1977-07-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the approaching end of the wheat crop year on July 31, wheat farmers are deeply concerned over falling wheat prices and they want to be assured that the export sales now and during the last year have not been at prices that will permit little or no return to them. Having the right to know, as Canada's competitors for wheat sales know at all times, the prices at which Canada is selling its export wheat, 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the wheat board officials should appear forthwith before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and furnish such information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and public necessity arising from the wildcat strike that is disrupting the movement of mail in the nation's capital. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Postmaster General or his representatives meet with representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in a co-ordinated and cooperative effort to resolve the issues causing the dispute and get the mail moving again.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning applications that have been made to the Canadian Transport Commission for additional subsidies by the Clarke Steamship Line and further, applications have been made to the CTC for subsidies by the A. Harvey Shipping of Newfoundland, Federal Commerce and Navigation of Montreal and Newfoundland Container Lines Ltd. of Newfoundland. If these subsidies are granted, there will be a detrimental effect on the shipment of goods through the Port of North Sydney to Newfoundland, thus creating additional unemployment for the stevedores at the Port of North Sydney where the work force has been cut to less than half the normal number. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colches-ter North (Mr. Coates):
That in light of the fact that taxpayers' moneys are being used to subsidize private corporations while CN marine ships are often tied up, lying idle, all further consideration of subsidies to the aforementioned corporations be held in abeyance until a study has been made to determine what effect such competition in shipping may have on the work force of stevedores at the Port of North Sydney and also the crews of CN marine operating out of North Sydney to Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 43, the presentation for debate of any such motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 22, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and arises out of comments made during the question period yesterday when the Prime Minister exhibited a sense of clairvoyance. He said that the CRTC report which we talked about yesterday supports his contention, to quote him, that "the overwhelming majority of CBC employees are of separatist leanings". Yesterday the president of the CBC said-and 1 am quoting him now-that "the CRTC has not found the CBC guilty of a separatist bias". I want to ask the Prime Minister to tell the House who is right about what Mr. Boyle said about separatism in the CBC. Is Mr. Boyle right or is the Prime Minister right?


An hon. Member:: You mean Mr. Johnson.


Walter David Baker: I am sorry, I mean Mr. Johnson.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to know what Mr. Boyle thinks, he just has to read his report. All I said yesterday was that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton should not be interpreting the report as he did in a false way.


Mr. Lalonde:: You are using McCarthy-like methods.


Walter David Baker: I am interested in the interpretation that the Prime Minister put upon the report. Mr. Johnson indicated quite clearly that as far as he was concerned-and I am now quoting him-the CRTC has not found the CBC guilty of a separatist bias. Yesterday and on other occasions the Prime Minister has indicated that he disagrees. 1 am simply asking the Prime Minister who is right, Mr. Johnson, on the one hand, or the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the relevant question is what Mr. Boyle says, and the way to get the answer to that question is to read his report. If the hon. member reads the report he will see that Mr. Boyle's report said that the electronic media had been contributing to the division of Canada.


Walter David Baker: That is quite a different thing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the division of Canada means to separate Canada into parts, and to separate Canada into parts is called separatism in some quarters.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is pretty fancy footwork even for the Prime Minister, who is digging rather deeply. The Prime Minister as the head of the government has expressed an opinion on the CBC. If the Prime Minister believes that and is using what his minister of health has just said are McCarthy-like tactics, could he tell the House why he is allowing to continue in office as president of the CBC a man who, according to the Prime Minister, is so blind that he cannot see the hordes of separatists that are around him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is much too subtle for the hon. member to understand. 1 will try to give the answers that I gave in this House before we set up the Boyle inquiry. It was that there were a lot of active separatists in Radio Canada. This is the statement. The hon. member can quarrel with it if he wants; but Mr. Boyle does not pronounce on that, nor does Mr. Johnson. The relevant question is whether these separatists are subverting or whether they are doing their jobs properly. It is also whether they are guilty of malpractices as journalists and so on. Mr. Boyle says that there is subversion and that there is malpractice. These are facts, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are facts, Mr. Boyle says this. The hon. member can disagree with Mr. Boyle, if he wants; but 1 have made the assertion before that the point is not really the political beliefs of those who are working for the CBC or anyone else. It is whether they are doing their jobs honestly, conscientiously and properly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Boyle report indicates that they are guilty of malpractice and they are guilty of not uniting Canada.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister has neither read the report, nor has he read the statement by Mr. Johnson, the President of the CBC. In his news release, the President of the CBC said the following:
In commenting on the CRTC report today, let me deal first with that question of pro-separatist bias. I am pleased to see the CRTC has not found the CBC to be guilty of such bias.
Obviously, the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation takes issue with the statement made by the Prime Minister in February and the statement made once again by him here today. The important part is that there have been assertions made by the government. His Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who was later promoted to be the czar of Quebec, said that there were thousands of letters and thousands of inquiries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Boyle did not receive one of them during his inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 22, 1977


Walter David Baker: How can the Prime Minister possibly say, in the face of what Mr. Boyle says, in the face of what Mr. Johnson says and in the face of the omission by his own minister, to supply those letters, that there is any truth whatsoever in the assertions made by the Prime Minister in the House today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat repetitive debate. Perhaps Mr. Johnson does not agree with Mr. Boyle. That is something for the hon. member to reconcile in the way he wants.


An hon. Member:: It is for you to reconcile.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 have read enough of Mr. Boyle's report to know that he says that the electronic media, and the CBC in particular, have not contributed in a sufficient way to their mandate, nor to the unity of Canada. He said also that they are guilty of malpractice.


An hon. Member:: Do you agree?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps he uses the word "subversion" in a metaphorical sense in terms of not working toward Canadian unity. If these words have no meaning to the hon. member, I refuse to have any further discussion.


Walter David Baker: What do they mean to you?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are the Prime Minister.


Walter David Baker: Yes, you are the Prime Minister. What do they mean to you?


Mr. Paproski:: You have to answer that.


ADEQUACY OF BOYLE REPORT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister feel that Mr. Boyle's commission of inquiry was adequate in terms of the comments made by himself and some of his ministers? Does the Prime Minister know whether it gives a clear direction in terms of the necessary improvements or possible reforms which might be made within the sector of public broadcasting at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to whether the report was adequate or not, from the point of view of the government it was a good job well done. We did not give them much time to make a report. They made that report within time constraints with a great deal of competence. Thus, in that sense it is adequate. I do not think it is adequate in that it would have had to use pictures in order for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to understand it. For us it was adequate. It recommends several directions which we have not analysed. As I have said, the Secretary of State for the government will be reporting to Cabinet in a memorandum still to come concerning those directions.
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: You are cutting a pretty sorry picture.


POSSIBILITY OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SINS OF OMISSION MENTIONED IN BOYLE REPORT AND ALLEGATIONS OF SEPARATIST BIAS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister distinguish between the inability to function effectively referred to in the context of the report, or the sins of omission which have been mentioned regarding the provision of information, and his earlier criticism and that of his colleagues concerning a definite political bias-one directed toward a political solution or option for the province of Quebec? Does he distinguish a difference between Mr. Boyle's report and the original criticism by himself and others?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It appears to me that Mr. Boyle does not use the word "separatism" although I am informed that several of the cases he analyzes are cases of separatism in which some incompetence was shown. It seems to me it should be of sufficient concern to the opposition, if they want to rely on the report in any sense, that he is making a very severe criticism of the electronic media because they have not contributed, as the mandate would direct them, to national unity. To my mind this is a serious criticism. People on the other side of this House seem to be more interested in knowing whether he used or did not use the word "separatism". If they take the report at its face value 1 think they should realize there is a severe condemnation there and they should be more constructive as to ways in which the task of the media can be accomplished than in playing with words.


POSSIBILITY OF REFERRING BOYLE AND TOUCHSTONE REPORTS TO COMMITTEE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The Prime Minister seems to be caught on one note. He seems to have missed the thrust of the report which talks very much of the over-centralization of production, the heavy dependency on American programming and the loss of contact with both parliament and the public which are-major issues and which seem not yet to have been recognized. Has the right hon. gentleman consulted with the Secretary of State to determine whether it might be useful to have this report and perhaps the recent Touchstone Report made orders of reference to the appropriate parliamentary committee when we return in the fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure what the hon. member means when he says I have not recognized these important facets. It seems to me more relevant that not one of his colleagues on the other side of the House has asked questions about them. They have all been concerned about whether separatism had been discovered or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 22, 1977
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURE ON FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the decision of President Carter against the production of B-l aircraft and in view of the obvious fact that manned aircraft cannot now play a significant defensive or deterrent role, will the minister and the government reconsider the immense proposed expenditure of upward of $2 billion to be made on fighter aircraft?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: One
of the reasons for the decline in the use of the manned bomber is, of course, that it is vulnerable to air defences. If there were a general de-escalation it would be a different matter, but one of the other considerations is the need to maintain our first priority in national defence, that of ensuring national sovereignty, and fighter aircraft serve this role very well. Any nation which allows its air space to be intruded upon does so at its peril.


PURCHASE OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT-ASSURANCE OF PROPORTION OF PRODUCTION IN CANADA
Francis Andrew Brewin: I must say I accept what the minister says about the need for the protection of Canadian Sovereignty. I wonder, though, whether a very large manned bomber and fighter aircraft fleet is necessary for that purpose, and I suggest it is not. When the minister made his announcement on this subject some weeks ago he assured us every effort would be made to ensure as much of the production was kept in Canada as possible. He referred to a number of firms. I think most of them were European. One or two were American. These firms were going to be asked to tender on this. 1 assume negotiations will be based on the hope that production will take place in Canada so that employment can be created here. Has any progress been made on this at all?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First, I should point out in further answer to comments in the first question that the aircraft are used in our NATO role in Europe as well. With reference to the industrial benefits, there are negotiations going on now and proposals are being made by some of the six vendors who are tendering on the aircraft. The industrial benefits will be an exceptionally important consideration. First of all, it has to be a correct military decision. The price has to be right. That is another very important consideration. The bidders know about and are working on the question of industrial benefits. I use the term "industrial benefits" as opposed to offsets which might be offsetting on this procurement alone. I am delighted to see that some of those vendors are now making proposals which go quite beyond the contract involved. One is now talking in terms of a $1.5 billion to $2 billion investment in Canada. I think that is a good start. I hope the others will see that that is the kind of opener we are looking for and will improve on that.


PURCHASE OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT-POSSIBILITY OF USING MONEY EXPENDED FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should address this question to this minister or to the Minister of Finance, but I think I will stick with the Minister of National Defence. If he can I would like him to tell us what percentage of production there will be in Canada. I would like him also to say whether it is not fairly obvious that there are socially useful projects such as cleaning up the Great Lakes and housing-which I know the minister has a special interest in-which require capital. Is this the time to be expanding military expenditures, one group of aircraft alone costing over $2 billion, when these other urgent things need to be done for the benefit of Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman recognizes the priorities the government must have in terms of military expenditures as opposed to other social expenditures. Of course, this is a massive expenditure. It is not an increase in our effort. It is to replace older aircraft with newer ones to fulfil our commitment to NATO and NORAD and for our own security.
As far as the percentage of purchasing in Canada is concerned, I have not set a fixed percentage. When I announced that we were looking for tenders I suggested something like 125 per cent in Canada is what we are looking for. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is vitally concerned about this as well. We want industrial benefits which will have ongoing results. These may not necessarily be strictly military benefits but industrial benefits in the broader sense of bringing permanent jobs, permanent facilities, new technology, research and development into Canada.


TORNADO
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. On Tuesday of this week as recorded at page 7783 of Hansard I asked a question regarding the tornado which devastated parts of southeastern Manitoba. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the premier of Manitoba or the minister of finance of Manitoba have contacted either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance asking the federal government to declare the area a disaster area and thus to make relief moneys available. This would be very welcome, in view of the fact that some of us will be in the devastated area, and these people have been waiting now for a week.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet heard from the premier. The Minister of State (Multiculturalism) has already brought this to my attention. I remind the House that we have a procedure whereby we respond to a provincial request. If the province
July 22, 1977

needs assistance and meets the requirements, I would then be prepared to have the matter considered further within my department. As I indicated to the Minister of State (Multicul-turalism), we are looking for further information in this regard, and he has undertaken to keep me advised.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DELIVERY PERMITS FOR PRODUCERS IN AREA AFFECTED BY TORNADO
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: First of all, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for that answer. Obviously I am disappointed that there has been no representation from the government of Manitoba, but I would like to ask a supplementary question of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I asked him on Tuesday whether he would urge the Canadian Wheat Board to give special consideration to granting special permits to persons who require them in order that grain, which is now exposed to the elements because of loss of buildings may be delivered. Can the minister give me an up to date report on whether this has been done and those special permits will be forthcoming?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: As I indicated yesterday to the hon. member, I have not had word on that as yet, but I do expect an answer very shortly.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week I put a question to his parliamentary secretary about the signing of an agreement between the federal government and that of the province of Quebec concerning a subsidy of some $35 million for the transport of feed grains. Can the minister tell the House today whether that agreement has been signed between Ottawa and Quebec and, if so, when it will become effective?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: It has not
been signed as of this day, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
In a reply to the National Assembly, the Quebec minister of agriculture stated that he was ready to sign but that he was waiting for the signature of his federal counterpart. This is
Oral Questions
what he said: I don't understand why there should be so much dilly-dallying.
I know the expression is not very parliamentary but 1 am merely repeating what he said. Can the minister tell us whether there is some valid reason, or some difficulty or other to justify the fact that he has not yet signed that agreement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the proposal is similar to one made to the province of Ontario where feed grain assistance was also discontinued in a big part of the province. That agreement was signed with the province of Ontario some time ago. I only use this as an example of how expeditiously we acted. When the province is willing to sign, we sign the agreement. Discussions took place between Quebec and myself, but the Quebec minister and the Quebec government were reluctant to sign the same kind of agreement as we made with the province of Ontario.


POST OFFICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It concerns allegations that were made by an angry northerner, Andy Peiffer of Nanisivik, Northwest Territories in a letter to the Postmaster General to the effect that mail takes three weeks to a month to arrive from southern Canada, and much of it arrives in a damaged condition. Arising from these complaints, what is the minister doing to improve the quality of northern mail service, and specifically in light of the humiliating defeat of the regular postal service by both bicycles and pony express in the great contest held in Manitoba this week, is the minister considering reintroducing mail delivery by dog sled into the north?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Not in the summer time, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: With your record, we are surprised.


Mr. Blais:: First of all, 1 am not accepting defeat at all. The cyclists who went from Melita in the hon. gentleman's riding to Morris were bonded contractors of the Post Office who carried the mail in accordance with the rules of the game as they were set down for the pony express. The hon. gentleman knows fully well the system that is in place in his particular area. He has indicated to me that he is satisfied with the postal service in the Dauphin area, indeed in the Winnipeg area, and I have no reason to doubt his word in that regard. I am very proud and pleased with the service that the greater Winnipeg area is receiving.

July 22, 1977
Oral Questions
1 might indicate to him that 1 wish he could have been there in order to join in the fun, but unfortunately he could not be there. However, I can assure him that good fun was had by all. It was the proper way of showing the excellence of the postal service and, in effect, the ingenuity of postal officials and employees of that department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think I have already made the point that the regular mail service was defeated by bicycles.


An hon. Member:: And horses.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But with reference to a very serious problem in the north, the allegation that mail bags have been tampered with, is the minister prepared to investigate this charge?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Of course, it has been drawn to my attention and I will be investigating it and reporting to the hon. member.


STRIKE AT OTTAWA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON EFFORTS TO SETTLE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question on an even more serious matter, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the wildcat strike in the Ottawa area. What action is the Postmaster General taking to resolve this difficulty?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to receive representations from the hon. member for Ottawa West, who also intends to ask me a question with reference to this matter. I would like to indicate to the hon. gentleman that at one o'clock this afternoon a meeting will be held with regional representatives of the union as well as local representatives of the Post Office, and I hope that in view of the nature or the motivations behind this particular walkout, service will be resumed immediately.


STRIKE AT OTTAWA-POSSIBILITY OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, is the Postmaster General in a position to tell the House whether or not disciplinary action is being taken in the case of this serious illegal work stoppage?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: I recognize, as does the hon. gentleman, that this is indeed an illegal work stoppage, a wildcat strike. However, I do not want to indicate what further action needs to be taken until such time as reasonably cool heads have met and have sought a solution to this particular impasse.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he say what persons from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will be attending the World Energy Conference in Istanbul in September?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to make the inquiry and give the information to the hon. lady.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of the fact that Dr. John Foster will be attending that conference as one of the representatives of AECL, and will he say, or will he find out, in what capacity Dr. Foster will be attending the conference? Will he also tell us whether or not he will be going there as a salaried employee of AECL and, if so, at what rate?


