1977-07-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. In light of the growing concern among employees of the National Harbours Board of Canada, and Ports Canada, with respect to their future job security, and in light of widespread indications that some present employees of the National Harbours Board are not being invited to compete for job opportunities under the ports policy proposals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the government cease forthwith its present practice of filling vacancies under proposed legislation; namely, C-61, which at this point in time does not have approval in principle by parliament and instead these same employees be given firm assurances by the government that if and when a new ports policy is approved by parliament they will be given full and first opportunity to apply for the positions to be created by the new legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent of the House is required before a motion can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the deplorable use of violence by security guards at Robin Hood Mills in Montreal on Friday. Considering that the possession of firearms by security guards at the time of an industrial dispute can lead to the destruction of human life, or even to the serious injury of working people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Labour to immediately contact the president of Robin Hood Multifoods Limited to make it clear that such practices must be discontinued immediately; and, further, to take immediate steps to
ensure that this policy of the non-presence of firearms be established across the country in all areas of federal jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: No!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of pressing necessity.
Since the CRTC report did not substantiate allegations to the effect that CBC employees were altering information to promote the constitutional option of sovereignty and association; since the Prime Minister and some of his cabinet colleagues had lodged rather specific charges because they even had in their possession, so they said, a list of the names of those reporters working to destroy the country; and since the Prime Minister maintains that the report confirms his comments, thus leaving some suspicions about the integrity of those employees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the Prime Minister make official apologies or table a list of suspected individuals before the standing committee on broadcasting so that the said committee be in a position to investigate and judge those allegations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE SENATE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask leave to

July 25, 1977
Oral Questions
move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House, noting that certain Senators feel that they cannot live on the $31,100 a year they now receive, recommends that they be relieved of their positions so that they can spend their full time dealing in stock options, sitting on boards of directors and in other pursuits that will enable them to make the kind of money they feel they must have, and that no one be appointed to fill the vacancies created by their removal from the other place, thus hastening the day when the Senate will be extinct.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some very severe reservations about the urgent and pressing necessity of that motion.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFCAMEROON

Mr. Speaker:: I know all hon. members would want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the Honourable Tandeng Muna, President of the National Assembly of Cameroon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the House and perhaps even the country would be edified if we had another go at the pejorative CRTC report. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would respond to the suggestion of the president of the CBC that, as a way of improving the CBC's accountability, and presumably that of the, as they say, electronic media, a press council be set up. Would the Prime Minister respond to this suggestion of the president of the CBC?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 will certainly study it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweather:: That is good news. I have a second suggestion which I hope will be studied, too. I am being assisted by certain others who are would be speakers, Mr. Speaker. As a suggestion, would the government led by the Prime Minister consider the automatic referral of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation annual report to the standing committee on broadcasting so that its tattered accountability might be remedied?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have dealt with this question before, simply by responding that automatic referrals would put a burden on the committees and that perhaps members of parliament themselves would find it took time from them to which they might spend going into other matters, such as departmental estimates, in detail. The House leader on this side in specific cases, perhaps like that of the CBC, would be prepared to discuss with the opposition House leaders the conduct of business in committees, which would permit this committee to start such a report; but the hon. member for Fundy-Royal knows that in the past two or three weeks we have had many suggestions for referral of all kinds of annual reports, and my answer was that obviously we cannot refer them all, otherwise the committees will not have time to do their other business.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the Prime Minister expect that the reorganization of the CBC, as suggested by the president of the CRTC, will affect those verging on subversion in the other electronic media who are also indicted by Mr. Boyle's report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that is what Mr. Johnston and the hon. member have in mind when they talk of a press council. Certainly it is a good course to be taken if the media, electronic or otherwise, could have some form of self-discipline. That is always the preferred course, failing which, of course, discipline has to be imposed upon them, which nobody likes.


INFORMATION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister as well. In another classic case of the government wanting to shoot the messenger, the Prime Minister's Secretary of State on Saturday is reported to have reacted to instructions from the right hon. gentleman in regard to setting up a task force so that there may be a new study done on setting up a new mini Information Canada. He is reported as saying that the reason for setting one up would be that the only news about the government these days is bad news.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would mind telling the House what has changed in the last year to permit the reviving of a new form of Information Canada only one year after it was killed off. The reason it was terminated at that time was to save taxpayers $7 million a year. What has happened in the last year to change the Prime Minister's mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is not so much a question of shooting the messenger as making sure there are enough messengers around so that all messages can be conveyed by the Canadian government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 25, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Who is your joke writer, Pierre?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Secretary of State has been setting up a group, within his jurisdiction and within his authority, of ten people borrowed from other departments whose sole purpose would be to distribute material on the subject of Canadian unity. It has nothing to do with the much broader functions of the previous Information Canada.
In answer to the precise question as to what has happened in the past year, there was an election in the province of Quebec of a government dedicated to the separation of that province from the country. There have been approximately 10 or 15 offices set up by that government across the province to convey information favourable to separatism. The hon. member should join me in approving the setting up, at the federal government level, of an information centre which would counteract that subversive propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister has now taken us into his confidence. He has now let us know one of the purposes, and perhaps the only purpose, of this task force. If he expects to get our endorsation, our support and our co-operation, surely he would not mind telling the House or tabling some time soon the terms of reference so that we may be assured that they do not exceed what the Prime Minister has just told us. We should like to know who are on it, what it is going to cost and what the eventual object, procedure and form of this new propaganda machine may be.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the general concern of the hon. member is legitimate. It seems to me we already anticipated it by ensuring that the so-called Tellier group in the Privy Council office would consult with the various opposition parties as to the work they were doing. I should be very surprised if Mr. Tellier has not already indicated to the Leader of the Opposition the intention of having him work with Mr. Tellier and the intention of setting up a group which would be concerned with making available to Canadians information and facts favourable to Canada rather than to separatism.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, apart from any general consultations that the members of the opposition may have had with the Letellier group, I return to my question once again. Would the Prime Minister mind taking us into his confidence and telling us exactly who is on the task force? We should also like to know what their terms of reference are or might be, if those terms of reference have been laid down.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that this particular group is under the authority of the Secretary of State for reasons of financial administration, but it is to work with the Tellier group. The Tellier group has already met with the opposition parties. If they forgot to ask them the right questions, perhaps they can think of them the next time.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alexander:: We are asking you.


BILINGUALISM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in the House on Friday that minority language rights of the country are not matters for bargaining. 1 agree with the Prime Minister, as I am sure most thinking Canadians do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The serious question is this: How can we achieve the most speedy implementation of this ideal? For this reason I ask the Prime Minister if he or the Secretary of State requested the provinces to discuss at their meeting next month proposals the Secretary of State put forward in this House on June 21 which include proposals for federal cost-sharing in the implementation of minority language programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the New Democratic Party knows the federal government has no locus standi to suggest items for the agenda of the meeting of provincial premiers. But I could say that I discussed informally these matters with some of the premiers at a meeting I had with Liberal leaders of the ten provinces which was held in this capital one week ago. I hope the premiers will do some of the things the hon. member is suggesting but of course I cannot ask the chairman of that conference to inscribe anything in particular on the agenda. 1 believe the leader of the New Democratic Party has some connection with some premiers. Perhaps he would put a suggestion to them.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Strange as it may seem, 1 understand the Prime Minister as well has some connection with some premiers. I ask him my question in a most serious and non-partisan way. Given the importance of minority language rights, an importance which the Prime Minister correctly told the House transcends provincial jurisdictional authority since it has national implications at this point in our history, and considering that almost all the provinces agreed in Victoria in 1971 that something should be done about this important matter, would the Prime Minister now follow the course his own logic dictates, get in touch with Premier Hatfield and request that at the meeting which is to take place in one month the provincial premiers put on the agenda of the meeting proposals the federal government made in the House of Commons last month.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure if the hon. member grasped my previous answer. He made some quip

July 25, 1977
Oral Questions
about my having some contact with provincial premiers. That was my answer-that at a meeting I had last Monday, which included some provincial premiers, I suggested such a course to them. I suggested it publicly and expressed the hope they would do that. I cannot do more than that to make sure they put a specific item on their agenda. Let us put it that 1 have suggested this informally and in other ways.


John Edward Broadbent: To Premier Hatfield?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to Mr. Hatfield directly, Mr. Speaker. But the hon. member should gather from my answer that I have expressed the hope that the premiers would do that, and I have talked to at least two premiers to that effect.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To ensure that the proposal is given the seriousness it merits, does the Prime Minister not agree that at this point in our history it would be desirable for him, as head of the national government, to get in touch with Premier Hatfield, who will be chairman of the conference, and ask him to consider consulting with the other premiers on the desirability of their discussing that important matter at the conference next month? I say this as during the past 48 hours provincial premiers of different provinces representing different political parties in Canada have shown an openness and serious approach to this issue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I feel the leader of the NDP means to be constructive in his suggestions and he, in effect, is seeking the same result as I indicated I was seeking. It is really a matter of knowing whether the proper way to achieve those results is for the federal Prime Minister to request that the provincial premiers put something on the agenda. It is my suggestion that it is not the proper way to go about these things. The important thing is that that type of discussion take place, and I have taken certain measures to ensure that it does take place if the provinces so desire. But the hon. member knows that the provinces are rather jealous of their jurisdiction in the area of education and I think it would not be productive for me to request, demand or suggest that the chairman of the conference do certain things. The important thing is that premiers who are participating in that conference do make such suggestions, and I invite the leader of the NDP to make that suggestion at least to Premier Schreyer and Premier Blakeney.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister.
Considering the serious charges laid by the Prime Minister and some of his ministers against CBC reporters in connection with their separatist leanings, and considering the denials

contained in the CRTC report tabled recently, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he himself and the members of his cabinet concerned continue to maintain that some CBC reporters are separatists and give biased information to favour their constitutional option?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member for Champlain is asking this question for the purpose of getting some political credit, and I do not accuse him of that, but I can only remind him that on several occasions his lamented leader, Mr. Real Caouette, did denounce in this House the separatist and other leanings of the CBC. I think the hon. member's memory is too short and that he should have more respect for the memory of his leader.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I did not ask what the opinion of my former leader was, but that of the Prime Minister, so he should consider answering our questions. My supplementary question is this: does the Prime Minister admit that approaches to Canadian unity different from his own may exist?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member really wants to know what I think, he need only read the answers 1 gave to the questions on the Boyle report which were directed to me every day of last week. I dealt also with this subject during my press conference. If the hon. member wants to be up to date, perhaps he should question me again tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker, I must insist in my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since Canadians in general and Quebeckers in particular are seeking a new type of constitutional agreement, does the Prime Minister feel that the CBC should normally reflect this search for a new identity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, so what?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: inflation level by October, 1978, and if not, what is his new target?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I recently read the article but I do not seem to recall those figures. I think I had better check them to see if the hon. member quoted them correctly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is again for the Minister of Finance who is most selective in what he recalls in this House.
My supplementary is again based on what Professors Jump and Wilson have stated in their article, and this time for the minister's benefit I will quote it. Professor Jump and Professor Wilson have stated that a larger cut in personal income taxes would have been more effective in directly stimulating consumer spending and in bringing into play the economy's full multiplier and accelerator forces, which in turn would lower unemployment to a greater extent than the minister's present budgetary thrust is. Would the minister indicate if he is giving any consideration to such a budgetary thrust in the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not contemplating a budget at this time.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH COMMITTEE TO STUDY DOCUMENT &quot;THE WAY AHEAD&quot;
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister has once again reiterated that he is not contemplating a new budget. Would he indicate to the House why he has not pressed for the calling of motion No. 13, which was put on the order paper under his name calling for the establishment of a joint committee of this House and the other place? That committee would be designed to review "The Way Ahead" which the minister tabled in the House. Why is the minister not pressing to set up that committee so that we can have a more thoughtful review of the economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, principally because of the activities of hon. members of this House in other committees it was decided not to go ahead.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the recess?


EFFECT OF UPTURN IN DISPOSABLE INCOME AND PERSONAL
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have one short supplementary, and perhaps a second one, if Your Honour desires it. The OECD predicts that economic recovery could accelerate in the first quarter of 1978 if there is an upturn in real disposable income and personal consumption. Does the minister agree with that finding of the OECD, and if so, how does he hope to accomplish that end?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important ways to have an increase in personal disposable income is to get the rate of inflation down, and it is for that reason that we have been directing our policies in that direction for the last couple of years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Another suggestion which has been made is that we should cut personal income taxes for low and middle income earners as well as cut federal sales tax, particularly as it relates to building materials. Is the minister now saying that he has thrown those suggestions out the window for the time being?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the hon. member's colleague that I am not going to propose further budgetary measures at this time. I think it is fair to remind the hon. member again that we did indeed reduce federal income taxes in order to increase the minimum income on which tax is paid to $7,000 a year. Unhappily, the hon. gentleman voted against that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is a lot of baloney.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You should not mislead the House.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the Prime Minister's discussion about external affairs, but I would like to pursue the question raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. Having in mind that there is great unease in the country about the proposition contained in the CRTC report, about the way in which the Prime Minister and his friends incited the commission hearing to start with, about the report itself and about the Prime Minister's reaction to it, which seems to move very categorically and clearly toward a form of media control and management, will the Prime Minister assure the House-I see he is smiling, but this is much more serious in the mind of the Prime Minister outside this House than it is here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that the terms of reference in the preamble of any form of further inquiry into this matter will clearly rule out any suggestion, discussion or recommendation about government control of the media, either broadcasting or written?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly asking the question with some levity. I can see that by his smile. He knows very well that the government is as opposed to any form of censorship as he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 25, 1977
Oral Questions


Gerald William Baldwin: Having in mind the movements of this government toward authoritarianism, I am not asking the question with any levity at all. Will the Prime Minister become serious about this and reassure the public, which is very concerned about the movements of this government, that there is no attempt on the part of the government and the Prime Minister in any way to try to secure media management or control?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the opposition makes it quite clear in its party program that it is opposed to media control, then the hon. member can stand and ask that question.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the widespread support among Canadians generally for the recommendations contained in the subcommittee report on the penitentiary system in Canada, would the minister inform the House when we might expect a statement to be forthcoming with respect to the implementation of the recommendations contained in that report?
[ Translation]


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: I thank the hon. member for his question, Mr. Speaker, and 1 wish to inform him that I have almost finished considering the most interesting recommendations made by the parliamentary subcommittee, and that I intend to table my answer in the House on Friday August 5.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. 1 gave him notice of this question last week. Is the minister in a position today to report on the allegations made by Mr. Tony Walker, formerly employed by the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, regarding certain irregularities relating to possible diversion of government funds given to the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood for research?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, officials in my department have been investigating this matter for about nine months now. They started the investigation long before the allegations were recently made. We see nothing of the nature of what was described by the person concerned, but there were some problems with financing, and we are working those out.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my information is that when Mr. Walker brought this to the attention of the assistant deputy minister, the department then referred the matter back to the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood. I wonder if the minister can explain why his department asked the brotherhood to investigate itself on this particular matter, and further, whether the minister is prepared to appoint an independent auditor to verify expenditures made by the brotherhood, as stipulated in the memorandum of agreement between the government and the brotherhood, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Tony Walker was fired from the brotherhood immediately after bringing this to the attention of the assistant deputy minister.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. The matter was being investigated by officials of the department, including some from Ottawa, and not by the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood. However, the financial problems are being worked out between the officials of my department and the MIB. As I said earlier, the matters in question were not brought to light by Mr. Walker. They were known for some time. As a matter of fact, I met with the executive of the MIB several times long before Mr. Walker made his statement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement between the MIB and the department which provides for the appointment of an independent auditor to look into the affairs of the MIB relating to government funds. Will the minister now undertake to have an independent auditor investigate the records with respect to expenditures and with respect to the allegations raised by Mr. Walker?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if that has not already been done, 1 will look into that possibility.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, who will recall that last week I asked him whether the government of Nova Scotia or SYSCO made any specific proposal or request to the government of Canada respecting the modernization of the Sydney Steel plant which, of course, is of great concern to the people of Cape Breton and northern Nova Scotia. The Prime Minister said he would take the question as notice. Can he now give me an answer on this very important situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may have received an answer. 1 have not read it yet, if I have received it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long the House will be sitting, but in view of the importance of the question to a substantial number of Canadians, if the Prime
July 25, 1977

Minister is not able to give me an oral response before the House rises, would he inform me by telephone or by letter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 will see that somebody does that.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have been informed that on the weekend in Cape Breton, where there is such heavy unemployment, many eminent people including those holding public office, clergy, professors and labour leaders, attempted to attract the attention of the nation to the heavy unemployment in that area. They want some action from the Prime Minister in order to correct an abnormal and heavy unemployment. They look to the Prime Minister for answers. Has the Prime Minister anything to offer? Is he or a group of his cabinet ministers prepared to meet with them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if such a group asks to meet with a group of cabinet ministers, we always react favourably to such a request.


