question is as follows, Mr. Speaker, but I would like the minister to understand it clearly.
Oral Questions
Last night I received from Quebec a report that all documentation on this subject is on the minister's desk in Ottawa, and that they are waiting for an offer from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister say when an offer shall be made to Quebec, as well as TEMBEC, for the re-opening of the Temiscaming South mills?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the analogy of a baseball game, I think I can reply that we are in the ninth inning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I hope we can get the proposals completely analysed. So far as I know, we will be in a position to respond to the Quebec proposals probably within a matter of a week or ten days.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Would the minister not be able, as he told someone yesterday, to give a decision tomorrow in order to let the people in Temiscaming know what is what concerning this re-opening?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to give a decision tomorrow. There are a great many complexities involved in this subject, as the hon. member knows. I think we have resolved the majority of them, but there are one or two that are quite important. I believe I have given a realistic timetable when I suggest we will be able to complete the decision within a week or ten days.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Following the statement of the president of the Farm Producers Union that the climate in April and May will cause huge crop losses, does the minister intend to help the Quebec farmers as was once the case after, for example, damage caused by rain?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated last week, our officials have been in consultation with Ontario officials. They have also discussed crop conditions in Quebec. As the hon. member knows, we do not participate in this program unless requested by the province.

June 20, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since the climate will have an important influence on the price of fruits, vegetables, meat and milk how does the department intend to react to protect the consumer who is already overburdened by prohibitive costs?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member to repeat his question?


Claude Wagner: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
My question is as follows: In view of the marked influence which the climate exerts on the price of fruit, vegetables, meat and milk, what type of action does the department intend to take to protect the consumers already heavily burdened with extremely high costs?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: They will hire another chairman at $40,000 a year.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is related to our economic policy as a whole and, in our budget speech of last February, we have already announced a number of measures aimed at helping consumers in this area.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the very heavy rainfalls in the northeastern part of Saskatchewan. Many farmers are unable to complete their seeding as a result of flooding in that area. Has the minister been approached by the province of Saskatchewan and has his department given any consideration to providing some assistance to those farmers who will not be able to complete their planned seeding?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have not been contacted by the province of Saskatchewan, but my officials have given me an up to date report. As of today, 87 per cent of the seeding in Saskatchewan has been completed. We understand there are some areas that have been flooded. I hope that these people have taken crop insurance, as I advised them to do, because the increase in crop insurance in Saskatchewan is over 100 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question, and then the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether crop insurance will apply where the crop has not been planted in some areas?


Eugene Whelan: That is strictly up to the type of plan that the province may run. Some provinces have no-planting crop insurance. I am not sure whether Saskatchewan has that type of plan.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe there are four minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member has a second supplementary, after which I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Shore.


Stanley James Korchinski: Would the minister give the same consideration to those farmers as was given to farmers in Ontario and Quebec last year?


Eugene Whelan: We treat all farmers in Canada as Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who will, I am sure, recall how many times he has assured the House that he is going to give us the results of his monitoring of the reduction in prices following the tariff and tax changes announced by the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give the House a firm date when he will be making this report to the House, or are we to assume that there is no such monitoring and that a report will never be received by the House?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I cannot attempt to consider what information to provide until the work in question is completed. It has not yet been completed. Therefore I am unable to assist the hon. member by fixing a date now for the report as he has requested.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that agreement has not been reached on an agenda for the Law of the Sea Conference at New York in December and this will cause a
June 20, 1973

further delay in setting up the important international conference at Santiago, Chile, in 1974, would the minister indicate what further steps Canada is taking to obtain agreement among those countries which to date have refused to accept the principle that a coastal state should have the right to manage the fishing resources on its continental shelf and slope?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not as pessimistic as the hon. gentleman about the prospects of the Law of the Sea Conference. I fully expect that it will be held on the dates that have been fixed in 1974-
[Editor's Note: Whereupon proceedings were interrupted by a stranger attempting to enter upon the floor of the House.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs was attempting to reply to the hon. member's question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members should give the minister an opportunity to reply to the question that was asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether my answer was heard by the members of the press who were still in the gallery at the time but perhaps I might repeat it. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I am not as pessimistic as the hon. gentleman about the prospects of holding the Law of the Sea Conference on the scheduled dates. There is difficulty about the agenda, but I can assure him that Canada will continue to support the right of coastal states to manage resources off shore for a considerable distance.


FOOD PRICES
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the difficulties faced by members of the public service who earn lower salaries in Ottawa and elsewhere and also the people on fixed incomes, is it the view of the Prime Minister that the appointment of a $40,000 a year chairman of the Food Prices Review Board is the way to lead to lower food prices in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of the job and the competence of the person required to fill it necessitates an appropriate salary. In view of the total amount spent by Canadians generally for food, if the board is able, as I think it will be, to make a contribution to the stabilization of food prices through its recommendations, the expenditure will be well worth while.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: What about the other housewives? Can they manage?


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it concerns the awarding of a contract for warehousing and the operation of the cranes, according to a recent announcement, on the Surrey-Fraser docks. Would the minister explain to the House why that award was made to the Johnson Terminal Company without any competitive building and without any kind of invitation to competing firms to make proposals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think a question of this kind should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency it could be considered at the time of the adjournment when the hon. member can ask his question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he cannot ask a supplementary to a question that is out of order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the rephrased question is now directed basically to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the same firm is in line for the award of a contract for a sufferance warehouse in the lower mainland, will the minister assure the House that the award of that contract will not be made without competitive bidding or without an invitation to competing firms when the award is made?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there is no firm "in line" for a licence for a truck sufferance warehouse in Vancouver as there is no present intention of issuing any further such licence. When the time comes, as it may well do, for an additional licence to be issued, I certainly hope that there will be an opportunity for any interested firms to submit suggestions, but the term "tendering" I do not think is quite appropriate when nothing is being purchased.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse.

June 20, 1973
Oral Questions


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, since the rainy weather concerns quite a number of people, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment.
As the Weather Modification Information Act, c. 59 of the Statutes for 1970-71-72 was assented to on December 15, 1971, will the minister advise the House whether this act will be proclaimed in the near future?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: I will check, Mr. Speaker, but this legislation has to do simply with the gathering of information.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister if he is now in a position to tell the House how soon the conciliation board will be established to assist in the contract negotiations between United Transportation Union trainmen and Canadian National Railways?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that the conciliation board has been appointed with reference to that dispute and, further, that it is presently being staffed.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Halifax Herald on Friday last reported the Minister of the Environment as having said he would initiate a special investigation into the circumstances surrounding the condemning of a product packed by Mutual Marine Limited and the closure of that plant. Can the minister advise the House whether such an investigation has been undertaken and is he yet able to tell the House if the product will be released?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, an investigation has been carried out. The product that was packed has been cleared for sale. However, the company has been warned that it must not pack that product with the wrong labelling again.



QU'APPELLE BASIN STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS- REQUEST FOR SPECIAL GRANTS TO REGINA AND MOOSE JAW

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the recommendations contained in the Qu'Appelle Basin study, three quarters of which are to be carried out within the next one to three years, and in view of the fact this report requires unusually large expenditures on the part of the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw, will the minister advise whether his department is considering special grants to these cities and, if not, will he study the matter with a view to making special grants to them?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed in depth with the province of Saskatchewan. I can tell the hon. member that we are not prepared to make special arrangements but it is hoped that federal funding can be made available under ongoing programs.



FISHERIES


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has he received any communication or request for assistance from the government of Prince Edward Island with regard to serious losses of gear, reputed to be of disastrous proportions, suffered by inshore fishermen of the province in last weekend's storm?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, from, among others, the Hon. Dan MacDonald.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for New Westminster of the Minister of National Revenue. The minister stated there were not plans for another sufferance in Vancouver. Yet his department just one week ago told Thomas Lindsay and Sons to prepare plans. Why would this department tell them to prepare plans for a sufferance warehouse if there are no plans for another warehouse?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, there was no such order given to any firm. That company has apparently asked for the opportunity to submit plans and we are quite prepared to look at plans from any firm.
June 20, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, then the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and then call orders of the day.


John Douglas Reynolds: If there are no plans by the government for a sufferance warehouse, why has the government asked this company to undertake the expenditure of thousands of dollars to prepare plans?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is not aware that the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, responds to suggestions for companies to provide such services to the public. It does not go out after these firms and any firm is entitled to make such submissions, if it wishes. I think at some time in the near future it may well be justified to have another truck sufferance warehouse-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.
Income Tax Act (No. 2)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously that is not a point of order. Orders of the day.


Mr. Beattie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my question is of such prime importance that I wonder whether Your Honour woujd allow the Minister of Labour to make a statement today regarding the walkout of Air Canada employees at Toronto this morning, which has spread now to Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised an alleged point of order to ask a question of the minister. Of course, the Chair is in the hands of the House, if members want to revert to motions and have a debate at this time on the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Some members seem to be suggesting that I should call orders of the day and proceed with the day's business, the first order being the taking of a division pursuant to special order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the upcoming increase on September 1 of 6 per cent in the so-called agreed charge freight rates, which will have no other result than that of further hampering economic development in northern Ontario and further increasing the profits of the CNR, will the minister instruct the CNR to exclude northern Ontario from such an increase?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation. Orders of the day.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe I speak on behalf of all hon. members in congratulating the Sergeant-at-Arms on his quick action and doing a good job on behalf of all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On two occasions last week the hon. member for Hastings and I raised the issue with the Minister of Transport of the reference of the annual reports of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. On June 15 the minister replied, in answer to the hon. member for Hastings, by saying that the matter would be resolved some time next week. Previously, on June 13, the minister had replied to the effect that the matter was being discussed with his colleagues. I wonder if the minister would now ask for unanimous consent to have these reports referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-192, to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made on Monday, June 18, 1973, the House will now proceed to take the deferred division on the motion now before the House. Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton), which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 32)
Alexander
Aiken brack
Allmand
Andras
Arrol
Baker
Baldwin
Balfour
Basford
++YEAS
Messrs:
Bawden Beattie (Hamilton Mountain) Beaudoin Bechard Begin (Miss) BeU
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Campbell