Alastair William Gillespie: Earlier 1 described in the House the arrangements that I hope to be able to make with Dr. Foster, that is to say to enter into a contract with him or arrangement which would cover consultant services to the corporation. 1 indicated to the House that that conversation would take place towards the end of August or early September.


POSSIBILITY SALES OF CANDU REACTORS DISCUSSED AT WORLD ENERGY CONFERENCE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: The
minister cannot have it both ways, one week dismissing Dr. Foster for incompetence in his position and the next appointing him as a representative from AECL to the World Conference on Energy. I should like to ask the minister, in view of this flip-flop, whether he would also determine whether or not the question of further sales of CANDU reactors will be discussed at that conference in September.


Alastair William Gillespie: I would draw to the attention of the hon. lady the statement I made on motions. If she were to re-read it, she would find out that at that time I made it very clear that I hoped the corporation would be able to retain the services of Dr. Foster and that he had contributed uniquely to the development of the CANDU system. I very much hope that it will be possible to work out an arrangement with him.
As to the question of whether CANDU sales, or possible sales of CANDU reactors, will be discussed at the conference, my information is that the World Energy Conference is not a marketing conference but a conference of experts in the field from all over the world who are looking at many aspects of energy. Undoubtedly, there will be people there who will be interested in talking to Canadians about the CANDU system. If Dr. Foster is there and receives inquiries, I am sure he will relay them back to Canada. I think there will be an opportunity to tell the world about some of the successes of the
July 22, 1977

CAN DU system. I hope the hon. lady and her party will support the CAN DU system, because some of the remarks she and her associates have made do not help the corporation to sell the CAN DU reactor.


Walter David Baker: And you are not helping the country, either.


Mr. Gillies:: How can you help the country if you lose money with practically every sale?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Some weeks ago the minister indicated that Canada was close to agreement with the United States on the question of tankers which will ply the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a question of great interest to British Columbia since, at present, more than 550 oil tankers ply these straits. When the Alyeska line is completed and oil reaches Valdez, more tankers will bring oil down to Cherry Point. Has the agreement been completed? If so, what is the nature of the agreement, and what are its terms, particularly with reference to controls and to compensation for those who may have to bear the cost of oil spills?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with the United States have moved along quite well and a vast number of issues leading to agreement have been settled. There are still six or seven outstanding issues, 1 think, being discussed by the two sets of negotiators. As of yesterday, when I discussed the point with the Canadian negotiating team, we determined the posture we will take with regard to those remaining items and 1 will communicate with the Secretary of State in the United States to indicate our proposals on those outstanding matters. We shall do this in an effort to have these matters cleaned up more quickly than might be the case if the conventional negotiating process were adopted. As to the actual date, I cannot inform the hon. member of that, although I can tell him this: Even after the agreement is completed it will take some time to ratify it before the American Congress. 1 am told that their procedure requires that. I am also told that the system can be used on a voluntary basis, as, indeed, much of it is being used at present.
As to specific matters, 1 am sure the hon. member will understand I would as soon not talk about certain elements to do with compensation and the like which are being discussed in the package until agreement, hopefully, is reached; but I can assure the hon. member that these matters, which I agree are of great importance, are being discussed and in some instances have been resolved.
Oral Questions


REGULATION OF TANKERS FLYING FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but am sure he appreciates, as other members do, that oil will shortly begin to move from Valdez, Alaska, and those likely to be affected are extremely anxious to know what compensation provisions are being made to deal with the situation.
May I also ask the minister this question. Since there has been talk of oil being brought from Indonesia to Cherry Point, which would mean another 80 tankers bringing oil from various areas in addition to tankers now plying the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 1 ask, what provision is being made within the 200-mile limit to deal with ships flying flags of convenience, ships which will very likely transport oil from Indonesia or the far east? At present such ships have been the least subject to controls, the least subject to adequate precautions for dealing with oil spills, the least subject to regulations covering the pumping out of oil tanks in Canadian waters. Is the department taking steps, under some agreement, to protect as much as possible the people on the west coast of Canada and to make sure that the west coast will not be the dumping ground for oil pumped out or from vessels not adequately equipped to ply those dangerous waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the question of non-United States or non-Canadian vessels which are not, as the House will understand, part of the bilateral arrangement with the United States is one of considerable difficulty, since there is difficulty in getting an international understanding. The Law of the Sea Conference which just concluded its most recent session in New York saw Canada assert a very strong position with regard to coastal state or port state control over the 200-mile zone. There is strong opposition to this by some countries. Therefore, no international agreement was possible at this current negotiating round. I do know that my colleagues in the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment have in mind certain plans and activities relating to the zone, but I would emphasize that there is no international agreement and there may be some questions about enforcement beyond the so-called territorial sea out to the 200-mile limit.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one short supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's exchanges have already taken up some ten minutes, which I think is generous enough.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT

July 22, 1977


POSSIBILITY OF STRIKE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-DATE OF CONCILIATION REPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour. I do not mind which minister answers. Since the air traffic controllers today sought a mandate to authorize a strike, if necessary, to back their current wage demands, may I ask, since I understand the conciliation report is to be handed down by Tuesday, next week, when exactly that report is to come down. Since the controllers will be in a legal position to strike in seven days, what contingency plans has the government made to offset the serious hardships which could be worked on some summer travellers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to comment on possible consequences of strike action, serious consequences with which we are familiar from our experience one year ago. While conciliation and discussion procedures are continuing, I do not want to intervene. The hon. member assumed correctly that the conciliation report is expected soon.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the minister expects to see the conciliation report by Tuesday, next week?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, although 1 cannot say the exact date, the latest word I have is that it is expected towards the latter part of the month.


BILINGUALISM
[Stage Direction]
RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN PROVINCES FOR EDUCATION IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER LfeVESQUE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I ask whether he has had correspondence or discussions with Premier Levesque of Quebec in connection with a matter the Prime Minister dealt with the other day, reciprocal arrangements for education in French and English in the various provinces. Has there been any discussion between him and the premier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. But the right hon. gentleman will remember the answer I gave the other day to the kite or balloon being floated in that direction by Minister Laurin.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was a degree of uncertainty about the Prime Minister's statement, which is why I asked my question. Was he consulted by Premier Levesque in the last few days in connection with representations to be made, or being made, to the various provinces in connection with the point raised? I ask him this because I know the close

relationship-they are like two peas in a pod-he enjoys with Levesque. I wonder if that same spirit of co-operation still continues? Is he aware that the Premier of Quebec is going to communicate with the provinces and advance a proposition similar to that referred to by the Prime Minister?
[DOT] (U50)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I think my answer was quite clear and still is quite clear. There has been no communication between Premier Levesque and myself or any of his ministers and myself on any subject remotely linked to the subject raised by the right hon. member. I made it clear when Mr. Laurin alluded to this possibility a few weeks ago. I stated unequivocally the government's position, as I would have if indeed this other pea in the pod had deigned to consult me on it. This is precisely what we proposed to the provinces at Victoria in 1971, that the rights of the linguistic minorities be recognized as a matter of right in the constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 went on to say that it was not a bargaining point from our point of view, that two provinces could negotiate; if you do this, we will do that. We consider it as a right for minorities. Not only was this said and done at Victoria, but it was put to the provinces in a succession of meetings and letters with the premiers which culminated in my letter to all the premiers last January, including Premier Levesque, telling them if they were interested in the fate of the French speaking minorities of the other provinces as other provinces would be concerned with the fate of the English speaking minority in Quebec, we had an answer to that. It was to recognize these rights and entrench them in the constitution. It was not to bargain over the heads of the kids in the schools.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF LETTERS FROM PREMIER LfiVESQUE TO PROVINCES CONCERNING RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS ON EDUCATION


John George Diefenbaker: Has the
Prime Minister received a copy of the letters written by the Premier of Quebec to the various provinces in this connection? I ask him that because he goes back to the Victoria charter. An end was put to that charter because Premier Bourassa, a fellow Liberal in the province of Quebec, did not accept it. Has the Prime Minister been aware of any correspondence between the province of Quebec and the other provinces? If so, does he not think that Levesque has actually pulled the rug from under him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I learned of the existence of such letters a couple of hours ago. I have not seen these letters. I probably learned in the same way as the right hon. gentleman. It is known that some of the premiers have received some of these letters by now or at least that Premier Levesque has tabled them in Quebec City. I have not seen the letters. I know about as much of the content as I
July 22, 1977

think the right hon. gentleman does. I hope that the other provinces will not fall for it in the sense that they feel this is a bargaining point to the effect, we will be just providing you are just. Justice is something which stands by itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the right hon. gentleman says that Premier Levesque has pulled the rug from under our feet, I am very sad to hear that. It obviously shows that the right hon. gentleman thinks that this is a proper course. It is one we disagree with. Therefore, it is not our rug that is being pulled. It is perhaps the right hon. gentleman's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
John George Diefenbaker: The other day I listened to the Prime Minister describe the kind of legislation he is going to bring before parliament unless this is achieved. I wondered whether he had secured the opinion of the law officer of the Crown that the stand he was taking was unconstitutional and apparently this is just window dressing in order to build up the myth that he who did so much to destroy the unity of this country is to become the saviour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the statement of the right hon. gentleman about the opinion of the law officer of the Crown. The right hon. gentleman should know we were proposing a constitutional amendment. It was not a matter of acting within the constitution. It was a matter of going to Victoria and hopefully getting the provinces to agree to a constitutional amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: The Liberals didn't agree.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This has nothing to do with the law officer of the Crown. I wish the right hon. gentleman would clarify his thoughts a little bit.


TRANSPORT
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is in reference to the motion I raised under Standing Order 43 at the commencement of today's proceedings. I realize the minister has a tremendously large department and naturally would not have the facts before him today. Can he assure the House,
Oral Questions
the stevedores of North Sydney and the crews of CN marine ships that he will thoroughly investigate the question of subsidies to private shipping corporations that are going to compete with Crown corporations and discriminate against the stevedores of North Sydney and the crews of CN marine ships, thereby causing more unemployment. Will he let us know as soon as possible?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been giving attention to the question of the commercial viability of various services supplying Newfoundland. Obviously, as the hon. member will appreciate, this is a question of a subsidized service competing with another subsidized service. Therefore, the questions can be put in a very regional way by any member of parliament coming from one of the regions involved. Our task in trying to provide proper solutions from the point of view of the people in Canada in total is to attempt to achieve some balance. That is what we will do as we attempt to find a solution to this problem.


Robert Muir: Will the minister agree that before taxpayers' moneys are used to subsidize private corporations which know before they start that their operation is not going to be profitable, that the option should be given to the Crown corporation in order to assist them to maintain a proper balance and be as economic as possible?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact point I was trying to make to the hon. member is that in this somewhat peculiar case the use of taxpayers' dollars is justified only when it comes to saving far more taxpayers' dollars because the alternative service is subsidized very heavily indeed. If the hon. member is relying on saving taxpayers' dollars as the justification of his proposal, I am afraid he is working against his exact proposal.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I will direct my question to the acting minister. My question relates to the York Place affair. On Wednesday, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs indicated that he had followed up the inquiry begun by his predecessor into irregularities or ministerial involvement in the $5.9 million loan from CMHC to York Place. I am glad to hear that there was no improper action in the granting of these funds. My question is simply this. Will the acting minister tell us more about those funds advanced by the CMHC to York Place but which, according to the minister, were not in fact used to build that project specifically. Where, by whom, and for what purpose were they actually used?

July 22, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think most of these questions have been answered. I repeat that, subject to clearance by our legal agent, these funds are given to the entrepreneur. He then disperses them in accordance with work inspected by CMHC and other inspectors and approved by his lawyer. Subsequent to that, CMHC has no way of ensuring that the moneys expended by the contractor are going to that particular project. It would be impossible to have an auditor general for every contract in every place where CMHC operates. We have to rely on the reports from our lawyer and our inspectors that the physical plant exists. We do that. We do a lot of this work across Canada. We are satisfied in this case. We cannot make a firm statement that all the funds were expended on that particular project. However, we are satisfied that funds were advanced in accordance with our system of inspections, follow-ups and checking our accounts. I do not see anything that needs to be added to that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There have been allegations that a part of the $5.9 million allocated by CMHC to York Place was actually used to finance another Hamilton project known as Main Place. In view of the fact that CMHC rejected the Main Place application for a mortgage, would the acting minister or whoever is answering assure the House that these allegations are completely without foundation and that no CMHC funds whatsoever were used in the construction of Main Place?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to take notice of that aspect, Mr. Speaker. My information is that the name of Main Place was changed to York Place and that there was no CMHC money given to Main Place.


YORK PLACE, HAMILTON-ALLEGEDLY MISLEADING INFORMATION FROM MINISTER CONCERNING CONVICTION OF OFFICIAL
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In relation to the minister's answer to part 16 of question 812 on the order paper asked by my hon. friend from St. John's East, I would simply ask why the minister sought to misinform the House by saying that no official of CMHC had been charged in connection with improper activities in the construction of York Place when in truth a CMHC inspector named Clifford Shaw had been convicted of corrupt practices in a trial which the judge presiding said was of national importance.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the charges which were laid were laid under section 110 of the Criminal Code. This had nothing to do with the York Place development project.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE DISPOSITION OF BILL C-24
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to the following motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75A, which I would move as follows:
That the time spent on government orders commencing at 12 noon on July 26, 1977, except for one hour to be designated by a minister of the Crown, be allocated as required to the report stage of Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, and that no later than 5.45 p.m. on July 22, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and shall put, without further debate or amendment, all questions necessary for the disposal of report stage of said bill; and
that proceedings on the third reading stage of the said bill shall commence upon the completion of the report stage, and that no later than 5.45 p.m. July 27, 1977, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and shall put, without further debate or amendment, all questions necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the said bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, being put forward pursuant to Standing Order 75A, is to be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



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: 1,571, 2,235, 2,417, 2,452, 2,453, 2,732 and 2,081.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Will costs for the land acquisition and the building required by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, be charged to the Department of Public Works and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What amount of land acquisition and construction costs, if any, will be charged by the Department of Public Works to the Department of Veterans Affairs?
3.	How will these amounts be shown in the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs?
4.	For how long is it anticipated that the Department of Public Works will carry the costs of the new facilities?


Ralph Goodale: 1 am informed by the Departments
July 22, 1977

of Public Works and Veterans Affairs as follows: 1. Yes. DPW is responsible for costs of land acquisition and office space for many departments, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, under the Public Works Act.
2.	None.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Under current policy, costs of providing and maintaining office space will be carried in the budget of the Department of Public Works for as long as facility is required.


Mr. Cossitt: Was Question No. 1, placed on the Order Paper on October 12, 1976, and previously placed on the Order Paper in the 1 st Session of the 30th Parliament on November 3, 1975, forwarded by the Privy Council Office to the department and, if so (a) on what date (b) what persons forwarded it (c) who received it (d) who was assigned and what was his/her job designation to answer the question and on what date (e) is the answer ready and (i) if so, for how long and for what reason has it not been forthcoming (ii) if not, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements. See reply to question No. 1 answered July 12, 1977.


Mr. Howie: Is the Department of Public Works buying trees for interior landscaping at the new Bank of Canada Building in Ottawa and Place du Portage in Hull valued at approximately $50,000 and $80,000 respectively and, if so, are the trees to be imported from Florida?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: The
budget for interior landscaping on Phase III of Place du Portage is $80,000,000. To date a contract has been awarded in the amount of $69,500.00 to Fines Flowers Limited, Ottawa. The contract provides for miscellaneous plants, shrubbery and palm trees. The palm trees and some of the schrub-bery were imported from Florida. The Bank of Canada building is not a Department of Public Works project.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that Question No. 1, requesting information on government business dealings with Mr. William Teron and associated companies, remains unanswered and will the Prime Minister take steps to expedite the answer and (a) if so, on what date can an answer be expected (b) if not, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative
Order Paper Questions
arrangements. See reply to question No. 1 answered July 12, 1977.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Minister of State for Urban Affairs aware that Question No. 1, requesting information on government business dealings with Mr. William Teron and associated companies, remains unanswered and will the Minister take steps to expedite the answer and (a) if so, on what date can an answer be expected (b) if not, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements. See reply to question No. 1 answered July 12, 1977.