Andrew Hogan: The Prime Minister knows that telegrams have been sent to his office for at least three weeks. He sent a Mr. Brian Fleming there. He has not yet reported to these people. This is the reason for the additional demonstrations. To date they have been peaceful, but we have no guarantee they will remain that way. How long are we going to be expected to be second class citizens in this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's recent challenge to debate the marketing board-supply management issue with anyone respecting the Canadian cattle industry, and in view of the acceptance of this challenge by Colin Thatcher, MLA, a practical cattleman from Saskatchewan, will the minister assure the House and Canadian cattlemen that he will indeed carry out his personal agreement to proceed with this debate?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has changed some of the words. I can let him
Oral Questions
listen to the tape when I addressed the Saskatchewan Rural Municipalities Association when I said I would debate the merits of supply-management and marketing boards. I did not say one word about beef. The person who saw fit to cross the House in the Saskatchewan legislature is now trying to make some political hay. I am not going to change the commitments I have made for service to Canadians in order to give him a platform. I want to say one thing. I am not one bit afraid of him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Is the implication of the minister's answer that he had anticipated an easy-going Liberal to Liberal debate but now backs away from a hard hitting, no holds barred debate with a genuine western cattleman?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Considering that in September 1969 the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission recommended in its third volume the payment of a bilingualism bonus to the categories of civil servants holding positions designated as bilingual; considering that a joint committee, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance, have been sitting since January 3, 1973 to study the implications of the policy on official languages; and considering that the President of the Treasury Board acknowledged that the payment of such a bonus has been due since November 1, 1976, can the hon. gentleman inform the members of the House when the next meeting between his officials and those of the Public Service Alliance will be held to expedite the payment of this bonus, and whether he will consider the proposition providing the immediate payment of a minimum amount to all those holding positions designated as bilingual, even if it entails the adjustment of those amounts during the coming months considering that the discussions to this effect have been going on for four years?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate being in formal and detailed consultation with the Public Service Unions and the National Joint Council in a matter of days, probably next week.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
[Stage Direction]
July 25, 1977

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of a practice authorized by the Minister of Transport or his officials with regard to filling vacancies or job positions which will be created by legislation presently before this House. It has passed first reading stage, but has not yet received approval in principle, been before the committee or been passed. Will the President of the Treasury Board use his good offices to have this practice cease, not only because it is an affront to parliament but because there are widespread rumours of employees of National Harbours Board and Ports Canada not being offered jobs under the proposals presently before us?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the hon. member's preamble. I do not recognize his description of the placement policy as being the actual practice. I will certainly examine his question. I am sure the Minister of Transport will do so as well. In any event, I do not believe that is an accurate description of what is planned.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Will he draw to the attention of the minister that there is indeed some widespread concern? Also, will he suggest to the Minister of Transport that the other route be taken with regard to job security for employees of National Harbours Board and Ports Canada? Will he assure them that when this legislation is part of the law of Canada they will be given full opportunity to apply for jobs created under the new ports policy, if and when it is passed?


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I gave the Minister of Agriculture notice of my intention to raise this question. It arises from the decision by the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation to award an untendered $80,000 contract to the Manitoba Institute of Management, of which he was a director at the time. In view of the fact that the chairman sought the approval of the FCC's board only some months after awarding the contract, may I ask the minister whether the chairman in any way sought his approval prior to awarding the contract to MIM and did he at that time disclose to the minister the fact that he was a director of the consulting firm?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is rather detailed. There has been
[Mr. Andras.1
a lot of discussion and insinuation with regard to what the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation has or has not done. Under the authority vested in the Farm Credit Corporation, he can hire people to do studies and so on. I am told that the Manitoba Institute of Management is a non-profit organization. He did report to the board. In early May 1975, he reported to me that he was going to hire the institute. Some months after that, he asked for confirmation of the Farm Credit Corporation Board. He explained to them what he did. They condoned it at that time. As hon. members know, the Auditor General's report, which was handed to me within the past few days, clears the Farm Credit Corporation of any irregularities. The Auditor General certainly did not point out any irregularities to me. I have to go by what the board of directors say and what the Auditor General says. If the hon. member has any further information that is sound and factual, I would appreciate hearing it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Has the minister determined whether the chairman disclosed the fact that he was a director of the Manitoba Institute of Management at the time he asked the board to approve his decision?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation informed me that he was a director of the MIM. He also submitted all his outside interests to the proper authorities in order to determine whether there was any conflict of interest. I take that for granted when I am informed that he has no conflict of interest. I do not have an investigation team that runs around and investigates everybody. I asked the present chairman to resign from a position in the province of Manitoba to accept this challenge. I did so because of his great ability. One of the finest books ever written on farm credit was done by him when he was an employee of the former Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain.


INTERNAL MANAGEMENT AUDIT BY SIBBALD GROUP-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister should know that the public declaration and public file by the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation makes no reference to the fact that he was a director of the Manitoba Institute of Management. In view of the fact that the Sibbald Group report that grew out of the MIM study was highly critical of senior management of the Farm Credit Corporation and pointed out the serious deterioration in morale within the Farm Credit Corporation, can the minister tell the House what specific action he proposes to take to restore direction to this $306 million corporation?


Eugene Whelan: As far as I
am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the board of directors and management took prompt action on a study that they asked to be undertaken on the corporation itself. If one checks the minutes of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, one will see that from time to time members from both sides of this House have
July 25, 1977

made strong representations for the Farm Credit Corporation to be more realistic. Some of these areas have been touched on by the new administration in the Farm Credit Corporation. There is some resentment. I am not saying that they are perfect in what they are doing. Some of the suggestions of the Sibbald report have been followed up quite rapidly. For the first time there has been a director of the Farm Credit Corporation appointed from outside the public service. He is a young farmer from eastern Ontario who is bilingual.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: He has had past experience in the Farm Credit Corporation. He is an actual farmer. This is a new breakthrough, as far as I am concerned. I am concerned about the Farm Credit Corporation being operated in a proper fashion. We must have some real basic facts which indicate that something improper was done, rather than a rumour mill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General tell this House what progress is being made in resolving the illegal and damaging work stoppage still continuing in the Ottawa Post Office?


An hon. Member:: Good question, Lloyd.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. gentleman that the backlog which was a built up last week is now being cleared. There are 400,000 CPP cheques coming in today which will be processed. Unfortunately, we have had to do that with the hiring of additional casuals, which was done after a great deal of hesitation. However, there are approximately 250 regular employees who are now clearing the mail. Hopefully, the meetings we are attempting to have with the local will take place within a short period of time in order for the matter to be regularized.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There are continuing alarming reports of the mass exodus of individual and corporate investment money going from Canada to the United
Oral Questions
States, such as millions of dollars that Canadians are investing in Florida real estate, manufacturing and banking. The United States is openly encouraging businesses in Montreal and Toronto to move to the United States. They are meeting with some success, because industry and business just cannot survive in the current Canadian climate. 1 should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is planning any meetings with the business communities to help this flow of money and businesses, or is he planning a new budget to try to stop this serious situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been meeting continuously with provincial governments and with leaders of the business community. The hon. member posed two questions. The first was with regard to budgetary changes. I remind him that something over $700 million of changes were made in favour of the corporate business sector in the March 31 budget. We believe it is a favourable climate, combined with the changes in the dividend tax credit for business investment in Canada.
On the question of the problem of inflation in Canada, indeed that continues to be a problem. The competitiveness of Canadian industry is a matter of grave concern, and it is for that reason we have continued to place very heavy emphasis on restraining the increase in costs in this country.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, unemployment is somewhere between a million and a million and a half. The construction industry has ground to a halt. Real estate developers in Canada this year have poured $2'/i billion into real estate development in the United States. Canadian real estate developers are developing 17 major complexes in the United States. In view of all this, could the minister arrange some meetings with the real estate development industry in this country to find out why they will not invest in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the obvious conclusion would be that at the present time,-and speaking only for my own community-there is a substantial excess of commercial capacity in this country. Obviously when there is that commercial capacity at the present time, it does not make sense to further invest.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just like the depression.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that three years have gone by since the minister commissioned Dr. Noel Hall to make a report on railway pensions, and in view of the fact that consideration of that report by management and the unions does nothing for the railroad workers already retired and on pension, will the

July 25, 197
Oral Questions
minister say when he intends to announce what the government proposes to do to see to it that those already retired get an increase in their pensions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is aware that a lot of the report puts some considerable pressure on the CPR with respect to upgrading pensions for those already on retirement. I am convinced this is something the union leadership is concerned about, even though they are not presently in the work force. 1 am hopeful the union leadership will intend to do something about this in the next round of negotiations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that neither the CPR nor the CNR has provided any escalation of pensions in 1977, will the government put pressure on these two railways to take action to increase the pensions of their workers already retired without any further delay?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, when we are involved with the railways and the unions, in order to keep a satisfied work force,-and the work force here is an excellent one-it is always our intention to try to do all we can to ensure that the working conditions are adequate. That should be a sufficient answer for the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Can the minister give us a set date, or even an approximate date, for the signing of such an agreement?


Mr. Lalonde:: As far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are ready to sign an agreement tomorrow morning, but our British colleagues have run into financial difficulties they want to analyse. I hope we can reach an agreement in the fall, but 1 am unable to give a specific date. Again, I point out that the initiative in that regard lies in the hands of my British colleagues.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the hardships which the dairy farmers of Canada experienced as a result of quota reduction during the past year, and in view of the rumour that the Canadian Dairy Commission may recommend a further cut in quota, will the minister approve the quota cut if the dairy commission recommends it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By virtue of the terminology of the question, it is hypothetical.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Seeing functionaries of the Social Welfare Department of Great Britain were present in the Speaker's gallery last week, can the minister tell us whether that visit took place in the context of the signing of a reciprocal agreement with Great Britain, which 1 so often advocated, providing the indexation of British pensions to recipients living in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Still, I must indicate to the hon. member that the officials of my department did meet British functionaries about two weeks ago, and that negotiations were very encouraging. There will be further exchanges of documents in coming weeks and I think we can foresee another meeting early in the fall. I trust therefore that I shall be able to bring good news to the hon. member at that time.


INDUSTRIAL MILK-POSSIBILITY OF CUT IN PRODUCTION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture as well. It relates to the Canadian Dairy Commission and its proposed 4 per cent cutback in milk production which will exclude Canadian dairy farmers from a $7 million industry and will cost Canadian dairy farmers $7 million. Can the minister tell us whether on the agenda of the milk supply management committee, which will be meeting later this week, there is an item relating to a possible cut in production for the present dairy year?


Eugene Whelan: I know of no such item, Mr. Speaker. No information has been given to me about such a cut. I am meeting the Dairy Commission tomorrow, but no suggestion of a cut has been made to me. The latest documents I have seen were those available at the meeting of provincial ministers in Victoria and no suggestion of that kind was made then. I would be very surprised if such a course were contemplated-if it were, it would be because of something which had happened very recently. I would point out, however, that it is the supply-management committee which has the responsibility for making these decisions, and it would have to be pretty sure it was making the right decision before it took action along the lines suggested by the hon. member. It is not the Minister of Agriculture who makes decisions of that kind.

July 25, 1977


LANGUAGE COMMISSIONER
Mr. Stephen E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I see the
Prime Minister has just left the chamber. I was about to ask him if there is to be a replacement for Keith Spicer. Since the right hon. gentleman is not here perhaps one of the other ministers may be able to answer the question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it to be Jack Horner?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the right hon. Prime Minister will be in the House at which time he can answer that question. Had the hon. member been quick enough about it, he would have put it before three o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to the House for possibly becoming confused as to names in my answer to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar, and to correct Hansard at page 7916. There was a name change from York Place (Hamilton) Limited to York Place of Hamilton Incorporated. Main Place has nothing to do with York Place. They are two distinct and separate projects. Nevertheless, I maintain the rest of my answer to be substantively correct.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary has, though belatedly, corrected his response. I wonder if he is now in a position to correct his response with respect to Mr. Shaw's connection with the charges relating to the York Place project? He may wish to review that part of his answer, as well, to determine whether or not he has misled the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Even if the parliamentary secretary were prepared to do that, he might find difficulty at this point in our proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,152, 2,409, 2,734, 2,786, 2,815 and 2,838.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	(a) In regard to the 1975-76 crop year and the two-price system for wheat, did the Canadian Wheat Board receive money from the government in order to make up the difference between the domestic and international prices for wheat and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what was the price subsidy on a per bushel basis?
2.	How many bushels of wheat were sold to domestic millers at $3.25 per bushel over and above the two-price system?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: 1. (a) Yes; (a) $82,523,175.86; (b) Average price subsidy per bushel $1.49.
2. None reported.


Mr. Howie: What steps are being taken to ensure that foreign vessels sailing in Canadian waters conform to Canadian standards of shipping safety in light of oil spills off the coast of North America, and considering that many of the vessels responsible for these incidents were registered in countries which encourage such registration by retaining lax safety regulations for their merchant marine fleets?


Otto Emil Lang: All foreign oil tankers of 500 tons, gross tonnage and over are required to have on board a valid certificate to verify that the ship complies with Canadian regulations relating to the navigating appliances and pollution prevention. Also these tankers must comply with international conventions relating to the design and construction of the ship, its machinery, equipment and the assignment of load lines. The Canada Shipping Act provides for a penalty of up to $100,000 where a ship is found guilty of entering or navigating in Canadian waters without a valid certificate or where it is not in compliance with regulations. Where foreign ships are found to not comply with international standards, such ships can be detained until defects are repaired or remedied. With respect to navigating appliances, these ships are required to be provided with magnetic compasses of approved types, an efficient gyro compass, sounding apparatus, a marine radar, a V.H.F. radiotelephone facility capable of receiving and transmitting on designated frequencies and an additional radio capable of receiving navigational warnings. Oil tankers of 1,600 tons or more are required to be provided with two marine radars, an internal communication system, manoeuvring system indicators and appliances such as rudder angle indicators, propeller direction indicators and other devices designed to assist in manoeuvring and controlling the ship, and a radio direction finding apparatus. Other equipment required includes searchlights and signalling flags. Every ship must have on board the latest editions of charts and other publications such as tide and current tables, sailing directions, lists of lights, buoys and fog signals, Radio Aids to Marine Navigation, Code of Navigation Practices and Procedures and a copy of the Canadian Notices to Mariners for the area to be navigated. All of the foregoing equipment and publications must be maintained in an efficient manner and up-dated. Where necessary spare parts must be supplied. Foreign ships
7958

July 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions
navigating in Canadian waters are required to comply with regulations regarding deck watches in order to ensure that there are sufficient officers and crew members on watch particularly in areas where marine traffic may present danger of collision and accidents. The Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations, Garbage Pollution Prevention Regulations and the Pollutant Substances Regulations prohibit the discharge of oil, garbage and other designated pollutants from ships into waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Additionally, the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations require all oil tankers built after January 1, 1974 to limit cargo tank sizes in accordance with international standards and require all ships to keep records of oil transfers. Regulations prohibit the discharge of oil from ships and where offences are detected, fines of up to $100,000 can be imposed when ships are found guilty of such violations. During the past three years the department was successful in 107 prosecutions for violations of the Pollution Prevention Regulations. A total of $321,575 was levied in fines. In many other cases minor infractions were dealt with by requiring the ship to rectify defects prior to proceeding. In order to enforce these regulations officers of the Department of Transport have been designated as pollution prevention officers under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. These officers have the power to require ships to provide information regarding the condition of the ship, its cargo, the manner in which the cargo is stowed and other information to ensure that the ship complies with the act and regulations. Such an officer may go on board ships bound for a place in Canada in order to carry out inspections, order a ship out of Canadian waters or otherwise direct it where he suspects that the ship fails to comply with the act or regulations, or where he is satisfied that such order is necessary to prevent a discharge or a pollutant such as oil or chemicals. Any review of existing regulations will be contingent upon the outcome of the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea and the development of international standards by other agencies such as the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization. Vessel traffic management systems have been established and continue to be upgraded. The procedures provide for traffic separation, VHF radiotelephone communication between ships and a central regulating centre, ship to ship communication and, in some localities, radar surveillance. Ships report their positions and intended movements at specified reporting points and obtain clearance as required. The centre gives information on traffic, weather, navigational conditions, etc.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Canadian Transport Commission?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows: the question is answered on the basis that the term "Chairman" means "President"; that the term "Vice-Chairman" means "Vicepresident" and that there is no position of "Executive" and a separate position of "Director". The president of the commis-

sion is paid at a rate with the range DM-3 ($54,000-566,000); the vice-president (legal) is paid at a rate within the range DM-2 ($45,500-$60,500); and members of the commission are paid at a rate within the range SX-2 ($31,500-$41,500).