June 20, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
Messrs:
Caouertte	Homer	Muir(Charlevoix)	(Battleford-	MunroCaouette	Kindersley)	(Esquimalt-(T&niscamingue)	Howie	Saanich)Caron	Hurlburt	MunroChretien	Hymrnen	(Hamilton EasClark	Isabelle	Neil(Rocky Mountain)	Jamieson	(Moose Jaw)Clarke	Jarvis	Nowlan(Vancouver	Jelinek	OberleQuadra)	Jerome	OlivierClermont	Kempling	O'SullivanCoates	Knowles	OuelletComtois	(Norfolk-	PaproskiCorbin	Haldimand)	PattersonCorriveau	Korchinski	PelletierCossitt	Kuntz	(Hochelaga)Cdtd	Lachance	PelletierCrouse	Lajoie	(Sherbrooke)Cullen	Lalonde	PennerCyr	Lambert	PortelanceDanforth	(Bellechasse)	PoulinDanson	Lambert	Prud'hommeDarling	(Edmonton West)	ReidDavis	Lang	ReynoldsDe Bane	Langlois	RichardsonDemers	Laniel	RocheDick	Laprise	RompkeyDionne	La Salle	RooneyDrury	Latulippe	RoyDub6	Lawrence	(Timmins)Dupont	Leblanc	RoyDupras	(Laurier)	(Laval)Duquet	LeBlanc	RynardEpp	(Westmorland-	Sauv6 (Mrs.)Ethier	Kent)	SchellenbergerFairweather	Lefebvre	ScottFleming	Lessard	SharpForre stall	LTieureux	SmithFortin	Loiselle	(Saint-Jean)Fox	MacDonald	StackhouseFrank	(Cardigan)	StanburyFraser	MacDonald (Miss)	StanfieldGauthier	(Kingston and	Stevens(Roberval)	the Islands)	StewartGauthier	MacEachen	(Marquette)(Ottawa East)	MacGuigan	StewartGendron	Maclnnis	(Okanagan-Gillespie	(Cape Breton-	Kootenay)Gillies	East Richmond)	StewartGoyer	Mackasey	(Cochrane)Grafftey	MacKay	StolleryGray	MacLean	TaylorGuay	Macquarrie	Thomas(St. Boniface)	Madill	(Maison-Guay (L6vis)	Marceau	neuve-iRosem(Guilbault	Marchand	ThomasHaidasz	(Lange lier)	(Moncton)Hales	Marchand	TowersHaliburton	(Kamloops-	TrudeauHamilton	Cariboo)	Trudel(Swift Current-	Masniuk	TurnerMaple Creek)	Matte	(Ottawa-Hargrave	Mazankowski	Carleton)Hellyer	McCleave	WagnerHerbert	McKenzie	WalkerHigson	McKinley	WatsonHollands	McKinnon	WhelanHolmes	McRae	WhicherHopkins	Mitges	WhittakerHomer	Morgan	Wise(Crowfoot)	Morin (Mrs.)	Woolliams-194.Barnett	NAYS Messrs: Howard	NelsonBenjamin	Knight	NystromBlackburn	Knowles	OlaussenBrewin	(Winnipeg	OrlikowBroadbent	North Centre)	PetersDouglas	Leggatt	RodriguezFirth	Lewis	RoseGilbert	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	RowlandGleave	(Vancouver	SaltsmanGrier	Kingsway)	Symes.-30.Harding	Mather	Hamey	Neale	(Vancouver East)	
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the Chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-192, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2).


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the committee that it rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The President of the Privy Council suggests that the committee rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the suggestion of the minister?


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, having in mind the fact that we have waited a year and some months, we might as well report progress now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we do not mind rising, but we do not see any need to sit again on this bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I take it the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council is accepted. Therefore, I do now leave the Chair.
Progress reported.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Robert Knight 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.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 20, 1973


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Robert Knight Andras: For a minute, Mr. Speaker, I thought the appeal of the bill was such that I would be able to spare the members of the House my oratory for the next few minutes, but I guess that is not the case.
In opening the debate on Bill C-197 I should like to put it in context by saying a few words about our more fundamental approach to a new immigration policy for Canada. The government has been working for some time toward a thorough revision of Canada's immigration laws. While the present Immigration Act dates back to 1952, its roots really are in legislation shaped by the conditions and problems existing in this country at the turn of the century. Since then, in the intervening years, developments, as we all know, have revolutionized transportation, lowered economic barriers to migration and other forms of travel which have certainly produced spectacular growth in international tourism and have radically changed the society that immigrants now find on their arrival in Canada.
A great deal has been done toward the preparation of a new immigration policy, one we hope will be in the best interests of Canada's social, cultural and economic wellbeing, one that will respect the dignity of people and provide for their individual growth in this country, one that will continue to recognize the interdependence of nations and peoples of the world. However, I have come to the conclusion that even more work is needed to formulate the basic legislation so as to be more relevant to the needs of Canada in the 1970s and beyond, characterized as this country is by the development of new values, new attitudes in tune with the very rapid social, economic and technological changes that we have been experiencing here. Therefore, more thought, more discussion, both within government and among Canadians generally, I believe is necessary before we are ready to put the final touches on new immigration legislation. The government is continuing its review of the whole field of immigration policy with an eye to the needs of the Canada of at least a decade from now as well as the Canada of today. Proposals based on its review will be written into a policy paper for submission to parliament and the Canadian people as a springboard, I hope, for public examination and debate that should precede the drafting of a new act.
We all know that there are immediate problems too pressing to wait for these more profound policy considerations. One of these problems in particular has concerned me deeply since I assumed responsibility for my present portfolio, and I know many members of the House feel the same way. It is a matter that has brought anxiety and sometimes hardship into the lives of many people who are now living in Canada. Some of these people may have been here for several years and daily face the fear that a tap on the shoulder will signal detection of their lack of legal right to residence in Canada, and perhaps deportation. Others may have arrived in Canada before it became necessary to revoke the right to apply from within this country for immigrant status, but they failed, or were unable for any one of a number of reasons, to apply in time. Still others may have been on their way here or have
Immigration Appeal Board Act made arrangements for the trip when the revocation of regulation 34 was announced on November 3.
I should like to say clearly that I do not condone violation of the law. The right to apply in this country for immigrant status was legally open solely to people who came here genuinely intending only to visit but who changed their minds after their arrival. I cannot bring myself to believe that people who sold their houses and possessions and in other ways burnt their bridges in their home countries were being completely frank when they said on arrival at a Canadian port of entry that they were here only for a visit.
But that being said, Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that we are dealing with human beings. Many of them perhaps were the unfortunate victims of unscrupulous, selfstyled immigration counsellors, whom we know exist, who for a fee may have convinced them that they were doing no wrong in short-circuiting Canadian immigration law. Others who knowingly violated the law in the way they entered Canada and remained here nevertheless have put down their roots, established families and settled into productive work.
I am happy that the introduction of this bill, which if it passes will have enabled us to put the future appeal process on a practical, fair and workable footing, also makes it possible for us to turn back and offer these people of whom I am speaking an opportunity to get their life in Canada off to a new and legal start. I think hon. members will understand that this should not have been done-in fact, I do not think could have been done-before the introduction of legislation to restore order to the appeal system.
The legislation has two key policy objectives: firstly, to provide an opportunity for the adjustment of the status of most persons who have lived in this country since November 30 without a legal claim to residence; secondly, to restore order to the appeal process and eliminate the heavy backlog that threatens to delay for many years the disposition of cases now awaiting hearing by the appeal board. I will discuss the opportunity for adjustment of status in greater detail later, Mr. Speaker, but there are some key points I would like to emphasize now.
This opportunity for adjustment of status is not limited to those who entered Canada legally or have a legal right to be here now. Whether a person entered Canada legally or not, whether he or she remained here longer than they had a right to, is not going to be a factor. These people will not be prosecuted for that. But, Mr. Speaker, this opportunity is not open-ended. It begins on the day this bill comes into force and it ends 60 days later. It is, however, a wide open invitation to those who have lived in Canada continuously since November 30 to come forward now and apply for adjustment of their status. But, Mr. Speaker, it is also the last chance. Any who register with an immigration officer during the allotted 60 days will have the right to apply for permanent residence and, further, if their application is turned down, they will have the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. But, any who do not come forward within that time will lose any right to application for permanent residence from within Canada

June 20, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act
and, in almost all cases, will lose the appeal rights they might have had otherwise.
The opportunity for adjustment of status is not open to persons who are in this country now on a minister's permit, who are here as students under contractual relations with their home country, or seasonal workers from abroad who came here under agreement to return. Nor is it open to those persons who fall into the prohibited classes under the Immigration Act, I believe Section 5, for reasons other than violation of immigration legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, in plain language, the choice facing all those eligible to apply for adjustment of status is this: Either to come forward within the 60 days allotted with immunity from prosecution, or to remain underground for the rest of their lives in Canada running the constant risk of detection and deportation.
The second problem we face is the immense backlog that has jammed the operations of the Immigration Appeal Board and seriously undermined the basic principle of our immigration policy. The dimensions of this backlog I think demonstrate its urgency. The backlog which was 12,700 on January 1 of this year had reached 17,472 in five months, at the end of May, or almost 1,000 a month. While on the other hand, the board's capacity for hearing appeals is established at about the rate of 100 a month. This backlog is the result of misuse of what I consider to have been decent and generous legislation and regulations brought in by this parliament in 1967. I might say that while we are anxious to move quickly with this legislation so the appeal process may be brought up to date as soon as possible, I for one, and I think others share this view, really take no great satisfaction in the need for emergency action to solve problems caused by what might have been too much faith in human honesty.
Finally, I want to emphasize that these provisions do not signal any basic shift in Canadian immigration policy. They are just measures necessary to put our house in order. This bill responds to the problem confronting the appeal process with three operational goals; first to eliminate the backlog of appeals against deportation orders now confronting the Immigration Appeal Board; second, to enable the appeal board within a reasonable time to hear appeals on a prompt basis as they come up, in other words to stay current once caught up; and finally, to make the appeal system more realistic and equitable through the elimination of existing loopholes
I think perhaps to see the need for this measure in perspective we must look back first to two open-handed and generous changes in the Canadian immigration law and regulations made back in 1967. At that time, the Immigration Appeal Board Act of that year established an independent appeal body and gave it the authority to make final and binding decisions on actual deportation. It vested the board with broad discretionary powers, authorizing it in fact to allow a person deported to remain in Canada when there were strong prospects of punishment for activities of a political character in his or her country of citizenship, or when there were humanitarian considerations deserving special thought. I want to assure hon. members, as they will see when they examine the bill, that those discretionary powers will remain with the board after this legislation comes into force. Also the right of a

