1977-03-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask leave to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. With federal spending up by 127 per cent in the past six years which has led to a 100 per cent growth in our money supply in the same period and to 55 per cent inflation while real growth was only 31.6 per cent, and with tourist activity especially in the nation's capital needing a stimulant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That the offices of the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board in Ottawa be designated an international tourist site and be renamed Home of Canadian Inflation and that the new Bank of Canada building on Wellington Street be designated Inflation Factory No. 1 Printing Department, in the earnest hope that these two sites will become tourist attractions and perhaps shrines to the inflationary effect of reckless money creation, with morning tours to be conducted by the Prime Minister as a penance for his leading role in causing today's inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


PROPOSAL TO CURTAIL CIGARETTE SMOKING-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that the smoking of cigarettes is more dangerous than the normal consumption of saccharin, especially in terms of causing cancer, and in view of the action taken by the Minister with respect to saccharin, I wish to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls on the Government to present to parliament a comprehensive program designed to curtail cigarette smoking in Canada, and that such a program include a ban on all cigarette advertising, adequate and visible health warnings on all cigarette packages, higher taxes on cigarettes containing high levels of tar or nicotine, and special measures to achieve a cleaner environment for all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present an important and urgent motion.
As it has now been proved that there never was any apprehended insurrection in October 1970; as parliament itself was misled by the authorities in power into accepting the War Measures Act; as proper answers were never given to my own questions in this House; as serious doubts still exist about the truth of the official versions concerning the death of Pierre Laporte; as the recent publication of Pierre Valli&res, entitled "L'execution de Pierre Laporte" and subtitled "Les dessous de l'operation essai" clearly indicate that the whole "October crisis", and especially the murder of Pierre Laporte, would seem to be, behind the scenes, the diabolic work of the Prime Minister and the federal government; as it is important that light be shed on this subject-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a motion to present, he must do so immediately.


Mr. Matte:: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House request that an in-depth and impartial inquiry into the whole matter of the October crisis be set up, with a view, if necessary, to lifting the cloud of suspicions under which the Prime Minister and his government now stand because of the seriousness of the accusations contained in Vallieres' book, or to unmasking the real instigators of that infamous crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under Standing Order 43, the motion presented by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

March 10, 1977
Fertilizer Prices


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, also, would move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am sure it will commend itself to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonad). The mounting concern over the transfer of Westminster Hospital is exacerbated by confusing statements emanating from federal and provincial spokesmen relative to the status of transfer agreements, the allocation of beds, and the disposal of some 246 acres of valuable land. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That this House orders that the Minister of Veterans Affairs make a statement on motions within 48 hours outlining the present status of the transfer and outlining all relevant factors.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canadian manufactured fertilizers are being sold in the United States at a minimum saving of $25 a ton, and in view of the fact that Canadian fertilizer manufacturers charge a minimum of $25 a ton more when fertilizer is purchased in Canada, thus adding to the cost-price squeeze now faced by the Canadian farmers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs initiate an investigation into the practices relating to the pricing of fertilizer in Canada and more specifically to investigate if fertilizer companies in Canada are engaged in price-fixing practices.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a motion which I think will receive the unanimous consent of the House. Canadians in all walks of life are engaged in discussions on national unity and are anxious to see more visible expressions of our sense of unity, and yet last year the former secretary of state cancelled Canada Day celebrations in our nation's capital. In view of the need for this expression of our national pride, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House urges the Secretary of State to reinstate Canada Day celebrations for July, 1, 1977, in Ottawa and that he urge the CBC to carry live coverage of such an event in partial fulfilment of its mandate to encourage national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion can only be made with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a motion of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the fact that the visit of Premier Levesque to the United States caused a drop of one cent in the value of the Canadian dollar, the visit of the Prime Minister caused a drop of three cents, and now the speech of the Minister of Finance resulted in a further drop of two cents-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge all public figures in Canada to refrain from making speeches in the U.S. while the Canadian dollar still has some value in the international money market.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 10, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that evidence obtained from animal research that saccharin has cancer causing properties has led to the banning of the product from use by humans in Canada, and the United States evidence also indicates that a number of other chemicals, namely, Red Dye No. 2 and No. 4, Carbon Black and yellow Tartrazine have also caused difficulties and have been banned in the U. S., can the minister say why, in order to be consistent, he does not ban these other potentially harmful substances in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there are various products banned in the United States but not so in Canada, and some which are banned in Canada but not so in the United States. It depends on studies and the judgment of our experts about the relative dangers of those various products.
In the case of the products mentioned by the hon. member, continuous studies are made on the matter and I will advise hon. members on the basis of the information gathered by my officials and the suggestions they will give me in that connection.