Mr. Caccia: What is the name of (a) the winning competitor (b) each of the finalists who participated in the competition for the design of the new National Gallery of Canada and what was the energy consumption expressed in kilowatt-hours per square foot per year by each?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a)
Parkin Architects and Planners, Toronto, Ontario, (b) See following list. As the energy consumption was not specifically requested by the competition requirements, this information is not available. National Gallery Competition-Finalists: Arcop Associates/Jodoin Lamarre, Pratte, Montreal, Quebec; Breg-man and Hamann/C. Blake Millar, Architects, Don Mills, Ontario; Gustavo Da Roza Architect/Number Ten Architectural Group, Architects and Planners, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Arthur Erickson/David Boulva Cleve, Associated Architects, Toronto, Ontario; Raymond Moriyama Architects and Planners, Toronto, Ontario; Parkin Architects and Planners, Toronto, Ontario; Victor Prus Architect and Urbanist/Bland Lemoyne Shine Lacroix Architectes et Urbanistes/Longpre Marchand Goudreau Doboush Stewart Hein Architects/Hebert Lalonde Architecte, Montreal, Quebec. The Webb Zerafa Menkes Housden Partnership Architects and Engineers Toronto, Ontario; Wiens and Associates Ltd./Marani Rounth-waite and Dick, Architects and Engineers; Regina, Saskatchewan; Zeidler Partnership, Architects, Toronto, Ontario.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Ministry of State (Small Business)?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: In so far as the Minister of State (Small Business) is concerned: neither he nor the Small Business Secretariat has spent any money in Sault Ste. Marie. The position of Minister of State (Small Business) was created in September, 1976.

July 22, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Subsequently, the Small Business Secretary was established within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to work with the Minister of State. The role of the Minister of State and the Small Business Secretariat has been policy development rather than program administration. Therefore, neither the Minister of State nor the Small Business Secretariat has authorized or made any program expenditures, anywhere.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question 2,761 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately. The reason for answering in this fashion is the complicated and lengthy nature of the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Laprise: Since 1962, by province, what was the annual production of (a) natural (b) industrial milk?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, for some time now a number of questions have been standing on the order paper in my name, and I believe I am entitled to expect answers to them prior to the close of the session. I would draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the fact that I have had ten questions standing on the order paper since October 19, 1976. One was placed there on December 19, 1976, and nine others on January 27, 1977. Two have been there since April 5, 1977. This seems to me to be an absolutely inexcusable period in which to have to wait for answers to questions. While some of these questions are complicated, it should not have been necessary to have delayed answering them for so long. I specifically refer the parliamentary secretary to two questions which have remained unanswered since April 5 with respect to Air Canada agreements with the government of Cuba, because they relate directly to the movement of troops from Cuba to Angola and the use of Canadian air space.
I believe the Canadian people are entitled to have some knowledge of these circumstances in order to determine whether or not Canada was involved in any direct way in the movement of Cuban troops to Angola, a country engaged in a civil war. I ask the parliamentary secretary to do his very best to obtain answers to these questions before we recess, hopefully on July 27.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I certainly give the hon. member my assurance that I will do my very best to see that the questions he has referred to and, indeed, all questions on the

order paper at this moment, are answered before the end of the session.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to remind the parliamentary secretary again about the questions I have on the order paper, some of which have been there for over a year and have not been answered despite my bringing them to his attention before. I specifically wish to bring to his attention question 1,246 which I placed on the order paper on December 3, 1976. It is the first time I have raised this matter because I recognize that the question is lengthy and requires some time to answer. However, I feel that since December 3 the government has had ample opportunity to get the answer. The question asks about the patronage machinery set up by the government. While I do not expect to get a perfectly straightforward answer, I hope to see the parliamentary secretary light a fire under the Prime Minister's office to get them moving on some sort of answer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 21, consideration of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, in the notes that you tabled in the House yesterday concerning the regrouping of motions, you mentioned that a vote on motion No. 29 could also dispose of motions Nos. 31 and 32.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that these three motions deal with different aspects of the bill. Indeed, motion No. 29 concerns the procedure in case of deportation of a non-permanent resident, while motion No. 31 deals on the contrary with the procedure in the case of a permanent resident. All members agree that these procedures must be different.
Since both motions aim at amending the bill, the first for non-permanent residents and the other for permanent residents, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be appropriate to take the votes separately on motion No. 29 and

July 22, 1977

on motions Nos. 31 and 32, so as to recognize that these provisions provide for different judicial systems for applicants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As always, the Chair has only suggested that the motions be grouped for the purpose of debate or voting. In this respect, motions are always better understood, I am sure, by the members who move or support them.
If the members prefer to group this motion with others for the purpose of discussion and to vote on each motion separately, I would find this acceptable. We should therefore change the arrangements so that we may debate together motions Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32, but vote on each one separately. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the parliamentary secretary rising on the point of order?


Ralph Goodale: No, Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order having to do with the business of the House later today, particularly during the hour which would have been set aside for private members' business. There have been the usual discussions among representatives of the parties this morning and I think there is a disposition in the House to use the hour between four and five o'clock this afternoon for continuing the discussion of Bill C-24, rather than devoting it to an item of private members' business.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.


Marc Lalonde: Before the House proceeded to vote last night, I was making a few comments on the motion put forward by the committee as well as the amendment of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) concerning the medical reports required from potential immigrants to Canada. Before concluding these comments, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to some corrections that were made to the speech I delivered yesterday, as reported on page 7899 and 7900 of Hansard.

In the answer last night, I am reported as having said:
However, I believe there are serious grounds for concluding that the new wording proposed by the hon. member is incapable of achieving the control which was intended, and, further, that it will not be virtually impossible for my department to continue to operate an immigration health service in support of Canada's immigration program.
Obviously, that should read "that it will be virtually impossible''; the "not" should not be there. Secondly, at page 7900 there is a statement which reads as follows:
Immigration
It is estimated that for approximately every 2,000 immigrants there might be as many as 50,000 cases where it would be appropriate to have a consultation with a medical specialist.
The figure is not "2,000", but "200,000". That makes the statement clear.

As fas as motion No. 13 is concerned, I indicated last night that the proposal made in committee would not achieve the purposes suggested by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). It would result in considerable administrative problems. In addition, it would be extremely difficult and even impossible in some countries to follow the procedures suggested by the hon. member for Provencher; second, it would involve considerable additional costs for those who wish to come to Canada; and, third, it would also entail considerable costs for the federal program administration, as a result of possible litigation and disputes of all kinds brought before the courts.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration has therefore moved an amendment recognizing the concern expressed by the committee members over the fact that one medical officer could for all practical purposes decide upon the eligibility of an applicant. To meet this concern of the committee, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has moved an amendment, motion No. 13, which would ensure that the decision concerning the medical condition of a potential immigrant could always be confirmed or challenged by another medical officer. This solution would assure the applicant that his case would be reviewed by someone with the authority and ability required at no cost to him. Therefore, no additional burden would be borne by the Canadian taxpayer in terms of considerable legal costs.
I commend strongly to the House the proposal put forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which, in my view, meets the concerns expressed by the committee and which will still ensure adequate services to those who wish to come to Canada, without saddling them with useless costs which might amount each year to several million dollars, as I said last night.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make about Motion No. 13. I would not want to take unduly the time of the House in that respect but I would like to raise another point made yesterday in the debate by the hon. member for Provencher. He said that the Department of National Health and Welfare was creating unnecessary difficulties in cases of children up for adoption by Canadian citizens. I want to give the lie direct to the assertion by the hon. member for Provencher. Every year we admit a very large number of children for adoption. My department has no objection about that procedure-on the contrary. In practice, if there were some administrative difficulties in those adoption cases they are perhaps more related to provincial governments which have the administrative responsibility for adoption programs in Canada.
However, I should say that in the past year we received outstanding cooperation from the provinces in the area of international adoption. That matter was debated on two occasions during federal-provincial conferences of welfare ministers

July 22, 1977
Immigration
and it was following those discussions that we set up in my department a special office in charge of international adoption matters whose role is to ensure better coordination and control of administrative procedures followed in Canada and abroad in the area of adoption.
So, Mr. Speaker, 1 recommend very strongly that the House support the proposal of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). I think it is an eminently reasonable proposal which meets the concerns of the committee. Moreover, it will make for an effective and least expensive possible administration of immigration services, particularly as regards the health aspect of immigration services.


Mr. Robert Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to join in the debate at this time with particular reference to motions Nos. 14 and 15. In view of the time element last evening, I deferred from raising a question of privilege which I wished to clear up. Some aspersions were cast on my service in the committee when studying this bill. If the House would indulge me for a few moments, I should like to comment on some of these aspersions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) pointed out that I attended only two committee hearings. In fact, I attended many more than that.
I should like to indicate that he did not attend any.


Mr. Orlikow:: I was not a member of the committee.


Roger Carl Young: You do not have to be a member in order to attend committee hearings.


David Orlikow: But I read the evidence.


Roger Carl Young: The hon. member has the happy faculty of squeezing the largest number of words into some of the smallest ideas possible. Most of what he said last night did not pertain to the remarks I made, nor the comments I made to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Most of what he said referred to the draft bill, not to the amended bill which is now before this House for debate. To do what he did takes things greatly out of context.


Walter David Baker: 1 am sure he will apologize.


Roger Carl Young: The hon. member for Greenwood accused me of coming into committee with a platoon. He indicated that I walked in and steamrollered him. I appreciate his commenting on some of my efforts during the afternoon and evening sittings of the committee hearings. Although he was a member of the committee, he was not present when we amended the particular clause he referred to last night. I am referring to clause 19(1 )(d). The hon. member was not in his place at committee, but I was and the record will show that. The understanding that the hon. member for Greenwood was presenting regarding the particular clause of the bill that he takes issue with was untrue and incomplete. I maintain that because the hon. member said last night that clause 19(1 )(d) at present

contains no right to trial and that it denied the right to be tried before punishment. He indicated that a person will be barred from entering or visiting Canada merely on a suspicion.
I should like to indicate that that is not true. If he knew as much about this new bill as he maintains, he would know there are clauses in it indicating that anyone who is turned back or detained at the border can cause a special inquiry to be held and can cause the immigration officer at the border to relate the reasonable grounds for believing he will commit an indictable offence-and not "may" or "likely to". There have to be reasonable grounds on which to base the ruling that a person will go out and commit an indictable offence.


David Orlikow: What are the reasonable grounds?


Roger Carl Young: We are talking about a hypothetical case. Let me refer to some practical ones. If the hon. member wants to know what the reasonable grounds are, hon. members from the New Democratic Party over the last few months have champed at the bit regarding how members of the Five Dragons immigrated to this country and are now residing on our west coast. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has asked questions on how these people came to be in our country. That is one reason the government wishes to have this type of amendment in the bill.
Therefore, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that people will come into this country to commit an indictable offence, immigration officers can say "No". In one breath, members of the New Democratic Party are saying to the government, "Why did you let these people in?" In another breath, the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Winnipeg North are saying, "Let them all come in". In committee, the hon. member for Greenwood said, "Let everyone come in. Let them do what they please. If he is going to commit a criminal act, let him do that". He indicated also that it was up to the government to go out and catch him, convict him and then try to deport him. That is a rather asinine way of going about it; it is rather ridiculous.
The clause which is presently in the bill is a good one. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood would prevent the department from keeping out, or removing persons about whom there is credible information that they are engaged in organized criminal activities although no convictions may have been registered against them. That clause was amended in committee, after long discussions, along lines originally proposed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). The present clause attempts to deal with the fact that those involved in organized crime all too rarely come before the courts. Without it, the government would be seriously hampered in its efforts to safeguard the Canadian public against the menace of organized crime.
The hon. member for Greenwood suggests that the border should be open and that anyone, regardless of his intentions, criminal or otherwise, should be able to come into the country. If he commits a criminal act, it is up to the government to catch him, convict him and then try to deport him. If we are going to devise an immigration act asking border officials to
July 22, 1977

carry out a job on behalf of the government and the people of this country, we should give them the tools and the powers to do the job. I am not referring to a wide-ranging, discretionary clause which would give them the power to look into the eyes of someone and say, "I do not like you. I think you are going to commit an offence".
The act requires that the immigration officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person will commit an indictable offence-not just any offence. To do anything else would weaken the efficacy of the act and would impair situations at the border and airports. It would seriously emasculate the bill, and emasculate immigration officers in the carrying out of their duties.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has put forward an amendment which touches on an issue discussed in committee. I am sorry he is not here today. Flowever, last night I informed him that I would speak against his amendment today and told him what I would be saying. His proposed motion refers back to subclause (c) of the draft bill. It would give power to border officers to turn back or detain someone whom he believes might commit an indictable offence, but only if that indictable offence was subject to a penalty of at least ten years imprisonment. That verges on being somewhat ridiculous, because if one peruses the Criminal Code he will find a great number of serious offences which do not have ten-year minimum penalties.
If that amendment were passed, a person could come to the border and an immigration officer could have a reasonable belief: he could even be told by the person wanting to come in that that person has the full intention of committing any one of a number of different crimes. It could be indecent and harassing telephone calls, bookmaking, corrupting justice, keeping a gaming house or cattle rustling, which I am sure interests hon. members from the west. It could be blowing up somebody's property or animals. It could be that that person might come here to print or tender a counterfeit proclamation of parliament. All of those are indictable offences, but not subject to at least ten years imprisonment. Therefore, even if the immigration officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe the person would commit that type of offence, he could not keep that individual out if we passed the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
Perhaps I could break it down into a very easily understood example. If we were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member would be quite happy to invite someone into his house even though he might have a reasonable suspicion that that person would set fire to his living room or to his house. The hon. member for Greenwood would say, "Come on over to my house; light your match; set my rug on fire". He would then go to the trouble of calling the fire department and the police department and trying to catch the fellow and have him convicted. He would go to the trouble of trying to get damages and then have the fellow deported.
Immigration
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal, being a little more sensible, since arson can bring more than ten years, would not invite that fellow into his house, believing on reasonable grounds that the fellow would set fire to his living room. However, if the fellow was just going to blow up the house, he would invite him in because he would not get ten years for that. That is how ridiculous some of these amendments are.
I think border officials have to have some power and discretion. They are reasonable people. If a person is denied entry, he has the right to ask the border officer to divulge reasonable grounds at a special inquiry. In any event, a report is made to a senior immigration officer. The detained person might appear, after just a few minutes, before a senior immigration officer and convince the officer that he is a totally reasonable and proper person to come into the country. I think immigration officers need the tools necessary to do the work they are called upon to do.
We need the type of legislation which is in this bill as unamended in order to take care of the public in this country, to keep us at peace and to prevent those people we reasonably suspect of having criminal intent from coming into Canada. I do not think we have to open our borders and allow criminals, those with criminal intentions and those whose design is to engage in organized crime, to come into this country.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I noticed just now, in yesterday's Hansard, a reference on page 7889, by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), to multicultural policy. The hon. member said:
On October 8, 1971, the government announced its multicultural policy, which had hitherto been under the aegis of then secretary of state, Gerard Pelletier.
To set the record straight, I simply want to state that as minister responsible for citizenship I had full responsibility for that area of government administration, for the development of the policy of multiculturalism and its articulation as national policy, and I accept responsibility for it with pride.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is, of course, not a question of privilege. I would call it a point of clarification. That is truly welcomed by all hon. members, so I think the matter is settled in this way.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about two or three of the motions which are up for debate at the present time. Two of them stand in my name, and the other one, which was discussed both last night and today, stands in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). I am indeed sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) did not stay to listen to any further responses to his comments, and in particular that he did not stay long enough to hear the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young). Because I thought if there was any difficulty the Minister of National Health and Welfare was having in understanding the purpose of the amendment, which had been accepted by the committee, the hon. member for Niagara Falls might have helped a great deal, for in the context of his remarks-while I do not agree with the conclu-

July 22, 1977
Immigration
sions he reached in a number of instances-he kept referring to reasonable grounds, and of course that is the sum and substance of the attempt which is being made by the minister today in removing that particular section from clause 19.
I think there has been a bit of a snow job here, quite frankly, and I know that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) is well aware that it is taking place, because he referred to it last night. There is an attempt to talk about the question of possible expense. There is the so-called compromise of the minister. Instead of having a medical specialist, there will be another medical officer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Same department.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is right. Surely, if there is a question of expenses, the expense is going to be incurred similarly with the second medical officer as it would be with a medical specialist, unless it is found that there are two different rates of pay.
With respect to possible litigation, I regard that as a complete distraction from the essence of the argument and the essence of the attempt which is being made here by the minister in this motion. Quite frankly, I am shocked that the minister would have the effrontery, having given the committee the responsibility of reviewing the bill-which is its parliamentary obligation-to call in the expert witnesses who were made available by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It was not as if we did not have such expert advice offered to the committee.
I well recall the evening the medical officers came and testified in our committee with respect to this specific clause in terms of their own responsibility. I think members were well aware of all the implications of what was being done in the amendments which were moved and accepted in the committee at that time. One of the things which bothered me on that occasion-and, of course, it bothers me again today-is that 1 think we have developed a new kind of sacred deity, a new area of unquestioned authority. It used to be that people in my profession, the clergy, could make pronouncements which would simply go unquestioned because they spoke with the kind of mantle of authenticity which no one in his right mind would ever seriously question. We are now living in a much more modern period, and that is no longer the case.