Mr. Jones: Are there any plans or agreements for France to import uranium from Quebec and, if so, were these agreements discussed at the three day meeting with President Valery Giscard d'Estaing and Premier Raymond Barre on the Prime Minister's visit to France in May?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: While exploration activity has revealed significant deposits of uranium in Quebec, their development is still at a preliminary stage. There are no agreements or current plans for the export of this uranium to France.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of National Defence?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Fiscal Years
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1976-	77
Expenditure
See note below See note below $ 443,000 $ 595,000 $ 810,000


[Stage Direction]
Note: Data for 1972-73 and 1973-74 is not readily available. It could involve a research of a great many closed files and the department does not have the necessary resources to do this.
Mr. Jones: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to spend $100 million on highways in the Atlantic provinces and, if so (a) on what basis (b) what amount will be spent in each province and in what centres?
2.	Is there any connection between the cancellation of the greater part of Rail Transportation in the Atlantic provinces and the announcement of the proposed money to be spent on highways?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) and (b)
On May 25, 1977, I announced that the federal government was prepared to spend up to $100 million in the Atlantic provinces over the 1977/78 fiscal years, jointly with each of the four provinces, for the purposes of assisting in the strengthening and improvement of portions of the primary highway system in the region. The precise terms of federal/provincial agreements, including the allocation of the federal funds

July 25, 1977

among the four provinces, and the specific highway links to be strengthened or improved, are under discussion.
2. No decision has been made to abandon any rail passenger service in the Atlantic provinces. The Canadian Transport Commission has held hearings related to these routes and has stated that a decision will be made by December of this year. The over-all objective of the government is to improve rail transportation services when such services make sense, and to this end is prepared to pay 100 per cent of any operating deficits when effective management has been demonstrated. Alternatives to upgrade the service will be evaluated after the CTC decision has been made.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 22, consideration of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Serge Joyal: Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 83 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"certificate issued at the discretion of a judge of the Federal Court of Canada
upon application of the Minister and the Solicitor General, which application
shall contain all the particulars of security or criminal intelligence reports, is
filed with the Board".
He said: In resuming this debate at the report stage of Bill C-24, I would like to remind the House that motion No. 46 which seeks to amend clause 83 of this bill, under the heading of security which concerns the terms of reference of the Immigration Appeal Board, has the same effect as amendment No. 29 which sought to amend section 39 of the law which applied to permanent residents. The nature of section 24, contrary to clauses 39 and 40 which have been included in the bill at the request of the RCMP security services, is not a new point of law. Actually, it is a repetition of section 21 of the Immigration Appeal Board Act adopted by the House in 1967.
Clause 83 applies to permanent residents or those who claim the permanent resident status. Those are visa holders, those
Immigration
who consider themselves as political refugees as well as people who hold a return permit.
I will not dwell on the nature of this returning permit. These are provisions dealing with new rights Bill C-24 is acknowledging for the first time, which certainly appears to me as an improvement over the provisions of the previous immigration act. Clause 83 provides that a security certificate signed by two cabinet members, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada, and filed with the Immigration Appeal Board has a determining effect on the terms of reference and jurisdiction of the Board. As a matter of fact, the filing of this security certificate, not to the effect that either one of the permanent claimants or permanent residents falls in any of the categories referred to in clause 39, but the simple fact of mentioning such a certificate to the effect that the presence in Canada of the designated person would be contrary to the national interest and security has a determining effect on the jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Board. As a result, the Immigration Appeal Board is deprived of its jurisdiction on humanitarian considerations or compassionate grounds.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Appeal Board has been set up to meet two main objectives: first, to ensure the respect of judicial procedure in the case of hearings required by permanent residents; second, to bring within the Board's terms of reference humanitarian elements the consideration of which may determine its decision to uphold or reject a claimant's appeal. The Immigration Appeal Board takes favourable decisions in most cases when taking into account humanitarian considerations or compassionate grounds. Yet, the filing of that security certificate, as was mentioned previously, denies the Board such jurisdiction or responsibility as far as hearings are concerned. Therefore it is important to make sure that the security certificate is worded in such a way as to meet the security objectives the law is trying to determine and ensure within the general framework of national security.
As far as clause 39 is concerned, we had put forward an amendment which would ensure that this security certificate would be issued at the discretion of a Federal Court judge in Canada. During the debate in committee, many speakers have emphasized the very important role and responsibility that the judges of the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of Canada have in the judicial process which was designed to ensure the respect of law in the implementation of procedures for the national security. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) said on this occasion that the Mackenzie-Pratte-Caldwell Commission, established by Prime Minister Pearson in 1969, said in page 53 of their report that the deportation of an immigrant who had been formally admitted to Canada was an extremely serious gesture and that this kind of order should be subject to an official judicial process providing for a right of appeal before an agency like the Immigration Appeal Board.
80020 -39'/z

July 25, 1977
Immigration
If the government refused to present acceptable and satisfactory evidence, the board felt that deportation should not be ordered. Such a situation, according to them, should not occur very frequently if the selection criteria of applicants were reasonably efficient.
The Mackenzie Commission was in favour of the creation of a tight judicial process in the case of deportation of an applicant with permanent resident status. Now, the amendment we are respectfully submitting to the consideration of the House today is designed to ensure that one of the Federal Court of Canada judges would have the authority to issue such security certificates. Many arguments have been put forward at the committee stage against the interference from the Federal Court or the Supreme Court judges in the administrative procedure relating to the deportation of a person from Canada or the issuance of a departure notice. I will not come back on any of these arguments. You just have to read the reports and the minutes of proceedings of the immigration committee to see that most of them are pointless.
The minister, through his deputy minister, stated that several judges of the Federal Court and even of the Supreme Court of Canada would not be granted a clearance if they had to go through the security selection procedure themselves, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker. Even if this reason should be retained, I do not think that it could be an acceptable argument to reject the proposal in motion No. 46. As a matter of fact, this security certificate might well be delivered by one of the judges of the Federal Court who would be granted a security clearance through the RCMP. We realize the absurdity of having our Supreme Court and Federal Court judges take these security tests or obtain these security clearances, which would result in enabling them to play a part in the responsibility designed to ensure compliance with a judicial procedure in the area of immigration.
1 think it is extremely regrettable that such interventions should have been made during the debates in committee, and I do not believe that those are grounds that Parliament should maintain in implementing the system to ensure the upholding of the Immigration Act. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment No. 46 is not per se to take away from the Immigration Appeal Board its jurisdiction with respect to the law and the facts nor to make its jurisdiction more complicated with respect to humanitarian or compassionate considerations.
In fact, the only purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the security certificate is subject to examination or control by a judge of the Federal Court who could himself, even in the context of the odiousness of those security ratings, be subject to an inquiry by the RCMP security services. Therefore, it seems to me that the passage of this amendment would have the effect of showing very clearly the security objective that is sought under the provisions of clauses 39 and 40 are not per se incompatible with the intervention at the Federal Court in the area of the issuance of security certificates. In fact, it seems to me to be a quite acceptable compromise which I think represents the kind of minimum solution that people concerned with legality and the rule of law should accept in the context of a

legislation whose purpose is not to create other classes of people or another kind of Canadian society for permanent residents but in fact to give them the same benefit of access to and protection from the courts that Canadian citizens have in the exercise of their normal responsibilities.
Consequently, it seems to me that the acceptance of this amendment would appear to me to be the minimum in the case of a board which is also entrusted with the upholding of the law and whose chairman recognized that the issuance of that security certificate appeared as one of the first signs to take away from the commission a jurisdiction that enabled it to put into decisions on permanent residents the minimum humaneness and equity without which this country on which we think we can build a democratic and free society would be greatly blemished from the start for those who believe that Canada still represents a hope of freedom.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion No. 46 (Mr. Joyal, for Mr. De Bane) negatived.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved:: Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 104 by striking out lines 11 to 28 at page 59 and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to delete subclause (2) of clause 104 of the bill. Clause 104 provides:
The deputy minister or a senior immigration officer may on reasonable grounds issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of any person-
And so on. Subclause (2) goes on to provide:
Every peace officer in Canada, whether appointed under the laws of Canada or of any province or municipality thereof, and every immigration officer may, without the issue of a warrant, an order or a direction for arrest or detention, arrest and detain or arrest and make an order to detain-
The subclause goes on to say a person may be detained for an inquiry, for removal from Canada, and so on. In effect, the amendment deletes the provision that quite junior officers do not have to get warrants in order to detain people and take their liberty from them. In my view, that would constitute an
July 25, 1977

invasion of what is otherwise a healthy situation. After all, Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of a warrant? No one can arrest a person unadvisedly; they have to establish, usually by affidavit, good and sufficient reason for believing an offence has been committed before an arrest can be made. In other words, they have to consult a senior officer.
For many years we have regarded the limitation of the right to arrest as one of the great protections of our law. Indeed, without such limitation or restriction any police officer or immigration officer could walk into a house and arrest somebody. He could do it without needing any piece of paper giving him authority, or without prior consultation. The bill, as it stands would move us, willingly or unwillingly, in the direction of a police state. It is often said by officials that this power will not be abused. But that has not always been its history. I know many immigration officials whose good judgment and good sense I respect. But I have also known some who were not so restrained and would not have been sorry to exercise this wide power of arrest and detention. I therefore say that this provision in the bill is unnecessary. Officials could get a warrant from the deputy minister or a senior immigration official and, having obtained it, carry it out. The warrant should be obtained after they have discussed the matter with a senior official and filed an affidavit with a senior official or with the deputy minister.
Such provisions are not included in the law to protect people. It was said in committee that the legislation would enable officials to act promptly, that is to say, to bring people before an inquiry quickly after they have been detained. But that is small comfort to the person detained. I do not think members of this House would appreciate being detained 48 hours and not being given reasons for their detention. Therefore, this is a serious question.
People who immigrate to this country are uncertain of our customs and laws. They think we live in a society of law and freedom; therefore, many would be shocked if they underwent the experience of arrest without warrant. We cannot justify such provisions by saying they are convenient for the administration of the law. It is always convenient for police officers and immigration officials to exercise powers unhindered by too much red tape. It would be convenient for them, but it is not so convenient for those detained. We must consider their side of the question, as well as the so-called efficient operation of immigration policy. We do not need any law providing for arrest without warrant.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tried to evoke the spectre of the police state. But such arguments are mere hyperbole when applied to the reality of the particular section of the act being considered. It was clearly stated during committee stage that this power of arrest would be used only in the case of those who fail to appear for an inquiry, those whom we wish to remove, and in the case of over-stayed visitors and ship's deserters. These are the groups of people who, with relatively
Immigration
few exceptions, will go to almost any lengths to stay out of the hands of immigration officials and who are most likely to disappear if an officer has to leave them while he seeks a warrant.
The power to arrest without warrant exists in the current Immigration Act, but 1 suggest that under Bill C-24, even when a person is arrested without warrant, the arresting officer must be satisfied that the person is dangerous to the public or is likely to go into hiding. The arresting officer must immediately inform a senior immigration officer, who is given the power to release the person if he is not satisfied that there would be a danger to the public or that the person would not appear when asked to do so. If detention is continued, it must be reviewed by an adjudicator in 48 hours, and he in turn can release the person if he is not satisfied that detention is lawful according to the same criteria.
These safeguards are not in the present act, but exist in Bill C-24. I think the bill fully protects the rights of persons arrested. If the motion is not defeated, the battle against illegal immigration will be immeasurably more difficult to wage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All the opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 47 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now consider motion No. 48.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 111 by striking out lines 32 to 40 at page 62 and by renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion would strike from the bill power whereby an immigration officer could ask people to identify themselves satisfactorily. Usually, this means that such people are required to be fingerprinted. 1 do not know why such identification should so often apply to fingerprinting. I do not object to fingerprinting per se, but think that if some people are to be fingerprinted, everybody should be fingerprinted.


Mr. Epp:: What?

July 25, 1977
Immigration


Francis Andrew Brewin: Everybody coming in as an immigrant should be fingerprinted.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Everyone?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, certainly. You should not choose among people. My friend, Mr. Epp, does not seem to grasp the point I am making.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You mean, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please refer to hon. members of this House by riding, and not by name.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be "in-Eppt" not to do so.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House and to Your Honour for that faux pas. My point is, although the power to fingerprint applies to people coming to Canada from overseas, it apparently does not apply to those entering Canada from the United States or Great Britain. Such people are hardly ever fingerprinted. I object to certain groups being discriminated against. If you come from Asia, say, you would be fingerprinted. I do not think we should have one law for one group of immigrants and another for another group. Most of them become Canadians, and they should be treated fairly and equally.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member would strike out the power to require people seeking an immigration privilege, or those who have been arrested or ordered removed from Canada under the immigration legislation, to identify themselves satisfactorily by means of photography or fingerprinting, as provided for in section 115( 1 )(n). I point out that clause 111 (2)(a) was revised at the committee stage to state more precisely the classes of people who may be asked to submit to photography or fingerprinting.
For people seeking admission, authorization to work or to study, or an extension or change in their status as visitors, our intent is simply to ask them to provide us with photographs so that these can be attached to the document which grants them a privilege, to ensure that it is not used by someone else. If we have reason to suspect that they have misrepresented their identity or have a criminal conviction in their background, and only then, we may ask them to submit to fingerprinting.
For the second group, persons who have been arrested because they are considered dangerous to the public or likely to go into hiding, and persons who already have been ordered removed, we may ask the person to submit to photography or fingerprinting. The reason would be to verify identity when we have reason to believe the person is using an alias, to verify a criminal conviction when there are good grounds to believe one exists, to assist in controlling or deterring the person's return

to Canada following removal, where he has a record of using aliases or returning illegally, or to facilitate procurement of travel documents for the person who is to be removed from Canada. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, members may be assured that this power is necessary for the proper carrying out of immigration officials' legal responsibilities, but that it will be used only when it is necessary, and not indiscriminately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 48 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When his Honour, Mr. Speaker, grouped the various amendments now before us for debate he suggested that motions Nos. 49, 50, 51 and 52 could be grouped for debate. Then he said that a separate vote could be called on motions Nos. 49 and 51, but that a vote on motion No. 50 would dispose of motion No. 52. I may say that I had a personal conversation with His Honour a few minutes ago about the point which I wish to raise, and he thought perhaps there was validity to it.
My friend, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), feels that there is sufficient difference between motion No. 50 in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and motion No. 52 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood, that although they could be grouped for debate they should be voted upon separately. I also make the point that motions Nos. 49 and 51 deal with quite different subjects than either motion No. 50 or motion No. 52. I would like to suggest, therefore, that motions Nos. 49 and 51 be dealt with separately, and that motions Nos. 50 and 52 be grouped for debate but be voted on separately. I think that makes more sense, in terms of the substance of the motions.
I see no other problems of this kind. As I have said, I think perhaps the initial reason for grouping them was that they are all amendments to clause 115 of the bill, but they amend it in different areas and in different respects. My suggestion is that motions Nos. 49 and 51 be debated and voted on separately, if there is any debate on them, and that motions Nos. 50 and 52 be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
July 25, 1977


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Although the grouping possibly was arrived at because of the general heading "regulations", I believe the topics are sufficiently distinct for the grouping as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to be made more workable. Motion No. 49, standing in the name of the minister, has been discussed at some length in committee, and I think it is quite distinct from my motion No. 50 wherein 1 ask that the House agree to the tabling and the coming into force of regulations. So, with all due respect, 1 support the view of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any problem with that. There are some differences, and if it will make the House happier, let us proceed on that basis.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, committee members will recall the differences we had when the minister brought forward his amendment as he introduced it at the report stage. Now it is acceptable to us, but I think there are one or two points that should be stressed. First of all, I commend the minister for separating the security deposits for sponsorship applications. I think this was a very worth-while step. The question we have to answer concerns the so-called
Immigration
quasi-refugees. I think the very words give us some difficulty. What do they really mean? Is it just more verbiage which means nothing to anyone who has not been present at the committee discussions?
The way I understand this clause, a person who has left his country in eastern Europe, for example, and who would not be eligible as a convention refugee under the convention which Canada has signed as a member of the United Nations, could be sponsored by a group in Canada interested in his or her well-being. For example, multicultural groups in Canada which have attempted through the years to maintain their culture would be able to sponsor those individuals to help them in their admission to Canada. I believe that is a valid exercise under the Immigration Act, and I welcome that provision. However, I believe the minister is well aware of the difficulty we have with the definition of "organization". The minister's amendment provides, "to be met by any such person or organization". What is a bona fide organization which would sponsor a refugee under these limited conditions? I believe the words "limited conditions" should be stressed. The condition is satisfactory, but we have questions about the organizations.
As we said to the minister in committee, it is very important we ensure that the organization willing to sponsor such individuals be a bona fide organization, that it have the support of a fairly wide constituency of Canadian citizens, and that it not be, to put it colloquially, a fly-by-night organization created simply for the purpose of sponsoring people. We want to ensure that these people are sincere in their efforts and that they have the interests of the person, and of Canada, in mind. Under those conditions, we accept the amendment of the minister.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right, in my judgment, in saying that the amendments passed in the committee appear to improve considerably the first draft. Therefore, I am disposed to support this resolution. There are one or two things, however, about which I am a little unhappy. 1 wonder about the necessity of this kind of resolution. There have been persons or organizations assisting people to come to Canada. Many of them have been churches, ethnic organizations or people interested in immigration, and without the aid of legislation such as this they have been assisting people. This amendment just requires them to be ready to give an undertaking. I am not happy about that, because the word "undertaking" is vague. If we are going to legislate obligations to be assumed by people, we should either make available a copy of what they might be expected to fill in, or we should give some particulars. We should not just have a vague reference to an "undertaking". I think that is rather loose drafting.
When we discussed this matter in committee we were informed by officials that it was contemplated that if a person gave an obligation as required by this amendment, that might count toward the admissibility of the person that person was undertaking to assist. If that is the intention, I think it should

July 25, 1977
Immigration
be spelled out. As it is, it is rather one-sided. It says a person must give an undertaking. Nowhere does it say what, quid pro quo, the government is prepared to provide.
I am very keen on the idea that organizations and persons should assist refugees into this country without being closely connected by marriage, or anything of that kind. I am very anxious that that be done. But I think if we are going to ask people to make obligations, we should spell out the whole contract and make it very clear that the person making the obligation-or his protege, her protege or its protege, as the case may be-is given an additional score on a possible points system, or additional consideration with respect to admission to Canada. For that reason, I think the amendment is somewhat defective. But as the minister came a long way toward meeting the desires of the committee, I do not feel disposed to vote against his amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 49 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Motions Nos. 50 and 52 are grouped for the purpose of debate, but they will be voted on separately.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 115 by striking out lines 39 to 44 at page 68 and substituting the following therefor: "(3) Every order in council, regulation or form made under this act shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the order in council, regulation or form, as the case may be, is made or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof and every order in council, regulation, or form shall be subject to affirmative resolution of parliament and shall not come into force until 30 days after it has been published in the Canada Gazette."