Paul Yewchuk: In view of the important and wide-ranging effects of the ban of saccharin, can the minister tell the House why he did not make his announcement on this ban in the House of Commons but instead chose to make it to the press? Second, in view of the fact that this House was still sitting when he made his announcement last night, in view of the fact that rumours about this ban began to circulate on Friday, and in view of the possible effects on the stock market, can the minister also indicate why he waited until Wednesday to make this announcement rather than making it at five o'clock on Friday?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. member, we wanted to wait until Canada's stock exchanges were closed before making such an announcement. As for leaks which may have occurred a few days earlier, I inquired and it has been clearly indicated that such information was from an American and not a Canadian source. Finally, we had to advise the industry involved yesterday before the final decision which I took yesterday afternoon.
Oral Questions


REACTION OF ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ON BANNING OF SACCHARIN
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it appears that the minister's consultation with the various associations to which he referred about the phasing out of saccharin amounted to nothing more than an invitation to them to sit in at the meeting at which the topic was discussed, would the minister tell the House exactly what was the response to his consultations with the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Diabetic Association and the Registrars of Pharmacy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the statement made by the hon. member at the outset of his question to pass unnoticed. In fact, yesterday there have been consultations with the representatives of the industry. Some minor changes have been made to the proposals I had approved temporarily, but following that there were nevertheless consultations and changes.
As regards the occupational groups mentioned by the hon. member, we have consulted the associations concerned with respect to the nature of the studies we had made and, generally speaking, to our intentions. None of these associations has objected to the proposals we were considering and to our approach.


SUGGESTION PRODUCTS CONTAINING SACCHARIN MIGHT CARRY HEALTH WARNING
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I would like to put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister discussed with manufacturers of products containing saccharin the possibility of changing the style of advertising of these products and perhaps accompanying advertisements with a health warning, as is the case with cigarettes?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my departmental officials have considered this possibility and I have discussed it with them. However I do not think that it was discussed as such with the manufacturers, because we had rejected it as not being valid under the circumstances. Any such indication similar to the warning mentioned by the hon. member would have, for all practical purposes, no other result than to ban the products containing this substance from the market. The hon. member will certainly recognize that contrary to cigarettes, saccharin is found in a great many products available on the market.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that scientific evidence suggests that saccharin was related to cancer in rats

March 10, 1977
Oral Questions
in 1973, I am puzzled as to why the minister did not choose to make this known in the way I suggested in my earlier question.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: For the simple reason that the studies were carried out over a three year period. They started in 1973. The information the hon. member referred to was the basis for the scientific studies which my department carried out with utmost intensity over the past three years. As soon as these studies were concluded and the findings confirmed by international authorities, we took the steps which were necessary under the circumstances.


ASSURANCE SACCHARIN AVAILABLE TO DIABETICS- SATISFYING DESIRE OF CHILDREN FOR SWEETS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As one who supports the ban on saccharin since it seems to have been established that it leads to cancer, may I ask the minister if he will take steps to make sure that diabetics who need it will be able to get it? Will he also tell the House whether studies are being made into some way of solving the problem of the desire of children for sweets?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, certain drugs contain saccharin because this substance facilitates ingestion. This is particularly true for some drugs administered to children. We shall discuss with the industry and medical authorities having all these drugs analyzed and decide whether saccharin should be maintained in some of these drugs so that they do not taste like the castor oil we ingested in our childhood.
Of course diabetics will be able the find the beverages and food products they need as a result of their condition. We proposed the establishment of a committee, in cooperation with the industry and medical experts, to make a complete review of the role of saccharin in the diet of diabetics. Here again it will be possible to maintain some exemptions to the general prohibition announced yesterday. Finally I should mention that saccharin will still be available in drugstores to all those people who want to buy some.


SUGGESTED PROGRAM TO CURTAIL CIGARETTE SMOKING-STUDY OF PROGRAM IN SWEDEN
Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I call attention to the statement the minister made yesterday to the effect that the smoking of cigarettes is more dangerous than the normal consumption of saccharin, especially in relation to causing cancer. In view of this statement, may I ask if the government is considering mounting a comprehensive program, the details of which I suggested in a motion earlier today, to curtail or limit the amount of cigarette smoking in Canada, having in
[Mr. Elzinga.J
mind such things as a ban on advertising, higher taxes where there are high levels of tar or nicotine, and other such actions?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, such proposals were considered and discussed within the last few years. They are still reviewed regularly within my department and with the co-operation of other departments, but I think that the most important thing is still the education of the public as a whole. I am glad to find out that the percentage of people who stopped smoking is now rising every year and I hope there will be an increase of that percentage in the years to come.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a final supplementary may I ask the minister if he and his department are aware of the program in Sweden where an attempt is being made over a period of 25 years to raise a generation of children who have not smoked, and is study being given to that program?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REASON MINISTER DOES NOT FORBID USE OF TOBACCO
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about his decision to ban saccharin.
Since saccharin has been used for many years either by diabetics or cardiacs and that in the minister's opinion no cancer case has been detected so far and since it has been stated on many occasions that the cigarette was a carcinogenic agent, could the minister tell the House on what grounds he decided to forbid the sale and use of saccharin and why he does not take any action against smoking since it has harmful effects on health?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, this decision has been made following a scientific study which lasted more than three years in my department and whose results were confirmed by a great number of international authorities invited to examine its findings.
On the second part of the question, I will say that there is a notable difference between cigarettes and saccharin since the latter is an additive in a great number of foods and drinks and plays no essential role while cigarettes are a substance consumed rather uniquely, so to speak, and it is not linked to consuming of other products. In addition it must be recognized that unfortunately cigarettes are part of our environment and condition of living and that it is not realistic to think that we could forbid their use as easily as saccharin.
March 10, 1977


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the Canadian dollar continues its ragged retreat in relation to the United States dollar, it having fallen a further point since the Minister of Finance chose to visit the United States until at noon today it reached 94.33, a seven-year low, could the minister, as a result of his recent junket to the United States, tell the House the principal reasons for declining American confidence in our dollar and indicate what steps he was advised to take to shore up investor confidence in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could refer the hon. member to my previous answer to this question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since our dollar has now fallen nine points, would the minister indicate the probable inflationary effect in Canada of this fall, and is he considering pegging the dollar, as he hinted in committee, to save it from falling to a totally unreasonable level.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already provided the hon. member with the answer to that question in committee.