Richard J. Stanbury: Especially since you have been here.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps. But whether one is inside or outside this place, having any clerical mantle does not add any sense of authority or infallibility to one's position. That is likely a pretty good thing; I have no hesitation in saying that. However, in this generation we have established a new system of infallibility. We have moved from the area of theology to medicine, so that now when somebody who comes out of medical school either as a general practitioner or, perhaps more significantly, some kind of medical specialist and makes a pronouncement as to what he can and cannot do as to the absolute accuracy and fairness of each and every pronouncement or decision he renders, no one in his right mind

must question that. Quite frankly, I am not prepared to accept that. I have found that even medical specialists can make mistakes and that two highly trained medical practitioners can, on occasion, be in disagreement. I have found, also, that there is no absolute scientific conclusion in respect of each and every medical examination.
This is the reason that from time to time-all of us have experienced this-when we get a medical diagnosis which does not seem to explain adequately a certain condition, we look for a second and sometimes even a third opinion. Who in the chamber has not heard of cases of individuals who have gone first to one doctor, have not been satisfied with the diagnosis or recommendation of that doctor, and have moved on to a second one and then to a third one, finally, to get satisfaction? Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not heard of it yet. Perhaps he is so much in awe of medical practitioners and those who reside in his department who practice the medical arts, that when they make a pronouncement, ex cathedra, so to speak, he thinks it must be accepted without question. Certainly he received that message very clearly from the medical specialists who were on hand the night we discussed this whole matter.
I am sure they were not happy, not because we were adding a burden to some extent but simply because we were allowing for the kind of human fallibility that can take place even in medical circles. That is what concerns me in this instance, and that is why I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare had remained long enough to hear some other comments, particularly from his own colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Falls.
It is not even primarily the question of medical specialists. In my opinion it is the change of wording from "in his opinion" to "on reasonable grounds", because it becomes very clear, when we think about it for a moment, that with the words "in his opinion" which the minister would like to reintroduce, no mistake is allowed, no error, no need for a further review on the part of one who can adequately judge whether or not the medical diagnosis or medical report was totally accurate and correct.
My colleague has already indicated instances where it has occurred to the detriment of the individual applicant. I am sure the hon. member for Provencher or any other members of the House were not seeking to establish a regime that would produce the kind of litigation suggested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If that is the problem, I do not think there was an attempt on the part of the minister, and I say this repectfully, to resolve that problem, then surely we could have a better amendment than the one he has currently proposed, because what he has done merely is again to allow-from my point of view and that of the committee, because of the motion that was approved there-the almost unappealable and unreviewable situation of a medical report jeopardizing or preventing a legitimate application going forward.
July 22, 1977

Therefore, I am quite dissatisfied and disappointed that the minister in this instance would act in this way, in view of the length of time the committee spent on the matter and in view of the importance of this particular section as it was amended and put in the revised bill that has come back to the Elouse, and that he would have recommended this in view of the recommendation of the committee in its collective wisdom.
I want to say a couple of things more because, as you will note, we have ten motions that are currently before us for debate at present, two of which stand in my name, namely, motions Nos. 20 and 21. With respect to motion No. 20, I think you will realize that this motion would attempt to clarify a situation which was discussed in committee. It was discussed with respect to the kind of liability that would exist for those who would fall under the inadmissable category. It was generally agreed in the discussion that took place with the minister and his officials that it was not satisfactory that there be such a blanket inclusion that anyone who was convicted under any act of parliament would therefore be liable to exclusion or perhaps to deportation.
We discussed whether or not we could be more precise in terms of the definition of those acts under which one could not be convicted and still be accepted as a legitimate applicant. Indeed, as it is presently drafted in the bill-and, again, it shows the unwarranted powers and rather illegal approach of the minister and the department-it would mean that if an individual had been convicted of illegal parking on Parliament Hill, which I believe is a summary offence, he could be regarded as an unacceptable applicant. Or if, on the other hand, he had been caught twice fishing without a licence, again he might be convicted of a summary offence and not considered an acceptable applicant.
The same might be true if one were to give a cigarette to a person under the age of 16. These are the kind of ridiculous examples one can give which show that we have not drafted a precise bill, but have given tremendous and, I think, unwarranted powers to the minister. This will make his job not easier but more difficult. It would create, of course, a considerable amount of anxiety and suspicion on the part of those who come into contact with the immigration procedures.
Motion No. 21 is an instance where an individual who does not comply with the conditions or requirements of the Immigration Act or the regulations or any orders or directions would, in a sense, also come under the act. Here we have a situation where an individual might break a regulation or in some way inadvertently defy an order or a direction and would immediately find himself in jeopardy. When we discussed this in committee, we were quickly assured by the minister and his officials that this would not happen, that the individual in question would not be in danger of breaking a regulation or defying an order or a direction of which he did not have knowledge.
But as you well know, it is one thing to have a verbal assurance in a committee from an official, or even from the minister, and another thing to have it clearly stated in the statute. My motion would say that this would refer to an act or
Immigration
regulation which had been made public. This would ensure that an individual could not inadvertently, or without knowledge, break a regulation. When we come to dealing with something as increasingly complex as immigration, it would be almost impossible to think of instances where individuals would not be, perhaps even only in a marginal way, in defiance of some regulatory obligation.
Again, I think the minister has not clearly defended, explained or provided in law protection against the growing number of regulations and orders in council which can jeopardize the individual applicant. That is why I think that not to allow for direct knowledge being made available to an individual is to infringe upon that individual's human rights. There are a number of other amendments to which I would like to speak, but time does not permit. However, I hope they will be given, each in their own way, serious study by the minister.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a few minutes only on motion No. 18 in my name, amending clause 19(l)(g). As you know, under that clause an inadmissible class is established, that of persons that are likely, as the term occurs all through the legislation, as that are likely to or "susceptibles de" engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the life or safety of persons in Canada or are members of an organization that is likely to engage in violence. 1 find that clause unacceptable because it enshrines both the principle of guilt by apprehension and that of guilt by association. In other words, the fact alone of being a member of rather than being active or being actively involved in an association that is likely to engage in violence puts a person in an inadmissible class.
My amendment proposes at least to eliminate guilt by association, a concept that is fully foreign to our law, by refusing or rather eliminating as a cause of inadmissibility the mere fact of being a member of an association that might endanger the life or safety of persons in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would stress that my amendment would still give immigration officers all the power they need to exclude persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe are likely to engage in acts of violence or that are likely to take part in illegal activities by an organization that is likely to engage in such acts of violence.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there exist a number of political movements, national liberation movements or other organizations of that type that often include two components, one that could be termed the politicial arm, the organization of a purely political nature very often urging changes through peaceful ways and means, and the other that is termed the fighting arm, that chooses to use violent means to attain its ends. It would therefore be possible that someone having joined in good faith a political movement, a national liberation movement, his name would appear on the membership list, and he or she would be denied entry into Canada for the sole reason that there would be a second component, the other one using violence.

July 22, 1977
Immigration
Mr. Speaker, it will always be possible to refer to clause 19(l)(g) to exclude a group of really undesirable individuals who are not welcomed in Canada. I therefore hope that the amendment will be agreed to and thus the harmful principle of guilt by association will be rejected as otherwise it would be sanctioned by the legislation. Mr. Speaker, we cannot speak of equality before the law in this country if the principle of guilt by association must apply to some individuals, while the majority of Canadians would not be subject to it, since the notion of guilt by association is squarely rejected in our statutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The recorded division on motion No. 13 stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 14 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the recorded vote on this motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 1 5 in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Fairweather) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 16 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). The vote on this motion will also dispose of motion No. 25, also in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 16? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare motion No. 16 negatived on division, which means that motion No. 25 also is automatically lost on division.
Motions Nos. 16 and No. 25 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 17 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare motion No. 17 lost on division.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 18 in the name of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.
July 22, 1977


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare motion No. 18 negatived on division.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Duclos) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 19 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare motion No. 19 lost on division.
Motion No. 19 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 20 in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). A vote on that motion also disposes of motion No. 21, also in the name of the hon. member for Egmont. The question is on motion No. 20. It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare motion No. 20 lost on division and motion No. 21 lost on division.
Motions Nos. 20 and 21 (Mr. MacDonald, Egmont) negatived.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had consultations, and I believe there is agreement among the representatives of the parties that I put a motion at this time, under motions, to dispose of a number of items of business, not to pass them but to arrange that they be dealt with in a later
Business of the House
session. I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald):
That the Standing Orders be amended by adding, for the remainder of the present parliament, the following:
117. Notwithstanding any Standing Order, in the third session of the thirtieth parliament, the following bills of the second session of the said parliament shall on the opening day of the third session, be deemed to have been read a first time, ordered to be printed and dealt with as follows:
(i)	Bill C-7, an act respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry;
(ii)	Bill C-17, an act respecting the reorganization of Air Canada shall be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from a committee and ordered for consideration at the report stage;
(iii)	Bill C-40, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we have agreed to this. One point has just occurred to me. Perhaps it should be understood that in the next session these three bills will probably have different numbers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will note that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposition of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it agreed that the minister shall have leave to put the motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from
7926
[Stage Direction]
July 22, 1977
Immigration
the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 27
(a)	by striking out line 9 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"of any democratic government,";
(b)	by striking out line 20 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor: "any fraudulent or improper means or intentional mis-";
(c)	by striking out line 29 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor: "such information, but no such report shall be made pursuant to paragraph 27(1)(b), (</)(ii), (e) or (/) if that permanent resident has resided in Canada as a permanent resident for more than five years."


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 19 to 21 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"pertaining to his admission or was granted landing by any willfully false and fraudulent misrepresentation of any material fact, wheth-"


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 14 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"lent or improper means or intentional misrepresenta-".


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I should like to speak briefly to the amendments in my name to which Your Honour has referred, and deal with three aspects, especially, which I believe to be of importance but which unfortunately were not regarded favourable by the committee.
In the first place, there is an issue here which I believe to be of considerable moment concerning the acceptability of those who have been involved, or, as it says in clause 27(1 )(c), are engaged in or instigated subversion by force of any government. The addition of the words "by force" has, of course, considerably improved this clause. The situation in the world community is such today that parliamentary institutions, freedom of public expression, freedom to take part in assemblies, and so on, are becoming increasingly rare. Many people must, therefore, regard the situation in this country with considerable envy. It is for this reason we must be very concerned, when passing an immigration act, to distinguish between governments which are supported by the will of the people and those which have secured power by force in order to establish some form of dictatorship. All too frequently we read in newspapers or hear on the broadcasting media of some democratic regime or institution which has fallen in the face of some totalitarian power.
In immigration law which is going to deal with hundreds of thousands of people who often come from many such countries and who, while taking up residence and perhaps even citizen-

ship here, will feel quite strongly about the freedom or possibility of freedom of their own home country, we would not want in some way, in the context of our own Immigration Act, to defeat the purpose of our own society, which is to uphold the notion that people should be allowed to participate and act responsibly in their own country, and that they should have elemental respect for human rights and the dignity and sanctity of the individual.
When this does not occur, I am sure that for those who take an interest in seeing that their former homeland is returned to some form of democratic institution it must not be beyond their opportunity so to participate. This is why I have included in the first part of this amendment, (a), the word "democratic".
The second part of motion No. 23 refers to intentional misrepresentation as against simply misrepresentation. The minister and his officials will recall that we discussed this matter at very considerable length at committee and it forms part of both motion No. 23 and motion No. 26. Again we move into an area where we are going to be dealing substantially with people who, not familiar with the rules as they apply with respect to presentation of evidence or the validating of themselves as individuals in terms of correct immigration procedures, may innocently provide some kind of information which is not wholly or totally accurate.
1 think the minister will recall a good deal of the conversation in committee which concerned the accuracy or credibility of the translation services and the translated records which are sometimes used in examining the legitimacy of an applicant. Of course, it is just not in the area of translation, which I think the minister took very seriously and promised to improve to the best of his ability; it is in the whole area of dealing with people coming from different cultures and societies, in many instances having perhaps been under the authority of administrations and bureaucracies which are not inclined to treat them with any great degree of fairness. Something which we would not accept in our own country is very often traditionally the case in the homelands of these people.
Therefore, people who are in the nature of being immigrant applicants often approach the bureaucracy with fear and anxiety, unsure both of the nature of the bureaucracy itself as well as the general cultural situation of the country to which they are coming. For us not to include this provision for the inadvertent, unintentional misrepresentation which might occur with respect to information seems to me to be overly narrow and legalistic when dealing with people whom we hope will enjoy and assume the benefits and responsibilities of Canadian society. Therefore, for that reason I have included this amendment on these two occasions in motions 23 and 26.
The final part refers to the concept of domicile, but not the language of domicile. This is to be found in (c) of motion 23, which reads as follows:
-such information, but no such report shall be made pursuant to paragraph 27(1 )(b), (d)(ii); (e) or (0 if that permanent resident has resided in Canada as a permanent resident for more than five years.
July 22, 1977

I point out at the outset that while it introduces in general terms the concept of domicile, which I believe, indeed, to be an important one and worthy of retention in an immigration bill, it in no way has the scope that is presently enjoyed by those who have domicile in Canada. Indeed, I am really taking the minister at his word when he testified in committee; I believe that this will be an adequate provision to include in a responsible and reformed Immigration Act. Certainly it provides for and allows all the latitude which I believe is required for the minister to deport people of criminal intent or criminal activity with whom the minister was considerably concerned in committee. However, it seems to me that people who have resided in Canada for a period longer than five years should not be deported unless serious criminal offences are involved. This is certainly a great deal weaker than the previous domicile provision.
Under the law as it presently stands and under the bill now before the House, quite frankly we are in a situation where people, perhaps through no fault of their own but in the process of adjustment to a new country, could end up for a brief period of time on welfare or in receipt of social security assistance, whereupon they would then be liable to deportation. I do not think that the occasional dependence upon the state of an individual who comes here is reason or cause enough for the minister to want to exercise, under the bill as it presently stands, the right of deportation.
I know the minister has said that the aspect that concerned members was adequately covered under the new citizenship act, but I think there is very little difference between the provisions of the citizenship act as it presently stands and the exercise of the right of deportation. In the present situation, without the provisions I have outlined in motion No. 23, clearly an individual who came here for one day would have just the same legal rights as the individual who has resided here for ten years and who has participated as a responsible member of our society. I do not think that the minister realistically feels that that is a fair way to deal with those who will be residents in Canada for a considerable period of time, and this is why I have introduced this concept but not, of course, the designation, of domicile in this particular motion. Therefore, I ask hon. members to give these provisions very serious re-consideration.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, before 1 move on to deal with this particular amendment may I say something I omitted, by mistake, to say yesterday or the day before in the great heat of the moment and the asperity which characterized our debate at that time. I made some reasonably caustic remarks about some of the committee members, but I exempted from my strictures the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Cacccia) and the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos). However, I intended-I see she has just walked out- also to include the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) who was chairman of the committee, an extremely fair and patient chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Immigration


Francis Andrew Brewin: I certainly do not want any remarks of mine to cast any reflection upon what she did in this respect.
Motion No. 24 is in my name and it is fairly simple. It is an amendment to clause 27. The clause presently provides that a person may be deported who came into Canada or remained therein with a false or improperly obtained passport, visa or other document pertaining to his admission, or by reason of any fraudulent or improper means or misrepresentation of any material fact, whether exercised or made by himself or by any other person. My amendment would have the effect of striking out lines 19 to 21 of the clause and substituting therefor the words "pertaining to his admission or was granted landing by any wilfully false and fraudulent misrepresentation of any material fact".
As has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Brooks case, if one gets into Canada by reason of a false misrepresentation, the act would apply without any proof whatsoever of intent to deceive. Those who are familiar with immigration matters realize that the situation is highly complex. People who are unfamiliar with the procedures are required to fill in forms, answer questions and are excited by the circumstances under which they find themselves. A person should not be subject to deportation, unless what he said was wilfully false or fraudulent.
The minister added the words "misrepresentation of any material fact". That reference is entirely proper and is indicated in my amendment as well. He would not accept the amendment to include the word "wilfully". I think it should be included. The United States immigration act is in exactly the form I am suggesting. It refers to "wilfully false and fraudulent misrepresentation of any material fact." The Americans have been able to make their system work. We should include that wording in the act in order to avoid striking out a person who unintentionally makes a mistake. Some members of this House do not appreciate that to be deported from Canada, after investing money to come to this country and looking forward to making one's way here, is a very traumatic and a very penal exercise. One must realize that these people told their friends they were going to Canada, and then they have had to return home. If it were wilful, I agree they should not stay. If it was an innocent misstatement of fact, they should not be deported.
I approve of motion No. 23 in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I am not entirely sure about motion No. 26. I will have to study that further. The basic ideas in motion No. 23 are excellent. They refer to democratic governments and the motion seeks the same purpose I am seeking by referring to "intentional misrepresentation." That would be a great improvement over what we have at the present time.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon me to make my comments at third reading stage, but I should like to join the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in the tribute he paid to
80020-37)4

