1974-12-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion of the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell) for concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications came into question some time ago, and, a time having been set aside for discussion thereof, the Chair has now had an opportunity to consider all the worthwhile contributions which have been made as to its procedural acceptability.
Hon. members will want to understand clearly that the difficulty arises from the fact that the committee had before it Bill S-ll, a private bill dealing with the recapitalization of the British Columbia Telephone Company. Standing Order 91 requires the payment of fees prior to any consideration of such a bill by a standing committee. The fee varies according to the capital structure of the company and in this case involves some $200,000. In compliance with the Standing Order 91 the said sum was paid to the Clerk of the House while the bill was under consideration at second reading, and in further compliance with the Standing Order the Clerk of the House transferred the funds to the Receiver General upon the passage of the motion for second reading in order that the committee stage could proceed. The committee thereupon considered the bill and reported to the House in its third report the passage of the bill without amendment. On November 28, with one amendment upon unanimous consent, the bill was given third reading by the House.
Because there is a measure before the House to change the procedures applicable to this kind of recapitalization- Bill C-29, an act respecting Canadian business corporations-which would alter or eliminate such fees, the committee considered the question of the refund of the fees to the applicant corporation and in its second report, the subject matter of the motion under discussion, unanimously recommended that the fees be held in abeyance. The question, of course, is whether it is within the competence of a standing committee to make such a recommendation when its order of reference is a bill.
The governing citation is citation 304, Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. There is, in the view of the Chair, no room for doubt or question about this citation and it has been reinforced on numerous occasions both in respect to bills and the study of estimates. A committee may only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House and is bound by, and does not have liberty to depart from, the order of reference. It is equally clear that the recommendation contained in the report under discussion deals with the application of a Standing Order of the House and is totally outside the terms of the bill, and therefore, unless the arguments put forward by the distinguished chairman, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul, can persuade me otherwise, I would have to hold the report out of order.
I have carefully reread both citations referred to by the hon. member, Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 304, and Bourinot's Fourth edition, at page 469, with particular attention to the two sentences emphasized by the hon. member, the first being:
Consequently, il a bill be referred to a select committee it will not be competent for that committee to go beyond the subject matter of its provision.
This first sentence seems to me directly to contradict the hon. member's argument and to support the principle outlined in Beauchesne's citation 304. The second sentence, "No such restrictions apply to committees on private bills .. .", refers not to the authority of the committee but to limitations by way of direction which may be contained in an order of reference, and therefore not applicable to the present circumstances.
The hon. member's reference to Bourinot at page 603 relates to a number of cases prior to the turn of the century, in which the committee to which the bill was referred, recommended the refund of the fee. Quite a number of examples were cited and I have taken the time to examine each one individually. The following conditions existed in every case which do not apply to the present circumstances. First, the Standing Order in respect to fees had been fully complied with. Second, the committee had completed consideration of the bill. Some special facts had come to light during committee stage, so that the bill was withdrawn or materially altered, or, in the alternative, the committee became aware of special circumstances in relation to the introduction of the bill; for example, the fact that the bill was not to the advantage of the proponent, but rather that it had been required by the operation of law. Then, and only then, did the committee recommend the refund on the basis of an existing circumstance or condition.
None of these relates to the present bill, and to hold that, by analogy, a committee could, prior to the passage of a bill, recommend the suspension of the Standing Orders as opposed to compliance with them on the basis of possible passage in the future of other legislation would, in my opinion, in the existing circumstances be a totally unwarranted distortion of these precedents. I should also add that these distinctions are consistent with present day

December 9, 1974
Transport and Communications
requirements of Standing Order 99, that the refund motion cannot be moved until committee stage of the bill has been finalized.
The hon. member's reference to Bill C-104 in 1967 in respect of the Bell Telephone Company is clearly distinguishable, because in that case the standing committee had before it a bill which it could not consider by reason of Standing Order 91 unless the appropriate fees had been paid. The applicant had paid the fees in the previous session when the bill was introduced but not finalized, and the committee simply sought the direction of the House that the payment in the previous session would apply in respect to the bill before it. Having obtained such direction the committee then proceeded to consider the bill, a situation totally distinct from the one before us now.
In respect to the hon. member's reference to the Matador Pipe Line Bill C-16 in 1960, again the committee's recommendation was necessary for the calculation of the fees which were required to be paid as a condition precedent to consideration of the bill. It must also be noted that in that case the motion for concurrence was put in the House by unanimous consent, which, of course, eliminates any consideration of it as a precedent.
The hon. member makes two further suggestions. Firstly, he suggests there is no precedent for setting aside committee reports where this sort of difficulty exists. With due respect, I would refer the hon. member to citation 323 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition as well as a ruling of the previous Speaker, Speaker Lamoureux, as reported December 20, 1973 and March 24, 1970.
Secondly, the hon. member suggested that to rule against the acceptability of this report will deprive hon. members of their rightful opportunity to express themselves in committee deliberations, both in respect to legislation in general and on this particular suggestion of refund of fees in particular; but, with respect, I must disagree with both contentions. Hon. members can, of course, influence the terms of reference to the committees, and in any case have ample opportunity to express themselves on matters of legislation through the introduction of amendments.
In respect of this particular case, far from depriving hon. members of an opportunity to bring about a refund of the fees, it seems clear now that the bill has been passed that the proper procedures are envisaged in Section 16 of the Financial Administration Act and outlined in Standing Order 99. Whether the House would give its approval pending or upon passage of Bill C-29, there can be no doubt that the procedures exist for the necessary motion either now or at that time.
Accordingly, I must hold that the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, contained in its second report, is totally beyond the terms and provisions of Bill S-ll and, therefore, beyond the scope of its order of reference, and the motion for concurrence cannot be put.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Alexander Gresko
was deported from Great Britain as a high level Russian espionage agent in 1971, and currently serves as Russian liaison officer for the forthcoming Olympic games, and in view of the fact that the 1976 Olympics are being staged in this country, creating intensive security precautions, notwithstanding our own national security and that this incident has already gone so far as to offer this Soviet spy access to the Prime Minister's office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this government for the sake of national security be instructed to seriously consider declaring Alexander Gresko persona non grata and refusing him any further entry to this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose first of announcing a change in the business for today and, secondly, to propose a special order relating to the business tomorrow.
Today the first business will be the resumption of consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-32, the petroleum administration bill. At 8 p.m., because of the necessary absence from the House of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), on government business we will call Bill S-12, an act to amend the Immigration Act.
Tomorrow, as the House knows, is an allotted day. Following discussions among House leaders it has been agreed that the day should be devoted, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested, to the consideration of the question of conflict of interest, following more or less the lines of the motion which is now on the order paper. However, I propose a small change in that proposed reference to meet the views of hon. members of the House, in that the reference should be to the Committee on Privileges and Elections rather than to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
December 9, 1974

Accordingly, I propose the following special order:
That the Green Paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest" tabled on November 27, 1974, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; and
That, after the committee has concluded its deliberations and submitted its report on the aforementioned matter, it be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject-matter of ministers and conflict of interest and public servants and conflict of interest.
That any question or questions necessary to dispose of the said motion and any amendments thereto be put at 9.45 p.m., December 10, 1974;
That, immediately following the disposal of the said motion, the House proceed to the consideration and disposal of any motion or motions and bill or bills based thereon with regard to the business of Supply in the same manner as if December 10, 1974 had been an ordinary allotted day pursuant to Standing Order 58;
That for the period ending March 26, 1975 there be eight allotted days pursuant to Standing Order 58;
And that the Order of the Day "Government Business, number 7" appearing on page 10 of the Order Paper today be discharged.
That is the special order. I can perhaps explain the final paragraph by saying that the reference which appears as No. 7 does refer to a reference to another standing committee and that is why it must be discharged.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and the order is acceptable to us. I think I should supplement the rather grudging expression of gratitude to the opposition that the minister has made by saying that in order to facilitate the business of the House Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has lent tomorrow to the government and has deferred one of the opposition days until the next semester. I thought the House should understand that in our anxiety to see the proper business of this country proceed we have agreed to this course.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the motion as read out by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) does represent the points on which we agreed. We are, therefore, prepared to support the motion. I wonder if there is a slight oversight in the next to last paragraph in that it adds an eighth day to the next period but does not take one away from the current period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would presume it is not possible to take any more days away from the current period because it ends tomorrow.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, the arguments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), and the essence of the motion, are precisely what the four parties have agreed upon. Consequently, we respect the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will understand that for several reasons such a motion can be made at this time only with unanimous consent of the HOuse. I would ask therefore, does the House agree to the terms and conditions of this motion and is it to be so ordered.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Order, please. Before commencing the oral question period may I say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has given the Chair notice of his intention to make a correction in Hansard relating to an answer the minister made on Friday last in which the minister I think made reference to one member and intended to refer to another.\nOral Questions']
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 15, 148, 187, 305, 345, 359, 405, 406, 409, 443, 444, 548, 608, 624, 659, 664, 679, 685, 718, 726, 774, 795, 796 and 849.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 8 and starred question No. 197 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Reynolds: Is it possible for Canadian residents to send money out of Canada to support relatives and deduct this money from income before calculating their tax payable and, if so (a) how much can they send (b) what is the maximum amount deductible (c) what proof is there that the money actually leaves Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes. (a) There is no limit on the amount that a taxpayer may send out of the country to support a person but there is a limit on the amount he may claim as a personal exemption in respect of that person, (b) The deduction is limited to the amount actually expended in support or if the dependant is under 16 years of age, $300 less one-half his net income, if any, in excess of $1,100, or, if the dependant is 16 years of age or over, $550 less his net income in excess of $1,150. (c) The act does not specify what proof of payment is required. However, the act does provide the general authority that a taxpayer wishing to claim a deduction from his income must be prepared to substantiate his claim with receipts or vouchers. The department has administrative rules that require a taxpayer claiming an exemption in respect of a non-resident dependant, to complete and attach to his income tax return, form T1E-N.R. This form stipulates that the taxpayer must submit as proof of support cancelled cheques, bank funds transfer receipts, bills, receipts or other documentary evidence of cash remittance or value of parcels sent directly to the dependant and not an intermediary third party.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF $20,000
Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of National Revenue received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Departmental personnel records indicate that in 1973: (a)
901; (b) 33; (c) One.

December 9, 1974
Order Paper Questions


REVENUE FOR FUTURE INCOME TAXES AS REPORTED BY CORPORATIONS IN CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: What reserves for future income taxes have corporations set aside since 1968 as reported to the Department of National Revenue or Statistics Canada and shown up to 1968 in their reports on Corporation Financial Statistics?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The reserve for future income taxes as reported by corporations in Canada (excluding insurance carriers, co-operatives, crown corporations and tax exempt corporations) and as defined in "Corporation Financial Statistics" for years 1968 to 1971, the latest year available, were as follows:
Reserve for future income
taxes	Increase

1968	2,700	
1969	3,214	4341970	3,658	4441971	4,172	5242.	Has the government announced a phase-out of this consumer milk subsidy and, if so (a) on what date did the proposed phase-out begin (b) on what date will it conclude?3.	(a) Was the Government of Nova Scotia informed of the proposed phase-out of the subsidy and, if so, on what date (b) did the government receive complaints from the Government of Nova Scotia, through any of its ministries, against the proposed government phase-out of the subsidy and, if so (i) on what date or dates were such complaints directed to the government (ii) by whom (iii) in what form?4.	Were any complaints against the proposed phase-out of the consumer milk subsidy directed to the Minister Of Agriculture by the Nova Scotia Minister of Agriculture and Marketing at the federal-provincial conference of Agriculture Ministers held in Winnipeg, Manitoba?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a)
October 1, 1973. (b) Five cents per quart on fluid milk; 20 cents per pound on skim milk powder, (c) One year.
2.	A phase-out of the fluid milk portion of the subsidy has been announced. The subsidy on skim milk powder has been increased by four cents per pound and will continue, (a) October 1, 1974. (b) December 31, 1974.
3.	(a) Yes, August 15, 1974. (b) Yes. (i) September 9, 1974 (ii) T. A. Murray, Secretary, Manager, Nova Scotia Dairy Commission (iii) Telex.
4.	At the time of the Conference, no announcement had been made in respect of the phase-out of the subsidy.


NUMBER OF COMPANIES IN OKANAGAN BOUNDARY CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What is the estimated number of companies or industries in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary?
2.	What is the approximate division of this investment capital?
3.	(a) In what areas is the foreign investment (b) what are the estimated amounts of these investments?
4.	How do these figures compare (a) with those 1968 to 1974 inclusive (b) to that of surrounding areas in British Columbia?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The estimate of manufacturing establishments in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1971 (the latest year for which data are available) is 170, as compared to 3,302 for the province of British Columbia.
2,	3 and 4. Statistics Canada cannot provide answers to these questions as immense quantities of time would be required to provide this information which is not readily available. Moreover, prior to 1971, British Columbia district boundaries, which are used as coding boundaries for statistical records, do not match well with the electoral district of Okanagan Boundary and therefore it would be difficult to make an estimate of manufacturing establishments prior to 1971 within the electoral district.


CONSUMER MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) On what date was a consumer milk subsidy made available to residents of Nova Scotia (b) in what amount (c) for what period of time? .


NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE SERVICE
Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many public servants are known to have other employment while employed on a full-time basis by (a) the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (b) the Department of the Environment and Fisheries (c) the Department of Public Works (d) the Department of Labour (e) the Department of National Revenue?
2.	How many of these have ministerial approval?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, the Department of the Environment and Fisheries, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Labour and the Department of National Revenue have no record of full-time employees known to have other employment.
2.	Not applicable.


NEW HORIZONS PROJECTS IN ABITIBI CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since the inception of the New Horizons Program (a) what are the names and numbers of each project in the constituency of Abitibi (b) what projects were accepted (c) on what date (d) in what amounts?
2.	Were any projects rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Since the inception of the New Horizons Program to this date, (a) The requests for funding received from groups in the constituency of Abitibi are listed below by project number and name of organization:

December 9, 1974

Order Paper Questions
Project Number	Name of Organization
4-00034	Club de l'Age d'Or de Duparquet
4-00057	Club de l'Age d'Or paroisse Notre-Dame
4-00119	Le Club de i'Age d'Or La Sarre
4-00120	Club de l'Age d'Or St-Jean-Macamic
4-00143	Le Club de l'Age d'Or de St-Janvier
4-00236	Club d'Age d'Or St.-Bruno
4-00251	Club d'Age d'Or Ste-Therese d'Amos
4-00332	Club d'Age d'Or de Duquy
4-00388	Club d'Age d'Or Val-Paradis
4-00448	L'Age d'Or Notre-Dame
4-00488	Le Club du Bon Temps
4-00574	Club d'Age d'Or Saint-Pierre de Taschereau
4-00591	Les Coeurs Joyeux du Troisieme Age
4-00663	Club d'Age d'Or de Val St-Gilles
4-00769	Gomite d'Age d'Or Villemontel
4-00828	L'Age d'Or de Clericy
4-00853	Club des Loisirs pour Personnes Agees
4-00987	Club d'Age d'Or Ste-Germaine
4-A1031	Club d'Age d'Or de Duparquet
4-01113	Le Club d'Age d'Or de Normetal
4-01208	Pensionnaires du Foyer de l'Age d'Or Inc.
4-A1277	Club d'Age d'Or St-Jean-Macamic
(b), (c) and (d) The projects approved for funding in the number, name of organization, amount approved and date constituency of Abitibi to this date are shown below by approved:
Amount	Date
Project Number	Name of Organization	Approved [DOT]	Approved4-00034	Club de l'Age d'Or de Duparquet	* 5,785.00	17/ 1/734-00119	Le Club d'Age d'Or La Sarre	11,600.00	20/ 3/734-00120	Club de l'Age d'Or St-Jean-Macamic	4,425.00	17/ 1/734-00143	Le Club d'Age d'Or de St-Janvier	6,000.00	31/ 3/734-00236	Club d'Age d'Or St-Bruno	972.00	13/ 6/734-00251	Club d'Age d'Or Ste-Th6rese d'Amos	3,085.00	23/ 7/734-00332	Club d'Age d'Or de Duquy	9,860.00	28/ 3/734-00388	Club d'Age d'Or Val-Paradis	2,105.00	13/ 9/734-00488	Le Club du Bon Temps	6,123.00	10/10/734-00591	Les Coeurs Joyeux du Troisieme Age	1,000.00	16/ 5/742.	So far no projects have been rejected in the constituency of Abitibi. Projects number 4-00057 and 4-00448 were withdrawn by the groups.


FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION BY GOVERNMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF AUTHIER-NORD-JOUTEL ROAD
Mr. Laprise: Has the Government of the Province of Quebec requested and obtained financial participation by the government in the construction of the Authier-Nord-Joutel road in Abitibi and, if so, in what amount?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
Government has not received an official request from the Province of Quebec concerning the construction of the Authier-Nord-Joutel road, and has not participated financially in this project.


CMHC-RESEARCH MONEY TO BUILDING EXPERIMENTAL SOLAR HOUSES
Mr. Johnston: Will the Minister of State for Urban Affairs give a high priority to any request from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for
research funds that follow on the request of Professor Robert Swart-man that CMHC direct research money to the building of 20 experimental solar houses in various parts of Canada?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that Professor Robert Swartman has not submitted an application for research funds. The corporation is well aware of the importance of developing alternative sources of energy and thus would give high priority to the evaluation of applications for research funds in this important new field.


NUMBER OF HERDS OF CATTLE QUARANTINED AS A RESULT OF BRUCELLOSIS IN EACH PROVINCE
Mr. Cossitt: According to latest available Department of Agriculture figures, by province (a) how many herds of cattle have been in quarantine because of brucellosis since January 1, 1973 (b) what is the estimated number of cattle involved in such quarantine (c) how many cattle have been destroyed and what compensation has been paid since January 1, 1973 because of the disease (d) what would be the estimated market value of destroyed cattle if such animals had not contracted the disease?

December 9, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Eugene Whelan: British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Newfoundland
(a)	(b) Estimated	(e) Number Cattle	Herds	Number of	ordered	CompensationQuarantined	Cattle Involved	slaughtered	awarded *23	1,347	156	51,57256	10,621	3,531	648,882268	24,000	6,790	1,117,79090	9,874	1,767	280,224453	25,000	4,354	905,542290	12,994	1,848	327,3255	173	5	837I	76	6	1,2005	257	5	756
(d) The department does not have this information.


NUMBER OF HERDS OF CATTLE QUARANTINED IN ONTARIO CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	As of this date, how many herds of cattle are quarantined because of brucellosis and what is the estimated number of cattle involved in such quarantine in the Ontario counties of (a) Leeds (b) Lanark (c) Grenville (d) Dundas (e) Carleton?
2.	How many cattle have been destroyed in each of the aforementioned counties since January 1, 1973 because of brucellosis and (a) what is the total compensation paid in each county as a result (b) what would be the estimated market value of destroyed cattle in each county if they had been free of the disease?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
	Number of	Estimated Number
	herds	of
	Quarantined	Cattle Involved
(a) Leeds	16	1,050(b) Lanark	3	141(c) Grenville	1	35(d) Dundas	24	1,700(e) Carleton	90	6,3562. (a)	N umber of cattle	Compensationordered slaughtered	awarded *(a) Leeds	131	27,949(b) Lanark	27	5,483(c) Grenville	6	804(d) Dundas	193	41,356(e) Carleton	1,115	248,195


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) Program directors, national and local; (b) Area heads and producers; (c) Those named in (a) and (b) working in concert.
2.	News editors under the direction of news supervisors.
3.	Producers must have demonstrable capacity in program conception, production (including budget control) and direction. Area heads and program directors would normally be expected to have considerable program production and administrative experience to allow them to carry out the supervisory functions stated in question one. The prime requirement for news editors is university graduation or equivalent in experience, plus a minimum of three years in the journalistic field. This latter could be acquired in newspapers, news agencies such as Canadian Press or in private radio or television. For news supervisors the same qualifications apply except that minimum journalistic experience is usually ten years.
4.	(a) 56; (b) (i) 37 (ii) two (iii) eight; (c) It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.


DOLLAR VALUE OF COINS IN CIRCULATION
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	As of January 1, 1972, what was (a) the dollar value of .01, .05, .10 and .25 coins in circulation (b) the value, in millions of dollars, of the bank notes in circulation?
2.	As of January 1, 1974, what was (a) the dollar value of .01, .05, .10 and .25 coins in circulation (b) the value in millions of dollars of the bank notes in circulation?
2. (b) The department does not have this information.


QUALIFICATION OF CBC STAFF
Mr. Towers: 1.	What is the status or category of the position of the person or persons who decide (a) the types of programs to be produced (b) the actual content (c) the cost of each program of CBC?
2.	Who edits the daily CBC news reports?
3.	What are the required qualifications to fill each position referred to above?
4.	During the past two years (a) how many new employees have been taken on staff by CBC at headquarters (b) how many of CBC headquarters' staff (i) resigned (ii) were requested to leave (iii) were transferred (c) what are the names and qualifications of CBC staff hired?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Royal Canadian Mint and the Bank of Canada as follows: 1. (a): .25 Silver, $132,276,462.25; .25 Nickel, $67,532,406.50; .10 Silver, $77,700,289.10; .10 Nickel, $27,224,802.50; .05 Silver, $4,470,061.65; .05 Nickel, $37,964,802.00; .05 Steel, $3,443,020.10; .05 Tombac, $548,973.25; .01 Bronze, $49,297,188.83; (b) As of January 1, 1972, value of bank notes in circulation was $4,103,422,885.
2. (a): .25 Silver, $132,158,594.00; .25 Nickel, $114,320,091.75; .10 Silver, $77,613,347.80; .10 Nickel, $50,023,790.50; .05 Silver, $4,470,056.85; .05 Nickel, $43,796,418.65; .05 Steel, $3,440,910.25; .05 Tombac, $548,971.10; .01 Bronze, $58,259,276.03; (b) As of January 1, 1974, value of bank notes in circulation was $5,551,217,922.

December 9, 1974


IMPORTATION OF EGGS IN 1973-74
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In 1973, did Canada import eggs and, if so (a) from what countries (b) how many dozen (c) at what price a dozen?
2.	In the first 8 months of 1974, has Canada imported eggs and, if so (a) from what countries (b) how many dozen (c) at what price a dozen?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that: 1 and 2. Imports of eggs in the shell amounted to 7,042,814 dozen in 1973 for a value of $7,759,912. In the January-August 1974 period, imports amounted to 7,006,356 dozen for a value of $6,727,907. The attached table indicates the quantity in dozens, the dollar value, and the price per dozen of these eggs by country of consignment.
Imports of Eggs in		the Shell	
		Year 1973	
	Quantity		Unit Price
Country	(Doz.)	Value ($)	(per doz.)United Kingdom	90,000	26,578	0.30Hong Kong	1,800	2,105	1.17People's Rep. China	2,250	1,353	0.60United States*	6,948,764	7,729,876	1.11Total	7,042,814	7,759,912	1.10January to August 1974	Belgium-Lux.*	6,420	7,653	1.19France*	630	3,814	6.05Hong Kong	250	247	0.99United States*	6,999,056	6,716,193	0.96Total	7,006,356	6,727,907	0.96
'These eggs were imported for hatching purposes (thus the higher unit prices). For the United States, the figures below show what quantities were imported for hatching purposes.
1973	5,795,961 doz.	$6,948,000
January-August
1974	2,984,612 doz.	$4,502,000
The remaining quantities imported from the U.S. were for comsumption purposes.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION CONTRACTS WITH LAPOINTE TRANSPORT LTD.
Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Indus-triel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1, 1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
3.	Were public tenders called in each case and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
Order Paper Questions
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. None.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


MINISTRY OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONTRACTS WITH LAPOINTE TRANSPORT LTD.
Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1,1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
3.	Were public tenders called in each case and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


MONCTON DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jones: 1.	What are the terms of reference for the present study being conducted by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and others for a downtown development in Moncton?
2.	What firm has been retained to conduct this study?
3.	What is the scheduled completion date for this study?
4.	What contribution is the government making toward the study and what part is the government prepared to take in implementing the study?
5.	What departments (a) are participating in the study (b) are likely to participate in the implementation of the study?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is participating in and supporting the development of an urban design for the central business district of Moncton. The terms of reference for the study provide for the establishment of a federal-provincial-municipal committee to advise the city of Moncton on the choice of a consultant, to review the work of the consultant, and to analyze and evaluate the recommendations made by the consultant. The provincial department of municipal affairs, the city of Moncton and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs are represented on the committee.
2.	General Urban Systems Corporation has been retained to conduct the study.
3.	It is hoped that the study will be completed by January or February 1975.
4.	The federal government is contributing $25,000 to the city of Moncton to assist the financing of the study.
5.	(a) At this time, the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is the only agency participating in the study. However, in the course of the exercise, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ministry of Transport will all have contributed to the conclusions and recommendations of the urban design study, (b) Pending completion of the study and acceptance of its recommendations it would be premature

December 9, 1974
Order Paper Questions
to say which federal and/or provincial departments will be participating in implementation of the study.


UIC-NUMBER OF KEYPUNCH OPERATORS RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): On the last business day of each month from September, 1972 to September, 1974 inclusive, how many keypunch operators were receiving unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Occupational coding does not readily yield this information. Unemployment Insurance Commission has considered this request and is unable to respond due to the high cost of the specific program requested.


NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION OF $30,000
Mr. Stevens: In 1973, how many public servants earned gross remuneration in excess of $30,000, $36,000 and $40,000 and, in each case, what was the aggregate amount paid to them?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) In 1973, 873 public servants received salaries in the range $30,000 to $35,999 for an aggregate of $27,981,071; (b) In 1973, 308 public servants received salaries in the range $36,000 to $39,999 for an aggregate of $11,667,894; (c) In 1973, 86 public servants received salaries of $40,000 and over for an aggregate of $3,776,364.


AIR CANADA-TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What documents of any and all description (such as technical, schematic drawings, employee directives, any type of form, stationery, etc.) within the whole Air Canada operation (world wide) have to be translated into the French language?
2.	At what date must this translation be completed?
3.	What amount was spent in the years 1973 and 1974 for translating such documents?
4.	What will be the total cost to translate all existing documents, forms, stationery, etc., within Air Canada?
5.	(a) Are all new documents, forms, etc., being ordered in both English and French (b) what will the additional cost be over ordering English only?
6.	What percentage of Air Canada employees (a) at Dorval Air Base (b) in all departments at Winnipeg and Vancouver will have to be bilingual and by what date?
7.	(a) What is the total cost of language training for the years 1973 and 1974 for employees across Canada (b) how many employees are learning (i) French (ii) English (c) will unilingual employees who refuse language training hold their seniority or will they be demoted or fired?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The corporation makes available in both English and French all printed information addressed to the public such as timetables, signs, notices, posters, building directories, telephone listings, etc. For internal communications, except in operating and technical areas, all internal notices, collective agreements, directives, forms, bulletins, instructions and policies of an official nature are to be in both languages.