REASON NEW ENGLAND STATES HAVE LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT RATES THAN EASTERN CANADA
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a final supplementary question? As we live with low real growth prospects and particularly high unemployment in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, would the minister tell the House if in his talks with Americans he discovered why the New England states have substantially lower unemployment rates than their Canadian counterparts, our five eastern provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that was not discussed.


POSSIBILITY OF INTRODUCING FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the government contemplating the introduction of foreign exchange controls? 1 ask this in view of the minister's answer in committee, to the effect that there is some thought, perhaps, of stabilizing the dollar. Can the minister tell us of any way of stabilizing the dollar without introducing foreign exchange controls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the question is, yes.
Oral Questions
There are ways of stabilizing the dollar without foreign exchange controls. I would say absolutely and categorically that we are not proposing to introduce foreign exchange controls.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Not today.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House how he proposes to stabilize the dollar without the introduction of foreign exchange controls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated many times in the House, I am not proposing to intervene.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 thought you said in committee that we were.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did not.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the Canadian government estimates that more than $12 million of convention business has been cancelled since the new United States law severely limiting the deductibility of convention expenses incurred abroad took effect, can the minister assure the House and the Canadian tourist industry that a revised tax treaty will be in effect before the domestic tourist industry is irreversibly damaged?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this question was brought up by our Prime Minister in Washington during his talks with President Carter. It has also been discussed yesterday by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and his counterpart in Washington, and I also hope to have the opportunity of discussing this problem with the American authorities during my forthcoming visit to Washington at the end of this month. However this is a legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The dollar will fall to 40 cents.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I wonder why my colleagues are so nervous. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is a legislation which was passed by the American Congress and I do not think it could be revised during the next weeks. However we continue our representations so that Canada may be exempted from this tax which is highly detrimental to our hotel industry.

March 10, 1977
Oral Questions


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the uproar in the House means that our dollar will fall another cent in view of his forthcoming visit? Considering the fact that the tourist trade deficit with the United States alone was $470 million during the first three quarters of 1976, will the minister attempt to persuade the U.S. administration that their tax laws relating to tourism can be adjusted in Canada's favour since there is such a tourist trade surplus in favour of the United States.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can respond to that. I specifically discussed with the Secretary of the Treasury the possibility of working out reciprocal arrangements with regard to convention trade in the tax laws of the two countries and the Secretary will be taking that under consideration in the drafting of their position on the tax treaty.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Ever since the days it was the Northwest Mounted Police, I have been very devoted to that organization. Following the question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon, can the Force be assured that whoever is chosen as Commissioner, if not at the moment a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, must have had that experience, otherwise he will not be appointed.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn of the great support the right hon. member gives to the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I wish to inform the right hon. member that his question was answered in great detail yesterday by the Prime Minister. Of course, the best available person to fill the highly complex and difficult task of Commissioner of the RCMP will be chosen to fill the position. In the selection process, present members of the Force will of course be considered.


John George Diefenbaker: It may be that there are some members of the government today who are not proud of the Mounted Police.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF NATIONAL POLICE SERVICES PROVIDED BY FORCE
John George Diefenbaker: A number of them may now be identifying themselves. I would ask one

further question. Is consideration now being given to the removal of the national police service that has provided effectively over the years at the expense of Canada as a whole for police officers across the country? Is this matter now being considered? If so, is this another step in the emasculation of this great Force?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I do not understand the right hon. member's question properly, the implications or the specific case he has in mind. As far as I am concerned, national police services which are afforded by the RCMP to all police forces in the country are on the increase. Witness the new National Police College which has recently been opened in Ottawa which trains forces in order to help improve police services throughout the country.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect to the minister, and I have had considerable respect since he took over his portfolio, I would ask him whether a movement is now on foot to end the national police service which has been furnished throughout the years, removing it from the aegis of the RCMP. That is all I ask.


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the substantial negative impact resulting from the transfer of the Cast North America company from the Montreal harbour to the Halifax harbour, does the Minister of Transport intend to take the necessary measures to prevent such a transfer?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions between the two groups have, of course, been watched closely by us. They are still, I think, in a bargaining position. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I asked the minister a question yesterday and really did not get an adequate or sufficient answer. Therefore, I would like the privilege of asking some of these questions again. Keeping in mind
March 10, 1977

that the Ministry of Transport has already commenced a multimillion dollar construction program and ordered substantial equipment for a new air traffic control centre at River-view, New Brunswick, just outside Moncton, keeping in mind that the Ministry of Transport is conducting a study regarding air traffic control and the language of air-to-ground communication, and so on, and keeping in mind the minister's undertaking not to proceed any further until the completion of the study, why has the ministry decided to reduce the air space in the Moncton air traffic control centre by 350,000 square miles? Does the minister realize what effect this will have on the potential job loss in the Moncton area, which I understand is between 80 and 100 jobs? Will the new structure and facilities at Riverview be completed and operated in accordance with the original plans by the Ministry of Transport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 answered those questions quite specifically yesterday. Assurances have been given to the Moncton controllers that no jobs will be lost. New facilities are being built as part of the total plan of air space control. That plan, developed through 1973 to 1975, does lead to the transfer of some 350,000 square miles of air space, if one can measure air space in that fashion, from the Moncton centre. As I say, that is being done with assurances with regard to jobs.