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 115 by adding immediately after line 50 at page 68 the following new subclause:
"(5) Any regulation passed under provisions of paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c) of this section shall not come into force unless approved by the House of Commons after a motion for consideration is signed by 20 members which shall be considered within 15 days after the motion is filed when the House of Commons is in session or within 15 days after the opening of parliament, if it is not in session."


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly on motion No. 50. This topic has been swirling around immigration debates for as long as I have had the opportunity to read the record of our debates. As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) so perfectly describes it, the topic is legislation by regulation. As a member of the committee, I can appreciate that the minister and his officials must

have a fair amount of regulatory power. They must have that so they can react to changing conditions. Conditions can change very quickly. There are fewer receiving countries in the world taking in fewer immigrants, and it is incumbent on the minister and his officials to respond. I think we all understand that, but we do not accept the fact that regulations can come very close to changing the spirit of legislation. 1 believe that the supremacy and primacy of parliament should prevail. It is for that reason that this amendment has been moved.
We were able to squeeze-how shall I put it-half an amendment out of the minister. The minister went part of the way in meeting the objections we raised at second reading. The minister said he went a long way. I suppose it depends upon where you start. However, 1 think we must keep in mind the experiences of the last few years. There was a time when people could change their status while in Canada. They might have come in as students or visitors and changed their status to that of landed immigrants. When that change was made there was a great effect on the flow and the nature of the flow. There was nothing parliament could do about it. The only time we had a chance to do anything was when the main estimates or the supplementary estimates were before the committee. At best, that is a frail substitute for what we really want. We do not want regulations to change dramatically the immigration policy of this country as to flow or qualitative flow. Changes like that should be presented to parliament, because parliament is supreme. It is for that reason this amendment is before us. The minister has gone part of the way in meeting our objection, but obviously not far enough. Clause 115(3), at page 68 of the bill, reads as follows:
No regulation made under paragraph (l)(a), (b) or (c) shall come into force until 30 days after it has been published in the Canada Gazette, and the text of such regulation shall be laid before parliament as soon as practicable.
As I understand that wording, regulations cannot be passed in the dead of night. We will not wake up in the morning to find that our immigration policy has changed dramatically. That subclause means that regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette and will not come into effect for 30 days after that. I know that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has had more experience with the Canada Gazette than I have or might ever have. He feels the Canada Gazette is not well enough organized and wonders how many Canadians read it anyhow. However, those interested in immigration will be reading the Gazette and they will at least have some prior notice. This prior notice will allow them to raise objections or to indicate what effects they think the regulations might have on immigration policy.
The other position the minister has taken is that he will lay the text of such regulations before parliament as soon as possible. 1 am not worried about the time-frame; that is acceptable. We are in a co-operative spirit. However, simply laying the text of the regulations before parliament does not give parliament any chance for debate. While parliament will be notified, parliament will not be able to see whether the
July 25, 1977

regulations in fact change the spirit and intent of the legislation passed in the House.
It is for that purpose I have moved the amendment which will do the following: every order in council, and I know we have had some discussion in committee as to who can given information vis-a-vis orders in council respecting immigration, regulation or forms that are needed for the administration of the Immigration Act, will be laid before parliament within 15 days if parliament is in session. If it is not in session, I have given conditions for that. What is more important is that the regulation will then need the affirmative resolution of parliament: that is the important part.
What I am deeply concerned about is that as parliamentarians we have the right to debate these regulations and, if we choose, to vote on them. Whether we want to admit it or not, the regulations have a tremendous effect on immigration. It is for that reason it is imperative that parliament has the right to debate the regulation and voice its opinion on it. I do not believe this is restrictive as far as the minister is concerned, because it takes in the spirit of amendment to which he has agreed. For that reason, I commend that amendment to all members of the House.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on motion No. 52. It is aimed at the same purpose to which the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has directed his motion No. 50: it is aimed at ensuring that there be some measure of parliamentary control over the more important and substantial regulations. Where motion No. 52 differs from motion No. 50 is that we apply it, and I do not think this is in No. 50, to the regulations passed under the provisions of clause 115(1 )(a) (b) and (c). I would like to tell the House what those regulations provide for. They provide what might be termed as the guts of the whole of the immigration system. I quote:
The governor in council may make regulations (a) providing for the establishment and application of selection standards based on such factors as family relationships, education, language, skill, occupational experience and other personal attributes and attainments, together with demographic considerations and labour market conditions in Canada, for the purpose of determining whether or not an immigrant will be able to become successfully established in Canada-
That is the basic purpose of an immigration act, to set standards of selection. We all agree we cannot allow a completely open door so that everyone who wants to come to Canada as an immigrant may do so. We need to have a selection process. Therefore, we set up the Department of Immigration and passed the act. These regulations dealing with selection standards for the various items included in the selection standards are the very essence of any immigration policy. The hon. member for Provencher is correct when he says these regulations are absolutely essential to the whole act. We believe that at least some of them should be under the direct control of parliament.
Subclause (b) prescribes the classes of persons whose applications for landing may be sponsored. The House knows that sponsored applications are the applications of close relatives. It is said in clause 13 that the reunion of families
Immigration
through a process of sponsorship is one of the key purposes of the act. However, we leave to regulation the prescribing of what classes of people may be sponsored. We are abdicating in this particular clause. Subclause (c) exempts members of the family class from the requirements and the regulations, prescribing special regulations. I am not sure whether that use of the dispensing power is even legal. My recollection is that James II lost his throne, and King Charles I his head, because they used widespread exempting powers. However, that is a technical point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not technical for Charles I!


Francis Andrew Brewin: No. These three clauses are highly important. The act is full of references to regulations. There are at least 18 clauses of matters to be dealt with by regulation in this section alone. Indeed, the whole bill is full of "as prescribed by regulation". As far as I know, the whole question of what refugees ought to be admitted is to be prescribed by regulation. The terms and conditions which people may have imposed on them when they come to this country can be prescribed by regulation. One can go through the whole bill picking out the phrase "as prescribed by regulation". I have not attempted, in my motion No. 52, to deal with that. I have taken out the ones that are the key provisions of any immigration scheme. I pretty well know what the minister is going to say. He will say that we have to be flexible in these matters, but that parliament cannot meet all the time. That is perfectly true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You mean, we do meet all the time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We nearly do. There is a perfectly legitimate excuse for many matters of detail being decided by regulation. However, there is no reason why these key issues should not be dealt with by parliament itself. The method I have suggested is somewhat similar to the method selected by the hon. member for Provencher in his motion No. 50. His is subject to affirmative vote. I have a provision for a motion for consideration signed by 20 members which shall be considered within 15 days after the motion is filed. I want it clear that after this motion is brought in by a certain number of members of parliament to initiate discussion, it will come before parliament. That would be a useful way of doing it.
This might eliminate some frivolous motions to consider regulations. More important, it would give any 20 members the right to bring it directly to parliament. It would provide a time-frame within which it would be dealt. That is necessary, because we are all familiar with motions piling up and not being dealt with adequately or at all. I have sympathy for the President of the Privy Council trying to get all the business handled. However, unless there is a clear, strong provision, we cannot get it in.
The minister says we have to be flexible about this. 1 do not know why we have to be so flexible about the key provisions in the act. There are places for flexibility, but there are also places for clarity by parliament itself, and there is every reason

July 25, 1977
Immigration
why parliament should take a greater interest in this subject. Under the present system, a lot of what has been done by regulation has, in effect, been done in secret.
As we have heard, the minister has proposed an amendment. The hon. member for Provencher said it was half an answer. 1 would put the fraction lower; I would say it is one-tenth of an answer. What does it amount to? It says the regulations will be found in the Canada Gazette. I do not know how many hon. members have ever looked at the Canada Gazette. It lists all the innumerable regulations which are made under the various statutes of Canada-huge volumes of them. No one who does not have the patience of Job can possibly expect to find a particular regulation in that mass of words.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not exactly a best-seller.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I doubt that it is. And I imagine fewer copies of it are read than are printed. Yet here we are, saying to prospective immigrants, "Read the Canada Gazette. Get the information from these fearful tomes". I gather it does not even have a proper index, so people would have an awful time finding a particular regulation.
The other aspect, and a more important one, is the undertaking that the text of such regulations will be laid before parliament as soon as possible. But even this is not a process which gives notice to very many people. As I understand it, the minister can simply table the relevant document, and that ends the matter because there is no way of questioning here what is contained in the regulations. For this reason, I find the minister's proposal altogether inadequate. The issue here is whether we in parliament are to exercise some measure of control in accordance with the principle of parliamentary supremacy, or whether we shall continue to countenance the issue of a series of semi-secret documents-no doubt got together and put into shape by very distinguished bureaucrats in the department. In my view, that is not good enough. After all, we are here for the purpose of dealing with matters like this.
If I have not been very successful in persuading the minister to accept the amendment I have proposed, may I say I would not feel at all badly if motion 50 were passed, rather than motion 52. I think there is very little difference between them, though naturally, from pride of ownership, I prefer my own version.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Here, again, we have two approaches before us, the one taken by those who have responsibility for administering a particular bill in a particular situation, and the other by those who have no responsibility and who see no practical difficulty in circumstances which the party or the government of the day must face when dealing with 600,000 people who apply to come into this country every year.
At the committee stage we discussed this proposal at some length. A motion was made by the hon. member for Provench-
[Mr. Brewin.1
er (Mr. Epp) requiring an affirmative resolution of parliament. That motion was defeated in the committee. However, in the interest of meeting some of the suggestions which were made, we did bring forth 115(3). The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) denigrates that particular effort, the point of which was to get necessary information to the public who are concerned about immigration. After all, laying regulations before parliament is making them available in a public forum. They are available to everyone, and it is up to the research staff of the party concerned to check on a daily basis to see what papers have been filed so that if desired they might be given the widest publicity.
The motion put forward by the hon. member for Provencher goes further, requiring that every order in council and every form should also be subject to parliamentary approval. In other words, he apparently wishes to prevent the exercise of virtually all the powers assigned in the act to the governor in council or the minister until parliament has given its approval, no matter how trivial a regulation, order in council, form or amendment might be. This motion would have the effect of bringing the operations of the department to a virtual standstill.
Many of the regulations are relatively unimportant or technical, though they are still essential for the efficient and effective operation of the immigration program. The delays which could result from the requirement to attain parliamentary approval followed by publicity for 30 days would permit persons to circumvent new regulations by coming to Canada before a regulation came into effect, thus defeating the very purpose of the regulation. The provision for 30-days delay already built into 115(3) poses sufficient danger of such circumventions. Most regulations are made to overcome or to prevent serious problems. Delay in their implementation can easily augment those problems.
I recognize what hon. members are endeavouring to do. I suggest that if we are able to change our rules in such a way that it is not necessary to spend an interminable amount of time before we are able to get anything done, that may be the time to give effect to these motions. But given the rules under which we presently operate I suggest, with respect, that the hon. members proposal would be to the detriment of the immigration program and to the detriment of the people we are trying to help, namely, those who apply to come to our great country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
July 25, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. We will now move to motion 52.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded motion on the division stands deferred.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie) moved:: Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 115 by striking out lines 45 to 50 at page 68.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion to draw the attention of the House and of the people of Canada to what I consider to be another example of the government reneging on its commitments with respect to urban priorities. It is several years now since the government indicated that among its priorities for the long term there would be a move, through whichever vehicle it had at its disposal, to encourage less growth of the larger metropolitan areas of Canada and greater growth of many of our smaller cities. The objective is obvious. There are too many people concentrated in too few urban areas, and the quality of life in some of those urban areas is diminishing rather than improving.
At the trilevel conference in which the federal government participated, through the Department of Urban Affairs, in 1973 the federal government took a tack which recommended elimination of regional disparities, which elimination would be nullified if Canada continued to accept a pattern of urban growth that concentrated people and activities within a few small areas of the country. At that time the position of the government appeared to be that if we continued to accept that the present trend toward highly concentrated and rapid urban growth is undesirable, we must as a government seek an alternative pattern of urbanization through the recognition that Canadian towns and cities are not in competition with each other but are closely linked in a nationwide system of cities.
At that time, the position of the government appeared to be premised on the conviction that the degree of concentration then being experienced-and certainly it has not diminished today-was unacceptable and that a better alternative to the existing pattern was not only feasible but desirable. The
Immigration
conference agreed that there was a role for all levels of government to play in trying to achieve this long-term decentralization of population. Among the levers mentioned at the conference as being available to the federal government were those of monetary and fiscal policy, immigration and migration, transportation, regional development, land use, housing, social welfare, resource management, industrial promotion, and one or two others.
As 1 have said, Mr. Speaker, this was the position in 1973. In 1975 we had a new urban affairs minister who was still on the same wavelength basically. In referring to the earlier trilevel conference, he said that all three levels of government had agreed on that occasion that the trend should be shifted in favour of a more regionally balanced pattern of growth. The conference also agreed to examine ways and means of doing this and had indicated a readiness to co-ordinate selected relevant policies and programs. The urban affairs minister at that time, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), said he was going to involve all provinces, and through them the municipalities, in the consultation process, and he was confident that through this dialogue we could evolve an urban strategy for Canada, a strategy to which all governments would lend their support and within which we could co-ordinate our various policies and programs. The minister then went on to say:
I will also take every opportunity to discuss these issues publicly with Canadian non-governmental organizations concerned with the future of our cities. Out of this process, I believe that a consensus on a national demographic policy and a Canadian urban strategy will emerge.
When this bill came along, Mr. Speaker, I thought that something was emerging which made a bit of sense. I thought we were going to use one of the levers which was referred to in 1973 to help discourage the tremendous population growth in Toronto particularly, as well as on the west coast. I was unhappy when the committee decided to remove the particular clause from the bill which would have required a new immigrant or person applying for immigrant status who required a few extra points to live in a designated area of Canada away from the larger metropolitan centres for a period of six months. Hopefully, that person, after remaining for that length of time, would then have planted sufficient roots to stay.
In committee, members felt that this would not be a very effective route, that somehow it did not accord with the proper attitude to be taken toward human rights. I would take issue with this latter argument, though I think from the practical point of view some of the committee arguments may have been valid. It seems to me that the argument of interference with human rights is based on a view of immigration which I do not accept. I contend that the granting of immigrant status is a privilege accorded by this country and is not, as some would assert, the right of any person coming to this country. Our immigration policy remains the most liberal in the world. The assertion that requiring people to live in areas outside concentrations of population so as to achieve a better demographic balance is somehow an interference with a person's human rights and a reflection upon Canada's reputation in this regard
80020-40'/2