2.	Much of this material has already been translated and the remainder will be done on a continuing basis over the next few years.
3.	1973: $66,000, 1974: $166,000.
4.	To translate the remaining existing documents, forms, publications, etc., will cost approximately $300,000.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) In addition to the $300,000 for translation noted above, approximately $150,000 will be required for composing and printing in another language.
6.	Air Canada is still in the process of identifying the language requirements of positions at all locations, including Dorval, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Employees in positions not previously identified as requiring knowledge of both languages who are unwilling to acquire the necessary skills are not to be required to do so. Unilingual candidates for positions requiring both languages will be given the time required to acquire the necessary skills.
7.	(a) 1973: approximately $50,000, 1974: $500,000; (b) Approximately 1,190 employees are enrolled in French courses in 1974 at levels from beginner to advanced, and 20 employees are taking English instruction, (c) They hold their seniority.


DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF HON. J. W. PICKERSGILL AS PRESIDENT OF THE CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	When was the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill appointed Chairman of the Board of the Canadian Transport Commission?
2.	On what date did he retire?
3.	What salary per annum did he receive during his period of service?
4.	What retirement or other pension does he now receive from his service with the Board?


Jean Marchand: 1. There is no post of chairman of the board of the Canadian Transport Commission. The Honourable J. W. Pickersgill was appointed President of the Canadian Transport Commission effective September 19, 1967, for a period expiring June 23, 1975.
2.	Mr. Pickersgill resigned from the Canadian Transport Commission effective August 31, 1972.
3.	Mr. Pickersgill's salary was fixed within the range DM-3.
4.	Mr. Pickersgill receives benefits under the Superannuation Act calculated in accordance with the terms of that statute.


SEAWAY INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CORPN. LTD. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Seaway International Bridge Corporation Ltd. (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?


Jean Marchand: The
Seaway International Bridge Corporation Ltd., a subsidi-
December 9, 1974

ary of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, advises as follows: 1.
March 31	March 31	March 31	March 311968	1970	1972	1974(a)	18	18	18	19(b)	$122,615	$146,302	$167,570	$202,807(c)	I	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilII	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilIII	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil2.	$11,170-13,060 $12,670-14,820	$14,300-16,450	$15,300-19,2008,400- 8,890	9,950-11,170	10,650-11,960	11,985-15,0908,260- 9,280	9,380-10,530	10,650-11,960	10,490-13,0556,800- 7,470	7,790- 8,560	8,840- 9,720	10,135-11,1406,800- 7,470	7,790- 8,560	8,840- 9,720	10.135-11.140
Order Paper Questions
Basford (Minister of National Revenue): 1
Hon. Ron
and 2.
Year
1973
1974	(to date)
Damage claimed $
30.00
2,325.50
900.00
Amount paid $
30.00
2,325.50
Nil
* *
*


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. £-Mr. Reynolds:

Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Authority?


Jean Marchand: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1.
What are the names of all advertising agencies used in British Columbia by the government or any Crown corporation?
Return tabled.


INCREASE IN NUMBER OF SENIOR OFFICERS IN FEDERAL SERVICE
Mr. Orlikow: 
DAMAGES CLAIMED BY IMPORTERS AGAINST THE TORONTO CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. Stollery: 1.	What damages were claimed by importers against the main Toronto Customs Office for goods while they were in customs for the calendar years 1972, 1973 and 1974 to date?
2.	What damages were actually paid by the Customs Office on these claims?


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had on the order paper for some length of time, approximately two months, certain questions in respect of the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield, certain questions in respect of Mr. Ivan Head, certain questions in respect of the Prime Minister's personal and political travels at public expense and also questions in respect of the operation in general of the Prime Minister's office. I feel that after a period of two months I am justified in rising on a point of order to ask why this information is delayed and whether the parliamentary secretary will give some assurance that it will be forthcoming shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before commencing the oral question period may I say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has given the Chair notice of his intention to make a correction in Hansard relating to an answer the minister made on Friday last in which the minister I think made reference to one member and intended to refer to another.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1974

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister who was unavoidably absent from the House in the last few days. Is he now prepared to recommend an independent inquiry regarding charges of intimidation and violence with respect to the SIU, and also with regard to the handling of these matters by the federal government? Is he prepared to recommend such an inquiry in view of the specific allegations, and accusations that have now been made and indeed telecast to the nation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am not aware of the specific allegations and accusations that the Leader of the Opposition talks about which have been broadcast to the nation. I have consulted with the House leader, who was Acting Prime Minister during my absence, and I stand completely by the statements he made on the matter of an investigation on Wednesday or Thursday of last week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the obvious truth in what was said, I think last week, by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands regarding the importance of the government not only being honest but appearing to be honest and the importance of the government being so regarded in the country, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what action his government intends to take to deal with these charges, with the charge, for example, that was repeated and asserted on the national network last evening that a member of the government was in the pocket of the SIU.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must confess that I was not listening to the national network last night. I do not know who made the charge; I do not know whether that person is worthy of testifying before the House. I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition himself supports that charge.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not a question of whether or not I support the charge.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?	,


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am very concerned about the situation.


An hon. Member:: Make the charge.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A very serious charge has been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What charge?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A charge has been made casting a very heavy cloud over the government. There is absolutely no use in members opposite asking me to make a charge. I do not intend to make a charge. That is not my responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But it is my responsibility to press the government to clear up these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I want to say to him quite frankly that I thought the program went too far. Is it the minister's intention to proceed against the network for defamation of character.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I can only advise the Leader of the Opposition that I have developed and am developing a transcript of the program. I have not decided as of now what action I might take.
# (H30)
I might advise the Leader of the Official Opposition when he quotes a particular charge repeated in the newspaper this morning about the minister in the SIU's pocket-with reference to the importance of that, I think it was last Wednesday night in the Ontario legislature that Dr. Shulman said I was not the minister in the SIU's pocket, so I do not know which unreliable source the Leader of the Opposition is relying upon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I just want to assure the hon. Minister of Labour that I am basing my question on what I saw and heard on the national network last night.


An hon. Member:: Hearsay!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am very anxious to know what measures the government is going to take to clear up the matter or failing action of the government, what action the minister himself is going to take?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that in my own terms I have noticed such a great deal of innuendo, implication and total irrelevancies being played up to such a high degree that I just do not know what action to take. I just hope the type of conduct that seems so prevalent in some quarters will not be repeated in this House.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister indicate if it meets standards acceptable to him for a member of his cabinet to accept campaign funds from the Seafarers' International Union, the operations of which come under his jurisdiction bearing in mind that the SIU, a subject of controversy for 25 years has in the past year
December 9, 1974

been the subject of renewed controversy including criminal charges having been laid, litigation having been instituted alleging irregular union election activities and many other such allegations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what allegation the hon. member supports. If he wants to make some allegation let him do it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's answer I should like to direct a further question to him. In view of the statement of the Minister of Labour last Wednesday that he returned the campaign funds donated to him by the SIU because he thought and I quote: "It might be misunderstood if I kept this particualr contribution" and in view of the Prime Minister's statement last December 18 that "A minister has an obligation to seek advice of the Prime Minister on any matter concerning a conflict of interest in which he may be in doubt", and in view of the statement of the Minister of Labour last Wednesday that he had not sought such advice from the Prime Minister, would the Prime Minister indicate if he has asked for an explanation from the Minister of Labour as to why the minister felt there was sufficient doubt that he should return the contribution to the SIU but did not feel in sufficient doubt to consult the Prime Minister on whether there was in the Prime Minister's mind a possible conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in this party campaign funds are received by various members of parliament and ministers. Some of them choose not to receive and accept funds, others do. I am surely not going to call to account every member of my party who refuses to accept funds from some particular group.
 * *



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his reply td the Leader of the Official Opposition the Prime Minister asked for specific charges. In my question I should like to refer the Prime Minister to seven specific assault charges which have been laid against members of the SIU and ask if he learned of these specific charges and in particular, in light of a quote that is attributed to the Solicitor General of the province of Ontario that "sufficient evidence of assault and violence and intimidation" exists to justify a full public inquiry into SIU activity, I would ask if he does not feel that a public inquiry is required into this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member is talking of different types of charges than the Leader of the Opposition was in his question to me earlier in the House. He is talking about charges of violence. My understanding is that the Ontario police and the metropolitan police of Toronto are making
Oral Questions
investigations into that to find if there is enough evidence to file an information and lay charges. I have had no report on that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is only partly correct.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: If hon. members would just listen to the question. The question which I put last Wednesday and subsequent questions put by other members of my party on Thursday and Friday referred specifically to the charges of union violence which led Dr. Shulman originally to make his charge. It was to investigate that matter in particular, but by no means exclusively, that we were suggesting a public inquiry was necessary. The Prime Minister has indicated today that he understands that the provincial police and other law enforcement agencies of the province of Ontario are investigating these questions. The conclusion reached by the Solicitor General of the province is that the evidence they have warrants a public inquiry. In view of that judgment what is the Prime Minister's position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is the same as that expressed by the House leader and the Acting Prime Minister some days ago, that the responsible police of the province and metropolitan area of Toronto are making inquiries into these specific charges: This is my understanding. We have not had a report from them, though I understand the Deputy Minister of Justice is writing to the Ontario government asking if there are any facts or material that should be known to us. I have had no request yet from the Ontario government to make any inquiry. I am trusting them and their police services to find the facts on this. I hope if they do find some that reveal a possibility of criminal action they will lay an information and do what their duty is to take this matter to the criminal courts. It is only if they report failure, that they are unable to do anything and feel very strongly that the only way to get at the facts would be by a public inquiry held by the federal government rather than them, that I would consider this matter.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. It is my understanding that such a formal request is now being prepared by the government of Ontario. I want to get it perfectly clear from the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the SIU is a federally chartered union with headquarters in Montreal, and operating in more than one province, if he gets such a serious and formal request from the government of Ontario will he make a decision to have a public inquiry?


An hon. Member:: He does not choose to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will know, as other hon. members do, that to ask any minister a question on what he will do if something happens in future is hypothetical and outside the scope of the question period.


An hon. Member:: What he will do is duck.

December 9, 1974
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary. Given the importance of this and simply to get clarification from the Prime Minister, would he inform the House what in his view are the conditions necessary to induce this government to take some public action on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that could take 100 pages. There are all kinds of conditions-if the province of Ontario were unable to discharge its duties, if the attorney general of Ontario were unable to find facts, if the police were incompetent in finding facts. There are all kinds of reasons which might cause us to want to make a public inquiry. Surely, the hon. member cannot ask me to enumerate all the reasons in advance of something that might happen and what we would do if something happens.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last night, on the national news bulletin of the CBC, I heard, like all those who were listening, that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada is a hypocrite, a liar, that he is hiding behind the Solicitor General of Canada with regard to the claims of the province of Quebec on the use of the Quebec provincial police, for which the province is asking a federal contribution of some $450 million. Since last night, or even before, has the Prime Minister been in touch with the Quebec Minister of Justice and could he tell us what progress has been made in those talks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall first of all have to check to see if the allegations repeated by the Social Credit leader were in fact made over the CBC network. I know nothing of what was said but I shall look into the matter; I do hope the language used by the hon. member was not in fact used by a minister of the Crown.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the appointment and dismissal of deputy ministers comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister advise the House what he knows of the circumstances which caused four deputy ministers, two of whom are the most senior and important in the whole of the civil service, to decide simultaneously that

the atmosphere in which they are working is such that they prefer early retirement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the allegation as repeated by the hon. member is false.


George Harris Hees: Seeing the Prime Minister refuses to answer that straightforward question-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said it is false.


George Harris Hees: Will the Prime Minister advise the House if the merit principle will prevail in the appointment of successors to these four deputy ministers who are resigning or will proximity to the Prime Minister be the overriding factor as the Prime Minister continues to supplant very able men by his own palace guard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member is again misinformed. By order in council we appoint meritorious people. However, we do not follow the merit principle that applies to the Civil Service Act and not order in council appointments.


George Harris Hees: Will the Prime Minister then advise the House if the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield was simply on his own whim rather than following the merit principle.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was made because of his very great merit. I would not say as much about the merit of the person who was elected by the Prince Edward-Hastings electorate.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns the strike against the British Columbia Railway. Can the minister advise the House why the Unemployment Insurance Commission has refused to pay benefits to 2,000 workers who do not belong to the shopcraft unions that are on strike and who are not on strike themselves, but who are prepared to work and who are in fact laid off by the railway company?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I will inform myself of the details and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise why an incident that took place before the present legal strike commenced on November 21 is being used as an excuse by the minister's officials in British Columbia to deny these 2,000 non-striking workers their benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I presume the same answer will apply.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question.
December 9, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt about the nature of the hon. member's question. Possibly the information ought to be sought in some other way. This is a strong request to the minister to give in this chamber a legal interpretation of the right of applicants for benefits under unemployment insurance legislation. I feel very clearly the minister ought not be required to do that in this chamber in answer to a question.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the gravity of the situation, Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister to tell us now if he is going to take immediate and personal steps to intervene in this situation so that these men can get their benefits and get them quickly. The economy of the whole area covered by the B.C. Railway is now in great jeopardy.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I note the hon. member's concern. As I indicated earlier, I will fully acquaint myself with this situation. I will not commit myself to intervene unless that is clearly the proper mode for me to adopt. However, I will inform myself and advise the hon. member of the facts and the consequences.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the virtual cessation of exports as a result of hog quotas with very low prices in certain categories of heavy hogs, is there any possibility of pork quotas being lifted between Canada and the United States in the immediate future?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that discussions are still going on at this time.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). Is the minister's department making funds available to the Department of National Defence so they can continue to use Canadian destroyers on coastal surveillance, particularly at this critical time of over-fishing?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that other vessels of National Defence will be designated for fisheries patrol duties as a piggyback operation to normal duties. I also wish to point out that at least three vessels of the Fisheries and Marine Service have undertaken over 250 boardings in the past year. Therefore, there has been continuing patrolling over the past months.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the minister report on the press
conference in Halifax today regarding the course of the
Oral Questions
Canadian destroyer Annapolis as to whether that ship will again be used in the immediate future for this type of surveillance?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will have to await information on this press conference. I know that the crew of the vessel was very enthusiastic about the work they undertook. The forces have expressed willingness to again carry out this operation and I very much hope they will do so.



USE OF NAVAL VESSELS FOR SURVEILLANCE ON WEST COAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State in charge of Fisheries.
Can he tell us if he intends to introduce a similar system on the west coast of Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be a very good idea. We would have to see, however, if the rules contained in the international agreements that govern that deep-sea area allow us to designate military ships as we do within the North Atlantic Council. If that is possible, I do not see why we could not do it.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Iren.ee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Following the fire which last night devastated the King Beaver asbestos mining facilities in Thetford Mines, in the province of Quebec, could the minister advise the House whether his department intends to financially help reconstruct this industry which was employing 1,000 workers who are unemployed today?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had conversations with the hon. member for Frontenac concerning the Thetford Mines disaster. I have asked my officials to conduct an investigation with the provincial government and the company to ascertain the circumstances of this fire. There exists at present a shortage of asbestos on world markets. This is a disaster for Canadian producers and it is of national interest to rebuild this very important plant immediately. The federal government is therefore willing to help as much as possible to rebuild these facilities.
2054

December 9, 1974
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION



HAITIANS-ALLEGED INVITATION TO SEND CANADIAN SURVEILLANCE COMMISSION TO HAITI

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since some ten days ago, Mr. Lavigne of Montreal returned from Haiti and confirmed that the president of that country had invited the Canadian government to send a supervisory commission if the Haitians were deported to their country, is the minister in a position to tell us whether he has received such an invitation from the Haitian president and if so, what is the decision taken by the minister in that connection?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister willing to make a statement soon, so that we may know what has happened about the final decision of the Canadian government concerning the Haitians who are about to be deported.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have made many statements on this subject. The situation has not changed.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask it with the knowledge of the quick action of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in responding to a request for an inquiry in the province of Quebec. Would the minister take personal note of the disturbing events in the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the west? I am referring specifically to unauthorized payments for field men during the election period, information about which the hon. member for Red Deer has in his possession. In view of these disturbing developments, would the minister consider asking Mr. Howard Riddell, who was for 14 years the head of PFAA and who is now working for the Department of Municipal Affairs in Saskatchewan and who has the confidence of the farmers, and who is well known for his honesty and integrity, to come back and check out this very smelly situation?


Eugene Whelan: I do not know what the situation is, but I will certainly check on it and ascertain what the facts are.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I believe the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Williams, is retir-

ing very shortly. Perhaps the minister might consider, when he is checking the situation out, that this might be a very good job for him to look after, because he, too, I think, has the confidence of the farmers out there.



OIL-UNITED STATES POSITION ON REDUCTION OF EXPORTS

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, in the right hon. gentleman's discussion with President Ford during which there was general agreement there would be no trade war between the United States and Canada, was the Prime Minister able to get a specific assurance from President Ford that there would be no response on the part of the United States government to Canada's decision to reduce the rate of export of oil to that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly, the President did not indicate there would be any strong reaction, nor did he indicate to the contrary. He was interested in the explanations, the motivation, which led us to a certain position. He seemed prepared to consider them after they had been explained to him, and that was the essential purpose of my visit, not to get any strong undertaking at that particular time but to make sure he understood Canada's good reasons for doing certain things.



SYNCRUDE PROJECT-POSSIBLE FEDERAL PURCHASE OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD INTEREST

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Sta. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the federal government initiated any negotiations regarding the purchase of the Atlantic Richfield interest in Syncrude? Specifically, are negotiations being conducted, or have negotiations been conducted, between the federal government and Atlantic Richfield, between the federal government and the Alberta government, or between the federal government and other participants in the consortium?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I met on Friday afternoon with the Alberta ministers of the environment and of mines and minerals. At that meeting we discussed the ARCO decision with regard to the Syncrude project. I expressed the interest of the federal government in supporting the government of Alberta in financial terms in order to make sure that the Syncrude project kept going. I indicated, of course, that federal participation would be subject to the approval of the Alberta government.
At a later time I met with one of the other partners in the Syncrude project to obtain confirmation of the decision made by ARCO and to obtain information as to the situation in which the project now finds itself. I have asked my officials to keep in close contact with Syncrude officials so that we can be better informed of the facts concerning that project and be in a better position to determine what assistance the federal government could
December 9, 1974

possibly render if, indeed, this were found acceptable by the government of Alberta.


Reginald Cyril Symes: My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that if a decision is made to provide federal funds or other assistance to the Syncrude project to ensure that tar sands oil is available to us in the early 1980s, the federal government will take equity in the project proportional to the financial assistance made available?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take the question as a representation and I will consider it.



SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Can the minister tell us whether a decision has been taken about the construction of the oil pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet took a decision on this and we are having negotiations with Interprovincial Pipeline Limited.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Since it has been announced that there will be no oil left in the west when the oil pipeline is ready for operation and given the cost of such a pipeline, does the minister think such capital investment is justified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we think that in the near future, as well as in the distant future, such a pipeline will be to the benefit of Canada, particularly as regards the security of the Montreal market.



ATHABASCA OIL SANDS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to that asked by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. It is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the withdrawal of Atlantic Richfield is the second major set-back suffered in connection with this project-Atlantic Richfield is the second major company to withdraw from this project to develop the Athabasca tar sands-and since the reason for the withdrawals in both cases is vacillation in government policy and economic instability as far as the petroleum industry is concerned, can the minister tell us what steps, if any, he is planning to take in order to bring about a feeling of confidence in this area as it relates to government policy to ensure that development does not stop?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Neither the decision of Shell Explorer nor the decision of ARCO was taken for the reasons stated by the hon. member. The decision of ARCO was taken in the
Oral Questions
light of the cash position in which the company finds itself because of its involvement in the Alyeska Pipeline project resulting in the cancellation of a number of other projects including one involving oil shale in the United States. It was obviously decided to give higher priority to Alyeska. The Shell Explorer decision was reached specifically because of the decision not to permit the export of Canadian oil unless surplus to Canadian requirements. I think that is a sound policy; it is one which we on this side of the House, at least, support.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EFFECT OF STATEMENTS BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES CONCERNING ALBERTA MINISTERS

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Speaking in Regina only last week, the right hon. gentleman said:
If we are to remain strong as a country, federal-provincial differences will have to be hammered out on the basis of a fundamental belief in the other fellow's honesty.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he considers the statements made in this House on Thursday night by the Minister of Energy that Premier Lougheed is acting in a vicious way and that the remarks of the interprovincial affairs minister, Mr. Don Getty, were dripping with venom, are in harmony with his plea for goodwill on both sides?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, what I had in mind was the kind of allegation made by the other side, particularly the allegation that we had acted in bad faith in connection with this matter. I find that very poor-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and it refers back to the subject of the SIU. Did the right hon. gentleman ask to see the interim report of the RCMP investigation concerning the Minister of Labour and, if so, what action has he taken as a result of that report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As is
customary, the Solicitor General reported to me on investigations which are going on, particularly when there are allegations which involve ministers of my cabinet. He made me aware of this preliminary or interim report.
28543 -61)4

December 9, 1974
Oral Questions



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-RESPONSIBILITY FOR INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY OF MINISTERS

Charles Joseph Clark: Is the Prime Minister leaving to the RCMP the responsibility to conduct an inquiry into the question of the propriety of conduct of ministers of the Crown in matters relating to the SIU? If not, who is responsible for any inquiry that might be undertaken into the question of the propriety of the actions of ministers of the Crown in this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the police to determine questions of inquiry, or even, for that matter, I believe to determine ultimate prosecution. It is up to the police to discover the facts. They are looking into the facts on the basis of some allegations which were made. I believe that this is the type of inquiry which, at the request of the Department of Labour, the Solicitor General has set up, and the police are looking into these facts. It was on the basis of this type of inquiry by the police that a preliminary report was made to me by the Solicitor General.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that section 5 of the RCMP Act gives control and management of the force to the commissioner, who, however, is, if I may quote the wording, "under the direction of the minister"-that is, the Solicitor General-and in light of the fact that the Solicitor General has an obvious personal involvement in the SIU matter and in fact is one of those singled out in the interim report, I ask the Prime Minister whether, if for no other reason, he does not consider the protection of the integrity of the RCMP sufficiently important as to order an independent inquiry, so that the RCMP is not put in the untenable position of investigating the Solicitor General, under whose direction it operates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a long standing practice in the RCMP if they are investigating ministers-and I believe this practice must have existed in the days when the Conservatives formed the government-that the commissioner or his representative makes me aware of any such representations against ministers. If it is found-and certainly this is hypothetical-that there is in some way involvement of ministers, then it is reported to me, as I am sure would have been the case in the time of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Solicitor General is rising on a question of privilege. I listened carefully to the question of the

hon. member for Perth-Wilmot to see whether or not there might be some awkwardness to the situation in which the RCMP finds itself, but I failed to hear any allegation that would in any way give rise to a question of privilege on the part of the Solicitor General. However, I am prepared to listen to the Solicitor General.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, since last week I checked the section in the RCMP act referred to, and which has been referred to several times by the opposition, and I found that the section was written at a time when the Minister of Justice was responsible for the RCMP, and he was also the attorney general in charge of prosecutions. As the hon. member might know, in 1966 a new department of the Solicitor General was set up whereby he answers for the RCMP in the House of Commons and the Minister of Justice, who is still the Attornery General of Canada, is in charge of prosecutions. So that the section referred to by the hon. member, and which, as I say, has been referred to by others, really no longer applies today in the way it did when the act was written.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister; I will make no comment on the question of privilege that has been raised. In light of the Solicitor General's statements, both in this House and elsewhere, describing the character and integrity of Mr. Shulman, and whether such statements are accurate or otherwise, I ask the Prime Minister, in regard to an investigation of the SIU, whether it is not government policy that such investigation must clearly be void of any suggestion whatever of partiality or bias or lack of independence. Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not consider an independent inquiry the only means of assuring this appearance of impartiality and lack of bias?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think we are back to the earlier confusion between the two types of inquiry; at least I must confess I am confused. I am not sure whether the question refers to an inquiry into the violence perpetrated, or allegedly perpetrated, by the SIU, or an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of a minister on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the hon. member does not need any help in asking his question, but if he would clarify that point I might be able to come out of my state of confusion and give him an answer.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, may I put a final supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that it is becoming obviously more and more difficult to sever these problems, I simply ask the Prime Minister, since in the interim report there is mention by the RCMP of the minister under whose direction the force operates-
December 9, 1974

the legislation uses the clearest possible terms in that regard-and in order to protect the integrity of the RCMP and to give the hallmark necessary to every investigation of lack of bias and impartiality, whether it is not government policy, at the precise moment when the matter arises, to order an independent inquiry into such a serious matter as allegations involving the SIU, whether it be the violence allegations or the contributions allegations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the violence allegation has nothing to do with the Solicitor General; there is no reason to suppose that he is involved in that matter. If they do have to do with questions of integrity, then I explained in my first answer what was the policy of the government and the practice of the RCMP when they are investigating a minister-


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell us about Edgar Benson and CMHC.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I see the opposition is really not trying to get to the bottom of this.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the minister say when he will be introducing legislation respecting veterans housing to take the place of the Veterans' Land Act, as promised by the government during the debate on November 5 and 6?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, there has been some study by the government of this question, and in particular by my department and the Department of Urban Affairs, which has progressed quite well and we shall be reporting to the House at an early date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which relates to the fact that the right to make applications under the Veterans' Land Act will expire on March 31, 1975. Will the new legislation be ready by that date?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I feel that whatever is going to be done will be made known before then. I am not endeavouring to leave the impression that it will be in the form of legislation.



HERMANN REPORT-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that the Hermann report was delivered to the government in October 1973 and tabled some 14 months later, would the minister advise the House whether he has now considered the preparation of the motion to refer the report to the veterans affairs committee, and has
Oral Questions
he discussed the matter with the leader of the government in this House so that this matter can be attended to at the earliest?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, regarding the hon. member's reference to when the report was made available, I should like to say that when it was first made available to the government it had to be re-edited by the individual who wrote it, as well as translated and printed. This is why I bring to the attention of the House-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was mostly figures that had to be translated.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I want to give some reasons, sir, if you would be prepared to listen for a moment, why the report took considerable time, and I can convey further information to you at a later date. With regard to referring the report to the veterans affairs committee, I have discussed the matter with the House leader. I have also received correspondence from veterans organizations across Canada, which has also been received by the veterans affairs critic on the Conservative side as well as the House leaders of the other parties. Veterans affairs associations have requested us not to advance too rapidly with this report in the committee to give them sufficient time to make a study of the matter before they appear before the committee. We have agreed to do this, with the agreement of other House leaders.



STATISTICS CANADA


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what sort of raw information he can give us on the unemployment figures due to come out tomorrow?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot enlighten the hon. gentleman at all as I have not been enlightened myself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give the House the assurance that this very, to use conservative language, questionable practice of giving certain ministers advance information about the consumer price index figures and other things, before presentation to the public and to the House, has been stopped? Can he assure us that this questionable or perhaps even nefarious practice has ceased?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker.