Canadian citizen to appeal the refusal of an application made on behalf of a sponsored relative abroad for an immigrant visa will remain.
The 1967 legislation also gave anyone ordered deported the right to appeal that order to the board, no matter what his or her status under the immigration act. This was a universal right of appeal.
The size of the appeal board established by that act was limited to nine members. That number was based on previous experience in appeal procedures, with certain latitude allowed to take care of what then was anticipated to be the normal expansion of the board's activities. I think in light of our present problems it is important to recall that the debates which took place in this House at that time reflected a preoccupation mainly with problems of immigrants and, in particular, those of refugees. Very little attention was given to the question of deportation of either visitors or illegal entrants. In contrast, however, in practice, appeals by visitors and by illegal entrants make up some 90 per cent of the load of 1,000 appeals a month which is swamping the appeal process and creating a huge backlog of appeal board problems. That too is an unforeseen consequence of what seemed a desirable change in immigration regulations six years ago.
That change, perhaps naive in light of experience, and certainly unprecedented anywhere in the world, made it possible for visitors to apply for landed immigrant status from within Canada. If they could comply with the immigration regulations, including the selection criteria, the point system, they would then be granted the privilege of permanent residence without having to go to the trouble and expense of returning to their own country for a visa. Certainly, I think this seemed sensible. Certainly, it was intended and expected to apply and be used only by a handful of persons who came here genuinely planning to return home after their visit, but while in Canada decided they liked our country and wanted to stay.
It was not intended, nor was it expected, to serve as a large-scale alternative to the regular procedure in which the applicant applies in his own country for an immigration visa and remains there until the decision as to whether he or she meets the criteria is made. These criteria, I might interject here, are designed as a gauge of the individual's prospect of a successful adjustment to life here in Canada. It was not meant-and I stress this because I think there has been a great deal of confusion about this matter-to provide a foot in the door for people who came here fully intending to remain permanently. Any person who came to this country claiming to be a visitor but intending all along to stay would enter Canada in direct violation of the immigration law, because the right to apply here for immigrant status could be exercised legally only by people who came to Canada as genuine visitors.
What happened in practice turned out to be rather radically different from what had been expected and intended. Thousands of people began arriving in Canada in the guise of visitors but with the full intention obviously of staying here. But even that by itself-the right of application in Canada-would not have given persons who
June 20, 1973

chose this route a headstart over those who applied abroad because either way the applicant would face the same selection criteria. An applicant who was turned down here probably would have been rejected abroad and vice versa. But when combined with the universal right of appeal available to them, the would-be immigrants who came to Canada to apply gained an enormous advantage over those who followed the normal practice and procedure of applying abroad, because if their application for landed status was turned down they would stay in this country illegally, in effect forcing a deportation order on themselves and thus gaining the right to a hearing by the Immigration Appeal Board. In this way, they gained access to the discretionary powers of the board to permit them to stay in Canada on compassionate or humanitarian grounds, even although, in many cases, the legality of the deportation order or the facts upon which it was based were not even challenged by the board.
But, more important, as a mounting backlog of appeals led to long delays in board hearings, appellants became entrenched in this country through the very process of living here and trying to support themselves. In these circumstances, it became more and more difficult for the Appeal Board to reject their appeal. As the backlog of appeals swelled, the time delay increased dramatically. On the average, a person who appealed a deportation order last week could have counted on waiting many years for a decision if we were not to change the legislation. This is obviously unfair in that it clogs the system so that the legitimate immigrant appellant is forced to wait for years under the shadow of a deportation order. It is equally unfair to those applicants who played by the rules, waiting in their own country for a ruling on their application for an immigrant visa. And it makes a mockery of the policy under which this government, as authorized by Parliament, regulates the flow of immigration by applying criteria based on the ability of the applicant to settle successfully in Canada.
As I have mentioned, some 90 per cent of the persons whose appeals are now awaiting hearing by the Appeal Board, and whose numbers have in effect made the appeal process unworkable, are either visitors or illegal entrants.
Since last June, the government has been attempting to check the growth of this problem by a series of three administrative measures. The first, announced last June 23, was a review of a backlog of cases awaiting an immigration inquiry. Such an inquiry, conducted by an officer of my department, is the stage at which a deportation order is issued if warranted. Since a large proportion of the persons whose cases were heard had shown, while awaiting the inquiry, that their prospects of adapting to life in Canada were better than had been expected, a majority received favourable decisions. Shortly after this step was taken, and probably in anticipation of tighter controls in future, because the word spreads very quickly around the world about these measures, there was a tremendous surge in the flow of self-styled visitors into Canada. I think the crisis was reached last October when as many as 4,500 people in this category arrived at Toronto international airport alone in a single weekend. At the same time, the number of applications in Canada for immigrant status began to escalate dramatically. The situation was clearly becoming unmanageable.
Immigration Appeal Board Act
As a second step, the government announced last November 3 the revocation of section 34 of the immigration regulations which had permitted application within Canada for immigrant status. The third step was the introduction on January 1 of this year of regulations requiring registration of visitors staying in Canada for more than three months, and employment visas for visitors wishing to take jobs, because it had been evident for some time that control over the length of stay and the employment activities of visitors to Canada was inadequate, particularly in the light of dramatic increases in their numbers, from slightly more than 28 million in 1955 to almost 39 million in 1971.
Briefly, the new regulations require that persons who are not Canadians or landed immigrants, and who wish to stay in Canada for more than 90 days, must register with an immigration officer. Furthermore, such persons, no matter how long they intend to stay, must obtain an employment visa if they wish to work. But all these initiatives having been taken, the fundamental problem inherent in the appeal system remains. As I mentioned earlier, the backlog of people awaiting a hearing by the Appeal Board was 17,472 at the end of May. I might say that but for those special administrative measures taken last year there might have been another 12,000 cases awaiting the board. Taking into account the existing capacity of the board, and the rate at which it is receiving new appeals, it is distinctly possible that by the end of this year, unless the law is amended, the backlog could reach between 25,000 and 30,000. That would mean, very simply, that many persons who appealed a deportation order could count on a 20-year stay in Canada while awaiting the outcome. Bearing in mind that this possibility would be open to every person from abroad who set foot in Canada, such a situation could only be described as a pure farce. Certainly Canada's selection policy for the orderly acceptance of immigrants, and the integrity of the appeal system would be totally undermined.
So obviously, Mr. Speaker, the law must be changed. An apparent solution to the backlog might be to simply increase the size of the board to match the workload of appeals. But, just to keep abreast of its workload, now averaging about 1,000 appeals a month, the board would have to be enlarged to 75 members. The effect of that for comparison would mean that we would have to have permanently a board which was larger than the combined strength of the Supreme Court and the federal court put together. But beyond the size of the board, if the universal right of appeal to the board remains unchanged, a single individual could take up the time of the board with several appeals in succession if, after being deported, he managed to slip back into the country.
May I remind you that there are 39 million visitors crossing our border and 78 million border crossings every year. The fellow, once deported, would automatically gain the right to another hearing by the appeal board. Clearly, what is required is not merely an expansion of the board but an adjustment of the present procedures open to the board and, above all, an adjustment of the categories of persons who are going to have access to it. I would remind hon. members, with regard to the question of access, that
4952

June 20, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act any person ordered deported from Canada has already had access, first, to an examination officer, and then, to a special inquiry officer of my department before there is any question of an appeal.
I really believe that in the light of the experience which has been gained in the five years of the operation of the Immigration Appeal Board Act we must ask ourselves if every person, by the mere act of setting foot on Canadian soil, should gain access to the board and from it access to the federal and Supreme Courts. The bill before you suggests that he or she should not. It provides that the right of appeal from a deportation order should be confined to those persons to whom Canada has some pre-established legal or moral obligation, not one that is thrust upon it by the unidentified or unknown entry into this country of a person from abroad. I think that the comments, if I interpret them correctly, from all hon. members of all parties in the House who, when we discussed these matters, particularly on May 17, in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, lead me to believe that members from all sides agree that this change is necessary.
I know there are some who would say that we should have acted two or three years ago, and certainly I will say that with the benefit of hindsight. First, it is easy to say and, second, it is hard to dispute. But I think many of us felt that the act and the regulations of 1967 had been a noble experiment, liberal with a small '1', and certainly represented the consensus of all groups in the House at that time. I think perhaps it was typical of the Canadian concern for people of other lands which has led this country, for example, into so many peacekeeping missions, some of them under conditions which more coldly calculating people might have rejected out of hand.
Even with the problems we face, if we had to make a mistake, it was better to err on the side of preserving the universal right of appeal too long than to abandon it or restrict it before we have conclusive evidence that this action is necessary. Surely, it was not too unreasonable to hope that the revocation of the right to apply in this country for immigrant status might staunch the flow of people who came here calling themselves visitors but who were in fact determined to stay. We tried that, and only when that step had been taken and the flow still continued, could we be sure that the only solution, in addition to enlarging the capacity of the board, was to put the right of appeal in a more realistic framework.
The provisions of the bill before us fall into three distinct categories. The first provides an opportunity during a period of 60 days from the proclamation of this bill for persons who have been in Canada continuously since November 30 to apply for an adjustment of their status. The second is a series of permanent amendments to prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the Immigration Appeal Board now finds itself, and the third is a group of temporary amendments to deal with the backlog. I have mentioned already the adjustment of status program, and I will be returning to it in more detail in a minute, but I do want, in listing the other main provisions of the bill, to stress that the adjustment of status program is part of a package made justifiable and possible by the permanent and temporary amendments that bear directly on the appeal process for the future.

The main permanent amendments, first, provide for the Governor in Council to appoint up to seven temporary Immigration Appeal Board members for terms of up to two years. They also modify the existing appeal rights by confining the future appeal rights to persons who have been issued an immigrant or non-immigrant visa abroad and who are ordered deported for any reason while seeking admission at a port of entry at that precise moment in time. It will also provide the right of appeal to landed immigrants and to persons who come forward under the adjustment opportunity program and to persons, finally, who have a substantial claim to refugee status or to Canadian citizenship. In determining whether a person has substantial grounds for consideration as a refugee, the board will be guided by the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees to which Canada has been a signatory since 1967. Finally, the main permanent amendments introduce a procedure for disposing quickly of claims based on what the appeal board determines are unsubstantiated grounds to claim refugee status or Canadian citizenship.
The main temporary amendments to the bill, first, provide for the Governor in Council to appoint such additional temporary members as may be necessary to enable the appeal board to eliminate the backlog at the earliest possible time. It also enables appeals to be determined for this period by single members of the appeal board instead of a panel of three as at present and only for the period pending the elimination of the backlog. Those temporary amendments also guarantee appeal rights to visitors, legal entrants, and other persons who are ordered deported after the bill comes into force if their further examination has been ordered before the first reading of the bill which took place last Monday. I would like to stress the point that any person, no matter what his status under the immigration law, who has been reported for special inquiry-which, as you know, could lead to a deportation order-or who was awaiting a hearing by the appeal board on the day this bill was given first reading will keep the right of appeal, so that that right of appeal for those people is not withdrawn retroactively.
I emphasize that during the period when the backlog is being cleared the board has the power to hear appeals filed by landed immigrants or in complex cases, by three member panels. It is reasonable to assume that, generally speaking, it is the routine cases that will be heard and dealt with by single members of the board. Moreover, a single member will have the right to refer a case to a panel of three if he is concerned about the complications that have arisen.
At the risk of repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am gratified that it is now possible to announce this program, offering an opportunity for the people who have lived in this country prior to November 30 to apply for adjustment of their status. It is an announcement that I have long been anxious to make. The right to apply in Canada for immigrant status was a noble experiment that proved unworkable, and has had to be laid to rest, but I think decency demands that it be done fairly.
This program which accommodates most people caught by the November 3 announcement last year and have
June 20, 1973