Leonard C. Jones: Has the minister received a telegram from the Moncton city council and is the minister prepared to give the Moncton city council the assurances requested by them and the community, in particular with regard to potential job loss?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a telegram of that type, but I will certainly check into it. I have repeated here in the House the assurance which my officials previously gave to the controllers. Obviously, I will be glad to repeat that in reply to the telegram.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yesterday in the House in answer to a question from the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the minister announced that there would be an inquiry to examine the social and economic impact of the Alcan route. Can the minister advise why he expects that particular study to be completed by early summer in view of the fact that the Berger inquiry took nearly two years to complete its study? Why is it the Alcan route is able to be studied in such a quick and cursory way when it took so long to study the other route?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Because, Mr. Speaker, the environmental questions will be considered by an environmental
Oral Questions
impact study under the Environmental Act. It will not be covered by that particular inquiry. Furthermore, there are much fewer communities.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the fact the Berger inquiry was given jurisdiction to inquire into the environmental aspects, and the minister at that time thought that was necessary for the Mackenzie route, why does this minister now say it is not necessary with regard to the Alcan route?


William Warren Allmand: Because at that time we did not have the environmental laws we now have which require that any federal project go through an environmental impact study by a separate inquiry under the Department of the Environment. The environmental study will be made, but by a separate inquiry.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Is the fact that the Alcan inquiry will end at the end of the summer directly related to the commitment of the President of the United States to a deadline of September 30 to make a decision? Is the shortness of the Alcan inquiry related to the American shortness of time to make a decision with regard to bringing Alaskan energy to the United States?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the timetable has not been set, but it may have something to do with it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: 
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. lady for giving me notice of the question. I should emphasize that my response is in relation to what was done by the Department of External Affairs in reaction to the request which came to us from the public accounts committee. There may have been other correspondence by other departments of which 1 am not personally aware, but in terms of my own department the information was requested from Argentina by diplomatic notes on February 8 and 14 and we have received some transcripts from

March 10, 1977
Oral Questions
Argentina which were forwarded to the Public Accounts Committee. Information was requested orally from Switzerland on February 15 and March 3, and by formal note on March 7; and information was requested from Italy by diplomatic note on March 7. We have had no request from the committee, at least not until today, for any direct inquiry by the department to the Republic of Korea.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Could the hon. gentleman advise whether the much touted plan for a new hospital system for veterans in Nova Scotia, to be located on the Camp Hill property in Halifax, is (1) alive, well and ongoing, or (2) pigeonholed, or (3) in some intermediate process?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions going on between our department and the health department of Nova Scotia.


WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PLAN TO TRANSFER
Jack Marshall: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the confusing information which has been emanating from federal and provincial officials regarding the transfer of Westminster hospital in London, Ontario, would the minister indicate to the House when he is going to clarify this situation, which is causing mounting concern to veterans' organizations who are concerned with veterans' care, and particularly with the vast amounts of land, amounting to 256 acres, which would likely be turned over and should be kept for the care of the veterans?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the parkland, that is not under consideration at all. With reference to veterans' organizations being confused and misinformed, there has been no information revealed so there is no need to be misinformed. The provincial government of Ontario has accepted our proposal and negotiations will be carried on in the near future. When an agreement has been arrived at to our satisfaction and to their satisfaction, notification will be given and released in the normal way.


CUSTOMS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. On Friday last, March 4, 1 asked the minister whether her depart-

ment had any intention of closing the border to the importation of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer. The minister replied to me, if I may quote as reported at page 3666 of Hansard'.
-we had no intention of closing the border.
Yet that very same afternoon her colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, did in fact close the border under the Pest Control Products Act. I want to ask the minister whether she can give me more information as to whether fertilizer as well will now be banned from importation into Canada, as the Minister of Agriculture, the so-called "farmers' friend", has already done with herbicides and pesticides?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the question could have been biased or ironical. The hon. member asked me whether I had any intention of closing the borders. 1 answered no, of course.
As to the matter of pesticides he was referring to in particular, I told him that I would inquire about the situation. Now, I have the answer today, which he already knows since I had him informed over the telephone. My department's only role is to check if Canadian importers have the authorization by the Department of Agriculture. This minister has since announced that he would no longer give the authorization to import certain pesticides because of the risks they represent. All questions, today, relating to fertilizers should also, if the hon. member is interested in the very substance of the decision, be directed to my colleague responsible for agriculture.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that Canadian manufactured fertilizer finds its way into the United States and that Canadian buyers can buy Canadian manufactured fertilizer in the United States a minimum $25 per ton less than that same fertilizer costs in Canada, would the minister now undertake an investigation to determine why the price differential, and specifically whether Canadian fertilizer companies are involved in price-fixing practices?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I noted the hon. member's motion under Standing Order 43 and I have his question. I will bring both to the attention of the director of combines investigations.
March 10, 1977

[ Translation]