December 9, 1974
Oral Questions



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State perhaps I might direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State. Last week the CBC radio carried a national broadcast on its program "As it Happens" relating to the SIU controversy, including interviews with the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General. This morning a request from a member of parliament for the transcript of those broadcasts was denied by the director of parliamentary services for the CBC, but the director promised to provide the tapes of the broadcast. Later the CBC phoned back to say that the tapes would not be forthcoming. Since the request for the tapes was originally granted, and since requests in the past for CBC tapes have always been met without reservation, can the Acting Secretary of State enlighten the House as to the sudden reversal? Was there a sudden change in CBC policy, or is it just in this specific case that the government has given orders to the CBC that it should not turn over the tapes?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is a question of some complexity, judging at least by its wording.
I must recognize that I have not been aware of any fact since, unfortunately, I came back only yesterday night from a trip abroad. However, I would be very glad to transmit the question of the hon. member to the minister who, in turn, can ask the CBC. But I can immediately assure him that it has never been a practice of the government to give any instruction whatsoever to the corporation or to keep secret or reveal anything and that, furthermore, had the government done so, the corporation would not have complied with such instructions.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact the tapes were originally promised and then denied, can the minister advise if the reason these tapes are not available is that they have been called for by the RCMP?


William Warren Allmand: I do not know that, Mr. Speaker. I do know that following the allegations in the statement Mr. Shulman made on that broadcast I requested transcripts of what was said, and they were given to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I will be glad to give anybody in this House a copy of the transcripts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: If the hon. member or anybody else wants a copy I will be glad to give him one. I issued no instructions to them. I merely asked for a transcript and they gave it to me. I do not know whether the RCMP approached them.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Solicitor General has just advised that he received transcripts of the tapes, will the right hon. gentleman instruct the CBC immediately this afternoon to treat all members of parliament with the same courtesy, and to turn the transcripts over to any member of parliament who requests those tapes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know on what authority I could instruct the CBC to do that. I will certainly take note of the suggestion by the Tory party that I should be giving instructions to the CBC.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point qf order. Following the Prime Minister's answer to my question earlier, I tried to catch Your Honour's attention for a supplementary question. I did so because the Prime Minister somewhere in his answer said that he did not consider the remarks by the energy minister in respect of Premier Lougheed and Mr. Getty to be conducive to goodwill. I want to point out to this House that this name calling is on the front pages of newspapers all across Canada, particularly in the west, and is hurting the climate for negotiation in respect of the energy question, with the result that people in Canada are suffering. In view of the fact that we perhaps all say things in the House that we later regret, I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he would like to apologize for referring to Premier Lougheed as "vicious", and Mr. Getty as "dripping with venom"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on this same point of order, I must tell the hon. member that if he wants to know the nature of my thoughts, the person I had in mind who had used expressions of bad faith was the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member's leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I just want to assure the Prime Minister that I will be coming back with the same charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He will find it difficult for his backbenchers to object to this kind of language, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 5, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to
December 9, 1974
[Stage Direction]
regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Penner in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Douglas Roche: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege as I was not able to obtain an answer to the question I directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As we are resuming the discussion this afternoon of Bill C-32, I challenge the minister to apologize to Premier Lougheed and Mr. Getty for the remarks he made, so that our discussion can be conducted in a climate of good will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, when I called it ten o'clock last Thursday evening I was examining the implications of part III of this bill, which uses language that I find extraordinary. I think it would be permissible briefly to review some of the arguments I had put forward.
This is only the fifth instance of language of this sort being used in any federal legislation. With respect to the four other instances, the first was the Fisheries Act, which we can understand because it has to do with pollution, pollution control and a resource which goes beyond the control of the provinces; the second was the Nuclear Liability Act, which has to do with matters in which the federal government is involved as a result of international arrangements-here again, the binding nature of that legislation is understandable-and the third instance was in relation to international river improvement. This related to the fact that a person might improve or do damage to a river that could result in damage across the border. The responsible authority would be the federal government; therefore the federal legislation was considered to be overriding. The fourth instance concerned explosives-and it would be pleasant if we did not have so many explosive sounds in this chamber.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I think the point just made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is a good one. There is a considerable amount of noise in the chamber, which makes it very difficult for the member who has the floor to make his points. I hope that hon. members who wish to carry on conversations will do so behind the curtains, so that the business of the House may continue.


Donald W. Munro: As I was saying, the fourth special instance deals with explosives and safeguards. I was not too clear why this should have crept into the bill we are considering, although I think perhaps we can accept it as being a matter of interprovincial trade: it refers to the imposition of standards in the carriage of explosive material which could do damage to the population. This matter should come under general regulation and is therefore federal. The fifth instance in the bill is to be found in clause 3. I think it is worth reading this clause into Hansard. It provides;
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province.
Oil and Petroleum
I ask the minister to please tell us why it is felt necessary to use this type of wording. I think this Draconian measure is sort of an overriding provision in this bill. When I look at the bill I find it is divided into five parts. The first part deals with the imposition of an export tax. I cannot believe that this particular clause is necessary in order to impose and to collect an export tax. This, clearly, is within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Part IV has to do with compensation for imports over the price set. Again, I think this is in the general interest of Canada and there is no objection to it. This leaves parts II, III and V. I should like to come back to parts II and III, but for a moment I will deal with part V because to my way of thinking it has introduced some rather startling concepts in clauses 89 and 90. I think that when clause 3, which must apply to all that follows in this particular part of the bill, is examined very closely we will see the danger we are running into if we allow the bill to pass in its present form. It is our intention to propose amendments to clause 3.
In part V of the bill it will be seen that the minister may require any person to make to him a written return showing in detail information with respect to the affairs of the person named in regard to petroleum development and sales arrangements, if the minister feels this is necessary. I find paragraph (b) of subclause (1) of clause 89 very distressing. Several months ago we had a debate about invasion of privacy and the use of wiretaps. I challenge anyone to find anything more dangerous or more threatening to the privacy of the individual than paragraph (b) of clause 89, subclause (1) which reads:
... authorize any person designated to carry out investigations under this act by the minister to enter any premises in which that person has reason to believe that there may be evidence of a contravention of this
act...
I cannot help reading this particular clause with clause 3 in mind. Property and civil rights normally are matters of provincial concern. Here we have an overriding clause, in a law which this parliament is expected to approve, that will invade this area of provincial jurisdiction and will threaten the privacy of the individual. To my mind, clause 3 is an extremely dangerous clause to leave in any legislation unless there is good reason. I have just received a copy of a letter which was sent to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources by the Minister of Mineral Resources of the province of Saskatchewan. I assume it was written after they met here last week. On page 3 of this letter some of the misgivings of Saskatchewan in respect of clause 3 are expressed. I should like to quote one particular sentence relating to these misgivings;
If clause 3 is enacted and is found to be constitutionally sound...
Which, of course, is very hypothetical.
... it may effectively restrain the provinces. But in the light of events in recent months, we must ask what restraint will there be on the federal government in dealing with matters that are the legitimate concern of the provinces.
Last week we heard that nine of the mines ministers of this country are resisting strenuously this particular bill and the present trends of the government. One province alone has acquiesced. This is the expression of opinion of one of the producing provinces. No doubt there are others which we will hear about in the course of time.
December 9, 1974

Oil and Petroleum
I should like to return to clause 3 and parts II and III, which are the price-setting arrangements for which I suspect clause 3 was expressly designed in order to allow the federal government to regulate prices and do something it has not done before in peacetime. I shall return to this matter in the course of this debate, but I hope that before that the minister will have had an opportunity to reflect on the use of this particular clause in the bill and will express his views on possible changes.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I shall adhere closely to my notes because of my limited time, but I would ask the indulgence of the House if I should stray a little beyond my allotted time. Because I propose to make some suggestions to the committee, perhaps members of the committee might give me special consideration.
The bill, of course, stands by itself so far as discussion in the committee is concerned, but it cannot be dissociated from other measures the federal government has passed or will introduce, namely, the energy allocation bill and the proposals to amend the Income Tax Act which, of course, will be discussed at a later date. You have to take them together, as a package, when looking at this issue. They all go to the question of the natural resources which belong to the provinces.
There has been a lot of glib talk about the constitution. I think it is necessary to go back to basics, to review our position, to strip away the overlay of academic and legal jargon which has been superimposed on the original foundation of the act. There are several sections of the constitution which this committee cannot ignore in examining the whole issue. Section 125 says, "no land or property belonging to Canada or any province shall be liable to taxation." Section 109 gives to the provinces all lands, mines, minerals and royalties within the several provinces of Canada, and so on. I will not go into the whole section because I think members of the committee are familiar with it. Finally, among others there is section 92(5) which reads:
... management and sales of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon ...
The section provides that these shall be matters in respect of which legislatures may exclusively make laws. I suggest that, taken together, we can come to no other reasonable judgment than that these constitute a grant of ownership pure and simple, free from the rights of federal taxation so far as provincial ownership is concerned. This is not just a matter of being given jurisdiction over a subject matter, being given jurisdiction in respect of roads, education or public works within a province: this is an outright grant of title, without restriction.
This is borne out by the terms of the bill in 1930 by which the federal government of that date returned to the western provinces jurisdiction over the natural resources of which they had been deprived since 1905. In the debate which took place in the House at that time, it is very interesting to note what was said. I wish I had more time to go into it. Perhaps I will later on, although I hope not. There is a very interesting comment made by Mr. Stewart, at that time minister of the interior, who when dealing with the question of what was meant by royalties said:

Mining leases and oil leases are in the same category; they are subject to fluctuations in royalties.
He was responding to a question from R. B. Bennett. The rest of the debate shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that royalties and the right to change them were included in the outright transfer to the provincial governments and constituted a rental. The provinces rented out the natural resources of which they were the owners and got royalties in return. This was accepted in the debate and was the subject of the legislation at that time. Furthermore, the language used in the confederation debates which took place from 1864 to 1867 shows that at that time natural resources provided one of the methods by which provinces were able to finance their undertakings. For that reason, unlike the division of the subject matters, it was an outright transfer and ownership fell squarely to the provinces.
Then there were some legal decisions. I will not go into all of them now, although I may later. There is an interesting judgment of 160 pages in the court of Saskatchewan. I may have occasion to read it into the record at some time. It might be of use to the government. I hope I will not have to, but it is possible. There is the case of Attorney General of Ontario v. Mercer, where it was held that these provincial powers were the attribution of royal territorial rights. I wish the Prime Minister were here; that great, confirmed royalist who from time to time competes with the right hon. member for Prince Albert for being the greatest royalist. That judgment refers to-
... the attribution of royal territorial rights for purposes of revenue and government to the provinces in which they are situate or arise.
There was another Ontario case which touches on this issue. The province of Ontario, in granting rights to a company within a timber berth, attached a condition by which the timber which was felled could not be exported out of the country to be sawn into lumber. That condition was attacked on the ground that it constituted an interference with the regulation of trade and commerce which of course is a federal matter. This case, tried by a trial judge, subsequently went to the Ontario court of appeal which rejected outright the argument that the condition attached by the province constituted an interference with the federal right to regulate trade and commerce. So it does appear, on the basis of existing jurisprudence, that certain rights are given to provinces to attach conditions to those natural resources of which they are the outright owners. Then there is the recent decision of Mr. Justice Hughes in the Saskatchewan case just decided, which upheld provincial laws relating to taxation and royalties with regard to minerals and petroleum products. As I say, that may be the subject of prolonged discussion later on.
So while admitting the wide power of general taxation given to the federal government, I suggest as strongly as I can that that power cannot, and must not, be used for the purpose of depriving a province of its property or as a blunt instrument designed to set aside the proper constitutional rights of the provinces. Such would be the result of the federal proposals now before the House, and in effect they have been so claimed by the Minister of Finance who makes it clear that the federal government feels the provinces are getting too much revenue from the rental they are charging for their petroleum resources. He has intro-
December 9, 1974

duced amendments through the ways and means motion which will shortly be before the House in the form of legislation. They are being inserted by the federal government for the plain purpose of compelling the producing provinces to decrease the amount of the rental they are charging for their own property. I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the members of the committee, surely this constitutes an obvious interference with the enjoyment of property by the provinces.
In the same vein, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources contends that the federal government must have the unchallengeable and unquestionable right to reach into a province, fix prices in the province and determine the disposition of these provincially-owned resources whenever the federal government sees fit to do so. Surely these two federal assertions demonstrate the true purpose of the present government to interfere with the rights of ownership given by sections 109, 92 (5) and 125 and for all practical purposes will be aside by the unilateral decree of the Trudeau administration.
I ask members from the province of Quebec, particularly those on the government side who have applauded so loudly the action of the government, what would be their view if the federal power of taxation were to be utilized for a different purpose and the federal government were to say that they would impose an additional excise tax of 100 per cent on all construction material going to schools or universities which do not give predominance to the teaching of English, or were to amend the Income Tax Act so as to grant a deduction of some amount in respect of those students who attend only English-speaking universities? This would be a use of the taxing power for a purpose which I would not like. I say to hon. members from Quebec sitting on the government side: you would object to it; you would say it is unconstitutional; you would say it is wrong-and I would agree with you.
Let us come to the present impasse. In dealing with it, I shall deal particularly with the province of Alberta because the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, in a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech derived not only from his experience in the House but from his knowledge as a former premier of the province, has dealt most effectively with the case of Saskatchewan.
According to the correspondence filed by the Prime Minister on November 28, on March 4 this year Premier Lougheed told him privately, in advance of publication, of the intention of the Alberta government to impose royalties at a given rate. This has not been contradicted by the Prime Minister. We must then assume that on March 12 when the Prime Minister seht a letter to the Premier of Alberta, and on March 27 when the federal-provincial agreement was being made here in Ottawa, and on March 28 when the Prime Minister made a statement in the House, he was in full possession of this particular information which he had been given by the Premier of Alberta.
It is true that the Prime Minister has told the House that he said to the Premier of Alberta that he was unhappy with royalties of this kind, and also said the same in his letter of March 12. He does not claim, however, that he
Oil and Petroleum.
made it clear that the federal government intended to meet this attitude on the part of the provinces by bringing in a budget, as was done in May of this year and repeated on November 18, which would disallow the provincial royalties; nor did he say he was going to bring in Bill C-32, which in April of this year was Bill C-18.
Mr. Chairman, I say that when the first ministers met at the residence of the Prime Minister on March 27, he owed it to the premiers, to Premier Lougheed, Premier Blakeney and the others, to display the same frankness as was displayed by Premier Lougheed. He should have said outright that the Minister of Finance, in his budget shortly to be announced, was going to disallow provincial revenues represented by the royalties outlined on March 4 by the premier.
Let us not delude ourselves. There can be no doubt at all that on March 27 the nature of the budget and the extent of the amendments to the Income Tax Act must have been within the knowledge of the Prime Minister. This is a document several inches thick, translated from French into English and English into French, with a bill following it. It was not prepared overnight. The effect of the budget, its intentions and its terms must have been within the knowledge of the Prime Minister on March 27 when he had the meeting in his residence on Sussex Drive, and on March 28 when he made the statement in this House.
Mr. Chairman, he also owed it to the producing provinces to tell them that, even though by their meeting on March 27 they had agreed to a Canadian price mechanism for petroleum products, there was at that time in existence Bill C-18 which gave vast, unilateral authority to the federal government to fix prices without regard to the provinces in spite of any agreement which had been or would be reached in future as to price structure. There is no question that such authority was in effect in that bill, and presently exists in Bill C-32.
I suggest these admissions show more than lack of candor, more than just sharp practice: they constitute a complete lack of understanding of the federal-provincial relationship. They fall dismally short of that degree of utmost good faith that has to be present if arrangements of this kind are to be of any value. They come within the description that I gave in my speech on November 28 as another example of "the suppression of the truth and suggestion of the false" which is one of the guiding mottos of this government.
I have restrained myself and have been remarkably mild in the things I have said, Mr. Chairman, but I must say that as a result of this we have come to a dangerous situation in Canada on the question of energy and the development of new sources thereof. We face economic problems of a grievous nature-not only with regard to energy but in a great many areas, when we see what is happening all over the world-which will require the utmost degree of federal-provincial co-operation. I do not think anyone on the government side will deny that. The question of federal-provincial co-operation is going to be paramount in the difficult months, and maybe even years, which lie ahead.
There is overwhelming evidence of a shortage of energy
not just over the short term but likely over the long term.
It is now quite clear that there is confusion and uncertain-
2062

Oil and Petroleum
ty and that the program of searching for and development of new supplies has ground to a halt. There is confrontation and political warfare at the intergovernmental level, and grave danger-I say this advisedly-to the basis of confederation. Consequently, I say to members of the committee-I believe I reflect the thinking of most Canadians when I say this-it is imperative that the 11 governments quickly move together to repair the damage done. There must be a careful and thoughtfully put together proposal which will touch all bases on this question of energy, with the first priority being securing new sources of supply with recognition of the constitutional rights of the provinces as well as the need of Canadians for an agreement founded on fairness, equity and constitutional propriety.
I need hardly point out that this cannot be done against the background of the federal proposals now before the House and to be brought before the House. If the government attempts to bull these through at this time on the basis on which they have been put together, it can only lead to further deterioration of the situation. Our leader has indicated our position. Others in the House, with some exceptions, seem to take the same general attitude.,
Does the Prime Minister want to be in the position of not calling a first ministers' conference until he has secured, by Bill C-32 and the budget proposals, the whip to bring the provinces into line even if it is a mutilation of the spirit of national unity? Does he want to go to the first ministers' meeting and fling on the table as his strong point, his ace in the hole, a constitution altered by closure in this parliament?
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has maintained that he must have this legislation in order to have the power to impose the export tax and to provide the subsidies for the consuming provinces. There are other reasons as well, but I mention those two in particular. I say this is not necessarily so. I agree that if there had been agreement, this would be the way to do it; but I would suggest the record indicates that for some considerable period of time these two objectives have been achieved without the benefit of Bill C-32. The Oil Export Tax Act, which was passed some time ago and which retroactively levied taxes from October 1, 1973-it only received royal assent in January, 1974, and ended in April, 1974-is a precedent against the government's argument that Bill C-32 must be passed by the new year.
It will be noted that Supplementary Estimates (A) for 1973-74, which voted compensation from January 1, 1974, to March 31, 1974, did not receive royal assent until March 28, 1974. Thus, compensation was paid three months in arrears. I am not saying that this is the best way to move, but I am saying it has been done and it offers some answer to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There are other alternatives, however, which I should like to propose now in the hope that the government might consider them. It would be quite simple for this House to consider a supplementary estimate for enough money at this time to add to the present estimate of $330 million which I believe was passed in a previous supplementary estimate and is expected to run out some time in January. A further supplementary estimate would carry through adequate funds for the federal government to continue paying sub-

sidies required by the consuming provinces until March 31, 1975, the end of the fiscal year. Should there be agreement in the House, I do not think such supplementary estimate would take too long to pass.
With regard to the collection of the export tax, there is ample legal authority under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act. I do not say that I like that act; I fought against it because there are some things about it which I did not like; but parliament passed it and the amendments. I have not time to go into the details, but I have checked it quite closely. I checked the regulations respecting the export control list. By amendment, petroleum products are now covered by the export control list. I suggest to the minister it would be possible to attach a condition to the export of petroleum products by which the tax could be paid.
However, if this does not appeal to the government, I am quite sure it would not be too difficult for there to be a ways and means motion to cover the collection of the export tax for the period I have mentioned. There is also the National Energy Board Act. There are several methods by which it would be possible for this parliament to ensure that the funds are in fact collected and made available for the purpose for which agreement was achieved on March 27 at the federal-provincial conference. There is little time left. I suggest to the Prime Minister and his colleagues who have been so involved in this matter that they forget confrontation politics. I will be frank and say it has not all been on the government side. Some of the provinces have been engaged in this. However, there are some very powerful forces afoot. There is a feeling on the part of a great many people in the western provinces, as was the case for many years with the Atlantic provinces, that they are the low people on the totem pole. That feeling is very pervasive today. I would like to see matters develop through the instrumentality of this House which would bring this to a stop.
I do not suggest that the government withdraw Bill C-32, but that it give consideration to putting it over until some time in the new year. This would give an opportunity for the 11 heads of government to meet. The finance ministers are meeting today. It may well be they are laying the foundation for a time and agenda for the first ministers' meeting. For that reason, I suggest this should be done. Confrontation should be put aside. The federal government should act with the provinces in a reasonable attempt to refill the reservoirs of good will and co-operation which have been sadly depleted in the past few months. With the aid of this House and the provinces, we should get on with the type of program to deal with the very pressing and dangerous problem which faces this country, and do it by going with, and not against, the grain of the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we have had a suggestion by the hon. member for Peace River, which I gather is the same suggestion that he made privately to my colleague, concerning the Petroleum Administration Act. The hon. member also spoke at some length about the
December 9, 1974

budget, which I do not propose to do since we are now dealing with the Petroleum Administration Act. It might be useful, in the first place, to make some response to the various points the hon. member made in his argument so far as they relate to this particular bill and to put again the government's position with regard to this statute.
The hon. member made a suggestion which I am prepared to consider actively with my colleagues to see to what extent it provides a basis for arriving at a settlement which will not, as has been threatened, tie up the time of the House for weeks, and perhaps even a month or more. The hon. member addressed some remarks to the constitution. In speaking about taxing, I was not sure whether he was dealing with the income tax regime or the export tax regime. To the extent he was speaking about the income tax regime, I will not press the argument which in due course my colleague will undoubtedly want to refer to again. However, with regard to the export tax, not only is there a basis in the constitution for the export tax under the trade and-


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not contesting that, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can only say I am not attempting to raise any income tax by the bill we are discussing. If that is not contested, that is fine. The hon. member referred to this regime as reaching into a province and dealing with a resource. That is obviously not a clear case under the constitution. Quite clearly, the management for the good or ill of a resource within a province lies with that provincial government. That is why, for example, although we think from a national standpoint it is of very great concern as to the kind of proposals put forward with regard to the development of the oil sands, this government has accepted the view of the government of Alberta that it is exclusively for that government to decide whether to set out on such development, and the federal government has not been encouraged to have any participation whatsoever.
I have within the past 72 hours made a suggestion which I hope will be helpful to Alberta in relation to the ARCO withdrawal from Syncrude. However, this government recognizes it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, just as we have taken the position that except in so far as native rights might be affected by the James Bay development or except in so far as the James Bay Corporation or Hydro-Quebec may be applying in due course for an export permit to export any surplus power from that province, basically development of the James Bay area falls within provincial jurisdiction.
The real question is whether one is talking about interprovincial trade in a particular commodity or international trade, that is, export of a commodity. Does the federal government not have a right, and in some circumstances a responsibility, to moderate the national market according to the national objectives? The examples I gave when introducing this bill are still relevant. To answer the hon. member opposite, I would have to say that while he was not a member of the cabinet, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings were; they were members of the regime which introduced the National Energy Board Act and a national oil policy. They provided a system whereby the
Oil and Petroleum
price of and trade in a commodity within Canada would be restricted and controlled in such a way as to create a favourable climate for one part of the country, namely, the Alberta producers, so they could sell their oil over the years at between $1 and $1.25 more in the markets of Ontario than would have been the case had those markets imported from abroad. That regime came under attack after the Diefenbaker government went out of office. In the successive Cal-Oil cases the supreme court held that these provisions were directly within this trade and commerce power.
I argue, on the basis of regulating interprovincial and international trade, there can be no question about the right of the federal government to take this particular action. I would agree with the hon. member when he said there may be no question about the right, but is it desirable to do that? I want to deal with that point in substance after I have dealt with a number of his other arguments. There is obviously a matter for concern about supply of oil in Canada. We have had an analysis of the situation by the National Energy Board. It indicated that unless certain measures are taken with regard to restricting exports from this country, by the year 1982 existing Canadian production will not be adequate to meet the markets that are now projected to be supplied from Canadian production with the increase in demand including the addition of the Montreal pipeline. This, obviously, has to be a matter of concern for all Canadians at both the provincial and federal levels.
I think it is fair to contest the question as to whether the budget or any particular statute has been the basis for a slowdown in oil exploration, particularly in Alberta. The best witness I could call with regard to whether it has been the budget, and that there has not been a climate of reduced exploration, at least in federal territories, would be Premier Lougheed. The December 6 edition of the Globe and Mail reports a speech made by Premier Lougheed to his constituency association. The article is by Thomas Kennedy. I quote:
According to the premier, at the same time as the industry was urging Alberta to reach an accord with the federal government, ostensibly for the sake of domestic harmony, companies went ahead with spending on exploration and other commitments on federally held lands, even though "you didn't know what the rules are going to be".
"Give us stability, give us certainty," Mr. Lougheed said the industry demanded of his government. "Yet you do not know what is going to happen on Sable Island."
It seems to me this is clear evidence-the premier seems to think it is-that there has been a substantial amount of exploration in federal lands and offshore. I would suggest the reason for the departure of the 40 rigs the hon. member mentioned has been given by the premier himself. He said:
Regardless of the conditions here, the U.S. project Independence has diverted investments and rigs from this region.
That is the background of the situation. The argument that Canadian policy has in any sense been the basis for diverting drilling activity, and so on, from Alberta is, I maintain, a difficult one to sustain.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not saying it is the only reason. I am contending it is a factor.
28543-62%

December 9, 1974
Oil and Petroleum


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Peace River always tries to be fair, and I appreciate that. To deal with some of his procedural suggestions, he says the objectives have been met in the past by a ways and means resolution. But a ways and means resolution providing, as it does, by constitutional practice authority to collect the tax in advance of action by parliament, has to be followed in due course by a tax bill. From this standpoint, the tax is now being paid by the companies as a result of a ways and means resolution and will, presumably, continue to be paid until that resolution expires either by the enactment of a bill or the ending of the session. There is, therefore, a legal basis for it.
Then the hon. member suggests a supplementary estimate so that adequate funds can be provided up to the end of the fiscal year. That is a procedure I would have to take into account along with my colleagues. I would have to raise some question with regard to the vehicle he suggests, the Import and Export Permits Act. To make what is, perhaps, a judgment from the saddle on the matter, my recollection is that the act does not apply to crude oil, which is dealt with specifically by the National Energy Board Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: It does. When I first looked up the act, I had some doubt myself, but there has been an amendment to the regulations by which the definition of high energy fuels has been expanded to include petroleum products.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess that before expounding any more legal opinions I had better look up the law. At least we see the hon. gentleman's viewpoint. There is at least the prospect that we shall not find ourselves in a situation early in the New Year, in the depth of winter, where we find oil prices will have to rise in eastern Canada because of the failure of parliament to enact this bill.
I think it is worth while going back again to basic principles when looking at this legislation. The hon. gentleman has, in a manner of speaking, summed up the debate from his party's point of view. May I just do the same for a few minutes from the point of view of the government? As the House knows, the government wishes to continue to be in the position to cushion the impact of high oil prices in eastern Canada. It was on this basis that we proposed the measure which is now before the committee. The view of the government with regard to oil prices is that they should move in due course to a level high enough to attract the incremental investment necessary for the production of oil in Canada, but that they should not necessarily move to world levels.
Of course, it is not easy to say what incentive is required at any particular time to bring on this additional production. At the moment, however, we are not inclined to believe that the price should rise to world levels in order to achieve this result in Canada. While, therefore, we think the ultimate level may be below the world price we recognize that, if it must go higher in time, the adjustment to a higher price should come by a series of stages which cushion as far as possible the consumers of petroleum and petroleum products against the economic impact-not consumers in eastern Canada alone but in the whole of
Canada, including Alberta itself-because of our decision to adopt a single price.