remained in Canada since then, as well as those people who have lived here without legal status for years, has only become possible now as part of this change which protects the future of the appeal system. I want to stress that applications made for immigrant status by these people will be judged in the light of such criteria as length of residence in this country, family relationships, financial stability, employment record and, as well, compelling grounds for compassionate consideration will be taken into account. I also want to stress, for those few whose applications are rejected, that they will have the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board which, as I have already mentioned, has and retains the discretionary power to set aside a deportation order on grounds of compassionate consideration or unusual hardship.
As we see it now, we would expect that the greater majority of those who come forward to qualify for landed status at the examination stage will be successful. But to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, I want to spell out as clearly as I can that this program is not open to persons classed as prohibited by the Immigration Act on grounds other than their status under the Immigration Act itself. Convicted criminals, unless of course they are entitled under the act to be recognized as rehabilitated, are not eligible. Persons already reported for special inquiry or ordered deported and awaiting the disposition of their appeal here in Canada prior to November 30 and who have remained here since that date, will have their cases reviewed to determine their admissibility under the landing criteria established in the adjustment program.
I hope hon. members on both sides of the House will join me in emphasizing this throughout the land, because I do not think it can be over-emphasized-that is, the importance of applying within the 60 days. The clock starts ticking on the day this bill is proclaimed and the opportunity runs out, permanently, 60 days later. This program is being introduced in the interest of fairness, and I think that this advance notice that it will last for 60 days only, is fair warning.
We expect and we certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that if and when this legislation is adopted it should then be possible to clear the backlog within a reasonable period of time. I wish I could be more precise about how long that will be, but it really is impossible to forecast because we do not know at this moment, and we do not have any way of predicting, how many appeals will be added to the present backlog as a result of this adjustment process. The main point I want to make is that I believe the legislation provides the flexibility necessary to deal with the present situation and to ensure that the appeal board is able to keep its work up to date once the backlog has been cleared. Members will note that the act permits the government to revoke the temporary provision when the overload of the appeal system has been corrected.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in 1967, parliament enacted the Immigration Appeal Board Act setting up an untried and very generous appeal system. It is regrettable, but experience has shown that it was open to misuse and the purposes of the bill before the House today is to stop that misuse while remaining true to the original spirit of the act. I think this bill does remain consistent with parliament's original intent which was expressed as a consensus
Immigration Appeal Board Act of all groups in this House at this time. It retains the board as an independent appeal body, preserving its authority to make final, binding decisions and at the same time it recognizes that everyone who has a reasonable claim to consideration should retain their right to appeal.
Having been urged by members on both sides to bring this legislation forward quickly, having heard members opposite as well as in my own party suggest in committee many of the changes now included in this bill, I am extremely hopeful that parliament will see fit to deal with these questions before it rises for the summer recess.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North has a question.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if there will be any health examination of these people who are coming forward, those of whom we have lost sight of as well as others. I say this in view of the fact that tropical diseases are not mentioned. I think it is a caution that should be thrown in because many people are here without the necessary tests, and we have no way of knowing whether they are carrying diseases or are sick.


Robert Knight Andras: In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the standard examinations will be necessary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I take great delight in participating in this debate. I do not necessarily want to stand here and thank the minister for bringing in this bill because I think we have to condemn the attitude of this government. I have to hold back a bit in respect of the minister as he has only had the portfolio for five or six months. In all fairness, I think he has attempted to do what was necessary as quickly as he could, keeping in mind that the government House leader did not give this legislation the same priority as he does.
The attitude of this and prior governments since 1967 has been scandalous. There has been a callous disregard of the rights of the individual and a disregard of human dignity. The government has shown a lack of compassion and has acted in the most inhumane way; I want to put that on the record. When I look at the horrendous situation which has developed since 1969 I can arrive at no other conclusion.
We on this side of the House, and I would respectfully suggest maybe even members from both sides of the House, have continually pressed the government and the government House leader for action on this problem. The minister was prepared to introduce this bill on Monday and we were supposed to conclude our examination of it overnight. We did not know what was to be in the bill. We thought perhaps more members would be added to the board, that perhaps one member might sit on an appeal, and that the board might travel around the country more. As we did not know what was to be in it, we did not have the opportunity of becoming involved in a consideration of this bill until Monday afternoon, when we heard that it was to be debated on Wednesday.
4954

June 20, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act
Mr. Speaker, I want to register my concern about that sort of approach, and it is a concern that relates not only to this particular bill but to other bills on the order paper as well. I hear the government wants the family allowances bill, which will increase family allowances to $20 per child, to go through. It wants the capital punishment bill to go through quickly. It wants the tax bills to go through and it wants this bill to pass. There are only so many days in the week and there is only so much time left before we are legitimately entitled to go home. So, I think it is scandalous that the government did not bring in this legislation a long time ago, but waited until June 19 or 20, as the case may be.


Mr. Corbin:: What about the time taken up with opposition days?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is a smart aleck over there, on the government side.


Eymard G. Corbin: How many opposition days have been called?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the hon. member wants to become involved in this debate, he should stand up.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member in the back row should remain seated. I think he should stand up and make his remark, so that it can be included in the record.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I will make the same remarks standing up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. The hon. member for Hamilton West has the floor.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When a smart aleck interjects and asks about the number of opposition days which have been called, I say, why does he not learn the rules and learn what this game is all about? He has been here since 1968, I think, but apparently he does not know what it is all about.


Eymard G. Corbin: I am only wondering why the hon. member does not make sense.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why don't you go back to sleep and let me make my speech?


Eymard G. Corbin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that the member for Madawaska-Victoria never sleeps in the House, notwithstanding what the hon. member suggests.


An hon. Member:: Was the hon. member under an anaesthetic?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the House is allowing the high degree of humidity outside to affect the proceedings inside the chamber. I suggest that we return

to matters relating more directly with the immigration appeal board bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We do not mind a little confrontation, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member should realize that if he cannot stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair. There have been several exchanges between hon. members, and I think most members of the House would now prefer to proceed with the immigration appeal board bill rather than with extraneous issues. I ask that the exchange be considered as concluded, that the blows be considered to have fallen with equal force on either side and that the hon. member for Hamilton West be allowed to continue his speech.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-197 attempts to bring order out of an awful mess. Let me summarize what the minister has said. First, he is attempting to eliminate the backlog of 18,000 cases waiting to be heard by the board. If we assume that these appeals have been registered at the rate of 1,000 per month, and remember that there were 17,450 pending on June 1st, we can generalize by saying that about 18,000 are now pending. I will have more to say about this. I will also say something about the additions to membership of the board. Apparently, there is to be temporary membership. Up to seven members can be appointed and the governor in council can appoint such numbers temporarily to the board. They can deal with the backlog of cases.
Next, I think the minister said something about modifying the appeal system in future. It seems to me that between 1967 and the present the government managed to create an awful mess by its treatment of visitors. Those people were invited to come here and had every right to come here, if they followed the proper channels. They were entitled to apply for permission to stay here and, if refused, were entitled to utilize existing appeal procedures. No matter what the minister may say, no matter how he tries to slice that cake, those people had every right to do what they did. I point out that my party said those provisions were discriminatory in that they gave an edge to those who came here and applied for landed status, as opposed to those who waited at home and attempted to apply from their home lands. We further pointed out the bureaucratic nightmare which would be created by the existing conditions. We are to modify the appeal system in future. Those who hold immigrant visas, or visas issued overseas, will have the right to a full appeal. This right will apply as well to landed immigrants, and to those entitled to claim refugee status, or Canadian citizenship. This is the proper approach. We cannot quarrel with it and we intend to co-operate with the government, subject to our right to look at this bill more thoroughly and bring in amendments.
Let me now mention something that we, in the Progressive Conservative Party raised last year when my friends to my left pointed the finger of disdain at us. I am referring to what happened on or around January 16,
June 20, 1973

when the minister indicated what would happen as of November 3, that awful day in Canada on which section 34 of the act was to be removed. That brought frustration into the lives of all those who were trying to stay in Canada as a result of open visitor visas. We said that approach was wrong. We said you cannot possibly do that. We said, let us accept our losses.
But the government introduced a retroactive clause. Everybody who was on the boat, on the plane or in the country and who had not by a specific time, I think it was two o'clock of that day, complied with the regulations, was to be shafted by this government. When we pointed this out, some people said, "What is the member for Hamilton West trying to do? What is the Leader of the Opposition trying to do?" Because we questioned this method of handling the matter people asked, "Are you flip-flopping in your position?" I said, "no, this is no flip-flop. We just want to register our concern over what has happened." It seems, when we make any statement, it takes the government a little while to catch on, and in the end it steals our ideas. It stole this idea, and I do not mean that disrespectfully. I see the minister sitting there and smiling.


Robert Knight Andras: That was a good point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government stole the idea we had raised and said, "We will not continue with that policy any longer." It saw the light. The minister, and I do not want to quote him out of context, indicated that people who were already in Canada and who wanted to regularize their immigration status could do so. He removed the retroactive part of the edict that was proclaimed as being effective from November 3. According to what I have read, the minister said that most people who came forward would qualify for landed immigrant status if they had no criminal record. I read that somewhere. I am not arguing about this, because it makes sense. However, when you go into other aspects involving the irregularity of immigrant status, it is apparent that the minister did say this, because he went on to speak about what could happen to people who came forward within 60 days of the proclamation of this bill, which we hope will be in one heck of a hurry, as we can see the urgency. The minister also said he would look at the length of residence in Canada, at the family relationship and at the employment record.
The minister has said the board will consider compelling, compassionate circumstances. I plead with the people who have gone underground to come out and test the credibility and sincerity of the minister. At this moment, I am all for the minister. We have had our disagreements, but I want this mess cleared up which this and previous governments have created. The only way we can do that is if the people do not remain hidden. The minister referred to the houses in which these people live, the fact they are married and their children are attending school. Although these people have made a significant impact on the community, they have always had the fear of being apprehended. Now is the time for them to declare their position because this is their last chance.
I wonder if the minister is going to be fair. Is he prepared to spend money to advertise the views of this
Immigration Appeal Board Act government on the four or five criteria which I indicated and inform those who come forward they will not be prosecuted because of the way they entered Canada or the length of time they have remained? I wonder if he is prepared to advertise in the same way he did on January 1, which must have cost thousands of dollars, telling people to register and advising them of the fact they needed work permits. I do not see the minister looking or listening, but I know he listens well.
When we talk about spending money, and I have seen this government spend money in a ridiculous way, I think this would be a good approach to take, namely telling these people that they will not be prosecuted. I suggest a full page advertisement telling these people they will not be prosecuted because of the way they entered this country. Set out the criteria under which the minister is attempting to show mercy. In this way, a few will probably come out. I hope they do come out. If there is no incentive, how are we going to get these people out? Will they come out just because the minister asks them? There have been many complaints about over-zealous immigration officers arresting people in Toronto and in other areas. We must be very careful and show sincerity in this regard. Advertise in the papers so that these people will be aware of the attitude of this government.
How many of these cases are there? The minister, in all fairness, says he does not know. I have heard there are between 50,000 and 200,000 such cases in Canada. The minister cannot tell me the figure, but I would certainly like to know. If there are as many as I have heard, our problem is enormous. I want them to come out and advertising is one way of getting them to come out.
What if a person misinterprets what is now happening? The readjustment status provisions will not come into effect until this bill has been given royal assent. Supposing a person out of ignorance, and I know that is no excuse, comes out at this time? Will the minister have some sympathy for him? The minister is shaking his head in the affirmative.