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
[Stage Direction]
FEASIBILITY OF MAGNESIUM QUfiB£COIS PROJECT-PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering the possibility of an $80 million investment in the Trois-Rivieres-Shawinigan area concerning the project Magnesium Quebecois, it seems to me that the Foreign Investment Review Agency takes a long time to reach a decision. Could the minister indicate today how are they proceeding with the negotiations on the possibility of establishing this industry in the area mentioned, which is of interest to all Quebecers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the department has been considering this matter ever since last spring. We are still waiting for some information and, unfortunately, I noticed a considerable decline in the interest of the group involved in setting up the plant. Their capital is no longer what it was before November 15.
*
* *


POSITION OF UNITED STATES ON NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since in the announcement today saccharin and related products are stated to have been withdrawn from the market, and in that we have known for some 10 years that there was a strong possibility that these products were doing damage to Canadian consumers, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs now revise, with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a list of those products, be they drugs or food, where there is a strong suspicion that they are now doing damage; and would he put the burden of proof on the manufacturer, not the consumer, and have them withdrawn now, not later when the damage is done? Because, as the minister knows, there is a strong possibility that those people who have been consuming saccharin and allied products have already been damaged. Will the minister insist-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I understand from the minister of health's announcement that there is a phasing out of certain products in which the use of saccharin is employed. My understanding is that his department is taking careful note of the probable health hazards and has recognized the equity of spinning out the withdrawal. I think they have taken a very prudent course and one which is in the best interests of both consumers and manufacturers.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister say if in his discussions in Washington last week with Carter administration officials he covered the question of nuclear safeguards and if the United States has indicated to him that they are preparing to move to a level of nuclear safeguards covering technology, hardware and fuel equivalent to those which Canada has adopted over the past two years, including selling these items only to signatories of the nonproliferation treaty?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I did raise this question with Dr. Schlesinger, the presidential adviser on energy matters. In addition, it is fair to say that the United States is very much interested in the safeguards which Canada has adopted and recognizes that Canada is out in the lead so far as the international community is concerned. 1 was not able to obtain from him an undertaking, perhaps quite naturally, on that visit that the United States would be prepared to adopt the Canadian position at this time; but they did undertake to study very carefully the Canadian position and to consult with us on it, with a view to toughening nuclear safeguards around the world.


William Heward Grafftey: There is a misunderstanding here. I am not referring just to saccharin. I am referring to the whole area of foods and drugs where there is strong suspicion that damage is being done. Will the minister examine the complete list of food and drugs where there is strong suspicion that they are doing damage now, and make the burden of proof lie on the manufacturer not on the consumer before they are withdrawn from the market?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member has known for ten years, apparently, about the saccharin problem and I would be happy to consult with him and get his list of all the other products he deems hazardous and take the matter up with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and the minister makes light of it. I should like my question to be taken seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter may be serious but the hon. member has had two chances and there does not seem any point in relaxing the rules to give him a third try. But I

March 10, 1977
Oral Questions
will hear the hon. member at three o'clock if he has a point of order.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
This afternoon, at two o'clock, I experienced a personal incident with CBC radio. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has received complaints from his cabinet colleagues regarding the lack of objectivity of some CBC reporters. I have to complain about some directors of CBC. An announcer invited me for a one-hour program on the air this afternoon at two o'clock. So I left my office to be at the Chateau Laurier at two o'clock on the dot but I was told the program had been cancelled following a decision of the directors. I think it is an off-hand way to treat hon. members and party leaders. Would the Prime Minister consider extending the terms of reference he himself gave to the CRTC so that the inquiry on the partiality of some newsmen, as alleged by some government members, deals also with questionable decisions made by some CBC directors who should at least have the decency of personally offering excuses-and not through their employees-to party leaders when they change their minds so that the announcers not be placed in that difficult position?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the staff of the Crown corporation at every level should have very high respect for the elected members of this House who directly represent the people. As concerns these allegations, obviously I am not aware of the details since this incident has just occurred but I shall ask the Secretary of State responsible for CBC to report the case to the corporation and see if some action should be taken.


COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Commonwealth Games to be held in Edmonton in 1978. Last week, in a comment relating to African participation in the games, Colonel Jack Davies, President of the Commonwealth Games Association of Canada, said the situation "doesn't look so good". What specific steps is the government taking to ensure there will not be an African boycott- steps which go beyond ensuring that New Zealand does not have official sporting links with South Africa?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I hope the hon. member will understand that I do not want to be too specific in the terms of my answer. We are making a number of efforts in a number of different places to ensure maximum support from all members of the Commonwealth. I can tell him that the matter is being pursued. For instance, it is not unlikely it will be discussed this coming weekend during the visit of Prime Minister Callaghan. We are making a number of overtures and our objective is to secure participation by all members of the Commonwealth.


Douglas Roche: The issue has begun to revolve around the definition of New Zealand's sporting links, whether official or unofficial. Since the basis for a possible African boycott appears to be widening beyond the question of New Zealand's official participation in sports with South Africa, is the government making efforts to determine the precise meaning of the statement issued by the Organization for African Unity last week calling upon its members to refrain from taking part in sporting events in which New Zealand participates?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, contacts have been made in a number of countries with regard to precisely that question-the definition about which the hon. member has asked.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the probability of a severe drought on the prairies this year as a result of which an unusually large influx of cattle is likely to come on the market, would the minister tell us whether he has any contingency plan to reduce the volume of imports from oceanic countries so that we do not get into another cycle of depressed markets?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am optimistic. Most farmers are optimistic, so their minister has to be optimistic, that we will have good weather. We do have oceanic beef on set quotas for the total year this year. If something like the hon. member is suggesting should take place we would have to let our trading partners know what the problem was and how we were trying to meet it at that time.