Mr. Benjamin:: There is no argument about that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Somebody says there's no argument about that. On the contrary, there seems to be a great deal of argument about it. There is a suggestion from Alberta that the price should be $10 a barrel. I would point out that an additional $2 a barrel is equivalent to one percentage point on the consumer price index, and hon. members know that at a time of grave concern about inflation, nationally and internationally, we would be well advised to cushion the effect of such increases in Canada to whatever extent is possible. This is a fundamental position taken by the government. We do not feel consumers should be obliged to bear the full impact of any cost increases in one shot.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With regard to the one price system and the forecast that Canada will enter into a deficit position perhaps as early as 1975, is the minister in possession of any forecast showing to what extent exports will exceed imports in 1975-76? And can he tell us what this will mean in terms of cost to the federal treasury when it comes to preserving the one price system across Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Current levels of imports are around 750,000 or 800,000 barrels a day. The level of exports as of January 1 will be at about 800,000 barrels a day. But taking into consideration the higher quality of Canadian oil, even on the basis of this net balance there would be a surplus in the account in Canada's favour.
If exports of Canadian oil to the United States declined to 650,000, as I have proposed-and I may say I have discussed this proposal with both the producing provinces, and while there has been no final conclusion, the matter is now under consideration by them-there would then be a deficit of 150,000 barrels a day and there would, therefore, be a deficit in the taxation account, a lessening of the ability to find the compensation payments from the oil export tax receipts. Also worthy of note in this connection is that some time between now and July 1 we expect to meet with the provincial governments to determine what the price level should be. The exact exposure of the consolidated revenue fund at that time will depend upon the gap between the domestic price and the international price. For this reason I cannot be precise, but in principle there would be a deficit of some kind if we went down in mid-year. If we did not go down in mid-year, the problem would present itself at year-end, assuming the National Energy Board recommendations are being followed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder whether the minister could give us a forecast of the deficit position in the year 1976.1 think he is assuming that imports will remain constant at 800,000 barrels a day. Does he have a forecast for 1976 of imports per day, on average, for the year and of exports per day, on average, for the year? I ask him this because it sounds as though this will be an expensive burden for the

December 9, 1974

federal treasury to bear. Does the minister have the basis upon which we can calculate how much it will mean for each dollar below the world price as the government tries to maintain a one price system across the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question would depend on the price level at that time and the extent to which demand had been restrained. If it is difficult enough to know what price level will be agreed in 1975, it is obviously even more difficult to do so with respect to 1976.
It could well be that there will be an exposure of the public treasury and that we will have to face at that time collecting from general revenue a sum sufficient to cushion those consumers in that part of Canada dependent upon imported oil. However, that is a step that will be taken at the time the situation arises. But I repeat that what I have said about the impact on consumers remains a matter of major importance. We should try to ease, as far as possible, the degree to which higher prices do have an impact upon Canadians.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question and then I promise you and the minister I will not bother you again? Is the minister prepared to give any assurance that the one price system below the world price will be maintained through 1976, or is he saying that this is something that will depend upon a lot of conditions that he cannot forecast? In presenting this bill to the committee now, is he prepared to give the committee a firm assurance that a one price system will be maintained across Canada which is significantly below world price? After all, this is a major aspect of the bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, the government's objective. One of the interesting questions, of course, is what will be the world price at that time. Will Secretary Simon be correct in anticipating that the world price will drop off by several dollars, or will the OPEC nations, despite their indications of late, put the price up again further? Perhaps I might be excused from speculating about the world price in 1976 and what the regime will be at that time. The general approach of this government, which should commend itself to all corners of the House and to all Canadians, is that we should do our best within our financial means to keep the price down to the point where incremental supplies can be brought on from within Canada, without necessarily going wherever the leaders of the OPEC nations take us in terms of price.
Before the hon. gentleman's questions I had made some reference to what were the government's objectives in terms of oil. At the present time the price is dependent upon the will of the premier and government of Alberta. The position that the government takes-and this is enshrined in the bill-is that while every effort should be taken to arrive at an agreement with the provincial governments as to what the appropriate price level should be for this commodity, whether sold for export of sold into interprovincial trade, it should be the ultimate responsibility of the Government of Canada to determine a price level that is in the interests of all Canadians. In particular, it should not be left to the will of the premier of a single
Oil and Petroleum
province, who after all is elected only by his local electorate and is responsible only to them; it is this parliament that must take the ultimate responsibility, and by this bill we seek to do exactly that.


Gerald William Baldwin: Within the constitution.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Within the constitution. We have been talking about oil, Mr. Chairman, and I should now like to make a few remarks about natural gas which I think may have some relevance to what is behind the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River. If he did not say so in so many words, I think he suggested that we should let this bill and the budget stand for a couple of months, have a federal-provincial first ministers' meeting and see if we can work things out. I think that was his proposal.
I would have to say that it is certainly a proposal worth considering, but the one difficulty we have regarding natural gas is that the legal regime now created in the province of Alberta means that unless action is taken during 1975 there will be an automatic escalation in the price of natural gas to consumers, an escalation which may be as high as 90 per cent of the price now being paid. In the last two years the prices of natural gas, which of course is sold under long-term contract, have increased from 16 cents a thousand cubic feet to 22 cents a thousand cubic feet. Today, the average price at which TransCanada PipeLines buys natural gas, as of November 1, 1974, is about 45 cents. That is the average price; a number of contracts are still at the 22 cents level, and the price ranges all the way from 22 cents to about 60 cents.
What is proposed under the Alberta arbitration act and by the producers in the province, with the support of the provincial government, is that the price of natural gas at the wellhead on November 1, 1975, should go to 85 cents a thousand cubic feet, which is about a 90 per cent increase over the present day average price. This price of 85 cents for all contracts will, as I think it can be seen, have a substantial impact on consumers in all parts of Canada.
May I again deal with the point made by the hon. member for Dauphin. His constituents and other Manitobans, per capita or per household, are greater users of natural gas than my constituents in Toronto and other parts of Ontario. Close to a 100 per cent increase in natural gas prices to the household is as much against his interests and the interests of the people of Manitoba as it is against the interests of those in Ontario and Quebec. So often this debate is put on the basis of the west versus central Canada; but the critical thing that he has to bear in mind is that when Premier Lougheed talks about the east in speaking of natural gas, he means everybody east of the Alberta border, including Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which provinces will themselves have to bear the impact of higher prices for natural gas unless action is taken of the kind proposed by this bill to moderate the price.
As I have said, I have given the committee the basis for oil pricing that the government has been following, and I should like to restate our approach to natural gas pricing. This is a premium fuel, a fuel which should be used, for example, in certain commercial applications but particularly for residential applications because of its premium qualities. It should not be used as far as possible for

December 9, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
industrial applications where, comparably speaking, either coal or oil could be used in competition with it. We recognize that the price of natural gas in Canada has to go up. But the proposal we have made to the provinces is that the increase, as with oil, should be escalated in small enough steps over a period of five years so that the full impact of the price increase does not fall upon the consumer right away.
I think I would be justified in saying that under the current law there is no way, except by an amendment of the kind proposed in this bill, in which one can prevent the arbitration process provided for by Alberta law from escalating the price at the wellhead and therefore passing on the higher prices to Canadian consumers generally. It is on the basis of avoiding this situation that we have proposed to the provinces that the price be escalated in stages, and we are suggesting that the only effective way to protect that staging is by this kind of amendment in the bill.
I appreciate the courtesy of the committee in giving me an opportunity to restate the reasons behind the government's thinking in regard to this particular measure. I also appreciate the courtesy of the committee in enabling me to adjourn the debate at five o'clock so I can have meetings with the Premier of Iran. The hon. member has made some interesting proposals which I shall have to discuss with my colleague, of course, but I am sure we will have an opportunity before long to return again to this fascinating subject.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I make one or two comments? The minister has spoken about central Canada versus western Canada. I do not like that kind of confrontation, which I think we can do without. However, I remember well as a young man in the west, when living in the northern part of western Canada, that prices went up because of tariffs, and also because of horizontal freight rates. I participated in some of the submissions made to the board of railway commissioners, as it was then, and the arguments that were put forward on behalf of those people representing what has been referred to as central Canada were to the effect, "Well, if you ignorant people want to live that far out in western Canada, you must suffer the consequences." I think that is wrong and I would hate to see it become part of this argument now- and I refer to what has been said over and over again.
I know there are difficulties; the minister does not need to tell me that. I followed this matter for years until I became involved. But I suggest they are not difficulties which are insurmountable. When I was young like the minister, the sap of energy and controversy ran through my veins, but as one grows older he grows a little more mellow. There is an old motto which the minister may know, being a lawyer, that a case settled is a case won. In any event, I cannot believe there are difficulties of the kind envisaged in this particular matter of energy supplies that cannot be solved by people of good will getting together on a fair, firm and equitable basis, respecting the constitution under which this country is governed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Let me tell the minister a story which illustrates my point. Not far from the town of Peace River, though not in my constituency now but in the constituency of the hon. member for Athabasca, so there is no conflict of interest, the Shell people were involved for a number of years in an in situ tar sands development project. It was estimated that there were anywhere from 15 billion to 50 billion barrels of oil involved. Shell worked for some five to seven years with the government of Alberta and the Alberta Research Council on this project. This involved some $40 million to $50 million at the outset, with more money available over a period of time. It was a pilot plant that was deemed fairly likely to be successful and would have brought a large, additional source into the stream of energy supplies of this country.
This is the kind of thing the people of this country demand the 11 governments take into account in their approach. I do not suggest that the fault lies exclusively with the federal government-and you can tell by my voice that I underline the word "exclusively". At the same time, none of these are problems that cannot be worked out by people sitting down together in good faith. For this reason, I suggest we buy time by the course I have proposed. I think the people of Canada will expect and demand that governments sit down and work this thing out, as I believe they will.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might say that in respect of the specific reference to in situ tar sands development, I am in total agreement. It is for that reason we have laid some emphasis on the importance of research investment in which this government is prepared to engage, as well as in respect of oil sands development technology in order to reach, not just that portion of the deposit that can be obtained by what are essentially mining means but in trying to find a process through which we can obtain the nearly 500 billion barrels that lie much deeper.
The hon. member made some remarks about the manner in which the debate has been conducted. I note that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is back in the House. I would have responded to his question today except that we reached the end of the question period. I would have to say there has been an intemperate quality to the debate on both sides. Perhaps participants on both sides may have said things they wished they had not said in the heat of the debate. I would have to suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that putting the debate within the context of what has been done, against central Canada, is not the way to bring about a solution to the differences. There is really a national concern here.
As I said in my remarks about natural gas, in response to the hon. member for Dauphin, this has a much wider impact than he expressed in this regard. I would acknowledge that the discussions, if they can be discussions, or even a debate in disagreement could probably be conducted in a more temperate vein than has perhaps been the case in the past.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question for the purpose of clarification. When the minister was talking about increasing prices for oil and natural gas over a period of time, I thought I heard him refer to a
December 9, 1974

five-year period in respect of escalating prices for oil and natural gas. Is that correct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No. It would involve phasing the price of natural gas to the price of oil in Canada as it may be determined at the time. The value of gas would be a commodity value based on the price of oil. We have proposed a five-year period in respect of the escalation in the price of gas. In fact the price of oil may be higher or lower, but the period we have proposed is five years in an attempt to restrain the impact as the price goes up.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Has the five-year period been agreed to by the resource producing provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have put the proposal forward to both the producing and consuming sides, but up to the moment it has not been agreed to by anyone.


Mr. Mitges:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-32 respecting the administration of interprovincial, export and import trade in petroleum and petroleum products. After reviewing and studying the debates on this bill up to now, and after assessing the pros and cons of what has already been stated by various speakers on both sides of the House, I find it would be most difficult on my part to contribute to this debate and focus attention on any pertinent information that has not already been brought out by previous contributors to the debate. Therefore, I should like to direct the content of my remarks to perhaps a slightly different angle or approach.
As a member from Ontario, I feel we in Ontario have been caught in the middle of a continual harangue and bitter confrontation that has been going on at an ever increasing pace between the fuel producing provinces of Canada and the federal government. Ontario is a province which, by virtue of its vast industrial and commercial make-up, plus its large and extensive population, requires a great deal of energy to keep its furnaces alight and to guarantee the continuation of the many hundreds of thousands of jobs necessary to keep our economy bright. Yet, with all this, we are the most vulnerable of all provinces in so far as energy is concerned and we are obliged to recognize that our role is less than that of an innocent bystander at a boxing match.
I would humbly suggest that the people of Canada have "had it", they are fed up with this fruitless dialogue they have had to digest, and now demand a quick end to this charade so they will know soon where all Canadians stand and what to expect in the future, in order that we can begin to prepare ourselves as soon as possible for all the eventualities that might present themselves. The time is now ripe for both sides to bury the hatchet and start once again from scratch. The time is ripe for a new spirit of negotiation and consultation with some plain give and take by both sides. This is of tantamount importance if we are ever to solve this unfortunate but important problem.
Bargaining in a spirit of good will, honesty and good faith, rather than bargaining for political advantage, as I have observed, would indeed go a long way toward resolving the difficulties. Let us make sure we do not find ourselves, as many school boards and teachers in our province have unfortunately found themselves, involved
Oil and Petroleum
in the constant bickering and confrontation which has been evidenced lately with both sides of the Ontario school educational system superimposing their own philosophies at the expense of each other, completely forgetting the innocent bystander, in this case the student, who is the ultimate loser as a result of the never ending dispute.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, in this energy debacle involving the producing provinces and the federal government, the eventual losers will be the innocent bystanders, in this case the Canadian people, unless something is done, and done soon. I think it is mandatory that we end this confrontation and replace it by honest bargaining, in good faith, by all parties, that would be beneficial to all sides concerned and, above all, of lasting benefit to the people of Canada. This would be a most welcome factor in furthering the cause of national unity, a cause which needs the most careful cultivation and nurturing to ensure the moulding of all regions of Canada into a truly national entity in which we can all take pride and of which we can all be proud.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Chairman, the government has been actively trying to promote the myth that the bill which we have before us, and the budget bills relating to federal taxation of royalties, are issues which concern only the producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the federal government. Many members from western Canada have already spoken in this debate. But I speak on behalf of a constituency in Ontario because this bill poses a threat, not just to the prairie provinces but to all the provinces which must be wondering what resource area the federal government will try to take over next, and to all Canadian consumers whose supplies of oil and natural gas depend so heavily on successful federal-provincial co-operation in this area.
Behind this bill there is a fundamental lack of coherent energy policy in this country. In the formation of energy policy, where intelligent initiative and long-range planning are called for, we have seen nothing but reflex reaction. This bill is just one more example of legislation by reaction. It does nothing to provide an integrated, over-all energy policy to co-ordinate the development and delivery of our natural resources in the most efficient and rational way. Instead, by proposing unilateral action to set oil prices, an action which invades provincial jurisdiction, it introduces division and friction to an area where cohesion and co-operation are desperately needed.
Until we have a coherent national energy policy, each piece of the government's legislation can only be disruptive, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle forced into a frame by someone, without any idea of the over-all picture behind the puzzle. The government unfortunately needs to be reminded of the obvious. In particular, it needs to be reminded that any energy policy is justified only if it makes the best possible contribution to the quality of life in Canada. The only exception to this might be whatever contribution we make to the poorer nations of the world. All other policies must contribute to the strength, unity and self-reliance of our nation. They must create communities that are varied, healthy, secure and stimulating.

December 9, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
They must create jobs and investment opportunities for Canadians that are challenging and in every sense rewarding.
All of this is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to say it, yet the government is so caught up with the problems and pressures of the moment that it regularly responds with policies that do not meet these criteria. The policies of the government are rather unimaginative products of the conventional wisdom of the fifties and sixties, perhaps reasonable in their time but demonstrably unsuited to the seventies.
We badly need a plan, an integrated plan, of which all government policy is a part; a plan moved by a vision of Canadian society 50 years hence which is self-sustaining, utilizing all our resources efficiently and with a view to their long-term supply. But because the government has no concept of such a sustainable society, it has no plan for reaching it. Because it has neither direction nor plan, it moves from one crisis to another, all the time allowing our valuable, non-renewable resources to be consumed at rates that are not necessary, not reasonable and certainly not sustainable.
When I look at this bill there are four aspects of the government's failure to come to grips with Canada's energy problems which come instantly to mind. First, we find that the government has failed time and time again to get accurate figures on the demand for and supply of Canada's oil and natural gas. No more eloquent testimony to the government's ineptitude in forecasting ability can be found than in the white paper on energy issued last year by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On page 104 the white paper states categorically:
In summary, the analysis suggests that Canada has more than enough energy resources available to cover her own use at least until the year 2050 and that there is a chance that there may be substantial amounts of oil and gas surplus to domestic demand.
This analysis was done just last year, yet last month we were informed by the National Energy Board that proven oil reserves cannot be expected to fulfil our own domestic requirements past 1982, even if all exports of oil to the United States are stopped. If those exports continue, the National Energy Board reports our oil self-sufficiency will end even earlier, in 1978.
The government has had to impose immediate cutbacks on our exports of oil, another reflex reaction. This government, which has already proven to be so inept in this field, now moves by means of this bill to increase substantially the regulatory powers of the federal government over oil and natural gas. Of a total of 95 clauses, 30 give complete discretionary powers to either the government, the governor in council, boards, or the minister. Moreover, the number of clauses granting the governor in council power to act by regulation and order in council has more than doubled from the government's previous bill, C-18. How could anyone vote for a bill giving so many powers of regulation over oil and gas supplies to a government whose record of forecasting in this area is so dismally bad?
Second, this bill substantiates the government's complete failure to work out solutions to our energy problems in co-operation with the provinces. Members on this side of the House have emphatically supported the idea of a single domestic price for oil across Canada, transportation

and handling costs being considered apart. I think all members of the House accept the idea of the subsidy to cushion the price of oil in our five eastern provinces and agreed with the export tax for that reason.
If the government were to put these proposals to us in this committee pure and simple, I am sure they would be passed today. But what we object to, and what many Canadians across this land object to, is the unilateral nature of the federal government's proposals with regard to price. We in Ontario, living in a land-locked province with no substantial gas or oil reserves of our own and very little prospect of ever discovering any, are particularly concerned that the federal-provincial arrangements on energy should work smoothly and effectively.
At the moment it is largely due to the good will of Alberta and Saskatchewan that the price of oil to the eastern provinces has been equalized. If the retail price of oil in Ontario should go up in the new year, the federal government will be to blame. Our party pressed the cabinet to include in the supplementary estimates adequate funds to continue the federal subsidy on oil through to the end of March, 1975. But the government refused and has provided in those estimates for the subsidy to continue only until the end of this year.
Instead of uniting the country in the fact of an energy crisis, the policies of the federal government have begun to divide it. It is one thing to pour oil down the drain, as some of the government's inaccurate projections have more or less done in the past, but it is another thing altogether to pour the good will and good faith of the province down the drain with the same reckless abandon. The federal government may get away with its policy of imposing a tax on royalties on the provinces, but the ill-feeling and mistrust that would be generated among the different governments of this country will filter down and leave a legacy of ill-will and mistrust between the people of the east and of the west.
The third failure of the government with direct pertinence to this bill is its failure to produce anything more than rhetoric in the way of long-range energy policy. The cabinet apparently wants the power to control this area, but lacks the will to plan constructively for future resource development. The classic case here is that of uranium. Here is a resource on which Canada will have to depend more and more as our supplies of oil and gas run out. Here is a resource over which since the Second World War the federal government has had virtually exclusive jurisdiction. At present, for instance, all uranium produced in Canada must be marketed through Eldorado Nuclear, a Crown corporation, and any exports of uranium must receive authorization from the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
It is undoubtedly from this perspective that the Prime Minister was involved last month in talks with the President of France over the building of an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area. The government seems to be moving quickly to support the construction of such a plant. Already they are involved in an exploration agreement with France and Quebec with a view to a plant in this area; and Premier Bourassa spoke several times last
December 9, 1974

week, after communication with the federal government, as if federal approval was a very minor detail.
This is a project of vital importance to the future of Canada's energy supplies, one over which the federal government already has legitimate jurisdiction, yet all the government's statements have been either deliberately ambiguous or completely shrouded in secrecy. The only facts about this hydroelectric project and the enriched uranium plant to be made public have come from the president of Quebec Hydro, who has indicated that such a plant, if built, would cost over $3 billion, would use at least 2,500 megawatts of electricity a year and 18,000 tons or uranium oxide annually. We would be using one vast energy resource to create another form of energy-and all for export. If such a plant to enrich uranium were built with no thought given to our domestic needs, to the supply of the Candu reactors in operation or planned throughout the country, we would use up all of Canada's known uranium reserves within 22 years after the plant had begun operation. To date the government has taken no firm stand on this project. It has made no move to meet its responsibilities as the custodian of the country's uranium resources. Yet in this bill it is setting itself up as the national custodian of our oil and natural gas resources. One can only ask: what can justify this move?
The fourth area in which the government's record must be examined to see if there can be any justification tor this bill is in the field of energy conservation. The government announced last week that it is to spend a million dollars on promoting energy conservation. Is this going to amount to anything more than a glossy, public relations campaign designed to put the pressure on individual families to conserve energy, in the absence of any positive action on the part of the government itself to conserve energy? For instance, the government is pushing ahead with the construction and utilization of airport facilities such as Mirabel and Pickering and larger jets, concentrating on a mode of transportation which uses far more energy per passenger mile than alternative methods. Investing massive amounts of our money in facilities designed to support greatly increased use of aircraft which use 2 Vi times the amount of energy of other modes of travel does not make sense. It is a classic example of dull thinking, imagining the future to be an extrapolation of the past, assuming that our metro areas will grow and grow when all the evidence is that such growth cannot be sustained.
How much more sense it would make to spend that money to achieve similar objectives, that is, the ability of Canadians to travel, with much less energy. How much more valuable it would be to improve the country's railways, stop the policy of branch line abandonment, improve the right-of-way of the Turbo, and participate with the governments of Ontario and Alberta-and, I hope, other provinces-in their admirable and pioneering efforts to develop various forms of urban transit.
There are other areas in which the government has failed to act, areas in which the government has responsibility to conserve energy, particularly with regard to petroleum products, where so far it has failed to provide direction or leadership. In his last budget speech, the Minister of Finance stated that the tax on heavy cars is
Oil and Petroleum
designed to conserve energy. I wonder how much energy he thinks it will conserve. How many potential buyers of a Cadillac de Ville will be turned toward a lighter vehicle by a tax saving of $250, or how many buyers of Oldsmobile 98s will be discouraged by a tax of $135? This tax is a smokescreen calculated to make the government appear to be interested in petroleum conservation without, in fact, changing anything at all. Since all the largest cars are foreign cars designed and manufactured outside Canada, it is impossible to comprehend why the government is not willing to do something meaningful in this area.
Transportation is not the only place where the government has failed to provide incentives to conserve our energy resources. The CMHC code for residential construction has not ensured nearly adequate insulation. Canada has been passing through a period of great activity in the building of houses, apartments and offices. Because the government has been totally inert in encouraging conservation, many thousands of buildings contain much less insulation than they should. Year by year, every year for decades, they will require enormous extra amounts of oil, of gas and of electricity to keep them warm-due entirely to the government's failure to ensure otherwise.
The government has failed us, too, in its blind acceptance of U.S. emission standards for automobiles. A government that lets artificial islands be built in the Beaufort Sea without environmental impact studies has decided, in the name of the environment, to apply standards designed for Los Angeles and New York to automobiles in Moose Jaw and Fredericton. What is most remarkable of all about the government's total failure in the conservation field is that for the most part these measures save money. Ian Efford, of the Science Council, has shown how much would be saved by a relatively minor reduction in the rate of increase of electrical consumption in British Columbia. If the consumption increased 3 per cent per year instead of 4.5 per cent per year, the reduction in new facilities required by the year 2000 would amount to $2.8 billion, twice that province's annual budget. The savings possible if growth could actually be stopped would be triple that amount. Such enormous savings could be left in the pockets of taxpayers to improve their lot, or spent on improving services like housing, or both.
Not building Pickering saves money. Putting a significant tax on large cars increases revenues. Conservation measures also save petroleum for petrochemical feedstocks. So much of our present society depends on products made from petroleum and natural gas-solvents, plastic film, moulded plastics, cable insulation and, most important, the fertilizers and pesticides on which our agriculture is based. It is likely that this very long list will grow longer and that future Canadians will wish very much that their predecessors had not depleted the supplies so rapidly and irresponsibly by sending them up in smoke.
Ten years ago, few people in the world sensed the implication of what we were doing. Two or three years ago, the imminent and acute shortage of petroleum was being predicted very accurately. But the government chose to ignore the warnings. Now, everyone sees the danger-the oil companies, the consuming provinces, the

December 9, 1974
Oil and Petroleumproducing provinces, even the National Energy Board. Inaction now is inexcusable.
The government is not going to solve much in the long run by bills such as this. This is a band-aid bill designed to cope with a situation that should never have arisen. I can forgive the government their past mistakes, for they were in good and abundant company, but now the message of conservation, the need to create a sustainable and stable society, is writ so large that anyone can see. The government's failure to take tough decisions now to protect our future will rightly appear to future Canadians to be incredibly callous.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes left before five o'clock I should like to make a few remarks, some of which are prompted by the contribution to the debate in this committee last Thursday by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe from the Liberal side. I respect the hon. member's integrity and ability and his contribution to this House, but for some reason he went off the rails in his contribution to the debate. In Hansard for December 5 the hon. member is reported as saying, at page 1972:
I cannot understand why the Tory members from Ontario have not spoken on this bill...
I regret the hon. member's absence today because there have been and, I am sure, will continue to be many members from Ontario who will speak on the bill. Indeed, it is likely that all members from Ontario will speak, because the bill is of vital concern to that province. The hon. member also said on December 5:
I ask the Conservative members from Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes if they really understand this bill and if they truly appreciate the implications if it should not go through.
I assure the hon. gentlemen that not only do members from those provinces understand it, but they are alarmed by the implications of the bill. It seems to be his position, in a simplified sense, that if you are for this bill you are for cheap energy, and if you are not for the bill you are for expensive energy. What the hon. member failed to direct himself to is the more important problem of there being any supply of energy. If he proposes to speak for the good people of his riding and the people of Ontario, I hope he will direct his energies principally and forcibly to that single issue so important to all Canadians no matter where they live in this country, namely, what are we going to do in face of reports now available from the National Energy Board and the Economic Council of Canada? This is the first independent information available to all members of the House and to all Canadians indicating where we, as a consuming nation, are headed.
If the hon. member insists on concerning himself solely with the matter of price, I would suggest to him as forcibly as I can that he is ignoring the bush because he is swallowed up in the trees. With respect to price, the hon. member should know, as the minister certainly does, that there is ample legislation available for the government to assure the price with which he is so concerned. We went through that exercise. Today the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands made very clear just what was available to the government to solve this great preoccupation that the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe has with price.