Robert Knight Andras: Nodding.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, nodding. He will not say that because the law has not yet been passed, such a person will not come under the umbrella provisions of this law. That is very interesting. I thank the minister for his answer.
What about students? I was temporarily distracted when the minister referred to students. I hope something can be done for them. The minister said everyone will have to register within 60 days of the proclamation of the act. What about the students who do not have any financial commitments back home, those who are here on their own? Will they just have to register and hold back until after their graduation or do they have to register and then complete the procedure until landed immigrant status is conferred upon them? I do not want the minister to answer now. I throw out the question so the minister will know I am concerned about it. I hope the minister is right. I do not like to use the word "amnesty". I will not use it because it is not fair when there is nothing like it in this bill. However, in order to attract these people from underground, we may have to get into that area. The only way

June 20, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act we can get them out is by making it attractive for them to do so. First, we should start with advertising.
It appears at long last that the government realizes there is a problem related to its immigration policies as well as the Immigration Appeal Board Act. For some time the government has been dealing in statistics, not realizing that this approach ignored the fact that people were involved. People, rightly or wrongly, believed, and still do, that Canada is a land of golden opportunity, a land which welcomes all regardless of their race, creed, colour, sex or national origin as long as they are prepared to come in freedom, be respectful of our laws and are determined to make a significant contribution to Canada's destiny. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, what we have witnessed in the past six years, particularly in the past three years, has been an atmosphere of error, procrastination, inaction and indecision.
There can be no doubt about the government's lack of interest in the area of immigration. This is particularly true when it is noted that 10 different ministers have been involved with immigration in about 11 years, and about five of them since the 1967 change which was initiated by the now present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) permitted visitors to seek landed immigrant status while here. This undoubtedly precipitated the crisis which we face today.
As far back as 1968, the chairman of the appeal board was crying in despair, pleading with the government to enlarge the panel to deal with a situation the like of which has not been seen in any industrially developed country. We have watched with concern the appeal backlog which has increased yearly from 200 on January 1, 1969 to 1,700 on January 1, 1970, 4,750 on January 1, 1971; 8,081 on January 1, 1972; 11,875 on January 1, 1973 and 17,472 on June 1, 1973. With appeals being filed at the rate of 1,000 a month, this would have placed us in the position of having some 25,000 cases filed with the Immigration Appeal Board. This would mean that, without government intervention, many persons would have had to wait up to 20 years before their appeals would be heard by the board. Such a situation would not only be chaotic, but grossly unfair to the would-be immigrant who, with every legal right, took advantage of our immigration policies.
Such a mess has made it extremely difficult for the department to process applications and, more important, to catch the few who would possibly be threats to Canada and its way of life. What a peculiar situation. However, with all of its peculiarities, I have no hesitation in stating that the past policies in this regard will be noted as a shameful blot on Canada's history. The attitude of the government, exhibited by a succession of immigration ministers, can only be looked upon as one lacking in compassion and inhumane. In all fairness, I must tread lightly with the present minister because he has not been around very long. I want to blast everybody else who has been around and I am not feeling too kindly toward this minister at this particular time. Perhaps he did not have enough "push" with the government House leader, who every day makes up a new list of priorities. Yet one of the most important priorities has to do with the dignity of man and human lives. But the government, through its House leader, kept shafting the poor Minister of Manpow-

er and Immigration until they found we were almost ready to go home; then they realized there was just about time to push this measure through. It is shameful.
What we have seen has been a court of record which, through the ineptness of this government and others before it, has become involved in one of the most colossal messes and breakdowns in which any court has been involved at any time. No court of record of which I am aware, even one of the worst they have in the southern United States-I don't want to get too deeply into that- has ever experienced or ever will experience a backlog of almost 18,000 cases. It is utterly ridiculous. The government realized the mess it was in, and in order to placate the electorate brought in the infamous regulation under date of November 3, 1972 to try to stem the tide. Like many other things done by the government, it did not prove successful.
How did this colossal and continuing immigration mess ever start? Well, it began with a press release dated September 12, 1967 issued by the office of Manpower and Immigration, the minister of the department at that time being the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). As a matter of fact, I think I got a copy of this press release from the minister. This press release went across the country and it went across the world. I quote from it in part:
A complete innovation in the new regulations is the provision for the admission to Canada for permanent residence of persons already present in Canada such as visitors. From now on, any visitor to Canada can apply for permanent residence. Previously, with the exception of the remedial action instituted in July, 1966, visitors while in Canada were not allowed in the normal way to apply for immigration. This innovation recognizes the growing ease of transportation. In fact, a person visiting in Canada to "look things over" before making his final decision was penalized for this initiative.
What kind of nonsense was the minister talking earlier when he spoke of "bona fide visitors"? That press release invited anybody from anywhere in the world to come to Canada as a visitor to "look things over". That is the gist of this news release. Therefore, anyone who is here in 1973 as a result of what was contained in that news release and directive has every right to walk up the steps of the appeal procedure right up to the federal court. I do not want the minister to try to give us a "snow job" about legitimate visitors and illegitimate visitors and bona fide visitors. When the department issued that press release it was talking about visitors, period.
It is my understanding that many on the other side of the House admit a mistake was made in 1967. I should like to point out once again that the Conservative party said an error was made when the change was introduced. The party to which I belong has reaffirmed its position many times in this regard. I have explained why we considered it to be an error in the earlier part of my speech. A Liberal government caused the mess and, through successive administrations, perpetuated it. But it would never admit to being at fault.
What have we heard in this regard? In a press release issued by the then minister of manpower and immigration on November 3, we read:
June 20, 1973

We advise that visitors will not have the right to apply unless their application was submitted before 12 noon on November 3.
This decision has been taken in the light of evidence that this provision of our immigration policy has been flagrantly abused, particularly by racketeers who take advantage of the innocence and gullibility of citizens from many countries.
I will admit that this is a part of the difficulty, but nowhere do we find an admission on the part of the government that they were wrong. The minister might say this was an innovative step, a step of some interest-that they were moving ahead into the future and testing the climate. And although, as I said, I cannot criticize the present minister too harshly, bearing in mind that he has only held this portfolio for a short time, I would call attention to what he himself said in a press release dated June 18 in an effort to explain why there are some 17,472 persons whose appeals were pending as of June 1, 1973. He states as follows:
This situation is largely due to the fact that deportation appeal rights, while primarily intended for immigrants-
Notice how the entire situation has changed. The department is now talking about immigrants whereas, before, it was talking about visitors. I continue the quotation:
-have been exercised to an overwhelming degree by visitors.
Or we can look at the speech which was read for the minister by his parliamentary secretary, a speech authorized for release on June 11 and delivered at the 80th Annual Meeting of the National Council of Women in Toronto. It was in explanation of the need to introduce the bill we are now considering. I quote:
It was made necessary only by wholesale and systematic abuse of immigration law and regulations which were among the most open in the world but which may have erred in overestimating the prevalence of honesty in human nature.
How devious is the government! Not once has the finger of blame been pointed in its direction. We on this side of the House called for the introduction of amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act. When we did so, our representations were countered with a list of priorities which paid no regard to the situation we are discussing today. When we pointed out that the policy enacted on November 3, 1972 was unjust and lacking in compassion, our complaints were once again brushed aside. I remember those days quite vividly, one in particular-January 15, 1973. I refer, now, to page 273 of Hansard for that date. As then reported, I put a question to the minister and I should like to place it, together with the answer, on record today, because notwithstanding the hard line he took at that time, the minister has now accepted the policy of the Progressive Conservative party that the cut-off date of November 3, with its retroactive character, was wrong in principle and a source of injustice. I shall put both the question and the answer on record.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact it is becoming quite obvious that many people who sought a home in Canada are now undergoing severe hardship as a result of the department's announcement of a sudden cut-off date, which I believe was November 3, is the minister now prepared to indicate to the House and to those who are suffering unduly that he is prepared to approach this matter in a compassionate and humanitarian manner?
Immigration Appeal Board Act
Now, listen to what the minister said in reply:
I would hope that I would approach any of these matters in that fashion. It is a very difficult problem that faces us. I cannot really offer a great deal of solace to the large number of people who came to Canada and were caught by the removal of section 34 of the Act. We have indicated that in absolutely clear-cut cases of undue hardship we will look at the problems of these people compassionately, but I do not think we can look at this matter in terms of thousands.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the end of that. Today, we are dealing with this very serious problem in terms of thousands. I repeat what the minister said:
I cannot really offer a great deal of solace to the large number of people who came to Canada and were caught by the removal of section 34 of the Act. ..
I do not think we can look at this matter in terms of thousands.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the minister has seen the light. It is most important that the minister show credibility in this area. There is no question that what he did was wrong. What I dislike about it is the fact that when we raise policy questions and matters of interest and we believe there is some merit in our suggestions, we are treated with disdain and our suggestions are cast aside. However, in the long run the government does exactly what we ask it to do, so the least the government can do is to say thank you to members of the opposition.