July 25, 1977
Immigration
I find quite unacceptable. It is a line of argument that I just do not buy.
I would not, perhaps, have taken this initiative to make my point concerning what I feel has been the reneging of the government on its urban priorities had it not been for my strong concern about some of the other backtrackings that have occurred. I will touch upon these briefly, and I should like to give a little background about why I am particularly critical of the government's lack of direction and inability to pursue a course that will benefit over the longer term some 85 per cent of our population which now live in the urban areas of Canada.
I should like to refer back to the period after World War II when Canada had an opportunity not only to ensure adequate housing for its population but adequate planning for that housing. The original personnel who made up the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the early fifties had a very clear concept for the future of Canada, that it would be well planned. Unfortunately, those far-sighted individuals were not given an opportunity by the government of that day to use the government's lending power to that end. The government was practically the only body lending money for housing at that time.
Had that lending level been used to force better planning for our suburbs, we would have had a totally different situation today. We would have avoided massive speculation with the results we are all aware of. We would have had communities planned around transportation facilities not totally dependent on highways. We would have had basic planning involving things such as sewers and water. The result would have been far less expensive for our taxpayers in the long run, and a much healthier municipal tax situation across the country than we have now. Mind you, that is water under the bridge. The federal government did not do what it should have done.
In 1968, when our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was running for the leadership of his party, there was hope that he was someone who could see what the country's priorities were in the form of better living conditions for the areas where most of our people live. The hope for getting more out of this government was encouraged. At the beginning there was a slow period, but by 1972-73 there was a hope that finally the government was seeing the error of its earlier ways and was going to move in a direction to link transportation planning with redevelopment planning. A prime example of that is the Railway Relocation Act. It is a vehicle which allows the federal government to contribute on a 50-50 basis with the provinces, or even higher.
I am referring to regional transportation plans and the regional development plans which must precede transportation plans desired by particular urban or suburban areas. This type of direction is more necessary now because of the energy crisis, and it seemed to be on the point of being pushed by the federal government and a consensus had almost been reached with the provinces. The provinces have matured substantially in their

treatment of regional and city planning. The need is not as great as it was in the late fifties and early sixties for a federal policy guidance input. But along came a new areas of necessity resulting from the energy situation, and the federal government realized there was a new opening for their presence because the provinces were not showing an adequate appreciation of the long-term consequences of what energy shortages would do to our urban and suburban societies. It was not only there for the grabbing; it was there for grasping by the federal government. No one else was doing it, and by not doing it we are putting our people into a more and more precarious situation from an energy consumption point of view and from the point of view of our long-term energy balance with the rest of the world.
From 1972 to 1974 the situation was one of hope. We were finally going to move to a central policy planning push which was needed and useful. The transportation development agency was in existence, and we were going to develop an industry, with government encouragement, to standardize transportation equipment in this country. The industry would have had a fantastic export potential. But on that, too, we have moved way from any concrete action: we are talking; we are not doing anything.
Under the National Housing Act, we have had laws which encouraged land assembly from as early as 1953. Some lands were assembled in Toronto at that time. One can imagine the consequence for house prices around Toronto had the federal government pushed its program for land assembly. After the provinces were embarrassed, Ontario finally moved to assemble some land. Several years ago the federal government moved toward a new cities program which also has disappeared into the woodwork somewhere along the line. There was southeast city in Ottawa. The Pickering airport land was conceived of being for airport use and for the potential use of a new city. These efforts were to be examples for the rest of the country.
The new city concept and land banking could have had an enormous effect upon the inflation situation in Canada. House prices in Ottawa are a direct result of the lack of proper city planning for the expansion of Ottawa suburbs. Had our new cities program been in effect, or had we pushed a land assembly program around Ottawa with that possible lever at our disposal, land and house prices could have been anywhere from 25 per cent to 35 per cent lower than the last few years. Thus, public servants would have been faced with lower costs for housing which might have alleviated some of their demands for higher wages.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member is making statements not related to this bill.


Ian Watson: From the beginning I have attempted to underscore the federal government's backing away from a number of urban priorities, including the one referred to in this motion. These priorities would have encouraged immigrants
*
July 25, 1977

into the slower growth areas of this country and would have had a salutary demographic effect on the country.
Finally, I raise the question of one other urban priority. So far the government has been unwilling to use its lending power to push for proper land use in areas of this country which, in the long term, could benefit from such a policy. I am referring particularly to what is happening in the Niagara peninsula, the rich farmlands around Montreal-in fact, to rich farmlands around our major cities, farmlands not protected by provincial action. We should use the lending powers available to us under the National Housing Act. That is to say, we should abstain from lending or not to guarantee loans with respect to those areas of the country where, in our judgment, proper land use procedures are not followed.
I feel that we have not adequately considered what should be Canada's urban priorities. I suggest that the people of this country have a right to expect more far-sighted action from the government in certain areas than they have witnessed in the last few years. They expect the government to take action in matters which affect their lives, where they live and on questions such as commuting between work and home. That brings me to urban transit. One need not spell out the details of what is not happening. We all know what is not happening and what was promised. This is a sad story which I will not belabour. After the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has spoken on my motion, I intend to rise on a point of order to request leave to withdraw it.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That sounds like a dirty trick.


Ian Watson: I shall do this because my support of the recent Science Council of Canada recommendations outweighs my concern with the government's backtracking on decentralization of population, and 1 wish to stress that the Science Council of Canada has recommended limiting our future population growth to allow in 50,000 immigrant per year. That being the case, 1 do not want to open the doors wider than they are now open. If we grant immigrant status on certain conditions to people who would otherwise not be allowed in to this country, that is, if we grant them immigrant status only on the condition that they shall land in certain areas, we shall allow a greater number of people in per year. The Science Council of Canada has examined the question of the long-term availability of energy against the background of our northern climate and the impact on our standard of living of a larger population. In view of its findings, 1 suggest that if we are to maintain the present high quality of life in Canada and our present living standards, we shall have to think seriously about slowing down the growth of our population. The government thinks our population should grow at between 140,000 and 150,000 per year from immigration. I say our growth rate should be lower. I agree with the Science Council of Canada. 1 am agreeable to the hon. member for Ottawa West speaking, after which I shall rise on a point of order.
Immigration


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking on this motion, but having heard the hon. member condemn the government for its lack of immigration policy and blame urban congestion on immigrants, 1 felt compelled to speak. I agree with one thing the hon. member said. The government's attempt to rationalize population growth has been, to use his words, I think, a sad story. We tried to make the minister aware of this point, but he has not accepted our amendments concerning demographic policy. The point the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) made in that regard is correct.
The special joint committee tried to bring forward a recommendation for placing a large number of immigrants in areas of the country with job vacancies. Unfortunately, the original draft of the bill did not incorporate that recommendation, possibly because the committee's intent was not clear to the minister and his officials. In any event, that suggested section was considered unworkable. During the committee consideration, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was able to bring in an amendment for removing area criteria. Consequently, the news media reported that the hon. member for Davenport had won his war against area designation. With all respect, the press did not understand the situation and had not analysed what had happened. It left the impression that there was to be no area designation, which was not the case. If you take a look at the situation as amended, this is what will happen. We found it impractical to police the movement of immigrants to a specific point, and that they would have to stay there for six months. Longitudinal studies indicate that there is evidence to support what the minister said. These studies indicate that if a person goes to an area other than one of the larger metropolitan areas, the chances of his staying there are fairly good. That is fair enough-but the question of the policing becomes a difficulty.
1 agree with the hon. member when he indicates that immigration is a privilege, rather than a right. When you get into the whole question of human rights, whose human rights are being violated? What is going to be done now is a workable compromise. For example, an immigrant who indicates that he is going to northern Canada will not have his landing completed in Toronto, which is the first point of contact in Canada. His landing will be completed at the nearest Canada Immigration centre or Canada Manpower centre. The fact that they will be obligated to complete landing at the destination of the immigrant will facilitate, to some degree, the movement of the people into that area.
Simply having an area designation requiring a person to stay for six months in a given spot, and virtually a given employment situation, can create exploitation of which we are not in favour. It has been indicated in newspapers that the area designation is now gone; but if I understand the regulations correctly, points will be awarded or removed depending on the area to which a person goes. It can be controlled somewhat in the regulations and the area designations as to the number of points. Up to the present time, not enough points were given for area designations. During months when unemployment was

July 25, 1977
Immigration
very low in the prairies and employment opportunities existed, people were receiving four out of five points by saying that they were going to the prairies.
If the immigrant wanted to settle in a place like Toronto or another place in the province of Ontario which was getting more than 50 per cent of the immigrant flow and where employment was higher, he would get three out of five points. So the regulation was meaningless in the sense of encouraging people to go to other areas. But I believe the compromise that has been made is much more practical than the area designation suggested by the hon. member. However, I want the record to show clearly that what was reported after the amendment of the hon. member for Davenport was carried in committee, that there would be no area designation, is not in fact the case and that points will still be awarded for area designation.
What should be pointed out, again, after the speech of the hon. member for Laprairie, is that the government still does not have a demographic policy and that immigration is but one problem of the larger problems of the urbanization of Canada. A much greater condition is that of Canadians moving- inward migration to our urban centres where job opportunities exist. I must say to this government that they will have to get on with a demographic policy and regional expansion policies which will encourage, through incentives, people to move into other areas rather than force them through regulation to settle in special areas.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will not be a lengthy one at this point. 1 merely wish to say that I support the arguments that have been advanced by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) and most of what the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) had to say. Part of the clause which this amendment will delete says the following:
For the purpose of this act and the regulations, whenever a person is granted landing and terms and conditions are imposed, no such term or condition may specify the area in which that person shall reside.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Provencher who said that points would still be granted and in effect there would be some area designation by the back door, in spite of what appears to be the clear wording of the bill before us. I share the fears of those who point out that our immigration has been heavily concentrated in the cities. This has added to our housing problems and to the social services that are required. An attempt to direct immigration to the slower growth areas in Canada seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do. I am aware of the problems concerning possible exploitation.
I have listened to the arguments of those who say that this might be a violation of human rights. However, I am not persuaded that it is a violation of human rights to say to those who choose to come to Canada that they are requested to spend a certain period of time in one of the slower growth areas in the country. This appears to me to be a reasonable
[Mr. Epp.)
request. I know the mover of this amendment, the hon. member for Laprairie, has indicated he might withdraw it, but I simply wish to say that I, for one, believe we must face the problems of urbanization to a much greater degree than we have so far.
The hon. member for Laprairie referred to our housing policy and to the urban transportation commitment of the party to which I belong. We have a substantial obligation in that area. I would like to see the development of an urban policy along with measures which would allow the free movement of people in Canada wherever they choose to reside. But in principle I go along with those who say that it would not be a violation of human rights to request those who come to Canada to spend a certain period of time in one of the underdeveloped areas so that they would not all go, in overwhelming numbers, to the urban centres where the problems of urban life are magnified as a result.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. I want to ask him which areas he would designate as the slower growth areas in Canada where immigrants could be sent, because all the slower growth areas are areas of very high unemployment, and if we were to send these people to the slow growth areas there would be a tremendous problem with regard to their employment. I would like the hon. member to address his remarks to that question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am not in a position to give a detailed description, but I listened to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) who tells me that there are job opportunities in her area in British Columbia and they would welcome a number of immigrants to that area. I am aware that there are employment opportunities in the frontier areas of Canada.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: For skilled workers.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: For skilled workers and others.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: My point is that the concentration of immigration in the large cities compounds and magnifies the problem. It is still a very basic point and the hon. member, 1 am sure, would have to concede it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: 1 understood the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) to say that at a certain stage he might withdraw his motion, so obviously it is not necessary for me to make a long speech. 1 am sure many of us might be in agreement with a great deal of what he said about urban planning, but I cannot support his theory that we should direct certain people resident in Canada as to where they are to go, this despite what the hon. member for Laprairie and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) said that there is no right involved. That is not quite correct.
1 am sorry, I do not have the actual citation here, but the United Nations convention on this subject clearly refers to freedom of movement. If we invite people to this country, we
July 25, 1977

should not invite them as second-class citizens and tell them they cannot go where they see fit. I see no objection to inducements being offered to make certain areas attractive for them to go to, such as employment opportunities, good housing, or whatever is necessary to persuade people to avoid overcrowded urban areas and go to some other areas where things are booming and where they are needed. I have no objection to that at all. I think we should do all we can to assist that. But there is a right not to be pushed around.
1 have often heard the hon. member's argument in courts and in this place, that is, the argument that the opportunity to immigrate is a privilege and is by no means a right. That is only partially true. Of course, there is no general right to immigrate. Every sovereign nation has the right to say who should come to their shores from outside. But we legislate to give statutory rights to certain people and we have given certain statutory rights in the act we are now discussing and in previous acts which confirm that people qualify under those certain limited rights, and then we say to them that as permanent residents they will be treated like everyone else in Canada.
I hope we will not abandon that principle. 1 suspect there are grave practical difficulties in enforcing or dealing with this provision. As the hon. member no doubt knows, these terms and conditions are supposed to last for six months only. There may be some powers for extending the requirement to go to those places where they were designated to go for a short time. 1 think the hon. member for Provencher is quite right in saying that the regulations give certain extra points to people who are ready to fit into certain economic conditions which are satisfactory. I see no great objection to doing that, but I object to directing people to where they should live. There would be too many exceptions.
Let us suppose that someone comes to a place like Thompson, Manitoba, and then the plant closes down. Is that person supposed to stay there for six months if the plant closes down and there is no employment there? Let us suppose that person has a relative in Toronto. Perhaps I should not mention Toronto; but suppose that relative is very ill and might be dying. We are dealing with human beings, and I think it would be wise to extend to them the same freedoms and privileges we claim for ourselves. Indeed, it would be right to live up to the principles enunciated by the United Nations.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that
Immigration
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows; The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles )-Veterans Affairs-Number of widows not receiving pensions, and low level of disability pension-government action; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacK-ay)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Ministerial responsibility for operation of security services-knowledge of minister of allegedly illegal activities; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-The Canadian economy- Measures to stop exodus of capital to United States-Reason real estate developers will not invest in Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would like to point out that if the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) wishes to withdraw his motion, he needs the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to withdraw his motion?


Ian Watson: I request the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 51 (Mr. Watson) withdrawn.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 121 by striking out lines 4 to 12 at page 71 and substituting the following therefor: "for the purpose of
(a)	paying the costs of establishing that they and their families may be granted admission;
(b)	paying the costs of obtaining transportation to Canada and transportation from the port of arrival to the place of destination in Canada for them and their families; and
(c)	paying the reasonable living expenses of such persons and their families and such other expenses as are prescribed in order to assist those persons in establishing themselves successfully in Canada."
Motion No. 53 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Motion No. 54.