But the matter becomes more serious than that, Mr. Chairman. For some reason the hon. member related this legislation to the productivity of agriculture. If I understood him correctly, he suggested that the potential productivity of Canadian agriculture is dependent upon this piece of legislation. He would indicate to the House that lack of increase in that productivity is directly related to the price of energy. I suggest that any increase in agricultural productivity is not related to the price of energy, but to an agricultural policy, or lack of one, such as exists in this country.
If the hon. member would like to increase the productivity of his farming constituents, I would suggest that he look to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance for salvation. We have been told over and over again by the Minister of Agriculture, in this House and elsewhere, that this country is capable of producing 50 per cent more than it does, and never once have I heard the minister or anyone speaking on his behalf or on behalf of the government suggest that we will not be able to reach this capacity because of the energy situation or the price of energy.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might call it five o'clock? I want to get into the broader aspects of this legislation, and I see about 30 seconds before the hour.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

It being five o'clock, I shall rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- External affairs-Role of Israel in deciding attendance of representatives of Palestinian Liberation Organization at Geneva conference-Position of Canada; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security-Reciprocal agreements on pensions with foreign countries-Possible agreement with United Kingdom and United States; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Unemployment insurance-Reason for denial of benefits to employees of British Columbia Railway-Government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on
December 9, 1974

today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is general agreement to take first motion No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Charles Joseph Clark: That, in the opinion of this House, a committee should be selected to consider the powers, prerogatives and privileges attaching to the office of Prime Minister and to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of the law.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House that the language of this resolution was drawn from a resolution introduced to the British House of Commons on precisely this topic several years ago. I can say, in a certain hopeful sense, that the resolution was accepted at that time in that House. I hope it will receive similar treatment here today.
In the past ten years there have been a great many deliberate changes in our political institutions. New departments of government have been introduced and a range of new procedures developed from impact studies to local initiative of government spending designed to bring governments and citizens into closer harmony. Last year parliament passed the Election Expenses Act which will end the secrecy of political party financing and encourage all parties to become more active and more broadly based. The rules of parliament have been dramatically changed, and the Speech from the Throne suggested that more radical changes will be proposed. Those changes have been made deliberately, usually after extensive study and public debate.
In that period the office of Prime Minister has also changed dramatically, and it is one of the curiosities of our system that so little serious attention has been paid to the extent or significance of the power of that office. In the United States, books and theories and countless columns are written about the power of the presidency. In Canada, with rare exceptions, we focus for a moment on a sudden growth in staff or an expenditure on suede sofas, and then largely leave the question alone. However, it is too important a question to leave alone and the purpose of this resolution is to allow an examination of the role that should be played by the office of Prime Minister in a modern, federal parliamentary state.
I underline and emphasize the fact that what is sought in this resolution is an opportunity for a committee of this
Office of Prime Minister
parliament to examine the role of the office of Prime Minister. The resolution makes no assumptions about that role except the assumption that the powers of the Prime Minister, like the powers of parliament, should be discussed and decided in public and in the context of the requirements and the traditions of the whole country.
Let me say a word about those traditions. In my view there is no tradition in Canada of a weak Prime Minister. We are told, in parliamentary theory, that the Prime Minister is merely the "first among equals" in parliament, with the assumption that Her Majesty can quite easily choose another of us equals to be first. That is the theory. In fact, the Prime Minister has always been a strong figure in Canada, with his parliamentary leadership buttressed by his party leadership and with official responsibilities and an official reputation far beyond those of his peers and at least equal to those of Her Majesty.
Therefore, the tradition is not the theoretical tradition of being merely the first among equals, answerable to the Queen but, rather, the practical tradition of exercising leadership in a federal state with a parliamentary system which requires the governors to be responsible to the governed through this parliament. Nobody is suggesting that we go back to a weakness that never was. However, throughout our history there has been another tradition to balance the necessary strength of the office of Prime Minister; that is, that the powers of the Prime Minister should not be developed or exercised in isolation but must be set in a federal parliamentary context and be subject to detailed and regular parliamentary scrutiny. There is no such scrutiny today.
The Prime Minister comes to the question period on most days, but the questions are usually about his judgment, seldom about his powers; and anyway there is no requirement that he answer. After the so-called Pearson precedent of 1968 there is a real question whether parliament can defeat a Prime Minister by vote in this House, except on matters of obvious confidence, like a budget. If our capacity to defeat a Prime Minister is so limited, so is our capacity limited to control him by the threat of defeat. As the chief minister, he is less bound by Treasury Board than any of his colleagues, and appointments to or by his office can be made without recourse to the Public Service Commission. His estimates are brought before the miscellaneous estimates committee. However, they are not dealt with there by him, but by a parliamentary secretary to another minister.
The Prime Minister reports to no standing committee and there is no statute to define his responsibilities. Ironically, parliament probably has less real control over the Prime Minister than we have over the president of Air Canada or the president of CNR, because a Crown corporation is established by statute while the Prime Minister's office is not, and its officials must appear regularly before standing committees while the Prime Minister's officials do not. No matter how loosely you define "responsible" government, parliament should have some direct control over the actions of its Prime Minister beyond his mere appearance for questions in the House. If that has been important in the past, I suggest it will be even more critical in the future, for reasons I will enumerate.

Office of Prime Minister
First, whatever the theory, the fact is that our system of government in Canada is a system of cabinet government, not parliamentary government. Occasionally, initiatives by private members are adopted by the government and from time to time members can amend a bill in committee or the whole House. However, the bulk of the power of initiative lies with the cabinet. It is the same in Britain, and one distinguished participant in and observer of the British system, the late Richard Crossman, suggested that in the system of the Mother of Parliaments, the process of a concentration of power has gone even further. Writing a decade ago in the introduction to Bagehot's "The English Constitution", Crossman said:
In Bagehot's day, collective cabinet responsibility meant the responsibility of a group of equal colleagues for decisions taken collectively, after full, free and secret discussion in which all could participate. It now means collective obedience by the whole administration, from the foreign secretary and the chancellor downwards, to the will of the man at the apex of power.
We have no expert testimony on this trend in Canada, but it is safe to assume-and certainly it is the public assumption-that the Prime Minister controls his cabinet and that it is the Prime Minister, not the cabinet, and certainly not parliament, who regularly makes the final and the important decisions.
Second, the power of the Prime Minister grows as government grows. We have increasingly an interventionist state which controls or strongly influences more and more of the processes of our society. The merits of that development can be argued another time. The simple point I want to make is that as the government becomes more powerful in the nation, so does the leader of the government become more powerful. The present Prime Minister, by virtue of his office, has much more power in Canada than did Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson or any of his predecessors. The state might have got out of the bedrooms of the nation, but it has more than made up for that everywhere else, and the one office that has grown most in power is the office, in Mr. Crossman's words, "at the apex of power".
Third, the same active agenda which has increased the role of government has decreased the power of parliament to control government. Parliament once had a virtually unlimited power to scrutinize and delay. While parties might disagree about the nature of specific reforms, all of us recognize that the old, easy rules would not have let the business get done. But we have paid a price for that reform, and the price has been that at the same time as the powers of the executive have increased, the powers of parliament have decreased; so we have less control on bigger government.
The fourth factor in the growing power of the Prime Minister is television. Today, every head of government has become a star personality whose advisers cultivate the talent to manipulate opinion and whose office has the permanent opportunity to command attention. Professor Denis Smith, in his article "President and Parliament" argues, and I quote:
Canadian Prime Ministers have always made their primary appeal for support not in the House of Commons, but outside, to the electorate.
That is much easier now, with mass media. All of us here, if we are realists, know that the most effective place

for a Prime Minister to get his message across is on television, not in this House. That is a fact of life which adds immensely to the power of the Prime Minister and diminishes, again, the capacity of this parliament to control an official whose whole authority is presumed in theory to arise from this chamber.
Fifth, the present Prime Minister has, in effect, established for the first time a new "Department of the Prime Minister" in the privy council office and the office of the Prime Minister. His purpose was to provide a means by which he, as head of government, could keep track of and co-ordinate the various initiatives of a mammoth government. I understand that purpose and, speaking personally, approve of it as the only means to ensure that there is, in fact, some over-all control of the direction of government by the elected politicians whom the Prime Minister commands. However, this new department was created in the absence of authority from, or discussion in, parliament. It operates beyond our scrutiny and, having the ear of the Prime Minister, it has the capacity virtually to change any direction or challenge any initiative that arises either in parliament or in the public service.
Without dwelling on them too long, I would suggest that certain other forces which traditionally have restrained a Prime Minister have been weakening recently. For example, we accept the notion, without much evidence, that Canadian political parties control their leaders and, in particular, prevent them from the excesses we associate with Watergate. But when did that last happen? Did the Liberal Party in Newfoundland ever restrain Joey Smallwood? Did the Union Nationale restrain Maurice Duples-sis? Parties do not behave in that way because they know that in attacking their leader they attack themselves. This is particularly true now that campaigns are so heavily influenced by national media and voting is more often for the personality of the leader than it is for the local candidate or a specific issue.
Again, we have assumed that a Prime Minister can be controlled by the public which, at each election, has the chance to "throw the rascals out." However, public control of the Prime Minister depends upon a competitive electoral system. In Canada, the electoral system is, unfortunately, not competitive in Quebec, which means, as it did in 1972, that a Prime Minister can be rejected by most of the country and still survive.
Finally, there is the argument that the professional public service can provide a counterbalance to a powerful Prime Minister. That capacity also is being weakened, first by the deliberate establishment of a "Department of the Prime Minister", precisely to confront such a capability in the public service and, second, by the increasingly frequent appointment to public service positions of individuals who have personal or partisan loyalties to the Prime Minister.
Hon. members can disagree about the extent or significance of any of the factors I have discussed today, but I think we must surely all agree that two main trends are occuring. The first is a trend toward the concentration of formal and informal power in the office and person of the Prime Minister. Second is the weakening of any effective
December 9, 1974

means to control that power. In a modern state, it may well be impossible or even undesirable to reverse the first trend. But surely we cannot let that power grow unscrutinized and uncontrolled.
I think it is safe to say that if we saw a corporation, a union or any other private agency accumulating the power that is developing now around the office of the Prime Minister, we would want to develop some assurances that the public interest was being served. It is particularly important that we apply that same standard of scrutiny and control to an office whose original authority was as a creature of this House.
The resolution before us suggests simply that this is a matter which we cannot ignore. It does not propose a particular remedy or imply that anything improper has been done. It simply asserts that the tradition of parliamentary control requires at least a formal consideration of the powers which now attach, and the restraints which should apply, to the most powerful office in our political system. There is a danger, of course, that this discussion will be seen as simply one more step in a struggle for power between members on one side of the House and those on the other, or between the executive and the legislature. However, that is not the case, as I hope my arguments have shown. There is another dimension to the problem; it is the very real harm that can be done to a country like Canada by any concentration of power.
Our federal parliamentary system was not developed by accident or by simple, blind importation from elsewhere. We are a diverse country and we need institutions which both reflect and accommodate that diversity. The best institution for that purpose has been parliament, because it draws its membership from truly every corner of the country and has traditionally encouraged its members to express the views of their locale. But parliament was never designed to be simply a talking shop; the assumption was that the Prime Minister and the cabinet, who came from parliament, would heed the views of the various locales. If they didn't, in theory, parliament would bring them down.
But parliament, the forum of diversity, has lost this control over the executive, and the Prime Minister is increasingly able to construct a government which reflects his own views better than it reflects the diversity of the country. If that double trend continues-the weakening of the forum of diversity and the empowering of a particular group-those regions and attitudes which lack power will naturally tire of the system. That is the special Canadian danger of this kind of concentration of power, and it must be on our minds as we consider the powers and prerogatives of the office of the modern Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its attention and hope that this resolution will commend itself to the support of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) for bringing this subject to our attention and also on the excellent speech he has just made in favour of his proposition. I agree with him it is important for us to examine the
Office of Prime Minister
institutions of government from time to time, to analyse changes which concern us and question the direction government seems to be taking, especially if it is one about which we do not feel comfortable.
The hon. member would not expect me to agree with him in all regards, but I do share his concern about the way in which various government institutions are developing in an attempt to cope with the questions which confront them-questions to which there are no easy answers. The point I am making is that government develops in response to stimuli from outside. It is no accident that within the last 15 or 20 years the power, as well as the expenditure, of government has expanded to a remarkable degree. The government has acquired a whole series of new powers, not because of any particular attempt on its part to do so but largely in response to developments within Canadian society which have forced it to act, to legislate, to transfer authority in order to carry out detailed programs approved by parliament.
It is true that today, as when this country came into being in 1867, the Prime Minister is the first of equals. It is true now, as it was then, that the Prime Minister is called to his office by the Governor General. And it is true now, as it was then, that the Prime Minister calls upon colleagues of his in the House of Commons to sit with him and form a government which is responsible to the House of Commons. All this still applies. Nothing has changed. The Prime Minister is subject to parliament. The way in which parliament organizes itself is a significant factor in the success which it can expect in controlling the executive, of which the Prime Minister is the head-not the whole, not the heart and not the soul.
I think it is important to realize that the powers of the Prime Minister today are really no different from what they were 100 years ago; it is the scope of government that has widened. The powers of the government have increased, and with that increase and greater scope so also have the powers of the Prime Minister increased in keeping with the expansion of government in general. I think it is important to realize that the powers of the Prime Minister are totally dependent upon the powers that this parliament gives to the government.
Having said that, I think it is important to look at the development of the Prime Minister's office as it stands today. As hon. members know, it was the Liberal government in the days of Louis St. Laurent that brought in the concept of the executive assistant. It was the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) that brought in the concept of the special assistant-in other words, staff designed to serve the minister as minister.
What we have in the Prime Minister's office is the same kind of staff, except that the constituency of the Prime Minister is not a region in a province, in some cases in one of the smaller provinces, but the whole of Canada. For it is the whole of Canada which the government and the Prime Minister seek to govern, and to govern in tune with what they feel is going on. For example, half of the staff of the Prime Minister's office today works in the correspondence section. The Prime Minister received an unparallelled

December 9, 1974
Office of Prime Minister
number of letters. I cannot recall the exact number, but I remember that one year when I appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates it turned out that the number one subject about which the Prime Minister had received letters on that particular day was on the question of robins in New Brunswick and the campaign to save them, and the letters numbered some 11,000. All of these letters have to be answered, and so do inquiries; thus, a good 50 per cent of the bodies in the Prime Minister's office are engaged in correspondence.
The Privy Council office is an office of long standing. Even 25 years ago the Privy Council office comprised no more than a handful of officials who acted as a secretariat to the cabinet so as to ensure that decisions taken in cabinet were truly communicated to the departments concerned, and enforced. Under the changes that have taken place in the government, basically those same functions are being carried on. Because the Prime Minister is chairman of the cabinet, it is he who has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the collective decisions taken in cabinet are communicated to the departments and enforced by those departments. You will understand, of course, Mr. Speaker, that many departments put their own interpretation on what should be done, and because many of them have grown in response to the legislative demands we have made upon them, often they are not in harmony with the decisions taken by cabinet and they resist them. Those who are ministers and those who have criticized ministries know this to be the fact.
As for the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, he attends the question period daily. In point of fact, I think that if hon. members will check the record they will find that the present Prime Minister probably has one of the best records over the last 20 years for appearing in the House of Commons to answer the criticisms of his government made by members of the opposition, whose right and duty it is to put these criticisms to him. I think it is quite clear that the Prime Minister is not isolated; he is in the House in the question period and answers questions daily. These questions apply not only to his own operation but to the operations of the government as a whole.
There is no way that the Prime Minister can escape the barrage of questioning that comes from hon. members opposite. He is here in the House, he responds to those questions, and he is accountable on the floor of the House of Commons for any criticisms made by members of the opposition. That, I think, is absolutely clear. In point of fact, if one looks at the volume of questions it would be crystal clear in all our minds that it is the Prime Minister who responds to most of the questions. There is no question that he is the target of the opposition and number one spokesman for his government.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain raised a very interesting point about the nature of our politics. He complained that this parliament is not necessarily the vehicle for holding the Prime Minister in check or for defeating the Prime Minister. I tend to agree with that interpretation. I myself regret that most of the important politicking in this country is not carried on in this chamber but, instead, takes place outside the chamber. I think there are two reasons for this. First of all, we tend to use this chamber not as a political forum. I think we waste our

time doing too much with other things rather than concentrating on political issues. We also waste our time with antiquated procedures. We do not have the time to debate the issues that the Canadian public wants debated in public. I think that because the House of Commons has not taken action to deal with this reality, it has lost, and is losing, a great deal of respect on the part of Canadians.
About two years ago a Gallup poll that was published showed that the respect the people had for members of parliament and for parliament as an institution was declining. I feel that we are not making it our responsibility to check the government and to forcibly bring it to account. I think parliament can do a great deal more to bring its procedures into tune with the times. It can appropriate powers unto itself and become a much more effective forum.
This would mean that many members of this House would have to give up a lot of things which they regard as important and vital to the way in which they as individuals carry on their business. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be an extraordinarily painful experience for many members of parliament if the House were to change its procedures, but I hope that program of parliamentary reform upon which the House leader has embarked will be the vehicle for making parliament more germane, more important, more the centre of political activity in Canada.
I do not agree with the former leader of the Social Credit party, Bob Thompson, who once complained to the Speaker that a terrible thing was happening in the House of Commons-it was becoming a political body and political debate was being introduced. I think that is the spice of this institution. It is important that we consider the way we behave and do business in this House, with a view to dealing expeditiously with those matters about which there is a great deal of agreement. We must put the important issues before the Canadian people, debate them and then find a mechanism for bringing them to a conclusion after meaningful debate, instead of the one-sided monologues that we have in this House at the present time. Because for debate to be meaningful there must be contributions from both sides. Under our existing rules and practices in the House, this does not take place; consequently, in many respects we are responsible for lulling the Canadian people to sleep instead of taking advantage of their natural instinct for things political in Canada.
I should also like to make the point that when the Prime Minister and ministers of the government find themselves going outside the House, over the head of parliament, as the hon. member for Rocky Mountain expressed it, there are two good reasons. First of all, it is helpful and healthful for both the Prime Minister and his ministers to get out of the House of Commons, out of the stultifying atmosphere that is Ottawa, to where the "real" people are, so they can become continually reinforced in their awareness that Canada is a land of diversity. If the Prime Minister, ministers and backbenchers were to stay in Ottawa all the time, there would be a tendency for them to get sucked into the kind of mentality that pervades this place. This is why members of parliament are able to come back here from their constituencies in all regions of Canada and contribute an input into the civil service
December 9, 1974

during the question period, in committee hearings and by making speeches on various subjects in the House of Commons. This could bring back the administration of the country to the House of Commons. My main point is that prime ministers and ministers go outside, into the country, for this healthful reason, and because it is an important form of communication with the electorate. Governments, prime ministers, ministers and backbenchers from all sides like to be re-elected. Any prime minister, minister or backbencher who finds himself losing contact with his constituency is not going to last very long around here. So it is healthful to go back and speak to your people and have them speak to you.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other ministers have large constituencies. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has a large constituency for which he speaks. He speaks for the old age pensioners and is recognized as one of their spokesmen, so it is a national constituency for which he speaks. The Prime Minister also has a national constituency, so it is very important for him to travel nationally, making a point of being seen and being available.
The fact that it is interpreted that he is going over the head of this House is an indication that this House is not in tune with what is going on, because if the House of Commons were in tune with what is going on, that charge naturally would not be made.
It is my hope that when we have the opportunity to deal with the placing of television cameras in the House of Commons, and making available the televised record of this House to those who wish to see it, this will mark a change in the approach we as politicians have taken toward the use of television in Canada. I think the existing scrum that takes place after the question period is a disgrace. It would be far better if cameras recorded what goes on in the House of Commons and transmitted it to the people in their homes, so that they could see what takes place in this place as well as anybody else.


An hon. Member:: You better be careful because they will see the Cabinet.


John Mercer Reid: Cabinet ministers often say to me that they never get on television. I think most Cabinet ministers would look with a great deal of anticipation to the opportunity of becoming television stars.


An hon. Member:: I would rather watch Lassie.


John Mercer Reid: It may well be that the Cabinet ministers and their families would be the only ones who watched, but at least the opportunity would be given Canadians to see the performance not only of Cabinet ministers but also of members opposite. That is also an important consideration.
The hon. member made reference to the fact that one of the ways in which the government could be kept in check is if we had what he called a competitive electoral system. I tend to disagree with the interpretation he places upon the situation, in that he said we did not have a balanced system. He referred to the province of Quebec and to the
Office of Prime Minister
fact that his party has difficulty in getting seats there. My party has difficulty getting seats in the west. If you take a look at the total of all seats you will find that the two tend to balance off, except that I think we do much better in the west than the hon. member's party does in Quebec.
Surely the reasons for the situation are historical and have to do with the position that political parties have taken on the great issues of our time. They have to do with the way in which these parties are seen as the defenders of their interests. It may very well be that, in a country like Canada with such diversities, it is impossible for any political party to be popular simultaneously in all parts of the country. My feeling would be that if indeed a party could ever be simultaneously popular in all parts of the country either there would be something the matter with the political party or something wrong with the Canadian population. I do not believe it is possible, or that it would be particularly healthful.
I would reiterate the point I made in reply to the hon. member a few minutes ago. I think parties get their strength from the decisions they have taken while in government and in opposition. This is the result of the decisions taken by parties on public issues of the day. We have to take responsibility for the stands and decisions we take, and I think that is the only fair way to go about it.
I do not think the hon. member should say the political system is unbalanced. His party came far too close to winning in 1972, and if the party opposite had fought us as hard as it fought itself during the last federal election its hon. members might well have won and be sitting in these seats. That party did not win. Consequently justice prevailed, and truth is in the ascendant.
I want to deal with the constitutional relationship raised by the hon. member, and the concept of parliamentary democracy versus Cabinet government. It is quite true that we have a system of Cabinet government. It is also true that we have a system of parliamentary legislature. There is a distinction between the two. The job of the government is to govern. It is not our job as legislators to govern but to legislate.
If you were to take a look at the amount of legislation passed through the House of Commons over the last 15 or 20 years you would find quite clearly that the productivity of the Canadian parliament has been declining. This decline in the ability of parliament to cope with changing social situations and the necessity to legislate old legislation into conformity with new situations is one of the reasons why the Canadian parliament has not been highly regarded by the Canadian people in recent years.
The point I want to make is that there is no disharmony between the concepts of Cabinet government and parliamentary democracy. The Cabinet is drawn from the legislature and it is accountable every single day of the week in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and the ministers are in their seats and questions are asked. In addition there is an unparalleled opportunity, I think unique in our parliamentary system, whereby parliamentary committees have the opportunity to question officials about the administration of legislation.
No longer must we be satisfied with the bland explanations we used to get in the good old days when estimates

December 9, 1974
Office of Prime Minister
were dealt with by the House in committee of supply, when ministers would sit there with two officials in front of them providing information. That information did not flow to members of parliament, and members of parliament had very little input in the administration of programs. We now have the opportunity, under the existing system, to influence not only the policy but also the administration of the policy. It seems to me this is a significant thing we have acquired, obtained or won, depending on your position.
What seems clear is that the government feels it is not receiving sufficient scrutiny in the House of Commons. I think the government feels that the calibre of the opposition in examining policies and programs is not as good as it should be. I think the government feels the need for that kind of hardnosed opposition, because it is that kind of opposition which keeps the government and civil servants on their toes. This is a vital part of the way in which the government comports itself inside and outside the House of Commons.
When the opposition is digging in on various government policies it is not surprising to see changes made in their administration, and hon. members opposite, as well as backbenchers on this side, have a significant input into the way in which governing is carried on here in Canada. This seems to me to be the role of the politician. It is not part of his political role, but is part of his role as a legislator.
If we are to talk in terms of bringing the Cabinet to heel and being subject to closer examination, it seems that members opposite have to ask themselves if the opportunities now available to them are being fully exploited. If you look at those opportunities in an objective way I am sure you will find that, in fact, the existing opportunities have gone by the wayside and are not being exploited. Parliament is the master of its own fate. It has the power to effect change, and the power if required to institute different procedures in order to redress an unbalance.
I think one would find that backbenchers on this side of the House and the government itself would be prepared to co-operate in bringing such an undesirable thing to a happy end because we feel that the basis of the democratic system in Canada is a Parliament which is respected and looked up to, Mr. Speaker. We feel this is not now the case. We feel the prestige of the government, of the Prime Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely interesting subject that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) has introduced. I suspect that many of us agree that it is unfortunate that there is only an hour for this debate. Of course that could be corrected if the motion of the hon. member passed and the matter were dealt with by a committee.
I believe one might also say there is more common ground between the hon. member for Rocky Mountain and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) than one might have anticipated. Both,

and I agree with them, feel that we should avoid having a one-man dictatorship, an all-powerful prime minister as the one and only person running this country. I agree with the view expressed by both preceding members that perhaps the best way to make sure that we do not have a master as a prime minister of this country is to strengthen parliament itself. I regard this motion as useful in that it encourages us to think of ways in which this institution might be strengthened.
I have a number of ideas, but I shall not have an opportunity to get them all across because one must not speak for too long in this hour. First, however, I want to say there are ways in which parliament is a stronger institution today more than it was in the so-called good old days. I was here in the days of Mackenzie King. Let me tell members on all sides of this House that the word of Mackenzie King was law with respect to every last detail in the operation of this House. He did not have to ask for unanimous consent in respect of things cabinet ministers ask for such consent today. He just said that was it, and that was it!
I remember an occasion in the 1940's when I had my first experience as a member of a committee on procedure. The committee had produced what I thought was a pretty good report. It was presented, debated for a day, and then it stood for some time on the order paper. In my naivete as a young member, I wondered what was wrong. Brazenly one day I went over to Mr. King-I knew he was the boss; he was the one to see-and asked him if he could not do something about having this report brought back for further debate. His answer to me was no, that the report proposed that the House adjourn at 10.30 at night and that we could not possibly do that. He said that we had been sitting until eleven o'clock for years, and that the report was no good. Mackenzie King did not like the suggestion that the House adjourn at 10.30, and so the report was denied.
I remember later when I dared challenge him on something he had said which was out of order. I just about got put out of the place. Here was I, a young man in my thirties, criticizing the Prime Minister! Mind you, that was a day when children were more respectful of their parents, and a day when teachers and principals ran the schools. Society has changed. Today backbenchers have a voice, and cabinet ministers and prime ministers do not rule the roost in terms of superficial details, if I may call them that.
One other factor in those days was that we did not have the sound amplification system, and many members of the House of Commons in the fourth or fifth rows did not speak during a whole session because their voices were timid and they could not be heard. Some of us who could shout and be heard thought that the introduction of the sound system was unfair because it gave an opportunity to the timid souls to be heard. Times have changed, and participation by members in all parts of the House is much more the case now than it was in the forties.
There was a similar situation in respect of the Frenchspeaking members in those days because it was an English-speaking House, with the translation of the French appearing at the end of Hansard. Many times a translation did not appear at the end of Hansard because the French-
December 9, 1974

speaking members saw no point in speaking because they were not understood. A change came about in that regard.
When I first came here, at the beginning of a session a first meeting would be called, in one room, of the 20 or 25 committees for the purpose of electing the chairmen of these various committees. I remember that one day at that mass meeting I asked if there was a quorum present of the particular committee of which I was a member and for which a chairman was being named. I was told by the government whip of that day that it always had been done in this manner and that the chairmen were elected in this way. I was put in my place.
Most of the committees did not hold meetings. I would say there were a good dozen committees that would go through a whole parliament without meeting, or meeting perhaps only once, such as the Committee on Printing to agree not to print certain documents, and the Committee on the Restaurant to approve raising the price of meals in the dining room from 50 cents to 75 cents, or something like that.
There is now far more participation by individual members of all parties than was the case when I first came here. I say this with some regret because in those days we, as members of a small party, were the prima donnas and we produced the action. Now there are prima donnas in all parties; there is the electronic system and everybody gets in. There is, as I said, more participation by private members, and this is good.
I think there is a good deal of merit to what the last speaker said about the question of respect for parliament today. I also agree. I think one reason is that we do not make the best use of our time. We spend the same amount of time on unimportant as on important issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope we will adopt a system-I may put it in as precise terms as I see it-whereby we decide every session that there are three categories of bills, routine and quite unimportant things, things that have a reasonable measure of importance, and then the crucial ones.
In respect of the routine housekeeping measures let us not spend any time on them at all, but ship them to the committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As for the medium group I suggest we should have an agreement that there would be a certain number of hours for debate on any one of those bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My next suggestion should receive applause from this side of the House. I say that the opposition should have the right in every parliament to say that there are five or six bills which we regard as crucial, and that these must be before the House without a time limit. The result is that we would spend most of the available days on five or six crucial bills, but let the routine and medium class bills be
Office of Prime Minister
dealt with in a routine way. I think then we would have sharper debate and would increase the respect held by this country for parliament.
I feel the same way about estimates, the study of which is another major function around here. I think the way we spread ourselves over the whole gambit of billions of dollars, and do not do a very good job on any, is wrong. I would rather see us handle half a dozen departments a year so that we would do the whole job in the course of a four-year parliament. I would also like to see us bring back to the floor-I realize what the member said about the value of doing things in committee-three or four departments a year at the choice of the opposition-and I think an element of surprise would have a salutary effect-so that when we study the estimates we would do a really thorough job.
I have lots of other ideas, but that is enough time for me to take today. I agree completely with my friend, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, that we do not want a master prime minister; we want parliament to be supreme. 1 agree with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that the way to do that is to look at our procedures and try to strengthen them. I believe we can do so, and I hope we can get at this very soon.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in the debate today, but having listened to the motion put by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), to the comments of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), and those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I felt compelled to make some comments and, like the hon. member who spoke before me, I shall not take too long.
It is always very difficult for a new member, especially a young member, to follow someone such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has so much under his belt, so to speak, in parliamentary experience. I think that most of my observations will be on a purely academic level since I was a student only a few years ago.
The basic argument that we have before us in the motion of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain is that we should achieve some balance between historical growth, the evolution of society, the government and the role of the executive, and the accountability of the parliamentary system.
Let us consider first how our system developed. We must remember that the role of prime minister started originally back in the Middle Ages when kings used to rule England and they chose two or three advisers. After a while, as various kings decided to attack other countries to expand their domain, they found they needed more advisers. They had to build up their own administrative system. Later in the Middle Ages we saw a growth in the court around the king. Then the king started to choose one principal adviser. Gradually, that person gained preeminence. At the same time the administrative or support staff of the king gained in influence, while the power of the kind started to decline.