Arnold John Malone: Does the minister have in mind any bottom level price for cattle before he would implement a full quota or does he propose simply to wait until a crisis has arrived before opening negotiations with the oceanic nations?


Eugene Whelan: As I said yesterday, and as I think was pointed out by a number of other members, the United States is in a much worse position that we are. We shall be meeting in the not too distant future with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. A lot depends upon what they do. It is still a free market, it is still based on the North American market for beef, which is
March 10, 1977

what the beef producers of Canada wanted, so if they do not change their system and nobody triggers a meat import law in their country, and try and run supply management like we did last year, we will not have to react any differently. But we have to work very closely with the U.S. on this problem at the present time.


WHEAT-PROPOSED REVIEW OF EXPORT PRICING POLICY
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the declining value of the Canadian dollar, the threatened drought in western grain growing areas and the fact that Pacific export orders have been filled until Christmas, would the minister consider calling a special meeting of the Wheat Board advisory committee to review Canada's export grain pricing policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee meets regularly and the time has about come for me to meet with them as well. They meet ordinarily, of course with the Canadian Wheat Board. I am fully confident that the Wheat Board is well aware of all facts which bear on the proper pricing and selling of grain and I have full confidence in their judgment.


PROPOSED SURCHARGE ON ICE SHOWS TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO AID DEVELOPMENT OF FIGURE SKATERS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, further to my motion yesterday 1 have a question for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) of which I have given her notice. In view of the fact that foreign professional ice shows continue to drain Canadian skating talent without contributing financially to the development of the sport, I should like to ask the minister whether the government would be prepared to impose a reasonable surcharge on ice shows signing Canadian amateur skaters to long-term contracts in order that further necessary financial aid can be made available to our own skaters, as well as for the development of the sport generally, without imposing an additional burden on the taxpayer? I am suggesting something in line with the arrangement for professional hockey leagues vis-a-vis amateur drafts?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that CFSA has already entered into such discussions, and I have asked that a report be prepared on the progress of those discussions so that I may acquaint the hon. member with the present status of them. There is already some discussion on the sharing
Oral Questions
of facilities on a professional basis, and 1 believe there is a considerable amount of documentation now to be brought forward. I will forward it when it comes.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: My question is for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In view of the availability of a correctional site at Burwash presently owned by the provincial government of Ontario and in view of the minister's desire to locate some correctional institutions in Ontario, can the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to acquire a part of the Burwash site for a federal prison?


Francis Fox: As the hon. member has pointed out, there is indeed a correctional facility available to us in the area of Burwash. I have asked my officials to investigate the possibility of acquiring that site from the government of Ontario. Negotiations are presently going on between the Department of Public Works and the department of corrections of the province of Ontario.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that the provincial member for Sudbury East recently learned from the provincial department of government services that no negotiations were taking place between the federal government and this department for the acquisition of any part of the Burwash site, will the minister tell the House with whom his department is discussing the Burwash site, and when did these discussions take place?


Francis Fox: There have been detailed negotiations going on. We have looked at the possible acquisition of a number of acres and we have discussed the various conditions pertaining to the acquisition prices.


John R. Rodriguez: With whom?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs on a point of order.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I undertook yesterday to answer a question from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). With your permission, 1 could give a quick answer to his question.
It has to do with a loan guarantee granted under National Housing Act section 6(1).
March 10, 1977

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really must ask in the circumstances if the House would give consent to the minister to give an answer at this time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday I should like to ask the government House leader for the business of the House for the balance of today, tomorrow and into next week; and in the course of answering that question would it be possible for him to designate next March 17 as an allotted day? Bearing in mind the date on which the next budget will be brought down, would the government House leader indicate to the House his intention with regard to the days on which the budget will be debated? Looking ahead to holy week, perhaps he might let us know what his intentions are with respect to the Easter recess?


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he should check with Whelan.


Mr. MacEachen:: Today we will continue the debate on the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, followed by second reading of the immigration bill. Next week the two items to follow will probably be the unemployment insurance amendments and immigration amendments, and then the amendments to the National Transportation Act. I am not quite sure which of those two would be called first, but they will be brought forward. As the hon. member knows, the intention is to have the budget delivered on Thursday, March 31.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The day before April fools' day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The debate will begin on the subsequent Monday, which is April 4, and it will continue until the Easter recess which I hope will commence at the end of the day on Wednesday of that week. I will designate next Thursday, March 17, as an allotted day. I think it is St. Patrick's Day. It is the colour of green, which should coincide with the colour of the opposition since the Gallup poll.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Are you colourblind?


Walter David Baker: My colleague is right in asking the government House leader whether he is colourblind. In the event that he is not, I would like to assure him that the memory of St. Patrick will shortly be honoured, in a much better way. I want to say one thing to the minister. We have had some discussion and if the minister would be prepared to call Bill C-ll on Friday, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has indicated to me that we would be

prepared to have that bill go to the committee on veterans affairs after a short debate to be concluded by one o'clock on Friday. Perhaps that might be of assistance to the government House leader.