July 25, 1977
Immigration
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 125 by striking out line 17 at page 73 and substituting the following therefor:
"with this act or the former act at the option of the person concerned with this
proceeding."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I really want to test the minister on this one exactly as I did on an earlier motion, and I would be glad if the minister would reassure the House. Then I would ask, in the same way as the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), for the permission of the House to have the motion withdrawn. It seems to me that my motion is essentially one of fairness. There are certain tests under the existing act. There are certain requirements, and I suggest that it would be fairer to the immigrant if he could use either the existing ground rules or the new ground rules, depending on his wishes. Somebody in the middle of the process suddenly confronted by this formidable statute might have imposed on him different criteria. I would like to think that this is not true, and if my apprehension is not well founded and the minister can reassure me that there will not be new tests or criteria, 1 would be glad to ask that my motion be dropped.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling that the motion is, in fact, redundant because by judicial interpretation the clause as it now stands always would be read to ensure that the legislation which is to the person's advantage would be the legislation applied in his case. In most cases the new act will apply. The judicial interpretation is that in most cases the new act will be to the person's advantage, but where it is not- primarily unsuccessful claimants to convention refugee status-the board would, quite legally, act under the former legislation.
To give the person a choice would do the opposite to what the hon. member wishes, since it would permit the person to choose, in ignorance, the option which may very well not be to his advantage.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would like permission to withdraw my motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 54 (Mr. Fairweather) withdrawn.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in the Schedule by striking out subparagraph (b)(ii) in item 6 at page 77 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) in prescribed circumstances, is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a
permit in Canada within the meaning of the Immigration Act, 1976."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is simply a consequential amendment. It comes about as a result of too zealous an attempt to change the language. It was inhibiting and limiting, and I think this amendment corrects the flaw.
Motion No. 55 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-24. Call in the members.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among representatives of the parties. As the House will recall, we have one other item of business with which we would like to deal before the conclusion of the discussion with respect to the immigration bill, and that is the one hour which was mentioned earlier respecting the special order of the House relating to the metric conversion legislation.
I believe there is a disposition in the House at the moment- since we have now concluded all the motions at the report stage of Bill C-24-to defer the votes on those motions until the first order of business tonight at eight o'clock, and to devote the hour which remains before six o'clock to a discussion of the metric conversion legislation. I wonder if Your Honour could confirm that there is that disposition. Then we could use this hour to discuss the metric conversion legislation, proceed with the votes on Bill C-24 this evening, and then move immediately after those votes to the third reading of Bill C-24.
As I make that suggestion, 1 sincerely apologize to Your Honour and to the officers at the table. The discussions which led to this development took place just now and we did not have an opportunity to alert you before this moment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to concur in what the parliamentary secretary has said. The special order which was made on Friday envisaged that we might complete the report stage of Bill C-24 and then proceed directly to third reading. However, for the purposes of this hour it is agreeable to us to move to consideration of Bill C-23 and complete it. In the order of Friday, the House indicated that this hour would be set aside for the completion of Bill C-23, so we concur in the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion being made is in conformity with the order passed the other day under Standing Order 75A, and it also represents what we have been discussing in the last little while. Just so that we can be clear, I will make one suggestion. If it does not take the full hour to deal with Bill C-23, 1 suggest we call it six o'clock when we finish Bill C-23, so it is understood that tonight at eight o'clock the bells will be rung to call in the members for the votes on Bill C-24.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, just to be technically correct, 1 think the motion under Standing Order 75A required that this hour be designated by a minister of the Crown, and I invite the President of the Privy Council to make that designation.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I designate whatever is required of this hour to deal with Bill C-23. It is understood that the Minister of State will make a number of amendments to the bill, when consent is given, to go into committee of the
July 25, 1977

whole for the purpose of amending clauses 2, 6 and 10. It will be possible to come out of committee of the whole and give the bill third reading within that hour. Otherwise, I will be very disappointed, having made the amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


STATUTE LAW (METRIC CONVERSION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT TO FACILITATE CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the third time and do pass.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe we require the consent of the House to give authority to return to committee of the whole for consideration of clauses 2, 6 and 10.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were never there on this bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Return to, or go into committee of the whole. Whatever words the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wishes to select, I will concur. May we have consent on that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that 1 do now leave the chair to go into committee of the whole on Bill C-23?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House went into committee on Bill C-23-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On clause 2


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take the floor in preference to the minister. However, 1 move:
That Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 2
(a)	by striking out lines 7 to 13 inclusive on page 1 and substituting the
following:
"2. (1) The following provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act,
namely,"
and (b) by striking out line 23 on page 1 and substituting the following:
"(2) This section shall come into force on"
1 believe hon. members have had copies of this proposed amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am just a simple city boy. Will somebody tell me what this amendment does?


Mr. Marchand:: Mr. Chairman, these three amendments just deal with restoring the acre back into the various pieces of legislation.
Metric System


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: This one deals with the Wheat Board Act. As hon. members know, we have had many representations from that side and this side of the House relating to the removal of the "hectare" from the four pieces of legislation. We are just restoring the "acre".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the explanation given by the minister. However, he left out a very important element of this change. According to the correspondence we have all been receiving from western farmers, they have made a number of representations on this matter and will be very much in favour of this capitulation by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 6
(a)	by striking out lines 17 to 28 inclusive on page 4 and substituting the following:
"6. (1) The following provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, namely,"
(b)	by striking out line 31 on page 4 and substituting the following:
"(b) subsections 4(2) and 7(1), (2) and (4), and"
(c)	by striking out lines 36 to 44 inclusive on page 4 and lines 1 to 12 on page 5 and substituting the following:
"(2) Paragraph 7.1(4)(6) of the said Act is"; and
(d)	by striking out line 26 on page 5 and substituting the following:
"(3) This section shall come into force on a"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the President of the Privy Council know what he has just said ? What does it mean?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question. Does this really mean that "hectare" is dead? Is that what this motion indicates? Seeing that the President of the Privy Council did not answer the question, I thought maybe the minister responsible for small business could answer. Is that what the second amendment means?


Stanley Howard Knowles: How do you spell "hectare"?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It does not matter, as long as he is dead.


Len Marchand: I do not know what kind of language they use in describing this situation, whether it is dead or not. Certainly, the "hectare" is being removed from the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In this amendment it is removed from the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. It restores the "acre" wherever it was used on previous occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: As far as being dead is concerned, I would like to refer to some words by Premier Lougheed when talking about moves in their legislature not to proceed with converting the usage of "acre" to "hectare". He said that perhaps at some

July 25, 1977
Metric System
future date when the education process regarding metric conversion is more complete we can move to the "hectare". But that is not what we are suggesting here.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Another century.


Len Marchand: The "hectare" is being removed, and the "acre" is being put back, largely because of pressure by the farmers.
Motion (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in subclause 10(1) by striking out lines 30-32 inclusive on page eight and substituting the following:
"stituting for the word "bushel", wherever it appears therein, the word
"tonne".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: 1 thought the minister was about to rise, Mr. Speaker, and I was waiting for him to say a few words. I shall be brief, because I understand there has been an all-party agreement to proceed with the third reading of this bill without delay and to accept certain amendments put forward to remove "hectares" as a land measure from the bill.
This whole matter could have been dealt with many months ago. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Eiamilton) in his opening speech on Bill C-23 offered speedy passage of the measure if the government would abandon its insistence on the use of "hectares" for land measurement. Today, eight months later, we are adopting the same proposal as was made so long ago by my hon. friend. I might mention, also, that an amendment to this effect was put forward in the standing committee, where government members voted against it. There is no doubt that the metric commission has misled the minister, misled the standing committee and misled the House of Commons in connection with this matter. Despite the overwhelming objection of western farmers to the change from "acres" to "hectares", the commission brought witnesses before the inquiry who gave evidence to the contrary. They told us that farmers wholeheartedly supported metric conversion. Yet at the very time the standing committee was hearing evidence with regard to the details of Bill C-23, there was a meeting going on in Ottawa of a large farm federation at a large hotel not far from Parliament Hill. The subject of metrication was brought up at that meeting by farm repre-

sentatives and provoked such violent discussion and division of opinion that the chairman postponed consideration of the matter so that the meeting could proceed with other business. While this meeting was going on, the farm federation sent a representative here-we are told he was a witness selected by the metric commission-and this witness misled the House.
We have now reached agreement to pass Bill C-23. There is no desire on this side to prolong the debate one moment longer than is necessary, but 1 feel obliged to mention two points. First, it is evident to everyone that the government's willingness to negotiate with our party with respect to the amendment on the use of the "acres" is a clear victory for those Conservative members from western Canada who listened to their constituents and made their objections known in this chamber. It is also evidence that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has been gelded and put out to pasture. In spite of his boast that he would influence the decision, it is obvious he had no influence whatever. In fact, after he had crossed the floor, the government brought this bill forward on three separate occasions and attempted to force it through the House. It should be noted that the hon. member for Crowfoot neither spoke in the debate on this issue nor participated in the committee proceedings. It should also be noted that he did not take part in any of the votes on this bill.
The final point I wish to make, before we move on to other business, has to do with the metric commission itself. We believe the commission should be revamped and shaken up. Someone should really build a fire under it. The commission should now be prepared to make known the balance of the metric conversion program. A complete bill should be brought forward so that parliament might have a chance to comment on the last phases of the metric conversion program. Such a bill should contain a schedule of the statutes which require amendment. In fact, it should include the amendments, together with a time schedule so that we might know when they were to come into effect. I have contended since 1973 that the metric commission is not fulfilling its mandate as set forth in the order in council. In my view, it has failed miserably. The commission owes it to the House and to the people to recommend legislation covering the balance of the conversion program. It should revise its approach to the program and have its annual report ready on time, not eight months late as on the last occasion.
If the commission fails to fulfil its mandate, I believe its members should be discharged as being incompetent. As members of the Conservative party, we shall continue to monitor very closely the work of the commission along with the whole metric conversion program. We urge the commission and the minister to see to it that we receive full value for the money we are spending on conversion and that the program goes forward in a businesslike manner.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
July 25, 1977


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would ask consent to revert to motions for the purpose of passing the adjournment motion, if there is consent that we can do so without debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are prepared to do so, on the understanding that no debate takes place.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like, then, to read the motion:
That, when the House adjourns following the disposal of the third reading and passage stage of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, it shall stand adjourned until August 4, 1977 and, when it adjourns on August 5, 1977, it shall stand adjourned until October 17, 1977, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter David Baker: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it
six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having completed the report stage, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-24. Call in the members.
Immigration


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is upon motion No. 13.


Mr. Speaker:: -I
Motion No. 13
Flynn
Foster
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gillespie
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Harquail
Herbert
Hopkins
Isabelle
Jamieson
Joyal
Kaplan
Lachance
Lalonde
Langlois
Laniel
Lapointe
Lavoie
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
Macdonald
(Rosedale)
MacEachen
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gillies Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Hargrave Hnatyshyn Holmes Howie Jarvis Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lambert
(Edmonton West) La Salle Lawrence
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Marceau
Marchand
Mclsaac
McRae
Milne
Nicholson (Miss)
O'Connell
Parent
Pearsah
Penner
Portelance
Poulin
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Rompkey
Roy
(Laval)
Sauve (Mrs.)
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stanbury Stewart (Cochrane) Stollery Tessier Trudeau Trudel Turner Watson Young-91.
MacKay
McCain
McKenzie
McKinley
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Nowlan
Orlikow
Paproski
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Schumacher
Scott
Stanfield
Stevens
Whittaker-44.
therefore declare motion No. 13 carried. (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 14.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 14 lost.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 32.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 32 lost.
Motion No. 32 (Mr. De Bane) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 50 in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 50 (Mr. Epp) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 52 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Walter David Baker: By order, now.


Mr. Speaker:: By order of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I moved second reading of Bill C-24 I gave a brief historical account of the development of the legislation we now have before us. I pointed out that it was a bill in whose preparation thousands of Canadians had participated. They did so in part through the instrument of the Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy which held hearings throughout Canada from May to November, 1975. Some Canadians submitted briefs through their members; others sent them directly to myself or to the department.

July 25, 1977
Immigration
Since then the bill has had the benefit of a most thorough review by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. That committee invited to appear before it many of the organizations which had appeared during 1975 so that it could determine the degree to which the earlier expressed views had been interpreted in terms of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister but I do so for the sole purpose of asking hon. members who are not interested in listening to the speech of the minister please to leave the House quickly so that other hon. members who are interested can hear what is being said.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my attendance at that committee's sessions I was impressed with the depth of knowledge and the interest of individual members in a law which will have such an impact on the conduct of Canada's immigration program in the future. I was impressed too with the essentially non-partisan approach which the members adopted during their clause by clause review, in their efforts to formulate legislation which I believe is a model in this field. Members approached the subject with the same open-mindedness to immigration which I suggest the government has had since it originated the review of immigration policy in 1973.
To underline the constructive attitude which members of the committee adopted toward the bill, one should note the sources of the amendments. A number were proposed by both opposition and Liberal members of the committee and were accepted by the government. Others were accepted in part by the government and were either modified by the proposer or by a government spokesman. Still others were moved on behalf of the government. Taken as a whole, I believe that these changes have resulted in an even better piece of legislation.
When I spoke on March 10 I described what I considered to be the major features of the bill. I would remind the House of what they are and how they have been improved by the amendments which were made in committee.
The first feature of the bill to which I referred last March was its establishment, in Clause 3, of the objectives which will govern future immigration policy. The committee endorsed those objectives but amended the preamble to the clause to declare "that the rules and regulations made under this act" would recognize those objectives. That, of course, is entirely acceptable and reinforces the government's intent when it drafted this clause.
The second point which I made at second reading was that the bill represents a new approach to the prohibited classes particularly by its removal of the archaic provisions of the present act concerning criminal and medical classes. I am particularly pleased that the unqualified ban against epileptics has been removed. The bill which has issued from the committee confirms this approach. Improvements have been made. For example, when dealing with persons seeking entry to Canada who have committed offences outside this country, it is now clearer that those offences must have a relationship to Canadian law.

I believe hon. members will find that the committee has improved Clause 19(I)(d) which is aimed at persons engaged in organized criminal activity. It describes more precisely than the original subsection the very sort of person and activity from whom we are attempting to protect the Canadian public.
The third reference I made related to the volume of the immigration movement. I stated that the bill removed the determination of immigration flow from the current practice of administrative decision. It provides for forward planning of the immigration program. In doing so it involves the provinces in the process. The amended bill fortifies the government's decision of adopting a new and open approach. It requires the minister responsible for immigration to table in this House not later than November 1 of each year a report which will indicate the immigration target for the following calendar year. That report will also indicate in which way demographic factors were taken into account when the annual target was determined.
On my fourth point, I dealt with the regulation making powers of the government and the minister. 1 indicated that the almost unlimited authority given in the current act was being replaced by a much more precise delineation of those powers.
While the bill was in committee I arranged for an amendment to be made to combine Clauses 115 and 116 which provided for governor in council and ministerial regulations respectively. While both sets of regulations are published in the Canada Gazette I considered that it would be less confusing to the public if only a single set of regulations were reported.
With respect to regulations, I was pleased to support an amendment in committee which would require certain of the regulations to be published in the Canada Gazette and the text laid before parliament 30 days prior to the coming into force of such regulations.
The fifth topic on which I spoke was refugees. I think it is true to say that it was a subject that concerned the members of the standing committee and the witnesses who appeared before it more than any other. There was a common feeling, in which the government fully shared, that Canada's refugee policy should not only live up to the obligations of the United Nations Convention to which we adhere, but that the bill should also reflect the humanitarian selection policy we have been following for more than 30 years.
In the achievement of these ends several changes were made to the bill in committee stage. An amendment to Clause 4 made it clear that a convention refugee who is in visitor status cannot be deported for minor offences. To underline what had been the government's original intent, Clause 6 was amended to emphasize that special selection criteria would be applied to refugees. I hope that this will finally clear up a misconception held by many groups that refugees will be selected under the same criteria as independent immigrants. That was never our proposal in the first place, and 1 am pleased to have our position clarified in this way.
July 25, 1977

The government proposed an amendment in committee which puts into law the present practice of permitting a refugee claimant in Canada to have a counsel while he or she is being examined. -
I am now more confident than ever that the refugee sections of the bill are among the most generous in the world. They far exceed our international obligations in terms of the acceptance and protection of refugees.
My sixth point related to the protection of Canada from threats which did not exist in 1952 when the current act was passed. Terrorism and hijacking are contemporary crimes, perpetrated by individuals who give no advance warning of their intended deeds. The committee recognized the need for legislation to deal with these potential crimes.
My final point was on the safeguarding of civil liberties. I believe Bill C-24 unquestionably achieves this goal. Even potential or actual terrorists, or members of organized crime, have a right to a hearing, although in a small minority of cases they may not be made aware of all the allegations against them in order to protect sensitive information or even the life of the person who gave it. Elsewhere every subject of an immigration inquiry will know precisely the allegations against him. In addition, he will have the right to counsel and, if he chooses, the public may attend the hearing. The officer presiding over the case, known as an adjudicator, does not participate in the development of the case and renders his decision exclusively on the information adduced at the inquiry. This is an improvement over the present situation where a special inquiry officer not only prepares and presents the department's case but also renders the decision.
The same rights of appeal to the independent Immigration Appeal Board will be carried into the new legislation, but it will now be possible for an appellant to seek the board's compassionate consideration without contesting the legality of the removal order.
Parliament has been involved in the preparation of this legislation for some two and one half years. That was preceded by a year and a half of activity by the department in the preparation of the green paper. This has been a long process, but the quality of the bill now before us justifies the extended preparation that has gone into it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to be very long tonight. It is the hope of our party that this bill will go through third reading this evening and that our work will be completed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 should like to echo the words of the hon. minister regarding committee stage. It was a very fine working committee, and in non-partisan manner it attempted to improve the legislation. As I said during report stage, we have reported
Immigration
back and improved this bill. On behalf of my party, I should like to say that we will support this legislation on third reading if a vote is called.
All of us who have been involved realize that a new immigration act is needed. I am pleased to see that the Immigration Act contains some objectives regarding Canada's new immigration policy. The minister and I do not agree totally as to the scope of those objectives. Some of us wanted to see them go a little further, especially my favourite whipping horse, namely, the demographic policy. The minister has accepted a partial step in that direction, which will place before parliament the target for immigration flow. It does not take a look at internal migration. While this is not within the exclusive purview of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, I urge the minister, and those who sit on the interdepartmental council, that a very clear-cut demographic policy be placed before us in the very near future.
Immigration cannot be rationalized without having a demographic policy and knowing exactly what are the objectives. We feel the amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) should have been included. Immigration should not only reflect Canada's bilingual nature, but it should reflect Canada's multicultural nature. Unfortunately that was not accepted by the government. That concept was in the original draft of the bill and it was presented to Liberal caucus. It was at that point that it was very hotly debated and finally rejected. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Guay) to get up in his place and vote against-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he should be aware of the fact that a decision has been rendered by the House on this motion. I do not think the hon. member is in line to criticize a vote by one of his colleagues.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that direction.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In any event, he voted against it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This party wanted to see included in the objectives the multicultural aspect of Canada. Unfortunately that will not be the case.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right, but we will let the people in western Canada know.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The removal of prohibition against those for medical reasons from the 1952 bill is an improvement. The removal of the prohibition against epileptics whose condition is medically controlled is another improvement. The minister should be reminded of the commitment made by his officials at committee stage regarding persons present in Canada on the minister's permission. These persons were not given landed immigrant status. They will be contacted by the department and granted landed immigrant status after the bill is proclaimed. These persons will be granted a landed immigrant status and a calculation will be made as to the residency requirement in conjunction with the Department of the Secre-