December 9, 1974
Office of Prime Minister
In the civil war in the 1600's in England the real power of the king started to wane. Of course, in 1649 King Charles I had his head cut off, and what better example of accountability can there be? As you remember, the long parliament made the decision on Charles's fate and gained more and more power. We saw after the years of Cromwell the restoration of the monarchy with King Charles II and then King James, but royal power was never the same again. Parliament gained control over money bills and generally took a greater part in the affairs of the nation.
I suppose we saw an increase in the power of the executive in the time of King George III. For those of you who are perhaps a little rusty in British history let me say that King George III was the one king who, unfortunately, had certain physical problems that everyone thought were a mental illness. Some days he functioned, some days he did not. Of course, it would never do to run a country that way. There must be a functioning executive every day of the week, I should think. Then the cabinet started to assume powers. Lord North was the fellow who took on this mantle. He became a powerful first lord of the admiralty or first lord of the treasury.
Gradually we saw the evolution of the office of prime minister with Sir Robert Walpole. In 1910 the change was completed by the parliamentary act of 1910 or 1911 when Sir Herbert Asquith went to the king. During the constitutional crisis the king had threatened to create more peers if the House of Lords continued to impede the legislative process. Parliament gained power all the time.
Finally we come to today, in the last fifty years, we have had two world wars, an economic depression, a rapid growth in technology, and a rise in the standard of living across the world. The demands that people in Canada, and people in the western world generally, have made upon their leaders have also greatly increased. As a result, the power of government has grown. It is only natural that the powers of the executive, the cabinet, the Prime Minister, have grown too.
We should take a look at our system today in the light of what is happening on the American political scene. We saw the chief executive officer under siege in the last couple of years. It was so tough to get at him that it tore the country apart. My colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, has shown that our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) under our system is accessible not only to members on the government side but to members of the opposition as well. He is in the House just about every day of the week. Questions that are posed to him are ones that he does not take lightly.
A comment was made by my friend, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. He decried the fact that today the Prime Minister and ministers appeal to the news media, the press, and that this is the way in which they get attention, not through the House. However, that is one of the facts of the cybernetic revolution, if you would like to call it that. I think what has happened to society is beneficial, because in an age of rapid growth of technology it is the media that are forcing questions. We have seen this only last week. The Prime Minister was not here of course, but we saw how the rapid change of events could be seized upon by the media, and questions from the opposition reflected what was going on outside.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I see the clock. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Robert Knight Andras: that Bill S-12 from the Senate to amend the Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to set this bill before the House this evening for at least second reading, and perhaps in view of some conversations that have taken place, we might even proceed beyond that by the adjournment hour, if the disposition and will are there, to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could not have agreement right now for the motion to read: "referred to a committee of the whole House". I think there would be agreement to proceed in that way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to that arrangement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, may I express my appreciation to the House for that accommodation. It prompts me, along with an aside from across the floor, to keep my remarks as brief and non-controversial as possible. Even as short a bill as this, however, requires some explanation and elaboration. I am sure we will be able to examine it responsibly before we dispose of it this evening.
It is a very short bill and I frankly admit the proposed amendment is a measure which should have been taken

long before this. I find myself slightly embarrassed by the fact that a year or so ago,-subject always to the will of parliament and after consultation with people concerned with the subject matter of the bill-I made certain commitments that I would do my best to present it persuasively to the House for passage as soon as possible.
What it boils down to is that section 35 of the present Immigration Act, which deals with deportees who may not return to Canada, reads as follows:
Unless an appeal against such order is allowed, a person against whom a deportation order has been made and who is deported or leaves Canada shall not thereafter be admitted to Canada or allowed to remain in Canada without the consent of the minister.
As I am not a lawyer, when I first saw that I thought we were reasonably well protected, but I have since found that is not the case. Hon. members will be able to tell from the bill that we propose to amend that section to read as follows:
35.1 Every person against whom a deportation order is made who
(a)	is deported or leaves Canada, and
(b)	returns to Canada without the consent of the Minister,
is, unless an appeal against the deportation order is allowed, guilty of an offence and is liable
(c)	on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for two years, or
(d)	on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than five hundred
dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both.
The original wording of the act constitutes a serious loophole in our deportation law, and our legislation is acquiring increasing significance as time goes by. The loophole is the lack of a significant deterrent to previous deportees who return to Canada without the consent of the minister.
The reason it is a loophole is that Section 35(1) of the current act places the burden of proof on the examining officer of the deaprtment rather than on the person who has been a deportee and who is attempting to come back into Canada. The burden of proof is there. It reads "shall not thereafter be admitted to allow to remain." That, of course, is the action or otherwise of the admitting officer, and not of the deportee. It is a silly situation. We have had some ludicrous results from it. I will not bore or titillate the imagination of the House by detailing them all.
I have seen some evidence, however, about one chap who came across the border 12 times, another 17 times. We were not able to deter them. All we could do was send them back from whence they came. The very fact they repeated this action so frequently indicates there is no deterrent there. Such a person does not mind being deported once more. It is apparently more profitable for him, whatever way he would describe profitability, to take his chance on being deported again, because that is the only punishment he would incur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is a
commuter.


Robert Knight Andras: That is right. I am told that we had a ridiculous situation where the deportee was escorted to the border and put across it by our escorts responsible for getting him there, who then made the mistake of stopping
Immigration
thereafter for a cup of coffee, with the result that the deportee was once more back in Canada before them!
I do not say this totally facetiously because this is a serious enough matter. In addition to the weakness in the wording of the act as it now exists, and which I hope to get the consent of this House to change, it having been dealt with in the other place, there is the horrendous problem we face in terms of the number of border crossings annually. It makes this an empty deterrent for people who want to come here. Between 35 million and 40 million foreign visitors annually cross the border into Canada. Approximately 30 million Canadians leave Canada and return. With that arithmetic members can visualize something in the neighbourhood of 70 million border crossings into Canada annually.
Each one of those crossing has by implication the necessity for someone to make a judgment as to admissibility into this country. In actual practice, that would be impossible. I do not think anyone in this House would subscribe to the idea that we set up a bureaucracy to be able to examine each person who enters Canada in terms of those kinds of numbers. If those who are inclined to criticize the government for the growth of the civil service would recommend that we do such a thing, they would be on very tenuous ground indeed. Apart from the numbers we would need to man our borders to examine each and every person who comes in, the implication of what I could only call a police state would be frightening to the most hawkish among us.
Yet the wording of the act is such that if an officer does not ask a question of the person entering Canada who could be a deportee, it would be very difficult for us to prosecute and get a conviction of that deportee under the law as it now exists. The deportee does not have to volunteer the information that he has previously been deported from this country. If he does not lie or get in by falsehood, we cannot pin upon him an accusation of coming by stealth which is necessary to charge him under certain sections of the Criminal Code. There really is no penalty, and therefore no deterrent in the case of a person trying to get into this country.
We do not claim there are great numbers of people who abuse this situation. When I mention such large numbers of crossings as 70 million per year, I do not want to convey the impression that a large percentage of individuals who have been deported from this country are in fact coming back across the border. However, the fact is that this is a situation in which the numbers who abuse the system are not really the important aspect. It is the type of people who do this that bothers us most.
I do not think I am exaggerating when I indicate to hon. members that very often the kinds of persons such as those about whom I gave illustrations, who cross back quite regularly, were involved in criminal activities. They come to Canada for very unacceptable reasons and are, in the main, themselves very unacceptable people. They are the very kind of people we are determined not to allow freedom to, so that they may move about this country and prey upon people who are legitimately here.
The effect of the proposed amendment will be to make it an offence to return without the minister's consent, thereby creating a deterrent and doing this in a clear and

December 9, 1974
Immigration
understandable manner which anyone can follow, and without any question of our ability to prosecute, and to punish in the case of prosecutions that are successful.
As hon. members will note, there is an option as to the form of prosecution. The offence may be dealt with by either summary conviction or on indictment. There is also a range of punishment in response to the seriousness of the crime, which would be judged by the court, in the provision providing this option. It would of course be up to the Crown prosecutor to determine whether to proceed by way of indictment or summary conviction.
As is the practice with all these kinds of wordings which appear very often throughout our legislation, the Crown prosecutor would take the circumstances of the case into consideration in deciding to proceed by either indictment or summary conviction. Regardless of the method chosen to proceed, it would then be at the discretion of the judge to decide the severity of the sentence up to the maximum of two years and/or the fine which would be imposed.
As is standard practice, the judge would consider the circumstances in imposing sentence upon conviction being established. I might point out that the judge does not have to impose the maximum provided by this amendment. He might impose the minimum, which could be one day in jail or an absolute discharge. The range of deterrent is there. Our courts have proved their experience in applying judgments and sentences wisely in relation to the circumstances.
It is not our intention to see this treatment rendered indiscriminately to each and every violator of this section of the act. Again, circumstances could determine it. For example, it is not intended to institute prosecution of a person who comes forward to a port of entry, even though he or she may have been a deportee, if only to seek advice. Nor will this apply to someone who might come to the border and be turned down at the port of entry. It is to permit prosecution of those persons who succeed in entering Canada without the required consent.
I should also like to advise hon. members that it is our intention, and I am sure it will be the practice of any of my successors in this portfolio, to exercise compassion in certain circumstances. A deportee might be coming forward for a very urgent matter, an understandable matter such as an illness or a death in the family in Canada, or even a more happy occasion such as a wedding or a celebration, without having had time to present his or her case for return, that is, to receive the consent of the minister, in advance, which, of course, would be the proper way to do it, need not lie about his or her previous deportation because it would be our intention to issue minister's permits and such authority could be delegated, as is often the case, to regional officials across this country.
So, again, provision for people who deliberately want to beat the system is there and the deterrent is there, but in cases where there are genuinely compassionate grounds existing we will not hold those people up; we will be letting them in, temporarily, of course, on a minister's consent, provision for which is made in the bill.

As hon. members will also note, we have been careful to protect the appeal system. It is my understanding, from legal advice I have been given, that the upholding of an appeal, or quashing or staying of a deportation order, would not leave the person involved with a stigma, thereby attracting the punishment of the law as we are amending it here in terms of the deportation order. So where a deportation order has been made but an appeal upheld, or where it has been quashed by the Immigration Appeal Board in the exercise of its special jurisdiction on humanitarian or unusual hardship grounds, a person would not be considered a deportee for the purposes of the act.
I am grateful for the co-operation indicated in the opening minutes of this debate. I am very keen to hear the views of the hon. members about this situation during the time which remains to us, and I look forward to the continuation of the debate with gratitude to all hon. members for their apparent willingness to give this bill speedy passage.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of observations I should like to put on record in connection with Bill S-12 and the so-called loophole it is designed to close. The Immigration Act is being amended at a time when many of us are awaiting the government's green paper on immigration policy. No doubt this will contain some interesting information regarding immigration problems and the annual growth in Canada's population.
The bill is unique in my experience, at least, in that it has been introduced and passed in the Senate, so the minister's comments when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, are now before us. The relevant section of the act presently reads as follows;
Unless an appeal against such order is allowed a person against whom a deporation order has been made and who is deported or leaves Canada shall not thereafter be admitted to Canada or allowed to remain in Canada without the consent of the minister.
The argument against the present law is based on the fact that a person who has been deported is able to return to Canada immediately without any penalty being imposed on him. The only penalty which could be inflicted on such a person would be to deport him again, and this procedure could be carried on indefinitely, if one cared to do so. Bill S-12 makes it an offence for such a person to return to Canada without the consent of the minister. If a person who had not received such permission returns to Canada after having been deported, one of two things could happen-he could be found guilty on summary conviction and suffer the penalties spelled out in the bill before us, that is to say, a $500 fine or six months' imprisonment or a combination of both, or dealt with as having committed an indictable offence for which the maximum penalty is two years.
The minister explained that his authority in this area would be exercised with a certain compassion-that he would be guided by humanitarian considerations. He mentioned, for example, illness or death in a family, or some urgent family matter, and stated that in such circumstances leniency would be shown. This aspect was considered in the other place when the bill was under consideration there, and I am glad the minister has referred to it in some detail today.
December 9, 1974

It could be argued that the subject of deportation and the penalties for which deportees returning to Canada are liable are already covered by the Criminal Code and the Immigration Act. Section 46 and 48 of the Immigration Act address themselves to these circumstances, as does section 115 of the Criminal Code, for that matter. The person concerned is' prohibited from returning to Canada, but a duty is placed specifically on an immigration officer to ascertain whether or not that person has ever been deported. The onus, in other words, lies not with the person entering Canada but with the immigration officer, and if the person entering Canada does not of his own free will inform the officer that he has previously been deported he is not liable under the law. This is the loophole my party would like to see closed.
We could argue that section 46 of the Immigration Act should have applied during this period of time. I was rather shocked to find, on reading the report of the proceedings in the Senate, that the government has not attempted to convict any people under these acts since the legal advice received by the minister was that these sections were not specific enough to be able to get a conviction. Thus Bill S-12, in essence, creates a new offence whereby if a person re-enters Canada without the express permission of the minister he will be liable to an offence under the laws of Canada as spelt out in this bill.
The so-called green paper that is going to lead us into this great national debate of ours opens up all kinds of questions regarding immigration as well as the deportation of those who come to Canada illegally. We are very concerned that the government and its officials be given the power to regulate immigration, and specifically those immigrants who disobey the laws of Canada. However, I was completely surprised to hear the minister say he really did not have the power to prosecute those who, having once been deported, return to Canada, and that the only thing he could really do was to give them another one way ticket out of the country at our expense.
Under section 5 of the Immigration Act, which deals with the so-called prohibited classes, it is my understanding that the minister does have the power to declare that a person is within that prohibited class. Then there are further sections in the act dealing with the prosecution of those people who, having once been deported, return to Canada. Just as an aside, one of the subsections of section 5 of the Immigration Act relates to people suffering from epilepsy who now cannot enter Canada. I have written to the minister about this particular matter because I feel it is a discriminatory aspect of the act that should be removed as soon as possible. Therefore I thank the minister for assuring me and the House that this part of the act will be removed at a very early date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Under section 5 of the act, as well as in Bill S-12, there is no power of enforcement. However, the minister and the government will have the support of this party in getting on with the job of keeping undesirables out of the country.
Immigration
To a great extent immigration is, in my opinion, in a mess. I know the minister has attempted through various means to exercise some control within the immigration department over the numbers and types of people who come to Canada. I should like to quote from the Senate debate on immigration and the control thereof. The government leader in the Senate, Senator Ray Perrault, spoke specifically about what he thought of the immigration situation today. As reported at page 166 of the Senate debates for October 23, 1974, he said:
Honourable senators, with respect to the need for this amendment to the Immigration Act, I would say that I come from an area which has been afflicted most adversely by those who contravene deportation orders. It has become a serious problem in the Vancouver area, and especially in the whole of southern British Columbia. Montreal and Toronto have also been affected. The criminal elements have been making a mockery of Canadian immigration laws. They have been deported from this country, and there are many cases on the record- the information can be made available to the committee-in which within 24 hours those criminal elements have returned to Canada, engaging in crime and completely flouting any regulations which exist.
Whatever is done, in my view it is imperative that the two chambers of Parliament deal expeditiously with this particular measure. Law enforcement agencies are thoroughly alarmed about what has been going on. To have the present section stand without any penalty whatsoever, and allow a system to continue whereby time after time, when the minister orders people to be deported, they return across the border within a few hours, is not good enough. There are even cases on record in which they have returned within two hours of deportation, to go through the whole cycle again. Whatever we do, it is obvious that we must act.
So I think the views of the government leader in the Senate on immigration are pretty clear. He feels that there has not been the control that Canadians have been demanding regarding the movement of immigrants and of those who come to this country without the immigration rights people have sought in other places.
I should also like to quote what Senator Laird said when this bill was before the other place. He sponsored the bill, and as reported at page 232 of the Senate Debates for November 5 last had this to say on the subject of immigration today:
I am told-and here again I presume all honourable senators have had occasion to read about these cases-that in some of the larger cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, there have been many instances of very undesirable characters being deported, coming back into the country and engaging in criminal activities here, then simply being deported again and going through the cycle just about as many times as they feel like it. We want to stop this.
That certainly has my support. Obviously what is needed is a very strong tightening of present immigration regulations as they apply to those who refuse to obey the law. When the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs on Thursday, November 7, 1974, he cited an example of the type of situation that the immigration department has had to deal with under the present law. As reported at page 1:6 he said this:
The first example involves a chap who is a pimp. He was deported first on February 10, 1966, and then deported again on the following dates: November 14, 1966; November 28, 1966; February 29, 1968; March 18, 1968; March 21, 1968 ...
That is three days later, Mr. Speaker.
... April 9, 1968; October 22, 1968; and November 27, 1968. For all I know, he may be back in Canada again.

December 9, 1974
Immigration
That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. The arguments expressed in the Senate as to whether or not the present immigration laws and the Criminal Code are sufficient in order to gain a conviction of these people-I am not a lawyer so I will not go into this question-convince me as a member of this House that Canadians are demanding a better system.
Since I have been in this place Canadians from right across the country have asked me time and time again why it is we cannot keep undesirable elements out of this country. This is not to imply that these people are against immigrants or that, as I stated in my reply to the minister's statement of October 22 this year, they are opposed to immigration. They want immigrants to come to Canada, take jobs and make a meaningful contribution to our way of life. There are job vacancies in many parts of the country that could be filled by immigrants. The point we are making, and which we have made before in this House, is that all too often our immigration laws have not been strongly enough applied against those immigrants who are undesirable.
In this respect I contacted a corporal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ascertain his views on the kind of enforcement powers they require in order to deport those whom they thought were undesirable or were members of the criminal element of our society. I should like to quote a section of his letter, which is dated November 18, 1974:
Since my initial take-over, there have been eight persons who were ordered deported from Canada for various reasons, who had been deported before from Canada and, of course, there are many others who have not been surfaced through investigation. The majority of these persons are travelling criminals who ate involved in organized crime, kiting or prostitution. One such person that I dealt with had been deported twice from British Columbia and she advised me that there is no deterrent and she got a free trip home anyway, at the expense of Canadian taxpayers if caught.
This is the type of situation with which our law enforcement officers have had to deal. Part of the problem would be eliminated by the tightening up of our immigration laws. Much of this difficulty is due to the fact that in past years we have not had control over immigration. For example, there are many people in this country who came as visitors, were allowed to apply for landed immigrant status from within Canada, but have never done so.
This party supported the minister's readjustment program last year under which people who had come to Canada as visitors could apply for landed immigrant status within a specified time. I believe we still have a lot of people here who came in during that time, but who have not come forward and regularized their status as landed immigrants. These people who are here without right should be forced to leave. I say that because there are many people who would like to come here as immigrants but are prevented from doing so because of the action taken by the government to deal with people who are here without legalized status. This is a situation which has caused us a great deal of trouble. We are now reaping the whirlwind of those lax immigration laws.
Another aspect of Bill S-12 that is of interest to me is that part in respect of student visas. For many years now

Canada has accepted students from other countries who wish to study here. Many of them obtain skills and knowledge and return to the countries from which they have come, to the benefit of their countries. We have no quarrel with this, but we do quarrel with the situation that allows students to come to this country to obtain an education, and who have no intention of returning. If they want to stay in this country they should go through the regular steps and apply for immigrant status like everybody else.
It seems to me that our law enforcement officers virtually have had to play musical chairs in dealing with these people we have been trying to deport. It is time the government showed leadership in immigration, and tried to bring in people who have the ability and the desire to make a contribution to Canada. I would impress upon the minister that it is high time the government vigorously enforced our present immigration laws.
The point was raised during the Senate debate on Bill S-12 that the Department of Manpower and Immigration cannot provide specific statistics on the number of deportations that have taken place in the last few years. The explanation is given that there was a new system and the statistics were just not available. Before this bill is passed I would appreciate it if the minister made these figures available for the last several years. If they are not available to the minister now, perhaps he could provide them at some convenient time.
In closing I should like to say that we support Bill S-12 and its spirit, because we want to have laws that are fair and enforceable. On that basis we endorse this measure.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons why we have Bill S-12 before us tonight. The first is related to the fact that law officers of the Crown have stated there is a loophole not covered by the act which must be closed in order to maintain control in respect of persons deported. The second reason is that police forces have brought this matter to the attention of the authorities across the country. About a year ago the metropolitan Toronto police brought it to the attention of the minister.
Many individuals who are arrested and subject to deportation have been found, on investigation, to have been deported once, twice or more times before. The same situation prevails not only in Toronto but in Montreal and Vancouver. We in the NDP welcome the bill because of this loophole. The provisions in Section 115 of the Criminal Code and Sections 46 and 48 of the Immigration Act do not cover persons who have been deported from Canada and return without the consent of the minister. This situation is causing a great deal of consternation.
Let me give some of the background to our immigration situation in Canada. Back in 1966 we made changes to the regulations as a result of which we had many immigrants coming to Canada as visitors, and permitted to apply from within Canada for landed immigrant status. Many people in Canada welcomed this change and, as a result, we had a great inflow of new regularized immigrants. But also as a result of that change we had visitors, some of whom when they applied for landed immigrant status were refused on the basis that they could not meet the criteria. Many of them appealed, and were finally given deportation orders.
December 9, 1974

We had a tremendous backlog, and many of those ordered deported did not return to their country of origin. This left an enormous immigration mess.
To my personal knowledge we have had four immigration ministers in the last nine years, and this has added to our difficulties. I give credit to the present minister who has been seized with the problem and has attempted to solve it. Last year we had the readjustment program which brought forward many immigrants who had not obeyed the law. Many of them returned to their country of origin and applied for landed immigrant status. Many others during the readjustment program were allowed to remain in Canada, provided they could meet the criteria.
Bill S-12 is a move in the right direction. During the last three or four years we have had an average of 7,000 persons against whom deportation orders have been made. During the first nine months of 1974 there were 218 persons deported from Canada for the second, third, fourth and, in two instances, the ninth and 17th times. Surely it is time to make a change.
In fairness to the minister, he undertook to make this change as a result of pressure from the Toronto and other police forces. An election interfered with that, and he has now brought it forward. I agree with the officers of the Crown that sections 46 and 48 do not present an opportunity to allow people who have been deported from Canada to be convicted of an offence, and there was no deterrent under section 35. The other sections did not provide an opportunity to stop these people returning to Canada.
In the words of the minister, when we have 40 million odd visitors annually crossing the borders of Canada and also 30 million odd Canadians crossing the border, we can appreciate the difficulty immigration officers have at the border when handling these people. I am rather proud when I travel from Canada to the United States that there is a minimum amount of inquiry with regard to where I am going, when I intend to return, and so on. I appreciate that feeling. I am sure it is appreciated by many others. I just heard a little quip from one of my colleagues who mentioned that this perhaps is because I do not wear long hair. I do not accept the premise that just because a person has long hair he would be stopped at the border.
The officers at the border have a very difficult time. In order to secure a conviction under section 46 of the Immigration Act the officer at the border would have to ask a person whether he has ever been deported. Can you imagine the average Canadian travelling to the United States and being questioned, when returning to Canada, about whether or not he had ever been deported? This is the difficulty the immigration officers have, and this is the reason that out of 7,000 persons who were deported in 1974, in the first eight months only 128 cases were reported of persons who had been deported for the second, third, fourth time and so on.
There is a problem in respect of people who deliberately and intentionally violate the law. This is the reason why the police forces of the major cities across the country have raised this problem seriously with the minister. It is also the reason why the minister has responded by closing the loophole. Therefore we are rather happy this amend-
Immigration
ment is coming forward tonight. We are also happy with the statement of the minister that not only may an indictment be laid but that also there may be a summary conviction charge laid. This points up the difference with regard to the seriousness of the offence.
When people make a mistake unintentionally I would think they would be charged under the summary conviction procedure. If a person has intentionally committed an offence in returning to Canada without the consent of the minister then I think a serious attitude should be developed toward him.
I was happy to hear the minister say that if there should be a question with regard to a person who has been deported wishing to visit because of marriage, sickness or death reasons relating to his family, the department will co-operate in every way either by issuing a permit or giving consent relating to the period in which such person would be in Canada. I think this is the attitude that should be taken.
We all await the green paper on immigration because of the problems we have had concerning immigrants over the last nine or ten years. At one time the regulations were quite strict, and deportations were not as numerous as recently. However, once the change was made in 1956 which permitted visitors to come to Canada and apply for landed immigrant status within Canada, problems arose in great numbers. This is the reason why we must look again at the Immigration Act, the last major change of which was made about 30 years ago. It does not apply to present conditions.
In closing may I say that we in the New Democratic Party support the amendment. We note with interest that Bill S-12 was initiated in the Senate. That is a rather interesting departure because the Senate has not played a very useful role with regard to legislation. In the past the Senate has been considered to be a body that would take a second sober look at legislation. This time it took the initiative, probably on the suggestion of the government, with regard to Bill S-12 and did a job. I happened to read the minutes of the Senate proceedings, and it seemed to me that a pretty fair job was done. It may not warrant some of the criticism that has been levelled at it.
The Senate has been tagged as the delapidated annex of the Liberal Party. It may be that that is the definition of that body, but I think that the Senate is attempting to recover some of the prestige it had, if it ever had any. There are certain bills which therefore may originate in the Senate for the purpose of expediting legislation in the House of Commons and, if so, then as one member I would welcome the initiation of legislation in the Senate.
I notice my parliamentary leader is shaking his head.