Mr. McGrath:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which has to do with what would appear to be an anomaly in our rules. It raises the larger question of the reference which the government House leader has on the order paper for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. What I consider to be an anomaly in our present rules governing the question period concerns oral questions taken as notice. I know Your Honour has to stay within the rules, but I state this for the record: yesterday I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs a question and in reply the minister said he would take the question as notice and give an answer "tomorrow".
The only way in which the minister could get the floor today was on a point of order, and the only way under our rules in which he could respond to my question was by unanimous consent, which the minister did not receive. Consequently, I did not receive a reply to my question. It would seem to me that some provision would have to be made in the rules with regard to oral questions that are taken as notice so that ministers will have a set time in which to reply to them,


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East raises a point that has given the Chair and the House difficulties on previous occasions. There can be no doubt that ministers who, in good faith, seek further information before delivering an answer should be able to give the answer. I have always taken the attitude that a member should not be entitled to put supplementary questions but should withhold them until the answer is forthcoming from the minister. Then I would make an effort to recognize the right of hon. members to ask supplementary questions at that time.
However, the difficulty continues in that a minister who rejoins the House with the information is dependent, to a certain extent, on the ability of the hon. member to rise- which fair rotation on that day may not allow-or else attempt to do what the minister did today, that is, rise during the question period to answer an unasked question. None of these solutions is satisfactory, and it would be helpful if the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization could find a solution to that problem.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my point is more a question of privilege than a point of order. If you find that I have a question of privilege, I propose to move that the matter raised in today's questions to the Minister of Finance by me and my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley, regarding our falling dollar be referred to the appropriate committee in the form of a reference on our foreign exchange position and the relationship of our dollar to other currencies, so that the Minister of Finance may make a full presentation on this matter and reply to questions.
My first question today was in reference to the visit to the United States by the Minister of Finance. I asked whether he
March 10, 1977

had learned while he was in the U.S. why there is a deteriorating sense of confidence in the Canadian dollar among Americans and foreigners generally and, if so, whether he could indicate whether any advice was given to him on how to restore confidence in the Canadian dollar. The minister's reply was that he had already covered that subject in committee or in the House. The fact is that he could not have covered it. The last committee meeting that the minister attended was March
1.	There was an exchange with respect to the level of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar, but there was absolutely no discussion at the committee meeting concerning the question I put to the minister today.
Second, I asked whether, in view of the falling dollar, it is the intention of the government to stabilize it at some level in view of the fact that the minister hinted at the committee meeting that there may be a level at which he might wish to peg the dollar. I refer particularly to an exchange at the nineteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe seeks the floor on a question of privilege. Up until now it appears that he is complaining about answers given by the Minister of Finance during the question period today. The hon. member will realize that even if the minister had made no answer whatever, there would perhaps be cause for criticism in terms other than those which relate to the procedures of the House but not for any redress in terms of the procedures of the House. Certainly there is no semblance of a question of privilege. If there is some other aspect the hon. member wishes to introduce, I would be glad to consider it, but it must relate more to complaints about the answers given today by the Minister of Finance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your observations. I was simply trying to give background as to the basis of my question of privilege. I quite agree that the minister could have declined to answer my questions, but he did not do that. I suggest he mislead the House by indicating that he had already answered the two questions to which I have referred, one dealing with the question of confidence in the dollar and how it can be restored, and the other dealing with the possibility of pegging the dollar. The first question was not dealt with in the committee proceedings to which the minister referred. He has contradicted himself. Today he said that he never indicated he would stabilize the Canadian dollar. I was simply pointing out that at the committee proceedings of March 1 he definitely stated that there was a possibility he would intervene. The hon. member for Gatineau asked the following question at that committee meeting:
In other words, Mr. Minister, you foresee the possibility of the federal government having to take action in this area.
The hon. member was referring to stabilization. The minister replied: "It is still a possibility". Earlier the minister said:
The government may possibly adopt certain measures to stabilize the value of the Canadian dollar-
Business of the House
My question of privilege is that I believe the minister unintentionally mislead the House today by indicating that he had not made that statement in committee and by stating that he had already covered this question of confidence as far as our economy is concerned at a previous committee meeting, which of course he could not have done because the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on this subject was held on March 1 and the minister returned from his United States visit just today.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, what I pointed out to the hon. member at the committee is what I have pointed out many times. I do not really think I or anyone else can speculate on the reasons several thousand foreign exchange traders could have on any particular day for taking positions with regard to the Canadian dollar. It is good sense either on March 1, now or throughout the entire period that Canadian currency is floated, that I not speculate on the reasons for trading decisions. That is the point 1 put to the hon. gentleman, and I remind him again today. To try to speculate as to what motivates currency traders at any particular point anywhere in the world is something which I could not do, as Minister of Finance, and no one else could do it. Indeed, no one in New York could do it, either.