July 25, 1977
Immigration
tary of State. Elopefully that will lead to citizenship for these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All of us can take pride in the fact that for the first time in Canada's immigration legislation we have a clear-cut definition of refugees and also a claim for refugee status. All members of the committee wanted to see this incorporated into the act. It is pleasing to see, after many representations from various interest groups across the country, that a refugee policy has been incorporated into the bill. Members of the United Nations Commission on refugees feel that it is a forerunner of refugee legislation.
From time to time too much stress has been placed on the so-called civil liberties of persons who have been on the fringes of a criminal element. It has concerned me that these people should be afforded every civil liberty. On the other hand there were members of the committee who seemed to stress the civil liberties of these persons over the protection of Canadians. This government has lost the handle on immigration. Canada's immigration laws have not been administered strongly enough. People have come into Canada and used Canada as a base to continue their criminal activities. I am referring to a very small number of people. That is not part of immigration and it should not be accepted by Canadians.
The minister's powers in this new legislation should prevent the criminal element from coming into Canada. He has the power to deport, and that is what is expected of him. It has nothing to do with the landing of bona fide immigrants who want to come to this country and start a new life, thus giving us the benefit of their experience and their ability. It has nothing to do with persons who try to exploit this country and beat the law. That is not what we want to see in the act. Criticism has been strongly levelled at the minister. He should use the act in such a manner that criminals will not use Canada as a base for their activities. It is for this reason we have endorsed clauses which may be wide-reaching and discretionary, new clauses regarding organized crime, terrorists and hijacking. This is an ongoing phenomenon in our modern world, and we need a law whereby the minister and his officials can act quickly and forcibly to protect Canadian society.
There is one other matter that I want to bring to the attention of the House tonight, and that is the matter of immigrant selection. Hon. members opposite know that I have favoured an immigration selection system based on the point system whereby we would have a sponsored class, a refugee class, and an independent class. The minister and his officials also know that we have recommended the expansion of the sponsored class and the removal of the nominated class. One might say that that means that one is opposed to such objectives as timely reunification. That is not the case. I believe that the reunification of next of kin, of those within the nuclear

family, is well taken care of in the sponsored class, especially if we expand it to the sponsorship of parents of any age.
I am concerned that with the point system as it is now retained what will happen is that the percentage of the total flow of the so-called nominated class will increase to the point where independent immigrants will have a very difficult time in coming into Canada. There is a distinct advantage for a person getting points to have some family relationship. What I would have preferred is that all those apply as independent immigrants. They would then come into the country, it is true, and adjust to Canadian society with the assistance of their families. I feel very strongly that we will see the day when the sponsor of the refugee class will take such a high proportion of our annual flow that the independent immigrant who is willing to go to areas outside our cities-and studies show this is the group that has frequently gone to the outlying areas-will have much greater difficulty coming to this country, and I do not believe our immigration policy should be structured in that way.
In conclusion I would like to say that we have a better bill than before, a better immigration policy, and members of this House are pleased to see the end of the exercise. It is for that reason we will be supporting it on final reading.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I tried to make clear in the debate on second reading, and indeed in discussions in the committee, that I am quite prepared to admit that there are some features of the present legislation which are satisfactory, and improvements on what we had before, and I am also prepared to admit that the committee produced some useful amendments. Nevertheless, we think we have a bad bill and we should vote against it.
There are three areas in which the bill is unsatisfactory. First, the bill contains provisions which seriously jeopardize the right to proper hearings and fundamental freedoms. The main sections which are unsatisfactory are found in Clauses 19 and 27 dealing with reports against persons in Canada providing for their removal or deportation. I will not go over the whole argument in respect of Clause 19-members of the committee have heard me speak on it more than once and they must probably be getting a little tired of it-but the difficulty is that Clause 19 gives the right to refuse admission on the basis of speculative opinions and suspicions of immigration officers. This is in direct contradiction of what was previously in the Immigration Act. It was only when a person was convicted of certain kinds of criminal acts, or admitted to the commission of such acts, that he or she might be deported.
It has long been a basic principle of justice as it is known in Canada that a person should not be penalized for things he might do at some future time but has not done. What he is likely to do is purely a matter of speculation, and it is wrong that a person should be condemned, with the severe consequence of deportation, on the basis of committing one or more indictable offences, when some of these offences are relatively trivial. Nor should persons be liable to deportation because an immigration officer believes that there are reasonable grounds to assume that such a person will engage in subversion by force
July 25, 1977

of any government. Any democratic government would have some sympathy for them, but some Canadian immigrants come from countries in which brutal dictatorships deny fundamental human rights, deny any possibility of a peaceful change, and indeed engage in widespread torture. The previous act dealt with this matter by referring to democratic governments, and I am prepared to see our immigration law seeking to protect democratic governments, but I see no reason why we should seek to protect regimes such as the one in Uganda at present, or those in some parts of South America and other parts of the world.
Another subclause makes liable to deportation a person who is a member of or is likely to participate in local activities and organizations likely to engage in such acts of violence. In the world as we know it today there are many organizations in different parts of the world engaged in many different ways of doing things. In other parts of the world there are people who are held down by violence and terror, and if they desire to change these regimes in order to assist their country, that is no good reason for Canada to refuse them admission. But it is quite possible that members of these organizations in Canada know nothing about the so-called violent activities of other members of an organization in another section of the world- they are perfectly innocent of any offence, and to penalize a person who is not knowingly guilty of any offence is wrong. It is what people do in Canada that should be of importance.
Clause 27 provides that where a person other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident obtains entry by reason of any fraud or improper means of representation or any material fact, he or she can be deported. The American clause that covers this refers to wilful misrepresentation of any material facts. Our courts have interpreted an act similar to Clause 27(h) as applying even where the misrepresentation of material facts is without any intent to deceive. It is indeed a harsh penalty to refuse admission in such a case.
Every police officer, every immigration officer, is given the power to arrest without a warrant. The need to secure a warrant is a reasonable protection. It can usually be obtained on an affidavit or other sworn document. The deputy minister or senior immigration officer may issue such a warrant on reasonable grounds. Therefore there should be no difficulty for an immigration officer seeking to make an arrest in securing a warrant, and this would give adequate protection by having two different people, a senior member of the department or an immigration officer, look into the question of whether there is a proper basis for detention. It is extremely dangerous to give this power allowing wide groups of people, some trained and some not trained, to arrest on their own initiative at any time of the day or night. It removes a most important bulwark to hasty and ill-considered arrests.
The act still contains some provisions to permit fingerprinting, although it does not apply them with uniformity. People who come from the United States or the United Kingdom do not require visas and therefore are not liable to be fingerprinted. I am not personally very violently against fingerprinting, but it has been associated with criminal activities, and it is
Immigration
wrong for it to be required for certain classes of immigrants and not required for other immigrants. One thing that adds to the vice of deporting people on the grounds of suspicion is that the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board is severely limited. In order to be sure of proper hearings all cases of deportation should be subject to appeal.
The second major objection we have was mentioned at second reading. That is that some of the most important provisions with respect to immigrants are delegated to the governor in council, and any parliamentary control, even of some of the key factors, is done away with.
Clause 115 deals with the making of regulations. There are 18 different classes of matters. Some of these are matters of detail, and it is perfectly reasonable to make rules and regulations without reference to parliament, but there are three subclauses in Clause 115(a) which provide for the establishment and application of selection criteria based on such factors as family relationships, education, and skill.
I do not need to read the whole group of things which are to be taken into account. At the very core of the Immigration Act are the standards by which we admit people, yet that is not delegated to parliament, and parliament has no real input whatever into the process.
Clause 115(b) deals with sponsored applicants. We say very piously in Clause 3 that one of the main purposes of the bill is to aid in the reunion of families. Then, instead of insisting that the rules in this respect be set out by acts of parliament so that they can be seen by all, we say that the rules with respect to this shall be delegated to the governor in council. Of course we do not really mean the governor in council. We know that the governor in council does not have time to deal with all these immigration matters. We mean the people who advise the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
By changing the regulations the government on a number of occasions has totally changed the law and caused the number of immigrants to vary very widely either up or down. Some of this may be necessary, but the important laws should be made by parliament. I tried in two amendments to introduce provisions which would enable parliament to intervene. The first was to define "family" for the purposes of sponsorship by setting out precise relationships.
The second amendment I proposed was that any regulations passed under Clause 115(a), (b) and (c) could be brought before parliament by a petition of 20 members, to be followed by debate and recorded vote within a certain limited time. This would make it necessary that all regulations under (a), (b) or (c) would be reviewed in parliament where 20 members are sufficiently concerned to take action by petition to secure parliamentary approval. The difference between the minister and my party on this lies in our evaluation of the role and supremacy of parliament. There are, of course, many other clauses of the bill which are to be dealt with by regulation.
As far as the principle of acceptance of refugees is concerned the minister said that we have a wonderful scheme for

July 25, 1977
Immigration
refugees, but no member of the committee knows what it is because it is in regulations which have not been published. We really do not know whether his words of praise for the regulations or proposals are justified or not justified. Terms and conditions which may be imposed on immigrants when they come to Canada are to be dealt with by regulation, and they are yet to be prescribed. I could go through the bill and find time and time again the reference in clauses "as prescribed by the regulations".
One of the difficulties of having everything done by regulations is the lack of public knowledge or, in fact, the secrecy with which some of these regulations are dealt. The minister did, as he has told us, indeed cause an amendment to Clause 115 to be proposed which provided that regulations passed under subclauses (a), (b) or (c) would not come into force unless published in the Canada Gazette. However, the Canada Gazette is packed with volumes of material, and it is almost impossible to find anything in it. I defy a layman or a new immigrant to be able to make head or tail of what is in the Canada Gazette. It would be extremely difficult to find the relevant provisions. The average immigrant would be completely at a loss, even if he did find the appropriate regulation. They are often highly complicated. The amendments I proposed were turned down, so we did not have and will not have a direct parliamentary say in these crucial matters.
There are one or two other matters I would like to call to the attention of the House. One has to do with security matters. These are very elaborate provisions allowing the minister or the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) to give certificates, and an advisory board to make recommendations, and then for the governor in council to order deportation after considering the reports of the special advisory board.
The weakness of all this is that what should be a matter of judicial power is given to political officers. I think that is quite wrong. It is wrong to say that procedures could not be devised which would enable a review of these cases by judicial officers. During the last war the defence of Canada regulations were passed giving to the then minister of justice, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, the power to detain and intern persons who, in his opinion, might be dangerous to the state. A fairly large number of persons was so detained. Eventually, however, parliament approved of a change whereby county and superior court judges could have hearings in such cases, and provision was made in cases where information was confidential not to publicize the sources of that information. This system worked perfectly well, and many persons were released. No difficulties seemed to result. I proposed such an amendment in straightforward terms to this section of the present act. This again was turned down.
The minister has developed a habit of saying that if a change is made, it would be a threat to the whole administration of the Immigration Act. What we have been primarily concerned about has been fairness and justice so that human beings facing the prospects of deportation can have fair hearings and an opportunity to meet the cases against them.
[Mr. Brewin.J
One other clause has been mentioned by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I find that clause very strange indeed. Clause 3 sets out the purposes of Canadian immigration policy and includes, as one of the main purposes, enriching and strengthening the cultural and social fabric of Canada, taking into account the federal and bilingual character of Canada. I proposed an amendment which would have added the multicultural nature of Canada. I was, of course, referring to the thousands of people-nay, perhaps millions-who come to Canada from countries other than Britain and France.
I am told that there are as many as perhaps three million from different ethnic backgrounds in Canada. They are particularly concerned about the management of immigration. Many of them have not been in this country very long, and they still have friends and relatives in the countries from which they came. There is a general statement of purpose in Clause 3, and I think it justifies consultation with these groups. As a matter of fact, some of the very best recommendations the committee received were from some of the so-called ethnic, multicultural groups. They have a right to be interested. They are not second class citizens. They are Canadians. We are all Canadians together, and no differences of culture should provide even a verbal exclusion of these people.
I am sure there are many other things that can be said about the bill. I am trying to bring out the salient features. I would like to finish by saying two things. First, we must always remember when discussing immigration that we are dealing with persons, human beings. It is all very well to be practical, to look into the economics and consider our own security. However, we must also in our own interests look at the human side of these problems.
These, therefore, are my three main objections. First is Clause 19 which condemns people on speculation and suspicion. Second is the refusal to recognize that the regulations are often not the right way to deal with key parts of the statute. The third is the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word "That", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 3, 19 and 115 thereof.".


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks at this stage of the debate will be very brief indeed. In view of the fact that Bill C-24 has been in preparation for two years or more, that there have been extensive hearings across the country, and even more extensive hearings in committee, and that we have had extensive and complete debate at second reading and report stage, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(a)
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey):
July 25, 197

That this House continue sitting beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment this day for the purpose of continuing the consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members are aware that Standing Order 6(5)(a) permits a member to move such a motion to sit beyond the normal hours of sitting for the purpose of considering a specified item of business. Such a motion should be moved in the hour preceding the hour of adjournment. The Standing Order is very clear. It provides for the Speaker to put the question to the House. If fewer than ten members rise to indicate their opposition to the motion, the motion is declared as being adopted. I invite hon. members who are opposed to this motion to rise at this time.
And fewer than ten members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being ten members indicating their opposition to the motion, I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, 1 begin by saying it would be a great disservice to the country if the motion proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) were passed. It is time that we passed this measure to give Canadians the immigration bill for which they have waited much too long.
On second reading debate I could not find it within my convictions to support this bill. I felt that the measures in it were far too open ended. They gave the minister too much power to change the immigration policy of the government simply by altering regulations with little reference to parliament, only by order in council.
That kind of power has distorted the demographics of Canada for the past 15 years. We do not need to extend that power now. For that reason, and for the reason of the loose definition of the family, I felt it was a very poor bill and could not vote in favour of it.
Having worked in committee and having seen some of the amendments that have been passed, I am pleased to see what has happened and the openness on the part of the minister to accept amendments. Therefore I am in favour of what is happening, even though the bill is still imperfect in many ways.
If we are going to talk about immigration, we need to concern ourselves with two very important principles. First, in looking at an immigration policy for Canada we must look to further the interests and welfare of Canada. That is our responsibility. I am very concerned about the humanitarian objectives that we as Canadians need to espouse and cultivate in our country.
It seems to me that those who are interested in coming to Canada are interested in Canada for one reason. Our country is different from theirs. They not only come here because Canada is attractive to them but because the place in which
Immigration
they are is unattractive to them. They want to leave the circumstances in which they find themselves.
If we are to preserve an attractive country we must preserve the characteristics which made it attractive and which we enjoy today. In order to do this we must maintain a sensitive control of immigration flow. For this reason I would be happier if the regulations were contained in the bill. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that one of the amendments, an amendment to Clause 3, calls for the rules and regulations made by the immigration department to be in conformity with the objectives of the bill. That is an acceptable compromise and therefore I am happy to support the bill.


Mr. Benjamin:: Happy?


Benno Friesen: Yes, I am happy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Members of the NDP would like to slow down passage of the bill and make it more difficult for the epileptics who need it to come into the country. They show such concern about the criminal element getting justice that they are willing to jeopardize justice for people who cannot help themselves. The flow of immigration must be controlled in order to preserve the employment climate, and at a time when we have between 800,000 and one million unemployed we cannot justify unlimited immigration.
One of our objectives must be the encouragement of entrepreneurial growth through the admission of immigrants with appropriate background and qualification.


An hon. Member:: And money!