John Edward Broadbent: I am leaving.


John Gilbert: He is leaving. I agree with him in substance that the Senate has no place in Canadian parliamentary history, but if we must have the Senate we must make it function. This is one way in which we can make it function. Therefore we welcome the work of the Senate on this particular bill.

December 9, 1974
Immigration


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I will say only a few words, and touch on only three points, because it was agreed at the beginning of the sitting to refer this bill to committee as quickly as possible.
First of all, Bill S-12, as passed by the Senate on November 12, was certainly well examined by hon. senators. As it happens, there is not much talk about the work of the Senate because we have so much to do here in this House. For once, the Senate introduced a bill drawing the attention of the House. I think we must congratulate them tonight for their work on this immigration bill.
Furthermore, the minister did a very good job in enlightening the House. I followed his speech carefully, and he explained very well the shortcomings of the present legislation as well as the effects Bill S-12 will have.
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister I think that the introduction of Bill S-12 is timely. I was surprised, although I am not an expert on immigration matters, to hear the minister tonight that some immigrants re-entered Canada 9, 10, 12 or 15 times after being deported. The other members also stated those facts, and that is why I do not want to repeat what they already said. I simply want to express my satisfaction and say at the same time the impression we had when we saw that mass of people who were re-entering Canada after being sentenced.
We always wondered how our legislation could allow those people to go about so freely but I never imagined that an individual could re-enter Canada 15 times after being deported as many times. It must be noted that most of those people are troublemakers.
In past years, there was trouble in the province of Quebec and elsewhere. When we consider the names of the leaders who aroused the people, we see that most of the time the names of the deported resurface because we do not have any legislation to keep them out of Canada.
I am happy Bill S-12 makes guilty of an offence and I quote:
Every person against whom a deportation order is made who
(b) returns to Canada without the consent of the Minister ...
I feel that amendment will give authority to the minister through the sanctions imposed. The law will not be respected without corresponding punishment. The minister said earlier that the judge will always have discretionary power in imposing the penalty according to each case. All I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that the judges use their common sense as most usually do. I ask that they show compassion while remaining firm, that our Canadian laws be respected and all sorts of revolutionaries kept from rallying our young and the not quite so young and stirring up trouble in Canada.
I want this bill to be deferred to the permanent committee as soon as possible, that it might be passed before the Christmas recess.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-12 as presented to the House corrects an obvious difficulty

for the department in that a deported person could come right back to the country merely to await a new deportation hearing. As has been said and read, the bill adds a penalty to section 35.1 of the Immigration Act that should discourage the commuter or the "bumper jumper". I hope the penalties outlined there are wise and do in fact discredit this abuse of the Canadian law.
I cannot forget the fact that just a few years ago the Immigration Appeal Board had a total of over 28,000 appeals between January 1, 1973, and August 31, 1974. Close to 23,000 of these had been dealt with by October 16, 1974, and 5,000 odd remained on the books. Of the total, 2,500 had formal hearings, 2,500 were awaiting documents, and 18,400 of the appellants had been given landed immigrant status.
It would appear that since the right of appeal against deportation was restricted on August 15, 1973, the board had been able to progress with a rather heavy work load. In October, 1966, the then minister of immigration, presently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), decided that things were in a bit of mess in the department and ordered a white paper. This white paper was intended to stimulate public assistance for the department with an input to the drafting of an updated Immigration Act. A statement of principles and policies pertaining to immigration was made, but where has been the result?
The one thing that has happened is that we had the Immigration Appeal Board Act in 1967, and tonight we are discussing Bill S-12. In the meantime, since 1966 and the white paper, we have been a haven for numerous American pimps, procurers and prostitutes, and we have enabled them to continue to be domiciled here even after conviction under our Criminal Code. Our present inadequate laws, combined with certain flaws and weaknesses in some provincial laws, particularly private companies acts, constitute an open invitation to U.S. con men, swindlers, fraud artists, and both penny anti and big time crooks to enter Canada easily for the purpose of looting the Canadian till.
Bumper jumpers have been the order of the day, and we are trying to prevent them with the introduction of Bill S-12. I certainly hope that this abuse at our crossing points will be ended with this bill. Crime, and the infiltration of Canadian business for the laundering of illegal money have been made possible by a loose application of the Immigration Act, and if we were sincere back in 1966 about the updating of that act, why have we not been with it?
One other situation that applies to immigration that is unfair to the private property owner in our municipalities, and that I believe deserves some consideration on the part of federal and provincial authorities, is the cost of education of those immigrants who land in our cities and attend schools within our cities and who become a burden on the local property owners.
One other thing to which I should like to draw the minister's attention is the screening and interviewing procedure for non Canadians entering Canada at our international airports. It is really a farce. Preliminary interviews are now conducted by untrained customs officers and undergraduate students taking summer employment. Immigration officers only conduct an interview in
December 9, 1974

depth if the preliminary interview discloses some reason for it. Ottawa has decreed that in the jet age of giant passenger loads the interviews must take no longer than 35 seconds. During most of the hours of darkness there are no immigration officers on duty at Canada's international airports.
Our generosity toward draft dodgers and deserters from the United States has meant that we have acquired large numbers of activist yippies who have been in the forefront of every insurrection and riot that has taken place, and who are dedicated to continued confrontations. Not too many years ago at the border crossing at Blaine, between Washington and British Columbia, 30 miles south of Vancouver, a group of these people damaged storefronts and cars and publicly burned the United States flag. All the yippies who led the demonstration were Americans domiciled in Canada. The laconic comment by the Blaine police chief after the incident was, "If you want 'em, you keep 'em up there".
Canada has become a haven for the type of person who is not a good citizen in his homeland, never mind in this country. I recently came across a booklet which is circulated in Canada and is aimed at offering protection to these people, and which gives help on how to beat the Immigration Act so that they can stay here despite their difficulties. I will not bore hon. members with reading too much of this booklet, but I think it should be examined by the department when any restructuring of the act is considered. I will just quote a sentence from page 21:
The wording "admit to having committed" deserves comment. If you have committed, you do not have to admit to it, and this does not involve falsification.
The manual details the nitty gritty of how to beat the Immigration Act. It is issued by a group of lawyers representing these people in Canada.
I should like now to refer to sections 5(1) and 5(m) of the Immigration Act. On many occasions over the last two years people from the department have informed me that this section of the act is not enforced. I wondered why this is so. Have our lifestyle and philosophy in Canada changed to the point that this section no longer applies? Section 5 reads:
No person, other than a person referred to in subsection 7(2), shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes of persons:
Subsection 5(1) reads:
(1) persons who are or have been, at any time before, on or after the 1st day of June, 1953, members of or associated with any organization group or body of any kind concerning which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it promotes or advocates or at the time of such membership or association promoted or advocated subversion by force or other means of democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada,
And subsection 5(m) reads:
(m) persons who have engaged in or advocated or concerning whom there are reasonable grounds for believing they are likely to engage in or advocate subversion by force or other means of democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada;
I grew up in an era when people who belonged to Technocracy Incorporated were not allowed to go into the United States, and vice-versa. Thank goodness we have
Immigration
progressed from that stage. But today we are in the situation that organizations are allowed in Canada and then they print material which advocates the forceful overthrow of our form of government by gun or by any other act of terror that they can devise. This is known to the police and to the department, yet the section of the act I have just read is not enforced for our protection. I should like to know why.
It is important that we have policies that will allow the proper assimilation of peoples coming into this country. In the last seven years we have brought in more non-whites than our total native population.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: There is nothing much wrong with it, except that it is happening too fast and is imposing a great social burden on the country. Our record of improving conditions for our native people has not been too good.
For 2,000 years man has been facing racial problems. The problems and pressures that we are facing today in Canada do not exist in China, however. China does not allow whites to immigrate, nor does Japan, nor does India.


An hon. Member:: Racist!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am not a racist. Anyone who knows me knows well that I am not. I have never had any trouble pertaining to race, creed or religion in my life, and I would not belong to an organization that exercised discrimination. But I am a concerned Canadian who represents a community worried about the lack of enforcement of immigration laws.


An hon. Member:: What is your riding?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: My riding is Capilano. The government has had many opportunities to solve the problems of our native people, but new ghettos are being created all the time. Chinese people and Indian people who cannot be absorbed properly into the country, and who cannot find jobs suitable to them, are being admitted under the act. So are people who advocate the forceful overthrow of the country. It is claimed that these people are being allowed in to do the menial labour of Canada.
Surely as intelligent people we can get together and solve this problem, but planning is needed. The ghetto problem should not be aggravated by setting East Indians down in places like Quesnel, and then finding there is a confrontation with the white residents because of lack of proper planning.
These people are coming in so rapidly that they are not fitting properly into the fabric of Canadian society. They are locating in ghettos, dozens to a house. Does this give them respect for the Canadian system and our government? It does not. It just creates cells for further reactionary groups to work against the fundamental principles for which this House is supposed to stand. Do not label me a racist. I am just saying that we have a problem and the government should recognize it as a problem. If you need help my colleagues will be pleased to render it.
If there is one thing we need in our immigration policy it is a planned assimilation of other races, of Asians and
2086

December 9, 1974
Immigration
East Indians. We must take steps to achieve this if we want to avoid cells of discontent and the establishment of more ghettos. There is too much pressure in this regard in the city of Vancouver. Perhaps it is time for another cabinet leak. Man has been trying to solve the question of integration of races for some 2,000 years If the cabinet has the solution to the problem, maybe it should leak it so we can understand a little more about it.


An hon. Member:: Tolerance.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, tolerance and compassion. Those qualities are not developed by the immigration of masses of people who are foreign to our ideologies and our way of life. They come in planeloads, 350 at a time, and there just is no way to assimilate them.


Mitchell William Sharp: How would you do it?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is high time to ask ourselves if immigration from Asian countries in great numbers is helping solve the world's population problems. Each year the populations of India and China increase by a number in excess of the population of all Canada. India's population increases annually by 13 million.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to shoot them?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: No. You want to feed them and have them breed more, but what can we do with an immigration policy to solve that problem? This is a world situation which cannot be solved by destroying the Canadian social fabric with an over-anxious immigration policy. There is nothing racist in my remarks. I just think this has to be said.
The matter of crime that is being allowed by the Immigration Act and the enforcement of it has been mentioned. Some day when the act is again being discussed there will be a massive presentation, as has already been indicated by the leader of the Senate. By all means we should pass Bill S-12, but let's get on with the 1966 white paper, the 1974 green paper and the restructuring of our Immigration Act so that it protects and adds to the quality of Canadian life.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, in giving my support to this bill I do so with some concern and apprehension. I hope Your Honour will allow me to put my remarks concerning this apprehension in a shade wider context than the narrow focus of the bill. I assure Your Honour I will not make a general speech on immigration.
I cannot reflect my concern about the manner in which the government is now handling immigration if I do not make a few comments just slightly around this bill. I am concerned because of the headlines I see in the newspapers. For example, in the November 25 edition of the New York Times there is a headline, "A Racial Trend In Immigration Is Troubling Canadians". The November 26 edition of the Ottawa Journal carried the headline, "Racial Conflict, We Are Not So Free Of It-Discrimination Tearing at the Canadian Fabric".
The other night I heard a comment on CBC "Viewpoint." I forget the name of the commentator. However, his words have lingered in my mind because I considered them so racist in provoking Canadians to hostility toward immigration.
I commend the government on bringing forward this bill to straighten out the criminal abuse by immigrants, whether those who entered illegally or those who entered legally and then committed criminal acts.
I send the minister many cases concerning immigration. Very often I do not know whether the people who are making the request have legitimate grounds. I want to thank the minister. I think he is doing a very fine job. It reflects a combination of compassion and concern in the dispatch with which the cases are handled. I have been greatly pleased to see several people able to come into this country because the officials of the minister's department care.
Having thrown that bouquet which is very legitimate, I must also throw a little brickbat. The reason for the problems in immigration, the headlines I have quoted, the program and the comments on it, and the concern of many Canadians about immigration, is they do not know whether they are coming or going with regard to immigration. The policies of the government have been loose and changeable. There are many regulations and minor bills that have been brought forward.
I refer to the statement on motions about a month ago concerning the tightening of regulations to make it much more difficult to get into this country. I refer to the debate we had a year ago in which my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), referred to illegal immigrants and straightening out that matter. I refer to the bill now before us. All of these are negative acts. They are reacting to loopholes. They react to what the government perceives as a feeling in the country that immigration is too loose. That is why the government comes along with these band aids.
We know the green paper is in preparation. I have known that since coming to parliament two years ago. What I am suggesting is that the bill now before us, as well as the other pieces of legislation and regulations that have come in, are actually doing a disservice to the cause of immigration and the understanding of the Canadian people. We do not have a full understanding of where we are going with regard to immigration.
I have a question for the minister. I hope he will respond to it when he closes the debate. Why is there the long delay on the green paper? It was referred to here this evening. It is an absolute disgrace that the green paper, which is to outline the beginnings of what will be a new policy, has been delayed. It is that delay, along with these minor pieces of legislation, that is unsettling the Canadian people.
I am going to make a strong pitch for immigration. For those who advocate the overthrow of our country, for those who are here illegally and those who are committing criminal acts, let the government move in much more strongly. Let it have better control over the dissident elements in our population. However, do not do this in such a way that it creates the impression that immigration

December 9, 1974

is bad. Immigration is good. The future of our country will depend on increased immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: The population of our country is slightly over 22 million. Our net immigration is 60,000, and our fertility rate is 1.9 per cent. Taking those together, by the year 2000 the population of this country will be 30 million. That is a very small increase relative to world standards and the population situation.
When we look at immigration we must consider that there will only be a small increase over the next 25 years. Here I speak of those sections of the country that are not Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. I speak of large sections of the west which are now short of labour. They will be involved in mammoth projects, on which the future of our country will depend for productive capacity because of the role Canada can play in a changing world. By having an immigration policy that is restrictive, we do ourselves a disservice. If the green paper were escalated and there were positive results coming from it, we would be able to move on to a positive track with regard to immigration. It would be something the Canadian people would understand and accept at a moderate pace.
The need, as I see it, is for a positive approach to immigration, something which the Canadian people could understand and accept, in which case we would not be hearing so much about dissident elements which are being brought here and getting so many headlines because of circumstances which have nothing to do with immigration.
The minister would be well advised, in my opinion, to pay attention to the speech made by one of his hon. friends, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), on November 26. He did not subscribe to the theory that immigration is inimical to the employment of Canadians. I thought he made a good speech. It came down to asking for an enlargement of immigration in a positive way, so as to help our country.
I have before me the results of a Gallup poll taken recently by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion. This is the question which was asked: If immigrants are brought in, do you think only those who have definite jobs to go to should be allowed to come to Canada, or do you think they should be allowed to come here and hunt up their own jobs? In answer to this question, 61 per cent of Canadians polled said that only those with jobs to go to should be allowed in, whereas, when the same question was asked in 1947 only 49 per cent gave a similar answer. So, there is a large increase in the number of Canadians who are taking a restrictive view with regard to immigration.
The type of bill before us, and the failure to take strong action against dissident elements, help to produce the kind of statistics I have cited, figures which encourage a lot of people to say that 61 per cent of Canadians are against immigration, when such is not the case at all. I ask for a firm immigration policy geared not primarily to economic needs, bearing in mind that skill and the availability of jobs are the prime ingredients of immigration today. I say
Immigration
this policy discriminates against the non-white and the non-rich parts of the world. It does so in two ways: the general population of these areas is excluded from Canada by the present piecemeal immigration policies of the government, and further, under present arrangements only the most highly educated and skilled members of the population of those countries is welcome. Thus, we skim off the people most essential to the modernization of their own countries.
I recently heard the Secretary General of the United Nations speak on this very point, saying that the western countries-he did not mention Canada particularly-were responsible for a "brain drain" of the developing countries.
I am not saying we could solve the world population problem, or the problems of the developing nations by allowing increased immigration. What I am suggesting is that having an open society would enable Canada to become a bigger base, and thus be in a better position to assume our responsibilities to produce food, energy, shelter and clothing for a world whose population will double by the end of the century, and treble by the year 2050. I am suggesting we need a national immigration policy; we need to move forward more quickly than we are doing and help Canadians understand how important immigration is to the future of our country.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I find this bill both confusing and amusing. The bill is a simple thing. It says that people who have been deported cannot re-enter the country without fear of being put in jail or fined. I presume it depends on how rich they are whether they are fined or put into jail.
This is just an indication that the Department of Immigration is in very bad shape. This is not the type of legislation used in other countries. What we are saying, is that we have no means of stopping people coming back to this country, but if they do come back and are caught here they will be subject to this law, which says that if they do not have the money to pay a fine they will be entitled to room and board here for a period of a year and a day. Well, Mr. Speaker, it may cost us between $3,500 and $10,000 to keep an immigrant here as our guest for a year. Surely the government can come up with a better system than this.
Few people swim to Canada, so they must come by some other method, unless they enter from the United States. They probably come here by air. All such people are scrutinized, and if the Department of Immigration is aware of who is coming before a plane lands, it will probably be able to carry out a fairly extensive check.
If a person travels from Canada to the United States, and is on the black list of the United States government, it is very doubtful whether he will be able to pass through customs. I am not sure how they work this but I know that they ask you your name at the border and where you come from. It is likely that in certain circumstances they will ask you to step inside for a few moments. Then they run a check through a computer, and if you are on the "do not ship" list you are shipped back where you came from- they ship you, anyway.
It seems to me we should be using a system which would prevent the entry of deportees rather than supplying them
2-8543 - 6314

December 9, 1974
Immigration
with free board and lodging. Moreover, many of those who have been engaged in undesirable activities, or who lack the qualifications for normal entry are the kind who would not mind experiencing our hospitality for a year. It seems to me we are being asked to approve a foolish way of tackling the situation caused by the re-entry of people who have been deported.
It seems to me that the Department of Immigration, which is very interested in knowing whether a person has brought in an extra carton of cigarettes-


An hon. Member:: Those are the customs people.


William Arnold Peters: Well, the people who land here go through the same process. It seems to me that our officials should be aware of the identity of those who have been deported and that they should not let them re-enter. Why should we allow them to enter, and then try to catch them and deport them again after keeping them here for a year? I know that my colleagues believe that if you break the law you should be punished, but it seems to me the public will be paying a lot of money to punish these immigrants, particularly if they are poor.
If Howard Hughes happened to come here I suppose the department could collect $500 as he left. If Howard Hughes wants to come to this country, probably he would not be deported, and doubtless never has been deported. He has been here a number of times, and when he is ready to leave he does go. No one is ever sure whether he is in this country or not.
I happened to be in another country about a year ago, at a time when members of its government were taking strong measures to find out whether Howard Hughes was in a certain hotel in that country. If he had been they would have deported him, but they were not able to establish whether he was in the country. By the time they were, I guess he had left anyway.
What I am saying is that the rich will pay $500 and enjoy our facilities for a certain period of time, whereas the poor will be subject to one year's accommodation at our expense. This situation reminds me very much of our penal system. We have a very good judiciary and some excellent lawyers, particularly prosecuting lawyers. I do not know about the defence lawyers, but the prosecuting ones are good. People are put in jail and we feed them, clothe them, and probably train them as well. We then let them out J>ut they come back again, and we do this over and over again. It seems to be the only system we can devise.
We have never been smart enough to do something about these people who are incarcerated for a period of time. Putting people in jail costs a lot of money, but as the years go by it seems more and more people end up in jail. Canada now has the dubious reputation of having more people per capita incarcerated than any other civilized country in the world. This bill will add yet another category.
I suggest the minister should seriously consider doing something to prevent people who are deported from Canada ever returning again. I understand from one of my
[Mr. Peters.)
colleagues that on the border they have a system whereby they know all about a person who is driving through in a matter of seconds, simply by nothing his licence plates. I suggest we should do the same with people who are deported. If the manifest shows that these people are undesirable, we should not let them across the border. Then we would not have the problem of deporting them.
Perhaps the immigration minister should do what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) does. He does not let unwanted oranges or animals come into this country. Not long ago I entered the United States from another foreign country and the customs officer asked me if I had any pets, vegetables or other agricultural products with me. I said no, I did not, but that I was only stopping off in that country on my way through to Canada. I told him that Canadian law was much stricter than theirs in regard to prohibiting plants or animals from entering the country.
We do have a reputation around the world for stopping contraband in the form of plants or pets entering Canada, though we do not seem to have any system for preventing unwanted people from entering the country. I suppose there are some pets you might want to bring in that would meet the requirements of the minister of immigration, but the other kinds that are classified are not allowed in at all.
This bill is going to cost the Canadian public a lot of money over the years, and it is going to mean that the poor people who come to this country, many from ethnic groups who are not very well off when they arrive, are going to end up in jail at the expense of the Canadian public. In my opinion these people are not really guilty of an offence; they are only guilty of wanting to come to Canada when we do not want them.


Robert Knight Andras: This bill does not deal with that.


William Arnold Peters: No. But the point is that we do not want them here. They would like to come here, and this bill is for our protection, not necessarily theirs.
There are many reasons for deporting these people, and most of them are deported because they did not come through the proper channels. The hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp) is probably well aware of the fact that there are agencies in many parts of the world that send people to this country as wetbacks, much like the old Mexican border trick where immigrants think they are coming here legitimately and pay their money to come, but when they arrive find they have broken the law unintentionally. Their only real offence was that they wanted to come here in the first place. These are the people I suggest we will be putting in jail because they have broken our law, and in my opinion they cannot be blamed for wanting to come and make their homes in this country.
I suggest that we should strengthen our immigration regulations at the border. Most people arrive in this country by air and could easily be checked. I am sure it would not be difficult for the immigration minister to have his officials obtain the manifests from the countries of origin. They would be able to check with Interpol the aliases, passports and other travel paraphernalia of these immigrants. Most people arrive thinking they will be allowed to stay, not realizing they are acting illegally. Usually they do not use the sort of dodge others use to get into this country.
December 9, 1974

Therefore I suggest to the minister that he will be neglecting his duty if all he is depending upon to prevent people who have been deported from returning to Canada is the penalty clause in this bill. Both of my colleagues in attendance this evening are lawyers and believe that anyone who breaks the law must pay the penalty, whether morally that penalty is justified. However, it seems to me the immigration officials could exercise good judgment on behalf of the Canadian public in preventing deported persons from returning, in which case there would be little or no need for this law.
I am afraid that once this law is passed, as is common with other similar laws, all we will accomplish is a conviction of persons under the law which will result in many of these people becoming guests of the Canadian public in our institutions for a period of up to a year, and I am not sure that is the wish of the Canadian public in asking the government to limit immigration to this country.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a few reservations about this bill. Although on the surface it looks like a housekeeping bill designed simply to plug a loophole, I think it is to some extent a bill that is based on a false assumption.
I think the false assumption is that everybody who has been deported is a criminal and therefore should never be allowed to return to this country. Everybody who has been deported from this country is not a criminal. There are many cases of individuals who have been deported for reasons which cannot be classified as criminal activity. Let me give you an example.
I was associated with a case of an individual who was deported only yesterday. He happened to be a student travelling in this country, and required some money. He took a job for a month or so without a ministerial permit, and was deported for doing so. Under this legislation, unless I am wrong, this man will be prohibited from ever coming to this country again for the rest of his life, whether he wants to come as a tourist, a visitor, or what have you. He is on the minister's black list and will not be allowed to come back in without running the risk of facing a fine or a prison sentence.
Unfortunately I did not hear the minister's explanation when he led off the debate. Perhaps he would explain how he will get around this particular problem. It seems to me that because of the fact that a lot of people are deported for reasons that may be considered to be criminal, this will tend to tar everybody with the same brush. The minister did indicate that a certain amount of humanitarianism and good judgment will be required in the administration of this measure, but I do not know that ministers of immigration in the future will be as humane as this particular minister claims to be.
The provision that leaves everything up to the minister's discretion, or requiring that everyone must get a permit from him puts a rather difficult obstacle in the way of people who want to come here simply for the purpose of visiting. A better method must be available, and we should attempt to differentiate in respect of reasons for deportation in terms of this bill when it becomes law.
Immigration
I can think of cases where people, who have been deported for a reason such as the one I gave in respect of the student, may be required to come to Canada to visit friends or relatives here, and may not have the time to go through the dragged out procedure of obtaining a ministerial permit. This bill may create very serious difficulties for people in that category.
I am not sure that without some clear delineation as to the kind of guidelines the minister will follow in issuing permits I am prepared to give him the absolute power for which he is asking in this bill. It would also be useful to consider some other aspects of the Immigration Act about which I am concerned, and one is the point system.
Many people may make application for immigrant status who, for one reason or another, do not obtain enough points and are rejected. While this point system is useful as a guideline, I think it does not consider the needs of certain regions in Canada. This is an area where possibly greater discretion in terms of regional need is required.
It is fair to say that in the prairie provinces, certainly in northern Alberta with which I am very familiar, there is a tremendous shortage of workmen, skilled and unskilled. One of the greatest shortages at the moment is in respect of unskilled workmen. One can go to almost any service station or farm and find that the operators or farmers are unable to find men to help them carry on with their work. Many Canadians do not want these jobs, and this is an area where we should re-assess our immigration laws to make sure that these areas are treated differently than others, such as the metropolitan centres of the country where unemployment is more of a problem.
The situation varies not only from city to city and province to province, but from region to region within provinces. If we are really concerned about meeting all the needs of this country in terms of the availability of workmen we should be looking for some changes.
I would agree that we should be increasing the number of vocational schools in order to upgrade the skills of individuals who are chronically unemployed or presently considered unemployable. The fact is that programs of this kind have not been very useful to date, and I do not see anything on the horizon that promises anything different. Even though we may think that some day we will have sufficient vocational training facilities, we must find some method of motivating people to go to these institutions, particularly those chronically unemployed or unemployable but who are in good health, and who lack skills. It is possible that some day we might find a formula under which we can prepare these people for the labour market, but at the moment there are many areas in the country that require workmen but are absolutely unable to get them.
When we look back over the history of immigration in Canada we find that our laws have been much more lax than they are today. In the 1930's, the 1920's and earlier, when we wanted settlers to open up agricultural lands in the west, there were virtually no restrictions in respect of educational ability or skill. The only restrictions were those in respect of health. It has been proven to my satisfaction that it is not the amount of education an individual may have, or his particular trade or professional qualifications that guarantees a good or productive

December 9, 1974
Immigration
citizen rather than one who becomes a burden to our society. We have experience that shows that the important thing is the initiative of the individual, and that initiative is by no means restricted to those people who happen to have a trade or a professional skill of some kind.
If we are going to be serious about this problem from the point of view of humanitarianism and discernment, while at the same time meeting the needs of the Canadian labour market, we should be considering changes based on regional concerns.
I would conclude by simply asking the minister to clarify his position on the main purpose of this bill, telling us what his ground rules will be in respect of people who wish to return after having been deported for some reason other than criminal or undesirable activity. If there are no such guidelines issued in advance so that we know what to expect, perhaps the minister should consider an amendment to clarify his intention in this regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, before this debate began there was an agreement that the bill would be referred to the Committee of the Whole. There was unanimous agreement, and I concluded there was a disposition to complete at least second reading tonight. I wonder if there would be agreement that you not see the clock for a few minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the minister. Is there agreement not to see the clock for at least the completion of the second reading stage of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will agree to terminate my remarks at this point and continue them in Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-12, to amend the Immigration Act.
On clause 1.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is better that we are now in Committee of the Whole for the completion of my remarks because, as I understand it, at this time we are in a position to expect answers and explanations from the minister which are necessary in order to expedite speedy passage of this bill, if that is the desire of the House. I should like to ask the minister whether he would clarify what guidelines he proposes to follow in terms of allowing ministerial permits to be issued to people who had been deported for reasons which were not of the type which could be construed as relating to criminal activity, but were simply as a result of the bending of some of our laws with regard to employment. What guidelines does the minister intend to use in such a case, and how difficult would it be for an individual who had been deported for that reason to obtain a permit? How long would he have to

wait? I would like to have a little more detail about the plans.