July 22, 1977
Immigration
the chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. That committee was dealing with a very important piece of legislation with myriad amendments, and not only those proposed by the government and by parties opposite in advance. Many amendments came up during the course of the discussions. Given the varying views and attitudes of the members of the committee, that particular member of parliament performed her task in an admirable fashion. Ske kept control of the committee meetings. When the meeting seemed to be out of control, we recognized she was allowing us to splutter on until we finally reached a better bill as a result of the committee hearings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I dissociate myself from the hon. member for Greenwood when he took the odd potshot at members who attended only a few of the meetings. In many instances I received representations from both sides of this House indicating interest in particular parts of the bill. Hon. members wanted to be present when the committee was dealing with particular areas of the bill in which they were interested. They would say, "I am busy with six or seven committees, but when these issues come up I very definitely want to be there". Thus, members only appeared for two or three meetings when we were dealing with specific sections. They had very important roles to play.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) performed his task on the unemployment insurance bill. When he could not be present for some meetings, he sent the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The hon. member for Timiskaming was present for only two or three meetings, but he did a great job when he was there, putting forward views he was required to put forward. It was not necessary for him to be present at every committee meeting in order to put his view across. It is unfair to criticize members who were present for some of the meetings but not all of them.
I should like to comment on the motions put forward by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Greenwood. The first part of motion No. 23 and all of motion No. 25 have the same effect in that they would restrict the removal of persons who, while in Canada, engage in or instigate subversion by force of democratic governments, and not just any government, as the bill now proposes. The bill does not preclude lawful and peaceful activity against any form of government. It attempts to prevent the use of force in carrying out those activities.
We have a responsibility to protect the lives and property of Canadian citizens against the violence of others, even though we may not condone the particular government against which that violence is aimed. We do not want to have in Canada a counter part of the recent bombing of the Yugoslav consulate in New York which was carried out by emigre groups.
Motions Nos. 23 and 24 would require fraud or misrepresentation relating to entry into Canada, as referred to in clause 27(1 )(e), to be intentional, in the one motion, or to be done wilfully, in the second motion. This would require the depart-

ment to prove that a permanent resident who gained landing by misrepresenting a material fact did so intentionally or wilfully, before his removal could be ordered. This would pose probably an impossible burden of proof upon the department. The false statements would have been made overseas, and the individual's conduct would have to be assessed as of that time in order to determine whether the fraud or misrepresentation was intentional or wilful. For that reason, I cannot support the proposals in these two motions.
Motion No. 23 in the name of the hon. member for Egmont would restore the domicile protection of the present act, which prohibits the deportation of permanent residents for the commission of certain offences if they have resided in Canada for more than five years. Although I respect and admire the integrity of the hon. member for Egmont trying to get this particular idea back into the act and passed, I basically disagree as to whether it is necessary. The paragraphs referred to in this part of the motion relate to the offences of knowingly contravening terms and conditions of landing, conviction of an offence carrying a maximum imposable penalty of more than five years, obtaining landing fraudulently, or wilfully failing to support himself or a dependent member of his family.
The first of these is totally unnecessary, since terms and conditions cannot continue in effect for more than six months and so could not be contravened by a person with more than five years' permanent residence. The others can be applicable at any time, but they are serious offences, indicating that the person is unwilling to carry out his legal and moral obligations, or is a danger to public safety or order in Canada.
Clause 27(1), dealing with removal of permanent residents, has been shorn of all the removable classes in the present act which cover matters outside the control of the individual or which are not indicative of serious character flaws or criminal behaviour. The whole clause, therefore, permits removal of permanent residents only for very serious reasons and leaves ameliorating or compassionate factors such as length of residence in Canada to the discretion of the Immigration Appeal Board to which permanent residents have a right to appeal. For the reasons I have cited I am not prepared to accept this part of motion No. 23.
Motion No. 26 is very similar to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) at the committee stage. Surely, if there is a reason for the committee stage, it is to look at the various amendments which are put forward, to determine if they are acceptable to the government or if they might be acceptable to the government drawn in a different form or perhaps with certain changes made. That is what we agreed to at the committee stage, and I think that is what the hon. member for Egmont was saying when he made, I believe, his first intervention at the report stage.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: "Provencher", not "Egmont".


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Surely there is a time when we use the committee stage, and it is really wrong, when motions have been
July 22, 1977

discussed, when we have accepted changes and when hon. members who introduce amendments agree to withdraw them on the basis of the government's response, to bring in amendments which we have already agreed at the committee stage should be withdrawn. That seems to me to be an abuse of the process. This is not a motion which was defeated at the committee stage. It was introduced at the committee stage. There was discussion around the table by members from parties of every political persuasion, and finally the individual who moved the amendment saw fit to withdraw it because he felt the amendment which had been proposed by the government adequately covered the position he maintained. If that was not the case, the hon. member could say, "No, I do not like the compromise. We will vote on my amendment. If we cannot get my amendment, then we will look at the one introduced by the government". However, in this case agreement was reached and we came up with the wording "misrepresentation of material fact be proved to have been intentional". So I think that kind of amendment really has no place if the committee stage is to have any importance at all.
For the reasons cited, I feel we have gone a long way to meeting the concerns of hon. members opposite and, quite candidly, of hon. members from this party as well. This is the kind of bill which crosses party lines. People have very strong feelings in particular areas, and that is why there is no argument with hon. members in this party or with hon. members opposite about the interventions they have made. Those interventions have been made because of a strong feeling of conscience, and for that I frankly congratulate and commend hon. members. I do not feel angry with them or ashamed of the fact that there are some hon. members in my party who do not agree with everything that the government is trying to do. I welcome the interventions, but in this case I do not feel these amendments are acceptable, given the changes we have already made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Immigration


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. MacDonald, Egmont) negatived on division.
Motions No. 24 (Mr. Brewin) and No. 26 (Mr. MacDonald, Egmont) negatived on division.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 16 to 24 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) At the request of the person with respect to whom an inquiry is to be
held, or of the immigration officer representing the Minister, an adjudicator
may allow an inquiry to be held in camera.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (2), an inquiry by an adjudicator shall
be held in public."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 27 (Mr. Fairweather) negatived on division. [English]


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 37 by striking out line 35 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"time, but the minister shall not make such an order without granting a hearing at which the applicant may be heard and represented".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about motion No. 26?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 26 was taken care of by the last vote.

July 22, 1977
Immigration


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by this. I have been furnished with a list of the motions which were to be grouped together. It includes motions Nos. 23, 24 and 26. It does not include motion No. 28, and when I was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. For the benefit of all hon. members, motions Nos. 23, 24 and 26 were grouped for debate and a vote on motion no. 23 disposed of motions Nos. 24 and 26. We have had a vote on motion No. 23, and that disposed of motions nos. 24 and 26. We are now, therefore, considering motion No. 28.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, if we are on motion No. 28, I would like to state very briefly why it is presented. This deals with the cancellation of a permit. As the house knows well, the minister is entitled, in special cases, more particularly on compassionate grounds but not necessarily on compassionate grounds, to grant a permit even though a person would not otherwise be admissible under the ordinary rules. Then the minister is granted, under this bill, the right to cancel a permit. The purport of my amendment is that the minister should not make such an order without granting a hearing in which the applicant may be heard and represented.
If a person has been allowed into Canada-the right to stay here is a very important right to certain individuals-I think it is wrong that a minister, without being accountable to anybody, should be able to cancel the permit. He should be willing to grant to a person whose permit he is permanently cancelling, the right to make his side of the case known before he acts. I am sure the minister in practice frequently does exactly that, and so he should, but I think it should be in the act. Some people argue about whether immigrants have rights. They certainly have privileges conferred upon them by this parliament, and they have the right to have a permit if the minister sees fit and confers a status. If it is to be taken away, it should be taken away after a hearing, and not before.
It may be very convenient for the minister to cancel permits if he feels like it, but the fact that it is convenient is not a good reason. The right to a hearing is part of our basic judicial system and part of our whole system of dealing with people. Therefore, I am glad to recommend that this amendment be accepted. I do not suppose the minister would have to conduct the hearings himself. I am sure he can, under other sections of the act, delegate many of these powers. I am not trying to overburden him with work, but whoever actually makes the decision should grant a hearing to the person concerned.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the proposed amendment which the hon. member moved at the committee stage. Quite candidly, I looked at it very carefully because I know that motions put by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) are not put lightly but come from a strong sense of what is appropriate. He feels that the issuance of a ministerial permit confers a particular status on an individual once he comes to Canada. This motion would require the minister or the department to

grant a hearing to a person whose permit has been cancelled or who has been required to leave Canada.
I disagree in principle with the intent of the amendment. A person who received a permit and entered Canada as an exercise of executive clemency and discretion has no right to come into or remain in Canada; indeed, he is by definition an inadmissible or removable person, and he has no right to the issuance of a permit. That he should suddenly acquire rights after he has benefited from the clemency, and the period has expired, would be totally incongruous.
The effect of the passage of this amendment would mean a drastic decline in any minister's willingness to issue permits in the first place. Apart from these considerations, the proposed amendment is no indication of the nature of the proposed hearing, its subject matter or its possible results. 1 am not too concerned, because I know how I, in this particular portfolio, would respond to a request for a ministerial permit and the effect of an appeal would not influence me personally, I think. But I have to think of incumbents who may subsequently come and fill this role who would say, "I don't need that kind of harassment. I am not going to issue a ministerial permit and be put in that invidious position". So I think it would defeat the purpose that the hon. member has in mind. It is for that reason that I am opposed to this motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 28 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Serge Joyal: Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 39 by striking out lines 33 to 45 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"dent, a 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, stating that the person is a person described in subpara-
July 22, 1977

graph 19(l)(J)(ii), or paragraph 19(1 )(<?), (/) or (g), or in paragraph 27(2)(c), may be filed with an immigration officer or an adjudicator and the certificate is evidence of the matters therein without proof of the signa-".


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended by deleting Clauses 39, 40, 41 and 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"39. The Minister and the Solicitor General may issue certificates setting out that in any case before the Adjudicator or Immigration Appeal Board that such a case involves security or criminal intelligence and the Adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Board shall conduct the hearing in camera and shall not furnish to the applicant the sources of the information but shall give to the applicant a summary of the basis of objections, and shall otherwise hear and determine any claims or allegations that security or criminal intelligence is involved in the same manner as other cases." and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.


Serge Joyal: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 40 by striking out lines 19 to 26 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"section (8) and where the report made pursuant to subsection (9) has determined that the person concerned is a person described in subparagraph 19(l)(</)(ii) or paragraph 19(l)(c) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), the Governor in Council, after having considered the reports referred to in subsections (1) and (9), may make a deportation order against that person."


Serge Joyal: Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 31 and 32 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"Council, which Members shall be retired judges of a superior court."


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak on the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), to expand the concept of "political refugees". 1 pointed out that some particularly important provisions in Bill C-24 should be made crystal clear in the minds of all members, essentially because they put into question basic concepts in our society and the type of Canada we want for the future.
1 will not come back to the meaning of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Montmorency, since hon. members already had the opportunity to vote at this stage. However, I would like to deal in more detail with sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 as these sections question assumptions by the government, Parliament and the public on matters of national security and appropriate legislation to be passed by the House to ensure its preservation. Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the bill apply to two particular groups of immigrant non-permanent residents, i.e. visitors, tourists, students, occasional workers and refugees who are not yet permanent residents, and holders of a permit issued by a minister. That is a first category of non-permanent residents, and sections 40 and 41 deal mostly with national security as far as permanent residents are concerned, which means persons we all feel should enjoy more
Immigration
extensive rights and wider protection than are available to non-permanent residents.
However, sections 39, 40 and 83 are related to section 119 of the bill which provides that secret reports which would be used by the ministers will not be made available to any court of the country and consequently in no judicial procedure. So, section 119 is a provision which deprives our civil courts of their jurisdiction, and challenges our ideas of reliance on the courts to enforce the law, and above all ensure security in Canada. 1 would like to mention that this problem of relationship between the courts and national security is rather new in parliamentary democracy, and especially in North America, and 1 would like to draw a comparison with the situation prevailing in the United States.
Last year, in April 1976, the American Senate tabled a report which dealt precisely with the relationship between security operations, i.e. aiming at the protection of territorial integrity, and the survival of democratic institutions, such as the Constitution, and civil rights and their relationship with the courts, that is the judicial power to ensure that the role or the rights recognized by the constitution of the country can be reconciled with the more general powers of the courts in matters of national security.
Obviously, there is always the same element involved in matters of national security, that is the need for confidentiality and in camera proceedings. Of course, if the security system operated in the open in the market place, it would lose any real measure of efficiency. It is therefore accepted practice that security matters are dealt with in a confidential environment for efficiency reasons. This does not mean however that the judiciary should lose all control over security activities.
I am referring to the American situation. Hon. members are fully aware that scarcely 15 days ago, the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox) announced here in this House a royal commission to define control procedures available to the Canadian government in the special area of freedom that must apply to our security institutions.
Clauses 39, 40 and 41 were discussed at length at the committee stage. I was not present at that time, being involved in legal proceedings against a Crown corporation. 1 am aware of the amendments put forward by some official opposition members, which were discussed at length by New Democrat members, and also of certain arrangements that may have been reached by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and the movers of various amendments.
1 suggest, however, that it might be useful at the report stage to bring back some amendments that are aimed in my mind not at reducing the degree of security, but neither at ensuring that it will be maintained within the framework of judicial control. The first amendment in particular involves clause 39, this is amendment No. 29 tending to obtain that a judge of the Federal Court of Canada issue the security certificate that the minister and the Solicitor General can sign themselves. Various objections were raised against that

July 22, 1977
Immigration
amendment, namely that a judge would not always be available, that this would over burden federal courts and that in the final analysis confidential matters would be debated in public. Upon analysis, I do not think either of these arguments would stand up. On the one hand, we have often seen judges of the Federal Court issue orders in the evening or during the night. Similarly, judges of the Federal Court have made themselves available to the government, for instance during the strike of air traffic controllers, last summer.
We have also seen some judges direct that hearings be held in camera in special cases where public interest and security were at stake. Therefore, the arguments that were made against this amendment No. 29 do not seem to take into account the availability of the Federal Court judges, nor the confidentiality which can be assured by the courts; finally, the usefulness and the essential part that the courts play in the matter of people's basic rights have not been recognized either. This first amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to me but another trade-off which seems to be the minimum that can be granted if we want to provide to non-permanent applicants a basic right that we would recognize as citizens of a free and democratic country, which gives a high priority to the rule of law and the involvement of courts in the supervision and control of the power of discretion, with the essential significance that they must retain throughout these security activities.
I do not want to prejudge the recommendations of the Royal Commission set up by the hon. Solicitor General, which we will discuss. 1 simply want to emphasize that the recommendations of the U.S. Senate report are very conclusive. They recommend that security activities be subject to the supervision and control of American courts, and that the spending power of security agencies be subject to the control of the Auditor General. Again, I do not want to go beyond the recommendations of the Canadian Royal Commission but members of parliament may have eventually to amend the law of the land if they want to give effect to those recommendations which will enable the courts to exercise a tighter control over the security activities performed by the RCMP.
Clause 40 includes certain provisions which, as I pointed out at the outset, refer to applicants who are permanent applicants, who have the status of permanent applicants. The amendment to that clause is an amendment which 1 think gives the advisory board a power that once again would tend to give it the status of a court of justice. The advisory board as set up in clause 40 is strictly an advisory body and its recommendation which could be in favour of an applicant could be dismissed by the governor in council. In other words, the favourable aspect of the decision which might be made by the advisory board could always be disregarded in a decision of the governor in council, without any right of appeal. We all recognize that the rights of a permanent applicant are and should be a lot more extensive than those of a non permanent applicant.
The proposed amendment to clause 40 basically provides that decisions in favour of an applicant which could be made by the advisory board would be mandatory and could not be