Robert Knight Andras: I say thank you for that final paragraph.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad the minister is listening. If I may refer to the bill, the explanatory note to clause 8 reads as follows:
This clause would authorize persons who entered Canada by November 30, 1972 and who are not landed immigrants to obtain that status on compliance with the provisions of the clause, the Immigration Act and regulations relating to admission of immigrants to Canada.
In other words, the retroactivity has gone. At the same time, many who were caught on November 3 will have cause to wonder back in their homeland what kind of legislators we are in this country. People who have been frustrated, confused and refused see a government that had tolerance in 1967, became intolerant in 1972, and now once again is apparently tolerant. With all due respect, we will have to wait and see to what extent the government is tolerant.
Those who arrived before November 3 and have since gone home have been unfairly victimized and exploited because the government at that time did not temper the law with mercy, as they are doing now. It seems to me we can state now that the government has realized that the problem does not lie with the number of visitors applying for immigrant status; rather the problem concerns itself with the lenient and very expensive appeals procedure which enabled rejected applicants to be in the country often at government expense. The thing that should have been done some time ago is just what the minister is doing now, namely simplify the speed-up of the appeals procedure, not take away the right of visitors to this country to apply for immigrant status, as the government did.
Bill C-197 is an important bill. The hope is that it will bring order out of disorder and chaos. One important

June 20, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act matter that has now been brought to light is revealed in, I believe, clause 1, which the minister mentioned refers to the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. This particular provision in the bill is an improvement on the old because the definition of "refugee" is now spelled out. Just for the record, I was able to acquire a copy of the Convention relating to the status of refugees signed at Geneva on July 28, 1951. I have not had an opportunity to read all of it, but I thought for the purpose of this debate I would quote the convention definition of a refugee. There are a couple of lines crossed out and I do not know what that means, but it comes to me with the compliments of the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. Therefore, I shall read the amended clause in the hope it is right. This is the definition of "refugee":
Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country: or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
I was under the impression that the legislation always had such a definition, but on talking to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), he told me that for many years he had been trying to get this definition adopted, that it had never been in the legislation. This is why I am glad this particular definition will now be incorporated into the act.
There are some problems with respect to the act itself, and I know we will discuss them in committee, but I am a little concerned about the distinction that is made between permanent members and temporary members of the board. I understand what is meant by a permanent member, but I wonder just what is happening in the area of temporary members. The Governor in Council in the first instance is given power to appoint seven temporary members for a term not exceeding two years. On the other hand, no qualifications are set out for these temporary members.
In view of the fact that this is a court of record, which means it is an extremely important court, I am wondering why the minister has not seen to it that temporary members hold office for a certain period of time, though I realize we have to have a restricted time. I am not referring particularly to a good behaviour provision, but I think they should be removed by the Governor in Council for just cause, and I am wondering why this provision is not made in respect to the temporary members. I do not want to be partisan in this regard, but it is possible that a temporary member might bring down a decision which is unfavourable to the government and he might be removed. I think these members should only be removed for cause. However, I hope the minister will elaborate on this point to our satisfaction.
Another matter that concerns me about temporary members is this. Will there be a sufficient number of duly qualified people available to serve as members? I think the appointment should be for a term a little more definite than "up to two years". That kind of appointment gives a person no incentive to become a member. We should at least inform a temporary member that he will be appoint-

ed for a period of at least two years. I am also wondering whether we will be able to acquire the calibre of men and women that we need, people who can determine the lives and futures of countless thousands who will be seeking landed immigrant status in this country. I hope the minister will explain this area to me. I see no distinction between the permanent member and the temporary member. To my way of thinking both are equally important, and I think we should minimize any distinction there is between the two.
There is one glaring defect in the bill and this relates to the administration of the board. As a result of the meetings of administrative efficiency councils that have been held throughout the country it is apparent that for every five or ten judges there should be at least one competent administrator who is able to line up cases, file transcripts, set cases down for hearing and so forth. I see no provision in the bill in this regard. As a matter of fact, I was very surprised when a member at one of our committee meetings indicated that the board had not suggested any rule changes whatever, notwithstanding all the difficulties that face the board. Therefore, I hope there will be some insistence on the need for administrative efficiency. It is one thing to have judges; it is quite another thing to have judges with the necessary staff, particularly with a clerk or administrator who can process and expedite cases.
The minister has mentioned the need for a new Immigration Act, and there is no question about this since we have not had one since 1952. We have heard the minister talk about review, and it is time, in terms of contemporary thinking in 1973, for such a review. In fact, such a review is long overdue. I heard the mayor of Vancouver express his concern the other day about their immigration problems in terms of the number of people flooding into that city. Perhaps this same problem exists in other cities. I hope that in this consultative atmosphere in which the minister has placed himself there will be ongoing and serious consultations with the provinces and the cities in order to at least develop this policy paper about which he speaks. Perhaps we will have to wait until he brings it out to get into that area of the matter.
I should like to put a few comments on Hansard about immigration. Immigration is really a two-way street, and we have to continually remind ourselves of this very basic philosophy regarding immigration policy. People from all over the world from various backgrounds and races come here to improve their economic lot. We want them because of their skills, for which we do not have to pay any money whatever.
I was very impressed when the minister said on June 11: But to bring this history more up-to-date, the immigration division of my department has case histories of more than 27,000 new businesses established by newcomers during the past 20 years. These enterprises directly created more than 83,000 jobs. Last year alone immigrants brought $334 million in capital into this country.
As was pointed out in the December 1972 issue of the J.I.S. News, published by the Jewish Immigrant Aid Service of Canada, we should never forget and never be oblivious to the thousands upon thousands of immigrants who with their toil, intelligence, assiduity, sagacity, skills and perseverence, have elevated, built and continued to devel-
June 20, 1973

op our country and society. Also in that same periodical it is pointed out that:
The value and need for a sustained immigration program as a continuing factor to a Canadian social and economic growth clearly manifests. Immigration has made a major contribution to the national objectives of our country in maintaining a sound population rate, economic growth and cultural development.
I know there are ongoing studies in respect of this matter. Mrs. Freda Hawkins has written a book titled "Canada and Immigration Public Policy and Public Concern" in which she tries to focus on this whole matter of immigration. I believe it is her job now to look into this matter for the minister. I should like to put some of her words from the preface on record. She says:
Beyond a small group of politicians and officials and a small number of voluntary organizations, very little is known about immigration in Canada. Few Canadians are aware of the exact nature of our immigration policy or how immigration is managed.
She goes on to state:
And since Canadian politicians of all parties maintain a decorous silence on this subject and the press examines it only intermittently, public discussion of immigration in Canada is minimal.
All one has to do is pick up Hansard in order to find that other than for a few questions directed to the minister, there has been a dismal show in respect of debates on immigration. This is most unfortunate because this is an important matter with which we as parliamentarians should be concerned. We are talking about the future of Canada, the kind of country we want and the kind of people we want here. These are the people who will come here to contribute to the development of our ultimate destiny.
Mrs. Hawkins further states in her preface:
-but that serious thought should now be given to the development of a population policy for Canada related to our future political, social, and environmental needs and to the role which immigration should play within it.
In the last paragraph she states this:
For this and other obvious reasons, it is urged in this study that Canada should contribute now, in a much more positive way than in the past, towards the development of increasing international communication and consultation in relation to migration, whether that migration be inter-country or intra-continental, permanent or temporary. It would help to improve the lot of immigrants and migrants and to lessen some of the political tensions involved in migration today, if information on this subject were shared to a much greater extent between the countries involved; and if common efforts were made towards the development of standards of good practice in employment and adjustment policies, immigration control, and in the protection of the individual and group rights of immigrants and migrants.
In conclusion, I can say that we accept this bill. We will vote for it and send it to the committee, always subject to the right to move amendments. I would point out that the removal of the restrictive principle in the prior regulation is our policy. I would indicate that this bill is really an admission of failure of government policy regarding immigration and the appeal board.
I have indicated to the minister privately and to other members that we are not going to unduly hold up this bill. I think it is necessary that we obtain the views of representatives from across the country in respect of what is happening. One or two other speakers from my party at most will suffice. After several important speeches, I hope
Immigration Appeal Board Act we can send this bill to the committee where we can question the minister during our clause by clause study, with the hope of getting it back in time to avoid running into another thousand appeals in July.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the least that can be said about Bill C-197 is that it is long overdue. We will support it and do our best to expedite its final passage. I cannot refrain, anymore than could the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who has just spoken, from castigating and rebuking the government for the years of neglect which has produced one of the most horrendous administrative messes that ever occurred in the whole history of government in this country or in any other country.
It has been increasingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see, and perhaps I should add biblically, or ears to hear, that the board was quite unable to keep up with the case load imposed on it by the act, yet a series of ministers, from which I gladly except the present minister, did absolutely nothing about it. There is really no excuse or explanation, except that they were not concerned or bothered by the whole problem of immigration, although they had responsibility in that field.
The extent of the backlog was indicated by the minister on May 17 of this year when he spoke to the parliamentary Committee on Labour Manpower and Immigration. We were told at that time, and I think I have the figures correct, there was a backlog of 15,000 appeals waiting to be heard. Assuming that no new cases were to turn up, and we completely cut off the right of appeal, at the rate of appeal board proceedings, 1,500 appeals a year, it would take 10 years to catch up on the backlog. This situation did not arise overnight. It was gradual and perfectly obvious, and fully reported by the appeal board to the minister's predecessor. It was obvious, however, that you could not cut off the right of appeal. In fact, appeals were flowing in at the rate of 1,000 a month and the board was disposing of the backlog of appeals at the rate of 125 a month. It was obvious, it seems to me, that the situation was desperate, as it affects two groups of people.
The first group is composed of those appellants who come before the board with deserving and bona fide appeals guaranteed to them by the laws passed by this Parliament. These people have to wait, and still will in many cases, for years before their status as immigrants into this country is finally determined. In the meantime, many of them would have been granted work permits and otherwise would have established roots in Canada which would perhaps be torn up years later resulting in great hardship and injustice. The other group which is treated unfairly is the people of Canada as a whole, because this whole question of unconscionable delays plays into the hands of those whose qualifications are minimal or do not exist. It plays into the hands of those who may be clearly prohibited for various good and serious reasons from admission to Canada. The present system, as the minister himself said, led to serious abuse. So, as I said before, this legislation is long overdue.
I want to devote myself more to what the legislation provides and say why we support it as long overdue, but
4960