Benno Friesen: Yes, provided it is honest money, not the kind which in the past has allegedly come from Hong Kong. So the first principle is that of preserving the well-being of Canada. The second is that immigration rules must be fair. There are those who feel this means we must cater to the most needy and that by doing this we would be fulfilling humanitarian goals. I suggest that the people who are most needy are those who do not even know Canada exists; if we were to take care of the most needy people of all, we ought to bring them here. Then we would face the difficulty of accepting immigrants who were incapable of standing the culture shock. If we cannot work on the principle of bringing in the most needy, we must work on the basis of fairness and we must be prepared to do our very best to give all the information which is needed by those who desire it. They have the right, for instance, to know how they are to be judged. Up to now, a large part of the statute and of the regulations was veiled in obscurity.
Consider the criteria which apply to health qualifications. All too often people do not know why they have failed. That is why I was disappointed in the amendment which the minister brought in at the report stage to limit an amendment which had already been agreed upon unanimously in committee. We agreed that if an applicant had a health problem he should

July 25, 1977
Immigration
have the right to the opinion of a competent health specialist in addition to that of the examining doctor. But the minister told us at the report stage that he had changed his mind, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) had whispered in his ear that this was not a workable program. Mr. Speaker, the minister of health had better be called the minister of stealth because he is sneaking in his own ideas, as if the minister directly responsible could not run his department properly. He is claiming he knows better. He is aspiring to godhead. He knows better, so he is overriding the wisdom of the committee, including the opinion of the staff of the department who agreed that this was a workable amendment and a good policy.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps a ghost writer did it.


Benno Friesen: Yes, perhaps a ghost writer did that for him- and it will come back to haunt him. The minister of health was looking after his own welfare and that of his bureaucrats when he revised that policy. Representations were brought to us by the National Association of the Mentally Retarded. They said it was easy enough for an immigration officer to betray his bias when examining an immigrant, and that it was not fair that the fate of an application should rest upon the opinion of one medical officer; there should be the right of recourse to the opinion of a specialist. But the minister of health knows better than those who specialize in various areas. He has never dealt with these cases. He has never been in contact with a family whose child might be retarded, or considered as being retarded. Because he is a Rhodes scholar he has never entered into the world of such a family or felt for its needs.
I think it is a shame that the minister has seen fit to bring in an amendment which waters down the protection afforded to applicants in such cases. The principle is the right to know. Under present circumstances when a case rests upon the opinion of one medical officer there is no way in which an applicant can feel sure his application is being rejected fairly. Under the amendment which unfortunately the House has just passed, the application simply goes to a second medical officer, a process which does nothing for the applicant and gives him no extra protection. All it means is a shuffling of folders and application forms in some immigration office overseas.
If we are to be fair, we must eliminate bias and prejudice. It is all too easy in the world in which we live for an immigration officer in any country abroad to get tired of looking at applications, tired of making decisions. In this connection, I think of the line which reads: "And wretches hang that jurymen may dine". I can offer the House a perfect illustration.
Some time ago a constituent of mine came to see me, with his wife. They are from India. They wanted to enter Canada but they had a teen-aged son who suffered from a serious heart condition. The medical officer examining them said the rest of the family could enter as immigrants but the son could not pass the medical test because of his heart condition. In view of the exigencies of the family's situation in India, the family decided to come to Canada and leave the child in the care of

an uncle. The uncle formally adopted him so that the rest of the family could come here.
Once here, naturally they were lonesome for their son. They earned enough money to supply him with an air ticket so that he could visit them. While he was here they took him to a heart specialist. The heart specialist said he had a very severe problem but that the operation was not very severe and the boy could be taken care of very quickly. This they proceeded to do; the young boy underwent an operation and was cured 100 per cent. The family wants to bring him to Canada but he is now a member of a different family. If the minister had adopted the amendment we put forward in committee that would not have happened. The medical officer would have been required to pass the application on to the responsible medical specialist who would have said that he could take care of it. A general practitioner would not have looked at the matter.
The minister of health who is supposed to be looking after the welfare of people I say has done a disservice to some Canadians as well as discriminated against some who want to come to Canada to join their families. He has displayed his bias, and 1 say shame on him.
I do not want to prolong the debate. 1 just want to bring to the attention of hon. members what we have done to some families who want to come to Canada. They have been done harm. We have talked about prejudice. People come to my office every month who seem to think that prejudice exists in the immigration system. People from England say that it would be easier to reunite their families if they were from some country other than England. They believe there is prejudice. It is time that we made our immigration policy as open as possible in the sense of information, so that both by statute and by published regulations people know how their applications to come to Canada will be judged.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I trust we will end this debate soon and give the Canadian people the Immigration Act that they deserve.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of keeping the House very long, although I think we could have done without the motion which was moved a few moments ago.
I have been surprised at some of the comments which the minister made. It is true that both at second reading stage and in committee there was a great deal of discussion and exchange of opinions among members. Representations were made by a very wide variety of organizations. However, I cannot agree with the minister when he suggests that the committee approached questions with an open mind. He inferred, if he did not actually say so, that the committee reached a consensus. Anyone who has read the minutes of the meetings will realize that there were many submissions made by organizations which were not accepted by the government. A similar fate befell many of the most important suggestions
July 25, 1977

and draft amendments made by members from all parties, including members on the government side.
We oppose this bill for the reason which some of us outlined at the report stage in some detail, as did my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) tonight. We believe that the bill gives much too much power and authority to the department and its officials. This does not mean that we think the policy in past years has been bad. It does not mean that we think we have permitted too many people to come to Canada or that we believe that the wrong kind of people have come to Canada. We just do not believe that any individuals or departments should be given the power virtually over life and death that is given in this bill to those who work for the government.
We do not believe, as we have made clear at all stages of debate that regulations drafted by public servants and adopted by cabinet, regulations which are not discussed or debated in parliament, are the way to formulate immigration policy.
I do not believe that this bill is as good as its proponents have suggested. Nor do I believe it is as bad as its opponents say. 1 have had representations made to me by constituents, as 1 am sure have many members from city constituencies, particularly constituencies in cities where there has been large scale immigration, to the effect that there has not been enough debate. I do not believe that is true, but they believe it is because there has been relatively little media reporting of the debates which have taken place in the House and in committee on this bill.
They believe that this bill will cut off immigration and that it will stop their friends and relatives from coming to Canada in the future. I do not believe that, but that is the way they feel. Nor do I believe, as 1 have said, that the bill is as good as the minister and members on the government side claim.
We are living in a changing world. Our open immigration policy is bound to change in the next few years. I doubt that there is a single member-certainly there is not a party in parliament-who does not believe that such a change is inevitable and who would not support such a change. After all, no other country in the world has taken in the number of immigrants Canada has, at least in percentage terms. This country has always been a country of immigrants.
Since the end of World War II more than three million people have come to Canada. Prior to World War II, and for four or five years after the war, almost all of the immigrants who came to Canada were either from Great Britain or countries in northern Europe. This began to change in the 1950's when we saw large scale immigration to Canada of people from countries such as Italy, and later Spain and Portugal. In more recent years we have seen a very large inflow of immigrants from countries which in earlier times never provided immigrants to this country, namely, countries in the West Indies, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and Africa.
We Canadians have had to learn, and are still learning to live in close proximity with people whose language, colour and religion are different from those to which we have been accustomed. On the whole, that adjustment has been easy and
Immigration
smooth and Canadians have accepted the changes which have taken place. But there have been other changes. Immigrants who came to Canada before World War I to a large extent, at least in western Canada, became farmers. They came to open up land which had not been worked prior to their arrival. Their children and grandchildren can be found in almost every part of western Canada.
Today's immigrants will work in our cities, mostly Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Some people express surprise about that. There has been talk to devise policies encouraging people to come to Canada, provided they will not move to our large cities. That will not be possible because when they opt for large cities they are following the example of people resident in Canada. They want to go to the large cities because that is where the action is and that is where the jobs are.
The number of immigrants coming to Canada will decline. According to Statistics Canada, we have about 900,000 unemployed. In fact we are aware that there are substantially more than one million unemployed. Faced with that kind of situation and the pressure for housing and other facilities in the city, people living in Canada, including the children and granchil-dren of immigrants, are saying to members of parliament that Canada should slow down the number of immigrants it permits to come into this country. 1 do not believe anyone would disagree with that policy, but a reduction will not take place as a result of this bill.
Reduction can occur if the government changes regulations, as it has done in the past when it desired a reduction in the number of immigrants. A reduction can be achieved by changing the staffing of immigration officers in the countries from which people want to emigrate. If we want to reduce the number of immigrants, we have to cut the staff by 25 per cent or 50 per cent, thus enabling them to process a lesser number of immigrants wanting to come to Canada. We do not object to a reduction, but we object to the reduction which will take place under a closed policy, even if the minister will be making an annual statement. By devices within his department this statement will be kept a secret from the people of Canada.
As has been stated previously, we will vote against this bill because we do not believe that the immigration policies of this country should be decided as they will be, to a large extent, by the minister, the deputy minister, and officers of their department both inside and outside Canada. We believe prospective immigrants should be more aware of the reason why they were turned down. They should also be aware of the fact that they have the right to appeal. The appeal procedure should be easier than that found in the provisions of the bill as drafted.
This bill is deficient in view of the fact that it does not recognize the multicultural character of this country. For these various reasons, it is my intention to vote against this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?

July 25, 1977
Immigration


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should thank the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) for giving me these 40 minutes in which to speak on immigration or not. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had been willing to cut his remarks somewhat, we would have been finished by now. But I do not intend to take the full 40 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: My reason for not requiring the 40 minutes is that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has made a very noble presentation of his party's views. By far he is the most competent of any member in this House to speak on immigration. He has been associated with it for years and years. He is not biased in relation to language, creed, colour, or whatever else may be involved. His position has been that of a purist. Probably some members will regret, no matter how good the legislation is, some of the changes which would be very difficult for the public service.
Everyone should realize the speed and the compromise made by hon. members on all sides of this House in relation to Bill C-24, which had over 50 amendments at report stage. It was disposed of in a matter of six or eight hours of debate, and third reading was included in that time. The House leader, even if a backbencher does not work with him, should realize that he owes us, and that I will collect. We could have used the period of time between now and October when we will be returning, rather than talking about adjourning at this time.
The remarks which have been made during this debate, and the work done by the hon. member for Greenwood in committee will be long remembered because of his knowledge, sincerity, and objectivity in this field. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments were not given consideration, particularly those regarding cultures other than our two major ones in this country. There will be many regrets because of that.
I regret the government House leader was not present tonight to see the action that was taken. He is certainly liberal enough to admit that the deliberations have proceeded beyond our wildest hopes. The action taken by one of his backbenchers will be regretted by all of us because of the bad taste which has been left in our mouths.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is now on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is upon the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, the House has finally come tonight to the conclusion of a long and interesting debate which has at last opposed people with very different views on the relations between the state and the citizen. I have deeply appreciated working in committee where cooperation as well as fair exchanges of views prevailed throughout the 70 hours of debate.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the work accomplished has brought a substantial improvement to the quality of this legislation introduced in the House of Commons by the government. Mr. Speaker, the minister pointed out during the debate at the report stage that the law had been improved. He insisted a lot on the number of amendments he had accepted. I think he mentioned that close to one hundred amendments were approved by the House and the committee and then sanctioned by the House but 1 would respectfully remind him that the number of amendments approved and passed are not necessarily an indication of a substantial improvement of this bill.
I was surprised last night to hear another minister on television, a minister representing another level of government, using exactly the same argument to try to explain that a famous legislation, a legislation in which a good many members of this House are quite interested, had been greatly improved because of some hundred amendments that had been accepted. I think what is important is the nature, the effect, the substance of these amendments, which give the real measure to determine whether a legislation has been improved or not.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of national security has been present throughout the whole debate. I will not elaborate too much on this, but I think that the difficult problem encountered and still present in any democratic system is to try to find a balance between the safeguard of our institutions and of democracy and the steps a government or the executive must take to protect the democratic system.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-24 unfortunately contains in several of its provisions some factors which could give rise to rather serious abuses. I do not challenge nor question the good faith and the ideal which inspire this government. Being well acquainted with the cabinet members and the people who run the government, 1 do not think there is any problem for the time being. However, I think that to govern is essentially to anticipate and we must see that any bill passed
Immigration
by Parliament is drafted in such way that not only this government, but also the government of tomorrow or the day after tomorrow-since we are living under a democratic system and governments are replaced-but also future governments could not be in a position to take advantage of it, especially as far as national security is concerned, and open the door to abuses which could infringe the individual freedom of the Canadian people, the permanent residents and visitors.
Mr. Speaker, I would like more especially to quote a few examples. Amendments have been submitted, for example, to clause 39 which more specifically deal with visitors and security certificates. Under the proposed amendment, the security certificate should be issued at the discretion of a judge of the Federal Court, but since that amendment has been negatived, we are back to a situation where, essentially, the security certificates may be issued by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General, without any form of control whatsoever. The same goes with clause 40, where the Advisory Board provided for has advisory powers only, which means that whatever its verdict the excutive can always ignore it.
I would now like to say a few words about political refugees, which has been my main issue with Bill C-24 through all its stages. I would suggest once more to the minister, in a most friendly way, that on this matter 1 have the deep conviction that I have been defending not only a just cause but the right one. Because I cannot accept the point that widening the definition of "refugee" would have created problems as far as the refugee program administration is concerned. I feel that the special programs developed by the government in respect of certain countries such as Uganda or Chile could create as many problems strictly speaking, inasmuch as a great number of residents, citizens and nationals living in those countries could in theory seek political asylum in Canada. The key to this whole matter in my view lies in a distinction that has been ignored, the difference between admissibility and selection. Clearly, under the act a greater number of individuals could have been admissible as refugees, but on the other hand the possibility always remained with the government under the act itself, as is now the case, to select those who seemed to meet certain criteria. To conclude on the matter of political refugees, I am otherwise happy that the minister accepted to submit refugees to clause 6(2), so that special criteria would apply to those special immigrants. Mr. Speaker, important improvements have also been made in the committee, and I would like to speak about the matter of exit permits which, it seems to me, constituted an extremely dangerous initiative and opened the door to many potential abuses from which the Canadian democracy would inevitably have suffered in a few years.
Mr. Speaker, we could speak for hours about such a complex bill, but I would like to close by quoting the French poet Paul Valery since, as I said in the beginning, this bill essentially concerns the relationship between the state and the citizens. Valery said: If the state is strong, we are crushed, if it is weak, we perish. Therefore, in such a bill as this one, the objective

July 25, 1977
Immigration
that we should have aimed for, and I believe that we have missed it, should have been, on one hand, to establish a balance to enable the state to gain sufficient strength so that our democracy may endure and develop, and on the other hand, to protect the freedoms of the citizens of this country, and not only of the Canadian citizens, but also of all the people in the world who wish to come to Canada, either as immigrants or as visitors. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of members of this House to see to it that the legislative authority, the courts have some input in major decisions, and 1 believe that in Bill C-24, the legislative authority has been in a certain way short-circuited through a series of regulations. I am pleased that an amendment was made to clause 115, so that at least, before regulations are proclaimed in the Official Gazette, Parliament can be made aware of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the motion (Mr. Cullen) that the bill be now read the third time and do pass. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Messrs.
McCain	Parent	SharpMclsaac	Penner	SmithMcKenzie	Pigott (Mrs.)	(Saint-Jean)McKinley	Portelance	StanfieldMcRae	Poulin	StevensMilne	Prud'homme	StewartMuir	Railton	(Cochrane)Munro	Reid	Stollery(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Rompkey	TessierNicholson (Miss)	Roy	TrudeauNowlan	(Laval)	T rudelO'Connell	Rynard	TurnerOuellet	Sauve (Mrs.)	WatsonPaproski	Scott	Young-115.NAYS	Messrs.	Benjamin	Joyal	OrlikowBrewin	Knowles	Peters-8.Duclos	(Winnipeg	Gilbert	North Centre)


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By virtue of a series of rather fascinating orders, we now appear to have arrived at the time at which we have exhausted the order pursuant to Standing Order 75A. We have also fulfilled the order made earlier this day standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Further, we have given effect to the special order under Standing Order 6(5)(a) made earlier this evening on the hour of adjournment, which therefore makes applicable the order on the adjournment standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council. Therefore, with the fulfilment of the orders and the passage of time, this House stands adjourned, pursuant to that order, until August 4 at 2 p.m.
May I say three other things. First, it appears possible now that when we return to this House on August 4 for the debate that is ordered for August 4 and 5, we will be able to do so in this Chamber without prejudice to the projects that we have under way which are so important for the commencement in the fall.
Second, there was to be an adjournment debate pursuant to Standing Order 40 this evening. Those hon. members who have been scheduled to appear on that adjournment debate this evening have been rescheduled by popular demand for August 4 at ten o'clock or whatever may be the time.
Third, at the risk of having to do this a second time in the same summer-a rather unprecedented combination-I now invite all hon. members to join me in my chambers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
At 11.10 p.m. the House adjourned until August 4, 1977, pursuant to special order made earlier this day.

Thursday, August 4, 1977