quashed by the governor in council. Again, that seems to me to be the minimum compromise which could be sought to try and give that body the power of independence and inquiry that would normally make it look more like a court of justice. Otherwise, it would be a purely intermediary stage that has no effect on the rights for which protection is sought. Once again, that amendment to clause 40, amendment No. 31, appears to me to be a minimum.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen)-and 1 know he is aware of it-that in 1969, the commission presided by Mr. Mackenzie, of which former Air Canada president Yves Pratte was a member, recommended that in the area of security, a permanent applicant would not be denied his rights before he has been allowed access to the due judicial process.
If one reads the recommendations of the Mackenzie commission of 1969, one realizes that these recommendations were extremely strict and extremely tight vis-a-vis the rights of citizens as regards security. Now the Mackenzie commission itself recommended in 1969 that the case of permanent applicants be subject to a complete legal process. It is therefore unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, to take exception to or dismiss at once the proposed amendment to clause 40, since it is aimed at establishing a procedure which remains well within the suggestion made by the Mackenzie commission in 1969.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of section 41, amendment No. 32 is aimed at having three retired judges on that advisory board instead of only one. Several objections have been raised to those proposals. Finally, an arrangement was concluded by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, an arrangement which has finally allowed us to obtain that one of three positions be filled by a retired judge. Once again, several objections were raised: few judges available, courts are overburdened, security files would be made public. Looking back at the statements which have been made, Mr. Speaker, it is to be regretted that as legislators we are not favourably disposed towards the courts when it comes to national security. And as I said earlier, the U.S. Senate has already had the opportunity to vote more specifically on the role of courts in the context of national security. And once again, perhaps as legislators, we will have to reconsider during the months to come some bills whose object will be to extend the control of courts in the context of national security. I think that we are overly eager to associate the role of courts with the public character of court operations.
Court action does not necessarily mean public hearings. My colleagues who have experience with the Criminal Code and related statutes, know that in some cases it is possible to ensure confidentiality of the debates. I believe it is fair to state that in the past, the vast majority of judges have always fulfilled this responsibility in the most exemplary way, and there is no ground to fear that security files may get lost in court.
Unfortunately, as we found out in the last few months, files sometimes get out of police hands much more readily than out of courts of justice and magistrates' Chambers. Therefore, I do
July 22, 1977

not believe that the points raised against the presence of three judges on the advisory council would jeopardize national security.
Mr. Speaker, this is why it seems basic to me that the compromise proposed by the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) who, to a certain extent, has taken fifty steps forward in this area, be pursued and that we may reach a point of further refinement of the role that we want to give courts and the importance that we want to recognize in the rule of law in the area of national security.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I propose to speak on motion No. 30 standing in my name. The motion proposes to delete clauses 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the bill, and substitute therefor the proposed clause 39 as set out on the order paper. I submit that in place of the elaborate, confusing phraseology of the four sections, you would have a much simpler, more straightforward provision as set out in the amendment. It deals with security, and nothing is more difficult than squaring security with justice and fairness to people affected by legislation of this kind.
In this case we are considering the Immigration Act. I propose, and I shall tell the House later where I got the idea for the amendment, that the minister and solicitor general may issue certificates in the normal course of any proceeding in connection with deportation before the adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Board. Their certificate says that the case involves security or criminal intelligence. It then provides that, and I quote:
-the Adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Board shall conduct the hearing in camera and shall not furnish to the applicant the sources of the information but shall give to the applicant a summary of the basis of objections, and shall otherwise hear and determine any claims or allegations that security or criminal intelligence is involved in the same manner as other cases."
That differs from the clause which I seek to delete which provides various hearings. It provides for the setting up of a security advisory board which, incidentally, is given no authority at all except to report.


Mr. Nystrom:: The Conservative party is now united.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I don't know if I feel very united at the moment. The present clauses provide for the special advisory board. Then they provide that the cabinet may order the deportation of a person whether or not it has a report from the security board. That is clause 40(10).
The basis of my recommendation is what was done in the last world war. At that time the government, in its wisdom, found it necessary to use the defence of Canada regulations to detain people who were thought by the Minister of Justice to be a security risk, and to intern them at his pleasure. This was to be in the regulations which in turn were passed under the War Measures Act and it was acted on. Many people of German or Italian origin, and perhaps some of Japanese origin, were interned under this procedure and detained without hearing and trial.
Immigration
At that stage a group of civil libertarians, many of them businessmen from Toronto, and I happened to be associated with them, came together in what they called the Civil Liberties Association of Toronto. They said it is basic, even where security is concerned, that there be a public hearing. They devised a formula which was accepted by the government of the day. The Minister of Justice at that time was Mr. St. Laurent, a distinguished name in the Liberal hierarchy. He accepted this proposal whereby, when security came into question and a person who was interned wanted to question it, he could do so by making application to a county or superior court judge, who was required to do what I suggest here. He was required to proceed with the hearing, listen to what the applicant had to say, and no doubt hear from the Department of Justice why the person was detained. He did not disclose sources of confidential information, but he did give particulars so that the person being interned would know in general terms at any rate what was the alleged reason.
As a result of that process, very large numbers of people were released from internment camps. As far as I have been able to determine, none of them proved a danger to the security of Canada. None of them were in trouble. They secured their freedom through this process which kept confidential sources secret but nevertheless granted a hearing.
If that can be done in wartime in respect of people whose liberty had been taken from them by reason of suspicion that somehow or other they might help the enemy and thereby be damaging to Canada, why can it not be done now? If the Liberal party is able to show such liberality in the midst of war, why not in the Immigration Act when we are not at war?
I admit there are such things as security risks. We are talking about a means of granting a fair hearing on the one side and keeping confidential information from disclosure on the other. It worked then. It could work now. It would be a sensible compromise. There is no reason why these things should be taken entirely away from the adjudicators in the Immigration Appeal Board. They are the ones trained to deal with this subject. If they receive this certificate their obligation is not to have the case publicly held, but hold it in camera and give limited particulars to the persons concerned. That is a reasonable compromise.
Security is always a difficult matter to deal with. I would like to read from the abridged version of the Report of the Royal Commission on Security, June, 1969. As most members will recall, Max Mackenzie was the chairman and Yves Pratte and M. J. Coldwell were members. They submitted a lengthy report. This is what they had to say about deportation and appeal in relation to security:
Our views on one important aspect of deportation and appeal procedures have already been outlined. We feel that the deportation of an immigrant who has been formally landed in Canada is a most serious matter, and that it is right that any such order should be subject to formal judicial due process-
It is not political due process through the cabinet, but judicial due process. I put those last few words in to clarify the matter.
7934

July 22, 1977
Immigration
-and appeal before a body such as the Immigration Appeal Board. If the government is unwilling to produce acceptable and satisfactory evidence, we feel that deportation should not be ordered. Such situations should not often arise, if reasonably effective immigration screening procedures exist.
It will be noted that my proposed amendment does not go as far as the royal commission recommended. It said if there was not adequate evidence they should not proceed with the deportation. I am prepared that they should proceed, but only after some due judicial process and appeal before such a body as the Immigration Appeal Board. I have inserted a formula which will provide for confidentiality.
If these very distinguished gentlemen were entrusted with this job by Mr. Pearson and could recommend what they did, then what was done by Mr. St. Laurent in the middle of the war can also be done here. Instead of doing violence to either side, and instead of doing violence to the confidentiality of secret sources of information so as to provide for a full judicial process hearing, the amendment I propose will serve that purpose. I have very little hope with the present attitude that this amendment will be adopted. It is much too sensible. The tendency these days is to try to use the word security, wave it around like a magic wand, and let the cabinet decide these matters. We do not need such a strict division as the Americans have, but it makes sense to let the judiciary body do its work and to let the cabinet do its work. I certainly do not approve the sort of thing set out in these proposed changes.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, many hon. members as well as many representatives of non-governmental organizations have expressed concern about Clauses 39 and 40 and to a lesser extent about Clauses 41 and 42. These clauses were discussed at some length in the committee, and as a result of interventions there by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and others, substantial amendments were made in committee. I believe members who were able to attend the committee sessions now have a better appreciation of the purpose of these clauses and the manner of their implementation, but I think it might be helpful to the House in considering these motions if I were again to review the intended application of the clauses in question.
Bill C-24 describes several classes of persons who may be inadmissible or deportable because of engagement in criminal or subversive activities. I would refer hon. members in particular to paragraphs 19( 1 )(d) to 19(l)(g) inclusive, as well as to 27(1 )(c) and 27(2)(c). Where the evidence of such engagement can be freely disclosed in public, we would proceed against the person concerned by way of a full and proper inquiry before an adjudicator. This is what is done now, and what would be done in most cases in the future.
There are some cases, however, where the evidence cannot be freely disclosed, and consequently an inquiry cannot be held. The evidence may contain elements whose disclosure would endanger national security; it may have been provided in the strictest confidence by an agency of the government of

another country, or it may have been supplied by an important undercover agent whose usefulness would come to a quick end if his existence were revealed. These cases are a minority, but unfortunately they are usually the most serious ones.
At present the department finds itself in rather a difficult position. The minister can take action against non-immigrants in Canada by declaring that they have ceased to be non-immigrants and making deportation orders against them under sections 7(4) and 7(5) of the 1952 act. But there is no comparable power to deal with people seeking admission to Canada or those who have been admitted as landed immigrants, no matter how grave the danger to Canada or Canadians. We have no choice but to let such people come into or remain in Canada, as the case may be.
This has long been recognized as a serious problem, and was mentioned as such by the Royal Commission on Security some years ago. It all boils down, of course, to a conflict between the right of the individual to fair and just treatment and the right of Canada to defend its legitimate interests and those of its citizens and residents. It is a difficult decision to make, but we believe that in this area the right of the state must be paramount. Clauses 39 and 40 attempt to secure the state's interests without taking away from the individual any more than is absolutely necessary.
Clause 39 deals with people who are not permanent residents, that is, visitors in Canada, people not yet admitted to Canada, and people who are in Canada unlawfully. We feel Canada owes these classes rather less than it owes its permanent residents, but even so clause 39 does not give the minister the absolute power he has under the 1952 act. Although the minister and Solicitor General would be entitled to issue non-contestable certificates, the person concerned would still have the right to an inquiry before an adjudicator, and in some cases to a hearing by the Immigration Appeal Board at which he could seek to establish that he and the person named in the certificate were not one and the same. This is a significant improvement over the 1952 act.
Permanent residents are a different matter. We do owe them more consideration, no matter how serious the evidence against them. Under the provision proposed in Clause 40, the opinion of the minister and of the Solicitor General would not be conclusive. Rather, it would have to be submitted to a panel of distinguished citizens for review. This panel-the special advisory board-would not only have access to the minister's evidence, but would be authorized to pass on selected items to the person concerned, and would give the person a hearing at which he could present a defence. The board would then report its conclusions to cabinet, which would in turn review all the evidence before making a decision. The permanent resident would thus receive consideration at three very high levels.
Motions Nos. 29 and 30-and I might also mention motion No. 46, which is on the same topic although not included in this group for debate-appear to agree with the necessity of protecting sensitive information, but suggest that the decision on sensitivity be placed elsewhere. This is a decision which cannot be made casually or out of context. We are convinced it
July 22, 1977

must be made by persons who have regular access to and involvement with secret information, and who are thus better able to appreciate its signficance, its reliability, and its ramifications. It is internationally recognized that security matters must be dealt with by the executive rather than the judiciary. The same observation applies to motion No. 32; although we agree with the presence of one retired judge on the special advisory board, we do not think that a board consisting solely of judges could bring sufficient experience and expertise to bear, having regard to both the board's functions specified in Clause 42.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) constantly reminds us of security cases under the Defence of Canada regulations, but 1 would point out that in those cases the information was domestically generated whereas much of the immigration material comes in trust from foreign, sources. Furthermore, immigration security cases do not appear to be a fit subject for judicial proceedings since none of the usual court rules can apply-I am thinking primarily of the ability to cross-examine witnesses, for example. National security is generally regarded in all countries as a matter for the executive branch, not for the judiciary.
In conclusion I repeat that we understand and appreciate the sentiments which have inspired the movers of this group of motions. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the scheme set out in the bill, especially as it was modified in committee, comes as close as we can hope to get to an appropriately balanced protection of the rights of both the individual and the state, and I respectfully urge the House to defeat these motions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall not prolong the debate unnecessarily. I am grateful for the minister's intervention because it clarifies the nature of the difficulty we have encountered this afternoon with respect to these amendments. The hon. gentleman said at the outset that all kinds of safeguards were needed with respect to this situation. The very fact that confidential material is being brought forward and used against individuals creates a delicate situation.
These provisions are certainly intended to apply to those said to have been engaged in criminal or subversive activity, and I realize that from time to time information might be forthcoming which it would not be in the interests of the security of the state to make public. Nevertheless, I feel the minister has failed in his argument on two points.
In the first place it seems to me there is an assumption that the information which is made available by security and intelligence agencies is almost without question accurate, full and fair. This is an assumption we encounter at the outset. If there were any way in which we as members of parliament could be sure that the kind of information made available to the department in these cases involving the suggestion of criminal activity or criminal conspiracy was not to be questioned, those who have raised this matter would feel a great deal more comfortable. The difficulty is that we are dealing with a whole variety of sources of information. The minister knows, because he is experienced in the law, that much of the
Immigration
information obtained by way of the creation of a file with respect to criminal or subversive activity may not be hard information but in fact hearsay evidence, or the evidence of prejudiced witnesses, those with a particular axe to grind.
In the case of agencies operating in other countries, we have no way of ascertaining the veracity or accuracy of information made available to our own government. There have been very sorry experiences indeed on occasions when we have acted upon the assumption and in good faith that information provided to us was accurate, only to find subsequently that it was misleading and in fact sometimes downright untrue. In situations like that one must be doubly sure there is sufficient protection for the particular individual involved. There is therefore a major weakness in what the minister said today. He has given us no indication how he or of the officials of his department can be protected against information which is incorrect or unfair to an individual who stands accused. In those instances, of course, any individual can stand in jeopardy.
The other point that concerns me even more is what I think is a false proposition which the minister conveyed to the House this afternoon, which I suppose creates a difficulty for the minister in taking the position he does, or it gives him the basis for taking a position which 1 think is unwarranted. The minister said something like this-1 do not want to misquote him: "The real issue, Mr. Speaker, is the question of the right of the individual to a fair and just treatment as against the right of Canada, the state, to be paramount".
If the choice is between the individual in terms of receiving a fair and just treatment and the survival, the integrity or the legitimacy of the state, surely we have a false notion of what our society is all about. There can be no Canada worth preserving, to put it bluntly, unless the right of the individual to a fair and just treatment is preserved.
I really do not think the minister wants to push this very far. If he is saying that we will have to begin sacrificing certain rights before the law to have a fair and just hearing in order to protect the sanctity and survival of the state, then surely he is saying something that is not in the best tradition of a liberal democracy. Therefore he will want to reconsider, if not today I hope before the time comes for us further to revise the bill in amendments which will come in years to follow. It seems to me that we must be very certain, when establishing the methodology and procedures for dealing with certain situations, which I realize are very often complex and difficult, whether they be of a criminal or subversive nature, to create responsibilities on the part of government and the bureaucracy to deal with innocent people who may be detrimentally affected through the forfeiture of their right to a fair and just hearing.
There is no justification in my estimation for accepting the proposition that there must be some kind of trade off between the survival of the state and the right of each and every individual who is a resident of this country to a fair and just
80020-38!/i

July 22, 1977
Immigration
treatment. I share with the minister the sentiment that the committee made considerable progress in alerting members of his staff and of the committee generally to the difficult situation confronting them. I think that substantial improvement was made on this aspect of the bill in committee, but quite obviously it does not go far enough.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member suggested-I know he did not mean this-that we always take evidence provided as full, fair and accurate. With respect, that is not the case. There is a problem I have at the present time whereby the minister has to make a decision as to the weight to be given to any evidence. We now have two ministers who will look at the evidence and then we refer it to a special advisory board to decide how fair, full and accurate the evidence is and what emphasis or weight should be given to it. I think this is one of the big improvements made to this bill during committee stage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 29. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 29 (Mr. Joyal) (for Mr. De Bane) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motion No. 30. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 30 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motion No. 31. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 31 (Mr. Joyal) (for Mr. De Bane) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motion No. 32. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Division deferred. [Translation]


Serge Joyal: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont on a point of order.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to have a recorded division qn motion No. 32?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This will certainly be a recorded division if I may answer the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. This is only a vote which has been deferred under Standing Order 75(11) which says that the vote will be held at a predetermined period.