June 20, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act still essential and necessary legislation, which should be passed as soon as possible. First of all, the legisjation provides for expediting, as the minister told us, the handling of appeals by adding to the present nine permanent members of the board, seven temporary members. It also enables, on occasion, a case to be dealt with by a single member rather than by the present panel of three. We say these changes are good and we support them. The other approach is to cut down the rate of appeal. Here again we think this approach is justified. It has long been our view that there was some unfairness in respect of these visitors who admittedly came to Canada for a temporary period because it enabled them, through the right of appeal, to stay in this country some times for years, thus acquiring rights which are denied to applicants who follow the regular procedure of applying in their country of origin.
There is another method of cutting down the number of appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board which I have commended to the minister but which does not appear in this bill. I shall repeat it. While we do not take away the right of the Immigration Appeal Board to consider compassionate grounds and the problems of political refugees, I believe the system worked better when the minister had a concurrent power which he exercised by the granting of permits, usually on the advice of responsible ministers and sometimes on representation made directly to them. This system was more expeditious and in some of these cases which are basically political, the responsibility should properly be that of the minister. I am not referring to cases dealt with by the Immigration Appeal Board on the legal merit of the deportation orders made but appeals for compassion under section 15. I have no hesitation in saying that, although I would not take that right away, I believe it would be more appropriately exercised by a minister responsible to Parliament than by a court of law. I speak without any disrespect for the courts of law, but on the basis of having had some experience in this particular field.
I was particularly glad to see that the right of sponsors to appeal under section 17 of the act is preserved. That is as it should be. If there is any right to come to this country which should be safeguarded it is the right of people who come in order to unite families, close relatives of people who either are Canadian citizens or who are already in this country. I am glad to see that right is not touched by this legislation. Like the previous speaker, I am very glad to see that at long last there is an explicit provision made for the admission of refugees as defined in the United Nations Convention of July, 1961. I think we have had an honourable record in this country in respect of admitting refugees. I believe it would be helpful to have this definition spelled out, and I am glad to see this in the legislation. Incidentally, it was recommended in the 1966 government policy paper. If I may say so I, personally, have reiterated that this provision should be made explicit, and it would be ungenerous of me not to say I commend the minister for having brought this forward.
In respect of the 60-day registration period for those who receive some sort of partial amnesty if they have been in this country before November 30, all I can say is that it might have been a messy situation and not one easily dealt with. We have no complaint about the way in which the minister has dealt with this. We might have something to

say about the term of 60 days, to use an expression of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), in respect of people who come out of the woodwork. However, on the whole we agree with that proposal.
I want to say one or two more general words before I sit down. We in this party regard this legislation as emergency legislation and by no means as a solution to the problem of Canadian immigration legislation. I have person-nally heard, I think, about eight ministers of immigration promise they would bring forward comprehensive legislation. As I recall it, our present legislation was passed in 1952. In this rapidly moving world, some pf the conflicts of 1952 are thoroughly out of date. Indeed, in 1966 the government itself and the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), who at that time was Minister of Manpower and Immigration, pointed out that some of the phrases in the Immigration Act are antiquated, unreasonable and unfair. There are vague general provisions about keeping out people who are subversives long after we have learned that such language is dangerous and can result in political discrimination. There are provisions with regard to people who are mentally ill, but any qualified medical man could tell us this wording in the act is inappropriate and unfair. There are a whole series of excellent suggestions in the government's white paper of 1966. I ask why there has been this prolonged neglect. I do not say this to the present minister, because I am sure he will do his best despite the other burdens he has.
I should like to say to the government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), however, that some of the reason for the neglect in this field has been the fact that ministers often have been appointed for short periods of time and then given other portfolios just as they begin to know what this is all about. This is a complicated subject. Ministers are moved to some other department. I am not wishing this should happen to the present minister, but I think I can safely prophesy that it might happen. Just as we get down to adopting some of these measures, he may be moved to another scene.


An hon. Member:: To the Senate.


Francis Andrew Brewin: No; I was not wishing that.


An hon. Member:: Move him to the opposition.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If he were moved to the opposition, then we would start the merry-go-round again. The Prime Minister has assigned certain responsibilities to ministers. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) was Minister of Manpower and Immigration at the same time he was in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, which from what I gather from my colleagues from Saskatchewan and the west is no small job. Yet, he was asked to handle immigration as sort of a side issue. The present minister has had responsibility for manpower which, unless I misjudge the situation, is a particularly onerous and difficult portfolio. I say to the government that immigration is a highly important matter which deserves proper attention.
May I just complete my remarks with two generalities. Immigration is dual. It is partly a matter of economic policy. Immigration is an economic tool whereby we can attract labour, personnel, skills and capital to this country to build it up. We have done so successfully in the past. It
June 20, 1973

is, however, an economic tool which cannot be used when we have large scale unemployment, and is it only natural that in times like that there is a demand for a restriction on the admission of immigrants. But the immigration policy, as others have said and perhaps it is trite to say so, is far more than a mere matter of economic policy. It is a matter of dealing with humanity. I am not in favour, and I doubt if any member of the House is in favour, of completely unselective standards in allowing people to come to this country. Such a thing would be impossible. So long as we have selective standards, it is necessary that those standards be generous, not only for the sake of the people concerned but for the sake of Canada as a whole.
We have been immensely enriched culturally and economically by the immigrants who have come to the country on a reasonably generous, non-discriminatory system of immigration. But we must always remember that we are dealing with individuals, and so we should always be vigilant to ensure that not only our rules as to procedures but our practices in regard to the individuals who are seeking to come to the country are such as to reflect credit on the sense of humanity and the generosity of Canadians.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the business of the House, but simply to express our viewpoint on this legislation that we find appropriate in principle. However, I think that this legislation improves an act that the minister recognizes as obsolete. In fact, it gives immigrants already in Canada the opportunity of straightening their situation.
As the minister said, this can also eliminate present and future delays of appeals made before the Immigration Appeal Board and, finally, change the operation of the appeal system.
This bill tends to give, once and for all, those who are not yet landed immigrants but who were in Canada on November 30, 1972 and have since stayed there constantly, the opportunity of applying for the status of landed immigrant, subject to the reqirement that this application be received within 60 days following the promulgation of the act.
We agree with the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) when he says that we must adjust as soon as possible the status of immigrants who have been waiting in illegality for one, two or three years and even more.
In his comments, the minister said that his bill is designed to authorize the temporary appointment of a sufficient number of board members in order to eliminate the backlog of appeals and ensure the appointment of seven new IAP, members for terms of up to two years.
I wonder, Mr.Speaker, like other hon. members, whether a two-year mandate is enough, considering that there is a backlog os some 17,000 cases and that more are coming in every day.
So, the hon. minister says, and I quote:
-enable appeals to be determined by single members of the Appeal Board pending the elimination of the backlog.
L [DOT]migration Appeal Board Act
They want to appoint seven members for two years; we have an idea of what the public service is, what are the problems, especially as regards immigration. I suggest that a more rational selection should be done so that immigrants know what they are to expect when arriving in Canada.
Last year, I went to Vancouver and saw something which disappointed me about some immigrants who come to settle in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I met some individuals lying in parks-and I say it frankly-who have been here for four or five years, without legal immigrant status, with $5 or $6 in their pockets, without anything to eat and no job. Moreover these people can hardly speak our language. I think the department staff should inform those who want to emigrate to Canada, regardless of the country of origin, if they are not refugees, as to what to expect in Canada, the language we speak and how they are going to earn their living.
The minister also said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
Applications . . . will be judged in the light of such criteria as length of residence in this country, family relationships, employment record and compelling grounds for compassionate consideration.
The opportunity for adjustment of status is not open to persons who are in this country now on a minister's permit, who are here as students under contractual relations with their home country, or seasonal workers from abroad who came here under agreement to return.
Mr. Speaker, we have a somewhat different opinion from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If a student from another country wants to stay in Canada after having worked here two or three months a year, for two years, he should be allowed to do so because he is already used to our way of life. This could perhaps constitute a very valuable contribution to the Canadian nation and we should think of giving a chance to young people who want to stay here and become full-fledged Canadians.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am so anxious for this bill to be given second reading, to be sent to committee and become the law of the land, that I will resist the temptation to indulge in rhetoric on immigration in Canada. It is a subject, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has said, that needs a great deal more examination and action in order to help Canadians understand that we need a new policy and far greater insights into immigration than the public now appreciates. Let me just say that on our side we are of course going to support this bill because it is precisely the type of measure for which we have been calling.
Ever since November 3, 1972, many members on this side of the House have pointed out the unfairness of the retroactive feature of the November 3 regulation. Today, the minister said that he wants to see this bill passed so that we can start the 60 day period running and clean up the backlog. He said he wants to see this happen very soon. Of course, we want to see it happen soon. I can only say to the minister that if he had spoken in the same tones of urgency that he used today in answering the questions we put to him during the winter and spring months, we would have proceeded a lot faster in cleaning up this enormous backlog.
26446-24j

June 20, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act
I have a couple of questions for the minister, and want to give him notice that these are the kinds of questions that will be posed to him in committee. He said that the vast majority of the 17,000 or so people awaiting appeal on deportation orders is made up of those who were caught on November 3 as illegal entrants. Are we not subjecting those who came here in good faith on November 3, and who subsequently had a deportation order against them on the ground that they had not applied for landed immigrant status by that date, to additional expense, inconvenience and perhaps unfairness by having to pursue their appeal before the Immigration Appeal Board?
There is also the question of work permits. I have brought many cases to the attention of the department and the minister, and I am sure the situation is compounded across the country. Individuals who had deportation orders issued against them, appealed them and were allowed to stay in the country on this interim basis, are now denied work permits and are thus dependent on relatives and friends for support. I think it is wrong not to allow these people to have work permits, especially when there is evidence in many parts of the country, despite the unemployment figures, of a demand for labour. 1 can speak of many cases of people who came to this country as visitors and who now want to demonstrate that they can become good citizens. To do this they need work permits in order to take the jobs that are offered to them and they should be enabled to do so.
The next point concerns some sort of education program for the people who are in this country illegally and who have not come forward. The minister has said that he wants to bring them forward, but how are they going to be notified and be convinced that there will be no punishment or no prejudice against them in view of their illegal entry? Many of them will be frightened, and I think the minister and his associates need to help them believe that when this bill is passed there will be 60 days left in which they may come forward to apply for landed immigrant status without penalty. An education program should have been outlined to us this afternoon through which they could be helped.
There has been a haphazard approach to the problem of applying for landed immigrant status within the country. Speaking for myself, on June 12 in this House I said that I supported the removal of the right to apply for landed immigrant status within this country. It was a bad move in 1967, and what happened was predictable. This afternoon the minister left the impression that there were strong elements of dishonesty in the applications. There may have been on the part of certain charter operators who brought in planeloads of people, but I myself have spoken to many individuals who were caught on November 3, and who had come here with open minds. To impute dishonesty to their entry when this means of entry was legal at the time is not fair, and I think the minister should think twice before being too hard on these people.
This afternoon the minister said that the government will bring forward a position paper which will examine the long-term implications of immigration, in view of the fact that we have not had such a revision since 1952 when the present act was passed.