Robert Knight Andras: I did attempt to make some explanation on this point in my opening remarks on second reading. The real purpose of this is to bring to bear the pressure of a deterrent on those people whose motives in coming back may be quite reprehensible. In 1973, if I recall correctly, there were only about 128 such cases, so it is not the volume about which we are concerned. A total of 128 out of 70 million border crossings is a needle in the haystack in terms of border crossings. It is the intention to issue minister's permits where people who may be deportees give sufficient advance notice that they wish to come back for a specific understandable purpose such as I mentioned-illness, a funeral or even the happy case I described otherwise.
I would not want the hon. member to think that a person who had been deported because of prosecution under the law would be welcomed for a long stay. There is a discretion concerning the length of time for which a permit would be issued. We would not unduly withhold the minister's consent unless the person involved had a criminal record.


Paul Yewchuk: Would the minister care to inform us what the ratio is between those deported for criminal activity and those deported simply for some minor offence, such as taking employment while here on a tourist visa?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, the bulk of the deportations now, which include turning around at the border which could be voluntary departure as well as the acts of rejection, would be made up of people coming here who are considered to be non bona fide visitors coming for a purpose other than to visit. As to the criminal content of deportations, I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member the number off the top of my head, but the bulk of them would be people who are breaking our laws in terms of overstaying, or coming here without acceptable evidence that they are visitors.


Paul Yewchuk: If that is the case, then it seems to me that this bill is shooting at a fly with a shotgun because what we are doing is excluding a large number of people for the rest of their lives for very minor offences, offences which are not dangerous to the security of the nation or to the people of the nation. If they want to come here as tourists or visitors, it seems to me that this is a rather severe measure.


Robert Knight Andras: I think the hon. member should be aware that it is unacceptable now under the present law for people to come back to Canada, having once been deported, without the minister's consent. Of course there is no punishment for that, but if we apprehend or identify them, we can deport them forthwith. What we are providing here is a deterrent for those people determined to come back illegally. In my comments earlier I indicated that there is discretion in the application or prosecution of this deterrent.
We do not intend to charge people who come to the border and inquire, or who are turned away at the border.
December 9, 1974

That is the time for them to declare the purpose for which they want to come back to the country, and there will be a delegation of authority to issue the minister's consent at border points where the purpose of the visitor is identified as being innocent- But we do not want to be left in the position in which we are now, where people who have been deported come back illegally because they only face another deportation.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, this is my final question. I want to know two more things. The minister has not told me what length of time he anticipates it would take to issue a ministerial permit. Let us say it is for an occasion which has a specific date but, because of the mail service in our country, this individual who is in some other country did not receive notification until two or three days before the event. How long would it take him to get the ministerial permit? Second, could the minister clarify what he anticipates would be the number of these permits issued to people who have been deported for non criminal reasons? Does he anticipate that most would be able to get a permit to come back to visit, or very few?


Robert Knight Andras: I thought I answered the first question by saying we would delegate authority to the border point upon a phone call from the region. So in terms of a situation such as the sudden illness of a relative in Canada, where there was no advance warning to the person who was coming back who had been deported, that person could come to the border, explain the circumstances, and within an hour might receive the authority. I am quite prepared to delegate it. In fact, ministers permits are delegated now on certain prescribed occasions.
As to the second part of the question, I honestly could not give the hon. member the number.


Paul Yewchuk: I am asking for the ratio, not the number.


Robert Knight Andras: I cannot give the hon. member an indication of the number of people to whom the minister's consent to come back is given or would be given under the circumstances of the proposed amendment. Such consent is going to be for the purposes I have already described. For coming back to Canada to take up Canadian citizenship or landed immigrant status, that is a different matter altogether.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: As far as the operation of this particular clause is concerned, may I ask the minister whether prosecution will be instituted through his department or through the offices of the attorneys general of the provinces?


Robert Knight Andras: We would notify our own officers at the border or our inland officers. I have authority to make arrest under this but the practice is to refer it to local police forces. In fact, many of the applications for arrest would be enforced by police officers. As my hon. friend from Broadview indicated, and this was also brought to my attention by the police forces in some of the major cities, too often they have no way of deterring hardened criminals from coming back to Canada. Those people just
Immigration
laugh at the idea of being shipped across the border once more.
The application for charges would be laid by our officers, or officers of the metropolitan forces, and the decision to prosecute by summary conviction or indictment would be made by the Crown attorney.


William Arnold Peters: In view of the number of people coming in- I think the minister mentioned 170 out of 70,000 as the number that came to his attention as being subject to this type of legislation-may I ask how many were from the United States and how many arrived by air from other countries?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, those that came to my attention by and large are from the United States, people who cross the border to Vancouver, for instance. I believe the hon. member for Capilano could support that. Or they come across to Toronto, to Windsor and so on, but the vast number of people or criminals who have crossed the border came by way of Detroit and Windsor. I subscribe to the proposition that we should improve the prevention system but it is a problem when you have 40 million people a year coming here. Of course the number is not the real problem either, it is the type of people. The Americans have something like nine million or ten million illegal immigrants now, so their problems are far worse than ours even though their computers may be a little better.


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me, with my small experience of border points, that those who were not allowed into the United States-including a couple of former members of parliament-found out that they were unable ever to cross the border. It seemed that the officials could recognize them every time. I am not really concerned with the criminals, unless the minister agrees with some of our legal colleagues that anybody who has committed an offence is a criminal.
I know there have cases of deportation where the people did not want to do something within our law at times, but they were not bank robbers or out to cheat anybody- except the country, I suppose. Unless the word criminal is used to mean such cases, the people I am concerned with are those who have relatives here and who were deported because they did not meet our requirements. It seems to me that to put them in jail rather than develop a system to make screening simpler is not the answer.
We need something that will allow our officers to be less cautious rather than more so. I am sure these people are well known after they have been deported three or four times, and would be easily recognized if they attempted to cross the border again.
Most of the immigrants in my riding, and I suppose the same is true of the minister's riding, have come by air from Europe and the Caribbean, and are not what I consider to be criminals. Where there are passports and other facilities, we should not have this difficulty. I know some cases that should not have happened. I hope this bill will not be the only thing which will try and prevent people from re-entering this country who came in under those circumstances. I say this because some may have parents here, and some may be parents of those who live here.

December 9, 1974
Immigration
These people make the attempt as often as they can, particularly the Chinese.
Why is there not attached to this bill the protection which the minister provides for compassionate reasons? This should be indicated in the bill. If this minister changes to another portfolio, we will be assured that this will still be the direction of the department. In my experience the immigration department has too often been hinged to the whims of whoever happens to be the minister, rather than to the act. I would like to see some indication that this regulation would apply at border points on compassionate grounds.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, regulations will flow from this. I do not think we should open up the legislation to describe the exceptions other than the fact there is an option to prosecute by way of summary conviction or indictment. There is an option in the sentence the judge imposes when a conviction has been returned, which ranges from an absolute discharge up to a maximum of two years imprisonment. The courts of this country have indicated their competence to make those kinds of distinctions based on the circumstances of the offences.
In terms of regulations, it is my intention to indicate in regulations the extension of delegation of the authority to issue ministerial consent for coming back into Canada. It would not then be an offence under the act, because ministerial consent would be delegated, as is now the case in the field under certain circumstances. I think that would be the way we would approach it.
I must with respect disagree with the hon. member on putting compassion into the court again. Once a person who has been deported knowingly slips back into the country, under this amendment he could be punished for that offence by either summary conviction or indictment, with the range of penalties I indicated. It is not before the appeal board. The deportation has already been handled. It is after the deportation has been heard by the appeal board, which at that stage has chosen not to extend its compassionate jurisdiction and upholds the deportation order thereby requiring the department to execute the order. That has all passed. This person is coming here in defiance of that deportation order. I presume the Crown attorney and the judge judging the circumstances, if it were a hardened criminal-and I am inclined to agree with the distinction the hon. member makes-are in a position to decide how to proceed with regard to prosecution and the sentence to be imposed, taking those facts into consideration.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, there are two things I would like to see the minister indicate in this bill. Maybe I used the wrong word in saying compassionate. That is what we used to say in the air force. We asked for compassionate leave to attend a funeral, wedding or something of that nature. That is the type of compassion I was talking about, not with regard to sentencing. I would not ask the court for compassion in that sense.
It seems to me we should clearly indicate to all immigration officers the names and descriptions of persons who have been deported, and make every effort to prevent

their entry. For example the banks pin up lists containing the numbers of counterfeit bills, and do not accept bills bearing these numbers. We should make it clear that we do not accept deportees because they have, in a sense, committed a crime. We should use whatever machinery available to us as a means of stopping them coming in here. I agree there are two categories-those who come in for illicit reasons and those who come in-I do not know what the word is-those for whom this country has an attraction even when they do not come here for an illegal purpose.


Robert Knight Andras: I can only say to the hon. member that I agree with him there is a need to improve constantly our techniques at the border points to make sure that people do not enter this country illegally, whether they are deportees or first-time triers. Of course, that exercise is under way though I do not intend to take up the time of the committee describing what I consider to be the improvements which have been made over the past year or so. However, I do not want to leave the impression that this is a simple matter.
I would remind the committee that there will be a great deal of opportunity to talk about immigration policy and programs when we are considering the new legislation in terms of the green paper to be published, although I tell the committee frankly that this is an amendment which we believe to be absolutely necessary now, because taking a realistic view I think it will be a year before we shall be able to study the Immigration Act in detail. It is always going to be difficult to prevent all illegal border crossings when there are some 70 million crossings a year, and when the border is as wide as ours. Then again, there is a lack of desire on the part of Canadians to see a heavy policy system with a huge bureaucracy.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister has told us that the bill is directed, more or less, at a criminal element-I think he mentioned 128 people. In that case why was the bill not drafted so as to aim squarely at the criminal element involved?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not want to give the impression that it is not designed to apply to all those who have been ordered deported and to all cases where a deportation order has been executed. Anybody coming back to Canada having previously been deported will be subject to the deterrents inherent in the bill. But it will be left to the Crown to determine whether to proceed by way of indictment or not. I cannot subscribe to the idea that we consider lightly the return, without the consent of the government, of any person who has been dealt with by a deportation procedure which is also the law of the land. I have indicated that we are not aiming at relatively innocent people; we shall deal less harshly with them or the courts will. I am sure.
I indicated in my opening remarks that the very fact that the bill provides for the minister's consent, and continues to do so, is indicative of some discretionary powers that I hope hon. members would wish to remain in the hands of the minister. I cannot see them exercised for any reason other than a justifiable purpose, such as the compassionate ground that I tried to describe in my illustrations earlier.
December 9, 1974


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister can achieve the same result, so far as people who are not members of the criminal element are concerned, by requiring a visitor's visa or something of that nature. Is that not so?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is suggesting that all visitors to Canada must have a visitor's visa obtained abroad, then he is opening up a whole new range of policy, program and techniques to which I was alluding when I replied to my hon. friend from Timiskam-ing. I personally would not at this stage be favourably disposed to exercise that option, but I will not rule it out in terms of a more profound examination of the subject that we will be having shortly when the green paper is forthcoming. I would rather hope that I could convince my hon. friend at that time that, while a visitor's visa sounds like an easy method of control, the trade-offs will be quite difficult to accept. I do not see this as a substitute, certainly not for now anyway; but we can examine it in more detail when we take a look at the green paper and at the government's position on the new immigration act in total.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister said there were 128 situations where the bill could apply. I assume there is some deficiency in the Criminal Code, or at least in the present Immigration Act, which has led the minister to bring forward this amendment. I am curious to know the advice the minister received regarding the existing provisions and why he feels that there is a deficiency in the existing law. If that was the advice he received, how many of these particular instances to which he refers, in approximate figures if he has not the exact figures, were not successfully prosecuted in the eyes of the government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I did try to deal with that in my opening remarks. I noted that the immigration critic of the hon. member's party agreed that the current law is inadequate to permit successful prosecution under the act, which was the advice the legal officers of the Crown gave me and gave my predecessors for a considerable number of years. I also noted that the hon. member for Broadview agreed that the wording of the present act does leave a loophole, which mainly lies in the fact that under the present act the onus is upon the officer. The wording is "shall not be admitted".
Provided the returning deportee does not state an untruth, does not lie, about the condition of his or her re-entry, then I am told that no prosecution would really stand up. Of course our difficulty is that there are 70 million crossings a year. If we could take the time to set up a system whereby everyone who crossed the border was asked, "Are you a returning deportee, or have you been deported from this country?" and if the answer was no when in fact the contrary was the case, then we could prosecute. However, as I have said, there were 128 instances last year out of a total of 70 million crossings. That is the number, so far as we know. I am not going to boast to the hon. member that I can be absolutely sure that that is the total number, but that is the number we identified. However, there is a lot of room for error within that figure of 70 million. There is a lot of movement within that 70 million and a lot of room for error. We know this,
Adjournment Debate
and in almost every case these were people the like of whom we would all prefer not to have back in Canada.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third
time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply to my question of November 26 in effect underscored and restated his UN declaration regarding the role of Israel in determining the makeup of the Palestinian delegation at the Geneva conference. At New York the minister stated that Israel was an essential party in deciding the question. An earlier version of the text used the word "principal", but apparently this was not considered sufficiently strong and the word "essential" was inserted.
For a long time the minister and his predecessors have said that Canada recognized the right of the Palestinians to be represented at Geneva. The minister referred to this again in his UN speech, although in somewhat muted tones. It is now clear to the world that the Palestinian question, the fate of the Palestinian people, is at the heart of the continuing Middle East crisis. It is also clear that the Palestinians must be heard. They must be given an opportunity to present their case. This they received at the United Nations, and a considerable body of world opinion believes they should be at Geneva. No sensitive, compassionate person can be deaf or blind to the fate of one and a half million people living out a hopeless, sorrowful existence in squalid refugee camps.
In light of Canada's expressed belief that the Palestinians should be at Geneva, I asked the minister how he
envisaged their representation coming about. All the Arab

December 9, 1974
Adjournment Debate
states including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have agreed on designating the PLO as the Palestinian spokesman. The Palestinians under military occupation of Israel, or in the far-flung, dreary refugee camps of the Middle East, have no representative institutions. How then does Canada see them represented. By Jordan? Jordan has itself agreed that the PLO should go to Geneva. Do we envisage them being represented by Israel? It would be strange if the Minister were exalting the right of conquest at a U.N. meeting, and I cannot believe that the minister meant that.
In the light of statements by Israeli leaders that they would never talk to the PLO, what is the effect of the minister's declaration that Israel is an essential determinant of how the Palestinians should be represented at Geneva?
If Israel is given the authority to make the decision on this matter it is clear that the Palestinians will not be represented. Without recognition of the Palestinian cause I fear there will no peace in the Middle East. It is not in Israel's interest that the tension be heightened and the bitter animosity prolonged. It may well be that the minister's statement, more pro-Israeli in some respects than that of the United States, will not in the long run be so helpful.
The situation in the Middle East is complex enough to deter anyone from proffering simplistic solutions. I believe, however, some realities must be faced. By agreeing to sit down with Israel at Geneva the neighbouring Arab states have shown a realism they have for a long time avoided. By going into conference they are, ipso facto, recognizing Israel. Despite all the agonies of the 1940's, the lack of consultation with the Palestinians, the terrorism, the violence, I think the Arabs must now face reality and recognize Israel as a fact of life.
The Israelis must, on their part, recognize that they do not have the right to borders of their own choosing. More fundamental, they must recognize that the Palestinians are a people. The United Nations which set up an Israel also created a new Palestine. Canada, as a United Nations member, has some responsibility, and I was surprised that we voted against observer status for a people to whose future the United Nations made such a fateful contribution in 1948. Not being a state, how else can these people be heard at the international forum which made such traumatic decisions on their fate 26 years ago? It must not be forgotten that the Palestinians were unheard in 1948. Are we to go on forever acting as if they did not exist, did not in fact exist when Israel was created?
I close with my renewed plea for a more open-handed view, a recognition that while UN resolution 242 calls for a situation helpful to Israel, it also deals with territories and rights of other people. Until we have a new measure of compassion, realism, fairness and moderation, this troubled region will threaten the people of its own area and of the whole world.
The Middle East situation is one of immense sensitivity and explosive possibilities. It is an area concerning which
[Mr. Macquarrie.J
we must all seek eternally and energetically for helpful contributions. In the emotion-laden atmosphere surrounding this fearful question there are occasional contributions and utterances which are not helpful. While I have never had anything but kindly feelings for Israel, where I was so well received a few years ago, I think its president's threats of atomic warfare were regrettable. Unfortunate, too, is a tendency to denigrate and sneer at the nations comprising the majority which voted for observer status at the United Nations.
Not for a moment would I accuse the minister or his parliamentary secretary of dealing in such diabolic dialectics, but I do deplore those who sneeringly toss off the majority as merely a union of Africans, Arabs and Asiatics. Such racist elitism is the very antithesis of what the UN should stand for, and should be abhorrent to all liberal internationalists.
I fervently hope that reason, not racism, will prevail, and that, in the words of the Psalm of David, mercy and truth shall meet together. To this end I hope Canada will commit itself.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 
SECURITY-RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS ON PENSIONS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES-POSSIBLE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 21, as reported in Hansard, at page 552, I put the following question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
In view of the fact that several years have gone by since the government launched an effort to secure reciprocal agreements on pensions with a number of countries and in view of the fact that thus far only one such reciprocal agreement has been put into effect, can the minister say whether the government is now prepared to activate this program in the hope that the reciprocal agreements might be reached fairly soon?
Sir, when parliament, back in 1965, passed the Canada Pension Plan, we included in that legislation provision for reciprocal agreements with countries having social security legislation more or less like ours. A couple of years after that, with the kind of fanfare for which Liberals are famous, a commencement was made on the achieving of a number of these reciprocal agreements, but so far only one has been achieved, namely, an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany, which I think was signed in 1971.
I believe that discussions have been held with certain other countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, possibly France and I believe Italy, but as yet no agreements have been reported with any of these countries. The reason that we are interested in reciprocal agreements is that there are persons from these other countries now living in Canada who are denied either pensions in the first instance, or increases in pensions paid by the countries from which they came because of the lack of a reciprocal agreement.
I hope, therefore, that this excellent program which, as I say, grew out of the Canada Pension Plan and was started in the late sixties, might get moving again.
I did not take time to read the minister's answer to me on October 21, and I hope he will not read it to me again tonight either. The gist of it is that we are always ready to agree, provided the other side will agree. We are prepared to give our pensions to Canadians in other countries, but we will not do it without an appropriate quid pro quo from the other side.
I hope that tonight the minister will not simply try to win the argument by having the last word and repeating what he said on October 21, but that he will agree with me that it is important to many persons now living in Canada that these reciprocal agreements be achieved. I hope he will indicate that somewhere a fire will be set under somebody so that the program will be advanced and a number of reciprocal agreements achieved at an early date.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as he indicated, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) brought up this matter on October 21 last, and he is bringing it up again. In fact, he would like the government to activate the negotiation of reciprocal agreements with other countries
Adjournment Debate
in the field of social security and more specifically in that of pensions.
That was basically the essence of his intervention on October 21 when he suggested more specifically that there was a meeting of minds in this respect between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
I should like to point out that the technical discussions in which the civil servants have taken part in recent months, namely with their United Kingdom counterparts, have brought to light some of the difficulties parliament, and I repeat, parliament will have to overcome if Canada is to pursue a policy designed to protect the vested interests of people who immigrate to Canada or who emigrate from Canada.
As I indicated in my preliminary answer on October 21 last, the basic question to those bilateral agreements is always that of knowing how much the other countries are willing to give up in exchange for the outstandings privileges available in Canada in social security.

"To activate the program," as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have it, involves a number of problems for this parliament, on the legal and constitutional planes among others. I know of no country, for example, which would be interested in an agreement on old age pensions without including the Canadian Old Age Security program. At the present time there is no provision in the legislation for OAS to be included in international agreements. In addition, certain countries are not interested in an international social security agreement involving old age pensions alone. They would wish to have included programs covering other contingencies which, in the Canadian context, involve programs of differing jurisdictions, some of which have no provision for international agreements.
The one agreement to which the hon. member referred in his question last week is our convention on social security with the Federal Republic of Germany, to which the hon. member again referred to tonight. This is not a standard agreement. I should perhaps explain that pension benefits to which entitlement has been earned under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany are not normally payable to aliens outside that country unless it has a convention with their country of nationality. The underlying purpose of our convention with the Federal Republic of Germany, therefore, is to provide for the payment in Canada, to Canadian citizens and other persons, of pension benefits to which entitlement has been earned under German law.

Mr. Speaker, every time the government feel that it is of benefit to immigrants and Canada to seek out new reciprocal and bilateral agreements on social security, I shall be pleased to indicate to hon. members what measures will have to be taken to implement such a policy.

December 9, 1974
Adjournment Debate


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-REASON FOR DENIAL OF BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) for being here this evening. I know that he, along with other members of this House, recognizes that the difficulties along the British Columbia Railway with respect to unemployment insurance payments are serious, especially at this time and in the context of the economic difficulties afflicting that part of my province.
The chronology of this dispute is important, Mr. Speaker. On November 4 an illegal strike was commenced by five of the unions which had been negotiating with the British Columbia Railway. That strike was recognized as illegal; an injunction was obtained and the strike was ended.
There were incidents at the time of the illegal strike and, if my information is correct, they amounted to the fact that in certain places along the British Columbia Railway north of Williams Lake certain members of other unions at first hesitated to cross the illegal picket lines. Things moved on, and there was a dispute with respect to certification which involved only the five unions which were on strike. I am informed that they comprise only about 500 people, leaving another nearly 2,000 people who worked for or are connected with the work of the railway
On November 21 the legal strike commenced. I am informed that up until that time the non-striking union members had indicated their determination to go to work, and in fact the railway was operating at about 50 per cent capacity. When the legal strike commenced the British Columbia Railway Company laid off all its employees. As a consequence we have a situation where a strike, now brought legally by about 500 people, has put another nearly 2,000 people in a very difficult position.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission says that only 400 people have applied for benefits. But I say through you to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the number of people now out of work, not on strike but laid off, is probably closer to 2,000.
I am asking the minister tonight what steps will be taken to exercise that discretion which I believe lies within the Unemployment Insurance Commission to read Section 44 in such a way, without contravening the legal position set out in Section 44 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, that will enable these people to draw their unemployment insurance benefits.
Many of these people, probably the majority of them, have never drawn unemployment insurance benefits. They belong to a very stable work class. As a consequence they are not the kind of people who have been taking advantage of the unemployment insurance system.
I repeat that I am pleased to see the minister here tonight. My question is: what steps is the government prepared to take immediately to exercise an interpretation of Section 44 that will enable these people to collect their unemployment insurance, keeping in mind that the apparent reason for denying these benefits is that there was
some refusal to cross illegal picket lines in a strike which was illegal, and which took place before the legal strike that is now in existence?
As far as I am aware there is no indication that these men, apart from the striking workers, have in any way refused to go to work or to be available to the company. The fact is that the company has laid them off.
At this time in British Columbia, along the length of that entire railroad, there is very grave difficulty and serious economic loss. That is what I wish to bring to the minister's attention tonight. I would ask him to intervene personally. I ask the government to make every effort to exercise the discretion which I think is available under Section 44, and make an interpretation of that section which will give to these men at least limited benefits at this very grave and discomforting time in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member for the clarity of his presentation, and tell him that in the short time since first he raised the matter I have not had a full opportunity to explore it.
I am told that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Act and established jurisprudence, disentitled effective November 4, 1974, members of the United Transportation Workers, Canadian Union of Transportation Employees Local 1, the Brotherhood of Railway and Airlines clerks, and some other unions because they were held to be members of a grade and class of workers who were participating in a labour dispute by honouring the picket line established by the shopcraft unions. This was imposed under authority of Section 44(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Although this picketing and honouring by the other unions occurred in the northern section of the British Columbia Railway system, around Prince George, the entire British Columbia Railway system is considered as a single "premises" under the Unemployment Insurance Act and established jurisprudence.
Subsequent to the picketing by the shopcraft unions and refusal to cross by the other unions, there was a partial resumption of work effective November 13, 1974. This was, however, not considered to be "substantial" within the umpire's interpretation of what he contends to be "a termination of the stoppage of work" and sufficient to terminate the disentitlement previously imposed effective November 4, 1974. It is, therefore, considered to be one labour dispute and the stoppage of work has not yet terminated.
I should point out to the hon. member that the unions have filed an appeal against this decision to the board of referees. This is an impartial body set up to hear such cases and render a decision in accordance with the circumstances. The appeal is to be heard on December 23, 1974.
Notwithstanding this information I am conveying to the hon. member, I am intrigued by his presentation. I would like to take a further look personally although I cannot promise to intervene because I am not quite sure it would be proper for me to do so at this time. However, I will look more deeply into the matter and, privately or otherwise, convey to the hon. member further findings that may come to light as a result of that analysis.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.

Tuesday, December 10, 1974