Louis Duclos: Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 45 by striking out lines 25 and 26 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"with respect thereto, the accuracy of which transcript attested to by the person claiming, shall be referred to the Minister for determination."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of Motion No. 33, which aims at amending Clause 45(2). The purpose of this amendment is essentially to make sure that the accuracy of the stenographic notes of the examination to which is subjected the person claiming refugee status is attested by this person. This is a somewhat minor amendment which 1 feel would give the runner an even break. This amendment, if adopted, would close one of the loopholes which

July 22, 1977

exist throughout this bill and which open the way to bureaucratic abuse.
In fact, if this amendment is important, it is only because it is on the basis of this transcript that the advisory committee on refugee status advises the minister who is responsible for deciding whether a person qualifies as a political refugee and, therefore, whether this person will be granted this status.
Under the existing law, a person who claims to be a Convention refugee cannot even see the transcript unless of course he is eventually heard by the Immigration Appeal Board. From that point of view, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 is an improvement to some extent, since a copy of the transcript is forwarded to the potential refugee, i.e. the person who claims to be a Convention refugee. However, he cannot ask for corrections before the transcript is brought to the attention of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee or before the Committee has read it with the result that, to all practical purposes, this is an insignificant improvement in view of the fact that the inaccuracies or errors which could have slipped either during the translation, interpretation or transcription cannot be corrected. Now, it is obvious that the slightest error of translation or transcription may give a totally different meaning to someone's evidence and, therefore, ruin his credibility in the eyes of the Advisory Committee. Obviously, such control would have to be made by a translator selected by the person who claims to be a Convention refugee since the transcript is written either in English or French and therefore cannot be understood by the applicant.
Of course, one can argue that making it mandatory for the Department of Immigration to have the stenographic notes certified by the person seeking refugee status could be a waste of time. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be better to take more time and avoid situations where, because of an inaccuracy or a mistake, the applicant is refused entry into Canada while in fact, had such details been accurate, he would have been entitled to come into Canada.
Mr. Speaker, others could also argue that certain applicants might change their testimony while revising those stenograph-ical notes. To this, I answer that this problem could easily be solved by recording the testimony which would stand as unassailable evidence in case of conflict between the stenographic notes and the changes that could be required by the person seeking political refugee status.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, 1 think the minister will agree that the amendment 1 moved is quite small and that he will want to give a chance to everybody, to individuals in very hard conditions, to people who are uncomfortable and nervous and who may give, under the pressure of the examination which is sometimes very hard and in some cases I think, a bit cruel, to check the accuracy of their testimony. So I leave this amendment to the consideration of the House with the hope that it will agree with it.
Immigration


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of answering the concern of the hon. member, this was discussed at some considerable length in committee. The amendment would have a claimant to refugee status certify the accuracy of the transcript of his examination by a senior immigration officer. Since the bill requires that the examination take place under oath, the suggested addition seems superfluous and will provide only an opportunity for the person concerned to change his answers. Additionally, it is unclear how a claimant, unable to speak either official language, could certify the accuracy of the transcript in English or French interpreted from the claimant's language. Even counsel would not be able to assist in that particular regard.
Those who do the translations swear to the truth of the accuracy of the transcripts. With respect, there is adequate protection provided under the terms of the act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is now on motion No. 33 in the name of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 33 (Mr. Duclos) negatived.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 51 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 35 the following new paragraph:
"(e) in any case where the person makes an application to the Federal Court of Canada pursuant to sections 18 or 28 of the Federal Court Act, to have the decision of the adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Board reviewed, set aside, or otherwise considered, until the application has been heard and disposed of."


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

July 22, 1977
Immigration


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 37 (Mr. Fairweather) negatived.


Louis Duclos: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 55 by striking out lines 33 to 44 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) a member of the inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(l)(c)
unless the offense in question is a political offense;
(b)	a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(l)(e), (/) or
(s);
(c)	a person described in paragraph 27(1 )(c) or 27(2)(c); or
(d)	a person who has been convicted in Canada of an offense under any act of
Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of five or more years has been
imposed,
and the Minister is of the opinion that the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada."
Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate will be about an amendment to clause 55 of Bill C-24. At the committee stage, I proposed an amendment to clause 55 of the bill which would have abolished outright the possibility of removal, that is sending a refugee back to his country. This amendment was of course in accordance with clause 33 of the Geneva Convention on refugees, where it is said, I quote:
However, a refugee will not be entitled to the benefits of the present clause, if there are any serious grounds for considering him as a threat to the security of his country of residence or if, having been sentenced for a particularly serious criminal offence, he is considered as a threat for the community of the said country.
Mr. Speaker, does that mean that Canada, as a signatory to the Geneva Convention, has the obligation of resorting to removal in some cases? No, for in to the same clause of the convention, we find the following. I quote:
No clause of this convention will affect other rights or benefits granted to refugees, irrespective of the convention.
As I said before the standing committee, I recognize that there can be some cases where we have to deal with distasteful characters, as the minister knows, but I submit that it is morally unjustifiable to send back to their country people who
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
risk torture or death, whatever the seriousness of their offences, especially if these offences were polically motivated. In fact, we shall have very strange legislation on this subject. Since clause 56 allows the non-implementation of a removal order if the refugee has not been able to obtain the authorization to remain in any other country, removal will only take place in the case of the people on whom their country of origin wishes to avenge itself. For instance, since Vietnam does not especially want to settle its account against General Quang, he will be able to ask to stay in Canada under clause 56. On the other hand, a Chilean who will have been a member of a popular unit under the Allende regime could not make use of clause 56 since the Pinochet administration would be only too happy to let him come back to Chile to torture him and possibly have him executed.
Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is that, basically, a decision taken by a foreign government will determine if an individual will come under clause 56 or under clause 55. We could always punish in Canada the refugees who might constitute a real danger for our country-even though there are very few of them according to what we heard in the standing committee- but nothing justifies the removal to his country of origin of someone who risks being mistreated, and this is an understatement since such people can even risk death in the case of certain Latin American countries.
The amendment that I have submitted to the House in motion No. 38 constitutes in fact a compromise and aims first of all at excluding the possibility of removal in the case of a political offence, such as provided in clause 19(l)(g). The part of my amendment found in subclause (2) therefore only aims at making our new Immigration Act in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Section 1 (/) of the Geneva Convention explicitly provides that the refugee who has committed a political offence is entitled to the protection of the Convention while the one who has committed a non-political offence cannot claim this protection.
Mr. Speaker, it would be quite unacceptable for Canada, which has set as one of the objectives of this new law respecting immigration-and I quote clause 3(g) of Bill C-24, "to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees"-to allow itself to act against the principles enshrined in the Geneva Convention by not making, in clause 19(1 )(*/), a difference between political offences and those which are not. This is why, Mr. Speaker, the first part of my amendment, subclause (a), must be adopted by this House if Canada is to abide, as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) so often reminded us, by the requirements set in the Geneva Convention.
As for the second part of my amendment, to be found at subclause (d), it simply aims at being in agreement with an amendment presented by the minister himself when this bill was studied in committee. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, subclause (c) of clause 55 originally concerned those persons who had committed an offence for which a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more may be imposed. At the very request of the minister himself, the committee amended this subclause which
July 22, 1977

now concerns those persons who have been found guilty of such offences.
Since we will now be dealing with persons found guilty, it is obvious that these persons will also have been sentenced. And it is precisely that sentence, Mr. Speaker, which should be used as a criterion in deciding whether a refugee should be deported to his former country. For, Mr. Speaker, it is quite frequent in Canada that persons who have committed an offence for which a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more may be imposed are only given a suspended sentence or even a probation period of some months or some years by the presiding judge at their trial. The judge who passes that sentence must take into account the type of more or less aggravating or mitigating circumstances that surrounded the commission of that offence.
Mr. Speaker, would it not be repugnant for Canada to remove a refugee to a country where torture or death may await him-for it is indeed the subject of clause 55-simply because he would have committed an offence for which a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more may be imposed, while the judge, taking into account the circumstances of the case, would only in fact have sentenced him to a light prison term? Besides, Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister of manpower and immigration, Mr. Manion, stated before the committee on July 8 that he personally was in favour of such an amendment. And here I quote Mr. Manion, as reported on page 48:36 of issue No. 48 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee: If you really want to know whether we should consider an effective term of imprisonment or a possible sentence, I do not think the department would be opposed to it. Of course, this clause only provides for removal for very serious reasons, and 1 do not think we would object to amend subclause (c) to comply with this objective.
And when the committee discussed the term of imprisonment to be imposed as a criterion for the removal of refugees under clause 55, Mr. Manion stated, and I quote from page 48:40: In my opinion, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that removal can only follow a very serious crime and we would agree to provide for a term of imprisonment of five years in this clause. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind hon. members that European countries signatories to the Geneva Convention usually apply the imposed rather than the possible sentence criterion.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, because its only purpose, on one hand, is to make clause 55 comply with the requirements of the Geneva Convention and, on the other hand, to take into account the effects of the amendment put forward by the minister himself in committee. The amendment I am putting forward should therefore get the support of the minister since his deputy has assured committee members that the department had no objection to it.
Immigration


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Epp@: Don't respond.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member says I should not respond, but if I do not respond here I will have to respond in some other place, and I do not mean the other place.
This motion of the hon. member substitutes a five-year actual sentence for a ten-year potential sentence as the standard for determining that a Convention refugee who has committed a serious criminal offence in Canada should lose protection against deportation to a country where his life or freedom could be threatened. I commend to hon. members a close look at Clause 55 on page 36 where we make what I think is a significant improvement and provide the kind of protection about which we are all concerned. I refer to the addition of the words:
... and the Minister is of the opinion that the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada.
This amendment would also exempt political offences from the class of very serious offences which render a convention refugee inadmissible to or removable from Canada, even to a country where he would be persecuted.
On the first point, if the ten-year potential standard is retained, a refugee could be removed even though he received a relatively light sentence.
If the five-year actual sentence standard were adopted, a refugee could be removed for an offence not considered serious enough in Canada to warrant a ten-year potential sentence.
Court sentencing practices vary, so it is difficult to determine which standard best represents the Convention standard of a "particularly serious crime". On balance, we believe that the ten-year potential standard now in Clause 55 more often represents a particularly serious crime.
On the second point, there is really no need to exempt political offences because a truly political offence in another country is unlikely to be construed as any offence at all under Canadian law, so that the refugee would be neither inadmissible nor removable under the bill.
If, however, a person had committed murder, arson, kidnapping or any other such offence which would bring him within the very serious inadmissible class in Clause 19(1 )(c), I question whether Canadians would feel secure with the person in their midst, even if the crime had been committed for political purposes.
On balance, this motion is unnecessary, in my view, since it adds little or no protection for Convention refugees and could conceivably endanger Canadians.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos). I disagree with the minister that adding a

July 22, 1977
Immigration
specific reference to a political offence really makes no difference. He says a political offence would not be a serious offence here. My understanding is that this provision for the political offence is taken out of the Geneva Convention, which explicitly excludes political offences.
I know that it is not an easy job sometimes to determine whether an offence is really political or whether it is just a violent criminal offence, but I think this is something that has to be done and I think our action follows the convention. If that is the type of person who is not supposed to be sent back to his country of origin under the Geneva Convention then I think the act we pass should accept that distinction.
There is a lot of difference in paragraph (c). The minister is quite right in saying that paragraph (c) was much improved by reference to having been convicted, but the distinction is that it says "of an offence ... for which a term of imprisonment. .. may be imposed". On the other hand, the amendment of the hon. member for Montmorency refers to a person who has been convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of five or more years has been imposed. It seems to me that that is much better wording. Sometimes people commit offences for which there are extremely severe penalties but under conditions which palliate or ameliorate the offence and the courts decide what is an appropriate sentence. Yet here we are asking parliament to say that so long as you can get more than ten years-you may have only got a six months sentence imposed-you are not excluded from the class of refugees who can be deported. It seems to me that the amendment is a great improvement and, in my view, should be adopted.
I have never thought that these provisions were supposed to deal with political offences, yet we go on gaily, unwilling to accept a clear statement that a political offence is not the sort of offence for which a convention refugee can be deported. Then in the clause which deals with a sentence, we deal with a potential sentence and not with realities as dealt with by the courts. This is all part of a pattern. We push the courts out. We say we know better than the courts about what is a suitable sentence, but I do not believe we do. I think the amendment recognizes that fact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 38 (Mr. Duclos) negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will now proceed to motion No. 39.

We will now proceed to motion No. 39 in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with respect to motion No. 39, this really should have been raised yesterday when Your Honour made a ruling with respect to the acceptability of motions. Motion No. 39 is consequential on a number of amendments I had on the order paper with respect to the refugee category, and since they were not acceptable to the Chair, this also will have no meaning and should be dropped. I would ask that the motion be dropped.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The proper manner in which the hon. member can withdraw his motion is to ask for the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to dropping motion No. 39?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 39 withdrawn.


Walter David Baker: Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 64 by striking out lines 27 to 34 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"64. (1) The head office of the Board shall be in Ottawa and the Chairman
and such other members as may be designated by the Governor in Council
shall live in Ottawa or within reasonable commuting distance thereof."
He said: Mr. Speaker, just to set this motion in proper perspective I would like to indicate that it deals with Section 64 of the Immigration Act, and particularly Section 64(1) as it presently reads that the head office of the Immigration Appeal Board shall be in the national capital region as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act, and the chairman and such other members as may be designated by the governor in council shall live in that region or within a reasonable commuting distance thereof. The purpose of the amendment I am proposing, seconded by my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), is to provide that the head office of the board shall not be in the national capital region as set forth in the statute but shall be in the city of Ottawa, and the chairman and such other members as may be designated by the governor in council shall live in Ottawa or within a reasonable distance thereof.
July 22, 1977

When 1 look across the floor of the House I am glad to see my friend, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), because I want to speak about a matter which is of particular importance to the areas which both of us represent, as does the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who is also here, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It has become a matter of considerable local concern and, I suggest to you, that the concern perhaps goes beyond the local area. There are very few opportunities in the House, short of the question period or perhaps an adjournment debate arising out of the question period, to discuss in this forum matters of this kind which are of some significance to the area.
It is for that purpose that I moved this amendment so that I might deal for a few moments with some of the problems that have been caused to Ottawa on the Ontario side of the river, and some of the allegations with respect to problems that might well be caused on the other side of the Ottawa river in Hull as a result of the construction and the attempt to fill buildings across the river which I have described on one occasion in the House as "Fullerton's fortress".
An annoucement was made a few days ago by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) that over the course of the next few years some 15,000 public servants would be moved across the river for the purpose of working in those buildings. We would be burying the matter under the rug if we did not say that this has caused tremendous concern in the national capital area, particularly in the city of Ottawa, but beyond that, in the residential areas which basically serve the national capital area on the Ontario side of the river. 1 am now referring to Gloucester, Nepean, Rideau, Goulbourn and Osgoode in which live the public servants who commute to work.
This has been of concern to the local business people in the city of Ottawa because the effect of it, which has not been denied categorically, is that some four million square feet of office space in Ottawa will be made vacant, and the attempts by the federal government to ameliorate the situation by taking down temporary buildings will in no way alleviate the problem. For the restaurateur, the shopkeeper and the small businessman, the backbone of Ottawa, in the area on the Ontario side of the river, the move will create difficulties. Its effects will ripple out to other municipalities in the way ripples spread out in a pond when you drop a pebble in it. Almost all local municipalities on the Ontario side of the river will be affected.
I am concerned about the timing of the move, about its magnitude, and about the lack of consultation with local authorities, local business interests, public servants, including Public Service employee organizations like the PSAC, in all its aspects, and the Professional Institute of Public Servants, in all its aspects. I complain of lack of consultation concerning traffic, transportation and related matters. Surely no member of this House will say it is a sin to place federal institutions in
Immigration
Hull but the government persists in its intention to move, desite warnings about the drastic effects of the move on employees and on the commercial interests I have mentioned. The government's conduct is deplorable. It should not happen this way anywhere in this country, particularly not in the national capital area.
The amendment before us seeks to retain the head office of the Immigration Appeal Board in Ottawa. I point out that the minister has announced the department is to move to Hull by 1980. If the amendment is accepted, it will not move. Critics may argue, "But we are talking about the entire national capital region." Of course we are. The head offices of various boards and organizations have been moved from one place to another in the national capital region. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had this in mind when the government he led proposed the National Capital Act. But the right hon. member did not intend, as F am sure the hon. member for Ottawa West will agree, that the movement or relocation of offices would be such as to affect the city of Ottawa and the people who live and work in it and the surrounding area in the way the Minister of Public Works admitted would be the case when he made his statement.
People criticize my position and say, "You must have seen those buildings being erected on the other side of the river." Of course I did. Their erection was part of the great plan of 1969, when, so far as I can determine, not a dissenting voice was raised to criticize the government for its proposal. If anyone can show I am wrong, I will withdraw my remarks. Why do I make this point? Members of the government party overwhelmingly represented constituencies in the national capital region. Therefore there were no dissenting voices to criticize the government. If you will recall, Sir, the former minister of finance, Hon. John Turner, represented Ottawa-Carleton. The hon. lady, a member of the Progressive Conservative party, secured that seat in the recent byelection. If my memory is right, the member for Ottawa-Centre was Hon. George Mcll-raith, now Senator Mcllraith. He occupies a place of distinction in the Chamber in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seeks a place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Walter David Baker: The constituency I now have the honour to represent was represented by Gordon Blair, now Mr. Justice Blair of the Ontario Court of Appeal. That member went to his just reward and, if I may say so, is serving that court with great distinction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member preaching for a call?