The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) jumped the gun on me this afternoon by quoting from Dr. Freda Hawkins' book "Canada and Immigration, Public Policy and Public Concern". The fact that I want to quote a passage also, indicates that Dr. Hawkins is very popular with the Conservative Party. I hope she is just as popular with the government, because I have never read a book on immigration to Canada that was as comprehensive and far-seeing when setting out the policies that we ought to be following. I recommend the book highly to all members of the House, and especially those involved in the committee, as it sets out the precise steps we need to take on immigration. The passage I wish to quote reads:
The fact of Canadian geography, her immense undeveloped natural resources, and increasing industrial strength suggest that immigration will continue to play a vital role in national development. And in a world of exploding populations, Canada's vast empty spaces, inhospitable though many of them are, must surely be used at least partly as living space. It seems clear, however, that from now on immigration and particularly the pattern of immigrant settlement across Canada will need to be much more closely related to environmental and social, as well as to economic, considerations and to the needs of all provinces and regions. To relate immigration to environment in a positive way will require a far more wide-ranging and socially oriented kind of immigration planning than we have today. An essential feature of it will be the kind of provincial and community participation in immigration policy-making and management which has been envisaged in this study.
We have to recognize that the world is much different today from 1952, and that the flow of immigrants from Europe will slow down, especially in light of the strength of the European countries as a result of the European Economic Community. Dr. Hawkins points out, and I agree, that the Canadian people have not exhibited an understanding of the new kind of situation that immigration to this country is going to develop. We are likely to have far more immigrants from the western hemisphere. The United States will be a continuing source of immigration to this country and even newer is the prospect of immigration from Asia, Central and South America. We must help the Canadian people to understand that there is room in this country for an increased number of immigrants and we should not look at immigration merely in terms of our manpower requirements.
Certainly, it would be irresponsible for any member of this House not to consider manpower requirements when speaking of immigration. There must be a relationship between the two. In my view, our concepts of immigration are tied too closely with what has happened in the past. There has been increasing urbanization, and far too many people, as we know and have mentioned in other debates, have been moving to and living in our major cities. Indeed, the mayor of Vancouver has complained because too many immigrants are coming to his city and compounding social problems. If we maintain our old fashion view of immigration we shall run into such problems. I say that there is lots of room in this country, especially in western Canada, to accommodate more people. We need more people in this country if we are to achieve the greatness we are capable of, given our resources and the continuation of development.
June 20, 1973

I am not one who uses the past tense when speaking of the development of this country. I think we have an enormous range of potential ahead, and practical steps should be taken to put the immigration situation in a better light. That practical step would be to give incentives to newcomers who are coming to this country and want to stay to go to the rural, depopulated areas of the country. That kind of step would not only help to meet the demands of our country but would also help Canadians generally to understand that we are going to help to integrate newcomers into Canadian society at the very point where Canadian society is most vulnerable and needs them most. I am thinking in terms of the mid-Canada belt and the development of a new string of cities. Far more wide ranging plans are needed and should be related to the white paper the minister is contemplating. Surely, progressive steps must be taken in this area. There must be input from many groups across Canada who are capable of responding to the needs of newcomers to this country. I say to the minister, do not make that white paper a unilateral government presentation before you implement it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River seeks the floor on a point of order.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties with a view to interrupting the proceedings at this time and considering until six o'clock the notice of objection with respect to the electoral boundaries commission for New Brunswick. I think, if Your Honour inquires, you will find that there is unanimous agreement for that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I be allowed a minute or two to finish my remarks, so that I will not need to continue them on a later occasion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: I simply want to say how happy I have been, as a member of parliament, to go to the citizenship court in Edmonton when people are getting their citizenship papers, and see the tremendous input into Canada that thousands of new people are making already. I say to the government, do not cut them off but think progressively and positively in the formulation of the new white paper.


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. Speaker:: On May 24, 1973, notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed in the following terms:
That, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970), consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of New Brunswick laid before this House by Mr. Speaker on May 9, 1973, on the grounds set forth hereafter:
1.	In many regions of New Brunswick the Commission failed to give special emphasis to geographical considerations and ignored or overlooked the problems of communication when they divided the said province into new districts.
2.	The Commission failed to give special consideration and proper appreciation to the physical, social and economic cohesion in the new electoral districts created and appeared to ignore and did ignore the question of unity or community of interest and thereby rendering adequate representation of the people in Parliament a virtually impossible task.
3.	The Commission failed to take into consideration that the majority of electoral districts of New Brunswick as they existed prior to redistribution, were found acceptable to the vast majority of constituents in those districts.
4.	The inconvenience to any Member of Parliament attempting to maintain contact with constituents spread over some electoral districts, difficult as they already are, would be considerably increased.
5.	And such other objections that the undersigned Members may consider applicable in order to carry out the spirit and terms and conditions of the Act in question.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotion that I, on behalf of several members of parliament from New Brunswick, take part in this debate. The law is clear and I think the law, if I may say so, was a good one when it was passed in 1967, and therefore we are bound by the terms of the statute. I say that I take part in the debate with mixed emotion because I thought at the time, and think now, that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is progressive legislation which gives effect to representation by population, as close as may be within the small percentage points that are allowed. It also keeps the hand, if I may put it this way, of the local politician out of what might be called, to use an American expression, gerrymandering. In that respect, it keeps his hand out of the electoral boundaries mix.
One commissioner on the New Brunswick Electoral Boundaries Commission said-and, certainly from my point of view and the point of view of the constituency the experience was interesting-that the problems in New Brunswick are almost beyond remedy. On another occasion, and perhaps this opinion will not be shared by others who will follow me in this debate, a commissioner reminded me that the problem in my province is that people happen to live in the wrong place for easy, convenient and helpful map making. The then secretary of state, Mr. Pickersgill, had a great deal to do with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


An hon. Member:: A great Canadian.


Mr. Fairweather:: He is a great and vocal Canadian, and a committed Canadian, and I am glad to pay him that tribute. I am a bit disturbed because of other legislation that has been brought to our notice. It is fair to say that it will have the effect of making the next federal election a fight under a different formula. Others may support this other legislation. I say this so that we will not get off the track and maintain what is a progressive and helpful mood.
Having said that, let me say that I think my province is harder to realign than any other. It is harder in the Atlantic provinces to reconcile people to electoral changes.

June 20, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment I suppose I should add that it is harder because of the very great stability of our people. They are not a mobile people. They have got used to one set of electoral boundaries. We have only had two elections since their introduction, and now we find that there is to be a major boundary change.
I, myself, or whoever will succeed me in representing the constituency of Fundy-Royal, will find that there is no city focal point. The constituency of Fundy-Royal will have as its focal point, according to the proposal of the commissioners, the Saint John river, and will be practically totally suburban; that is, it will take in the suburbs of three of the cities of New Brunswick, namely, Fredericton, Saint John and Moncton and, as well, include Canadian Forces Base, Gagetown. As I see it, the problem for whoever represents the people of the constituency will be that he will have no focal point, as has been the case in Fundy-Royal previously, centering on the city of Saint John and the problems faced by that city. I think this is a fact of life. People are moving to the cities, and we can see this happening all across our country.
I know that many members who will want to follow me in this debate will make their own specific representations and recite their own preoccupations with respect to signing the notice under section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I merely wanted, on behalf of my colleagues who are unable to be here today, to raise the matter and say that, so far as many of us are concerned, the proposed changes are not satisfactory.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take the floor after the distinguished member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who is this year celebrating, I believe, his twenty-fifth year in politics, and who certainly possesses a wider experience of politics in New Brunswick than I do. I completely endorse the remarks he has just made to the House.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible in the few minutes we have to put forward complete and substantial arguments as to our reasons for opposing the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, in politics an hon. member must sometimes stand alone against adversities, controversies and arbitrary decisions. I have been told that justice is blind, I even believe that the blindfold which covers her eyes also blocks her ears at times. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we should today debate the opposition-we have no choice, for there is a time limit for doing so-to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of New Brunswick.
You will remember that I was one of the ten hon. members who, in accordance with the provisions of the act, had submitted a formal opposition to this commission's report. I would have hoped that a larger number of members from New Brunswick would have dealt with this matter tonight. Some of them, who would otherwise have spoken, cannot be here, and I believe that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and myself are acting as spokesmen for

them by making remarks which we want reported in Hansard.
It may be the result of a professional quirk, or because there is a tacit agreement, but a member does not meddle into the affairs of another riding, and he keeps other hon. members from debating his objections. In any event, today we rise and insist on having Hansard record our deep dissatisfaction with the report of the commission.
Let there be no misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker. We question the judgment of the commission, though we highly respect its members. The act allows us to appeal the decision of the commission in this House. It is often said that the House of Commons is the highest court in the land. It is important that I should explain this publicly because some of the members of the commission and some citizens of the province of New Brunswick did not understand why I did not appear before the commission when it had its public hearings at the end of 1972 and early in 1973. The reason is very simple: I had major surgery performed in December, then convalesced; this kept me from appearing before the commission to express my opposition and suggest a compromise. Simple! Under better circumstances, I would certainly have performed my duties as representative of the interests of Madawaska-Victoria at the House of Commons.
Anyhow the result was the proposal we are discussing today based, it seems to me, on nothing else than a mere arithmetical question. The effect, as far as I am concerned, would be to incorporate into the electoral constituency of Madawaska-Victoria parishes which are now in the constituency of Carleton-Charlotte, more to the south, namely the parishes of Aberdeen, Kent, Peel, Wicklow as well as the incorporated village of Florenceville.
At first sight, especially for someone not familiar with the area, its geography, its inhabitants and their wishes, the proposals could seem logical somehow. But, Mr. Speaker, maps have never been logical. Everything we see, everything we find on them is arbitrary. Except for the fact that the new constituency thus formed would include almost half of the St. John valley in New Brunswick, both ends of the enlarged constituency of Madawaska-Victoria would have nothing in common with one another, and the people living in those two ends are as different as an Indian from India can be from a Canadian Indian. And this is not said in a disparaging sense, Mr. Speaker, for the visit of the distinguished Prime Minister of India to the House of commons yesterday is still fresh in my memory and besides, there are two Indian reserves in my constituency.
The exercise undertaken by the commission in attempting to mix in such a way water and oil was futile and the proposal that is being made does not stand on anything, I think. I am coming to the point but before I should like to deal a little with the historical background. The first inhabitants of the upper St. John valley were Indians; the first white settlers were Acadians, the sons of the great dispersion, of the "great upheaval", who came towards the end of the 18th century. Madaswaska's birth-place is in Saint-Basile, where will be celebrated this summer the centenary of the arrival of the Hospitalieres de Saint-Joseph and, as I said recently in the House, that of the designation of the provincial county of Madawaska.
June 20,1973

This last remark, Mr. Speaker, proves undoubtedly that the people in this area had already reached a certain measure of political homogeneity and maturity over 100 years ago. The then provincial government might have designated the county of Madawaska quite a long time before that. Finally, the government recognized the particular character of this region of northwest New Brunswick and included it in a separate county.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Mr. Speaker, I will call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, further consideration of objections to the report of Electoral Boundaries, Commission for New Brunswick, 1973, is deferred.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 21, 1973