Walter David Baker: I choose to ignore that remark, Mr. Speaker.
Going further afield in the national capital area, the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton was represented by Murray McBride, who has gone to his just reward as vicepresident, I think, in charge of one of the boards or agencies of government-the Farm Credit Corporation. It can be seen

July 22, 1977
Immigration
that the political representation of constituencies in the national capital area was such that no voice was raised in protest against the government's proposal for relocation. Plans for relocation to Hull could have been proceeded with in a way consistent with Hull's development. Unfortunately, certain events intervened which anyone with half an eye could have foreseen, namely, some restraint was imposed on the growth of the Public Service. We had the grand scheme to develop Fullerton's fortress on the other side of the river. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the government suddenly instituted restraints of growth in the Public Service; but, at the same time, the erection of the buildings on the other side of the river proceeded apace.
Having made a glaring error in its commitment of 1969, what did the government do? It chose not to leave the buildings empty. Therefore the only alternative was to fill those buildings, in anyway it could.
I am appalled at the government's failure to co-ordinate its various policies and programs, and disturbed by the effects on morale in the Public Service. Mr. Speaker, all this should not have happened.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It's incredible.


Walter David Baker: If I may say so, you cannot move some branches of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, some parts of the Secretary of State's department, some parts of the National Parole Board and the Canadian Commercial Corporation without amending the law. It is important for us to know, when we deal with these matters, how and when the government proposes to change the law. The proposal to move the head office of the Immigration Appeal Board to the other side of the river is an attempt to put flesh on the policy the government has put forward. Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an extremely important matter.
The removal of these boards, or the relocation of the Immigration Appeal Board which is likely to move when the Department of Immigration moves, could create a host of administrative problems. As I have already said, there has not been sufficient consultation. Certain difficulties have already arisen about whether to allow public servants to observe as holidays, St. Jean Baptiste Day on June 21, or July 1. There was great difficulty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: St. Jean Baptiste Day is on June 24.


Walter David Baker: There was some grave difficulty. The Public Service, and I am sure they were joined by employees of the Immigration Appeal Board who are affected by Section 64, wrote to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) on July 5, 1977, making some reasonable suggestions. Those suggestions have been ignored. The developers of Ottawa, who face a real problem because they were enticed on the basis of government statements, have asked for

some consideration from the ministry. No consideration is forthcoming.
Given the limited opportunities that there are to discuss these matters on the floor of the House of Commons; and given the fact that this whole movement seems to have been carried out a bit by the back door, and certain agencies cannot move out of the city of Ottawa in any event unless there is an amendment in the statutes, the government had better be put on notice that before many agencies move across the river it will have to come to this parliament for its consent. I have named some, and some of those are slated for a move.
There is no one in this House of Commons who is reasonable, and I hope that I am reasonable, who stands against development in the city of Hull. However, I hope that all members of this House will stand against the implementation and execution of a policy which is compounding one error of magnitude and lack of timing with another. I refer to the error of failure to consult and to take into account the difficulties that public servants, merchants, developers, land owners, business people and indeed the whole of the national capital region on the Ontario side of the river will face as a result of 15,000 public servants moving out. I assume it is only 15,000. The government has very seldom been right in its figures. I remember at one time getting a figure from the President of the Treasury Board that there would only be 25,000 positions designated bilingual, and today there are 63,000.
We have a problem in terms of honesty and directness. That problem is nowhere more evident than in this whole dreadfully mishandled matter of the relocation of public servants and the development of those buildings in the city of Hull on the other side of the national capital region.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking in this debate on Bill C-24, but in the face of the amendment to clause 64 moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and especially after the statement he just made in this House, I feel I must express my views.
First, and without dwelling on the history of the area and more importantly on that of our national capital, I must say to the hon. member who felt he was not showing bad judgment but he should be told if he did, that the national capital is directly related to the choice made by Queen Victoria. When Queen Victoria chose Ottawa as the capital of Canada, certainly the present limits did not exist. It is also the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who decided to describe by statute the national capital area, and that area included both the Quebec and the Ontario parts in one entity called the national capital.
It is rather important to state that at a time when Canada is going through a crisis that can be termed a "national unity crisis", I feel that hon. members representing the constituencies involved should understand that national unity must start right here in the national capital region. It must be the laboratory, it must project the image the national capital
July 22, 1977

should have. A country's capital is the focus of its national spirit. If we are to start politicking with statements that one part of the national capital should not live as the other, there is no point in having a national capital area, and there is no point in having a national capital at all. Because Ottawa, whether we like it or not, will always be an Ontario town and does not reflect in any way the kind of Canadianism and federalism we would like to live and future generations will want to recognize.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton uses far-fetched arguments about numerous things, among others the Public Service Alliance. I understand he also said after the announcement that thousands of civil servants would be transferred to Hull that the Public Service Alliance was irresponsible, it should rather deal with the blatantly unfair situations of individual public servants rather than "embalming" itself in discussions about snow removal procedures on the Portage bridge or the Interprovincial bridge for the Ottawa civil servants who will soon be commuting to Hull. I find it appalling that such things should be said in this House where we should speak as one man on the question of national unity. It certainly is not with a speech such as the one we just heard and by putting down the city of Hull as the Public Service Alliance did, that we will promote national unity. In fact, little things such as those are the reason why we lose more ground than we gain in the matter of national unity.
I am against the amendment, and I trust that some day hon. members as a group will show enough sense to see to it that section 16 of the Constitution is amended so that the capital of Canada will no longer be Ottawa but the whole national capital area instead.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He seemed to argue the amendment with something less than a full heart. The amendment he is putting will introduce for the first time the principle of a statutory discrimination within the national capital region between the Ontario and the Quebec side. As far as I know, this is a principle which has not been considered since the days of the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he passed the National Capital Region Act.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton noted that the national capital region was created by a Conservative government in 1957. However, he did not call the attention of this House to the federal-provincial conference of 1969 in which all the premiers of all the provinces of Canada stated in a communique which was issued to the press that the capital of Canada would in effect be the national capital region. Premier Robarts of Ontario was most specific in that regard at that time.
We cannot be on both sides of this issue. I am going to vote against this motion should it come to a vote. However, I welcome the opportunity of making some observations.
Immigration
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton very carefully went through the political representation at the time and implied that some people had gone to what he called their just rewards. He kindly did not refer to me in any respect so I presume I have not had any just reward in his book.


Walter David Baker: Be patient.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, I have been patient, Mr. Speaker. That is one thing that I think those who have followed my career in politics would have to give me credit for.
1 think we all have to recognize the very sensitive situation at the present time. My colleague, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) did not mention matters which are very obvious in the press. There has recently been taken into the cabinet for the Parti Quebecois the representative of the city of Hull in the national assembly. What Jocelyne Ouellette has had to say about the National Capital Commission and the federal presence and all the rest of it is an appalling record. She simply says that the entire federal presence has to be chased lock, stock, and barrel out of the national capital region. The fact that her own home was expropriated to make way for the bridge may or may not have anything to do with her feelings, but one cannot but help suspect a personal vindictive note in her approach.
The move to Hull is an assertion of the federal presence on the other side of the river in an unmistakable way, and I give the hon. member for Hull and the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), full credit for standing up to the Parti Quebecois and saying "This is a federal state. We have certain federal rights; we will assert those federal rights; we will not be intimidated in the assertion of those federal rights and this is part of our policy of national unity." That is something I would entirely support, Mr. Speaker, without reservation.
But I would be less than honest if I said we had a very good record in managing these affairs. The federal government's record of management of three things; the relocation to Hull, the decentralization policy outside the national capital region of the Public Service, and the restraints on hiring in the Public Service were very badly co-ordinated, and that is no reflection on the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan). He has inherited the situation and he is doing his best to correct these things, but the decisions which were taken were not carefully planned. They have had an impact on the city of Ottawa which is the most negative of all the communities in this area. Six million square feet of office space were vacated in Ottawa, or are about to be, over a period, two million of which can be demolished in temporary buildings, and four million square feet of privately-owned accommodation is coming on to the rental market. This represents a depression in this area plus a loss in federal grants in lieu of tax of something like $150 per household per year in the city of Ottawa.

July 22, 1977
Immigration
But what is hardest for me as a local member to accept is the failure of the National Capital Commission to do its job. This was the instrument, a Crown corporation, independent, not reporting to a minister, directly reporting to parliament, all those great so-called virtues, able to offer free, independent advice, and it had the benefit of certain streams of information. In its Annual Report of 1975 the National Capital Commission talked about moving 25,000 jobs out of the national capital region into others parts of Canada. That was the one quarter of the total employment within the region it was going to move out. And it knew what the relocation from Ottawa to Hull involved, the 15,000 jobs.
If any body has access to the plans of the government with respect to its projection of growth in the public service, surely the National Capital Commission had its sources of intelligence. And in the face of these three streams of information the relocation to Hull, the decentralization outside the national capital region, the freeze on hiring policy, it still proceeded with the most outlandish schemes for satellite devolvement, a satellite community of 100,000 people in the Carlsbad area in Ontario and 100,000 people in the Aylmer area in the province of Quebec, linked by a transportation corridor. It was sheer folly, daydreaming and madness, in light of the total situation.
Within the National Capital Commission the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. This Crown agency was grossly negligent in its advice to the Government of Canada regarding the planning and development of the national capital. Members of the agency do not have to get elected. And they really do not care whether the local members are elected or re-elected, and they say as much to us. It is very difficult, as a local member, to find my letters unanswered, to find that when I approach them there is this haughty disdain which suggests that I am somehow of a lesser breed of humanity. I am treated with contempt when I try to get elementary advice. I think I am entitled to receive information and courtesy.
The facts are that a good part of the bungling and the planning of these moves to which the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton has referred is the responsibility of that agency, those who are supposed to be the eyes, the ears and the brains, giving independent advice to the Government of Canada. [Translation]
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the National Capital Commission has been remiss in its duties. What the Commission did, as far as 1 am concerned, has nothing to do with its responsibilities in that regard.

I just think that this motion cannot be supported by hon. members in this House, and I hope that it does not even come to a vote because it is so contrary to the thrust and spirit of our times and the policy of national unity we are trying to develop. But if the intent of the hon. member was to provoke a debate on a matter which is of very real concern, one which has been a sore point with many of us, to focus attention on the lack of consistent policy in this area, for which the national capital has
suffered and will continue to suffer in the period ahead, then I think to a certain extent it certainly served its purpose.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Walter David Baker: On division.
Motion No. 41 (Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton)) negatived.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 42.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 25 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"refugee may, within such reasonable period of time as is"


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 71 by striking out lines 7 to 11 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is fraudulent,
frivolous, or unfounded, it shall allow the application to proceed, and in
any"


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on motion No. 44 but it is my intention to set out briefly the arguments which were made during the committee stage. Much of the debate in this area, both here and in the committee, has been concerned with the manner in which a claim to refugee status is to be judged. Amendments have been put forward by hon. members on both sides of the House in a serious attempt to establish a procedure for judging such claims.
1 have not felt able to support all the amendments; I believe the bill gives adequate protection as it stands to persons claiming to be refugees. Nevertheless, there is one area in which the processes suggested in the bill appear to be deficient.
I refer to the provision for an oral hearing. This is the subject of motion No. 44-we are considering the general topic of redetermination and appeal procedure specifically for those claiming refugee status before the Immigration Appeal Board. What will happen, as I understand the legislation if it remains unamended, is that when a person comes to Canada or makes application for refugee status the evidence is taken down under

July 22, 1977

oath. The minister and I both have difficulty in that after the evidence is taken down under oath an appeal could result in the changing of that information.
My point is this. Throughout the discussions which took place-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but I believe he is talking to motion No. 44. As I read motion No. 44, it says "unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is fraudulent, frivolous, or unfounded". Is the hon. member addressing himself to that or to the fact of a public hearing?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member can address himself to either motion No. 42 or No. 44; they are grouped for debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be getting to the minister's intervention in a moment. According to the bill, a refugee will not have an oral hearing. It is true that under Clause 70 an applicant's declaration will be taken under oath, but an immigrant may come here and in the initial stages fail to give all the evidence, not because of any fraudulent intent but simply because, due to the new situation in which he finds himself, information which would assist in establishing whether his claim should go forward as a refugee cannot be properly adjudged. For that reason I strongly feel there should be some mechanism whereby an applicant is entitled to an oral hearing.
When we were debating this in committee there was much discussion about what could result at an oral hearing. We wondered whether a claim would be made which was fraudulent, frivolous or unfounded simply to buy time. The appeal process could be the means to buy time to remain in Canada for a longer period. I believe this amendment goes a long way to prevent claims going forward for people buying time, so to speak. After the initial evidence is in, a claim could be judged very quickly as to its validity. For this reason I bring forward the amendment, with a view to providing for an oral hearing based on strong evidence respecting the validity of any claim for refugee status.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this amendment. When the amendment was brought forward we frequently heard it said that the board would be flooded with these fraudulent, frivolous of unfounded claims. It is strange that people on the outside say that, but those on the Immigration Appeal Board with many years of experience do not say it at all. It is perfectly true that some years ago there was a terrible backlog of cases, but that was under quite different circumstances from those pertaining now. At that time visitors were allowed to apply from within Canada. The board was new at the job and did not have as many members as it has now. When the chairman of the board comes to our committee and says that yes, they can handle the situation, then I suggest that depriving a person of the right is unwarranted.
Immigration
Personally I think the board can be trusted to determine very quickly and without undue delay wether a claim is fraudulent, frivolous or unfounded. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Provencher (M. Epp) is sound. The reasons I have heard so far against it, unless the minister has different or better ones today, are in themselves unfounded. I would not say they were fraudulent. I would not even say they were frivolous. But in my view they are unfounded.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may 1 speak briefly to both motion 42 and 44. May I first refer to my own motion, No. 42. Clause 70 provides:
A person who claims to be a Convention Refugee and has been informed in writing by the Minister pursuant to subsection 45(5) that he is not a Convention refugee may, within such period of time as is prescribed, make an application-
The amendment uses the words "within such reasonable period of time". I realize there may be a fine point of distinction here, but we are faced with the situation, as we were in a number of instances in committee, of wrestling with what kind of clear intent is put into the law which will carry over in effective procedures dealing with people in various circumstances.
The difficulty with this clause as it presently stands is that it says "within such period of time as is prescribed". We could find ourselves in a situation for a variety of reasons which could make it difficult to provide sufficient time for a person to make an application for review. In the proposed amendment there is put into law the very clear intent that there be a reasonable time so as to make it difficult, if not impossible, for such an application to be pursued.
With regard to the second motion, No. 44, I am delighted not only that my colleague from Provencher has brought it forward but that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has risen in support of it. It seems to me to strike at the heart of the whole process of dealing with those who apply for refugee status.
As the bill presently stands, Clause 71 says "is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a claim could, upon the hearing of the application, be established, it shall allow the application to proceed". That puts the burden, if you like, on the individual to prove that there will be a successful outcome. As members on all sides have learned with respect to a number of refugee applications, often the initial decision made on that basis is not the fairest, most just, or the one which relates to the actual facts of the situation. By using the words "fraudulent, frivolous, or unfounded" we are using the words which were discussed in the committee. If I recall correctly, the word "unfounded" was suggested either by the minister or his officials as a word that would protect against the kind of burdening I have described or against making it functionally impossible for the board to do its job effectively and fairly.
I think that those who have taken the time and the trouble to study the procedures by which people have their refugee applications considered believe that this is not an unwarranted situation. I believe it is a reasonable approach, one that is fair

July 22, 1977
Immigration
and just. It seems to me that in the proposition put forward in motion No. 44 we are making sure that, in those cases where it is often difficult to arrive at a decision at the outset, the benefit of the doubt, if you like, will be on the side of the applicant. I think for an immigration program, and one specifically directed to those who apply for refugee status, we really can do no less. I hope the minister will give this very serious consideration.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, after 70 hours of committee hearings, I heard all the representations made from both sides of this House.
Motion No. 42 appears to be reasonable on the surface, but I consider it unnecessary, since it is a basic tenet of legal interpretation that anything done under a statute must be reasonable, and this would certainly include the making of regulations. More important, however, it could lead to a great deal of frivolous and fruitless litigation as individuals contend that in their particular circumstances the period prescribed was not reasonable. Thus another avenue of delay would be opened up as a result of that.
Dealing with motion No. 44, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), conceded that the onus of proof would be reversed. Instead of an applicant endeavouring to demonstrate the validity of his case in order to secure a hearing before the board, if we accept the amendment as drafted, the board would have to grant the hearing unless it could demonstrate that the claim was fraudulent, frivolous or unfounded. This would be next to impossible, since the board would have nothing before it except the claimant's own submission. The intended effect of the screening stage would be largely negated, with all too predictable results.
Although I have listened very carefully to the comments of hon. members and have read very carefully the amendments, I am in no position to accept them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is now on motion No. 42 in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 42 (Mr. MacDonald (Egmont)) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is now on motion No. 44 in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 44 (Mr. Epp) negatived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. It is with pleasure I point out to the House that not only have we done very well today but we are so far ahead of schedule we may have difficulties on Monday.
The mover of the next motion, the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), is not present in the House. In any event, if we were to call it a day at this time, that would leave us with only ten motions for Monday. Therefore I wonder if it would meet the wishes of the House to call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to call it five o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore, it being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m.
At 4.46 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Monday, July 25, 1977