James McPhail Gillies: That is absolute nonsense.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I also indicated to the committee on half a dozen occasions at that particular meeting that the government has no intention of intervening, that the floating dollar is Canadian policy, that there was a possibility at a certain point that policy measures might have to be taken because of the value of the dollar, but that there was no such intention at this point. The floating policy was then, and remains now, the policy of this government. I suggest that the attempts of the hon. member and the hon. member for Don Valley to portray it otherwise are something less than just with regard to the position 1 took.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my view, the disagreement remains as it began, a disagreement between hon. members about the quality of the answer or the interpretation to be placed upon the answer of the minister to a question put during the question period. If there were grounds to suggest or argue that action had been taken by the minister at any time which was a deliberate misleading of the House, that might- and I stress "might"-lead to consideration of a question of privilege. That argument has not been put forward, and in case it has any way indirectly, the motion which is attached to the argument is not related to any action of that sort but is related to the question of the dollar. Therefore, I find that no question of privilege ought to be put to the House at this time.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been interested in the special tax deduction for people who are bedridden, blind or confined to wheelchairs. Having been unable to get answers in the House I placed a number of questions on the order paper. I will not go into those questions, but I am rather disturbed when the answers suggest that the

March 10, 1977
Battle of Vimy Ridge
information requested is not readily available. The answers to the questions I asked are obviously available. Granted, they may not be readily available-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the hon. member to defer this matter until questions on the order paper are called in a moment.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, four weeks from Saturday will be the sixtieth anniversary of one of the most significant events in the history of our great country. I am referring to the battle of Vimy Ridge which took place on April 9, 1917, and which historians have declared to be the day on which Canada became a nation. I am proud to say that this memorable occasion will be officially marked by a service at the Vimy Memorial and that 24 survivors of the Canadian Corps who took part in that glorious victory will be there to pay tribute to their fallen comrades.
These survivors come from all across Canada and were chosen to represent the warriors of Vimy by the Royal Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans Associations. I am honoured to be heading a party including so many of Canada's heroes who will be revisiting the site of their great triumph. With a couple of exceptions they are all over 80, but I know their love for Canada still burns as fiercely as it did 60 years ago when they stormed up Vimy Ridge a hundred thousand strong and turned the tide of defeat into the flood of victory.
This ceremony will commemorate a day when Canadians were united in a common cause: one Canada, glorious and free. Let us keep the faith with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the minister for sending us a copy of his statement with regard to his visit along with 24 survivors most of whom are over 80 years of age. On April 9 they will be commemorating the battle of Vimy Ridge. Hon. members on this side of the House say to them, "Go with God's blessing."
The minister should be aware that it was around the same time in 1917 that the then prime minister of Canada thanked Canadian troops for the sacrifice they were making in the First World War. He assured them that the Canadian nation would always remember the sacrifice they had made and would always be committed to caring for veterans and their dependants. With all sincerity, I suggest that the minister consider some of the inequities which still remain in the veterans' charter with regard to World War I veterans. World War I

veterans who were incarcerated in prisoner of war camps are still not included in our prisoner of war compensation legislation. Here we are, 60 years later, and some veterans who served during the First World War cannot as yet qualify for war veterans' allowances unless they served for 365 days.
There is another glaring inequity of which the minister is aware, and that is that many veterans at age 80 who have widows live in fear. Those who fall within the category of having disability pensions of less than 48 per cent fear that their widows will be left without a widow's pension. The minister mentioned that they show a love for Canada, and I fully agree with him. I think the minister should remind the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) of that fact. With the threat of destruction of our national unity, their conduct in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean conflict is an example of the comradeship that was shown regardless of race, creed or colour; it reminds us of the sacrifices they made to make Canada what it is today and the efforts we must make to preserve our national unity.
As a Newfoundlander, I hope the minister realizes that on July 1 in Newfoundland we celebrate the battle of Beaumont-Hamel. Perhaps the minister can find the time to join in the ceremony in memory of those who suffered and died and lie in the graves of Europe.
I can only repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the minister goes with God's blessing and I hope he will reflect, upon his return, and show that we appreciate the sacrifices made by those veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to wish the distinguished and gallant minister well on his trip to Vimy Ridge. I hope he will carry with him not only the good wishes of his own party but certainly the good wishes and admiration of all of us in the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: It is one of those occasions when we take pride in our veterans and express our appreciation for their efforts in keeping this country free.
The minister concluded his remarks today on a bit of a gushy note, yet I think it was a very appropriate bit of gush and perhaps we should be doing more of that. If the minister would excuse me, I would not mind doing a little gushing myself. As bad as war is, as horrible as war is, most of us who have been in war know that there is another side. Those of us who served in the armed forces, particularly in time of war, developed a comradeship, a sense of identity, a sense of loyalty and participation one with another. For instance, I was thinking it rather odd that the two people responding to the minister today are both Jews. One of the things that impressed me during the war was that questions of religion, race and colour broke down in the shared experience of preserving our free-
March 10, 1977

dom. It is that kind of spirit that is required in Canada today. It is for that reason that I welcome this occasion.
I am glad to see that the minister will be accompanied by survivors of Vimy Ridge. This is not only honour to the survivors but to all those thousands of Canadians who gave their lives for freedom. I hope their example will serve us well in Canada at this time when we face the difficult problem of keeping our country together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for his statement recalling the great battle of Vimy and its 24 Canadian survivors. History does not say whether they were English or French-speaking Canadians, for that did not matter at the time. They were there in our country's defence and, at a certain point, they achieved unity in spite of the difficulties ,it presented at the time-I was only 3 or 4 years old-namely, the fact that French-speaking Canadians did not accept the draft too readily.
Nevertheless, French-speaking Canadians accepted courageously, open-heartedly to go overseas to defend our liberties, the rights that we now cherish. The minister's statement really touches me because I have a brother who is now 79 years old and even though he did not fight in the battle of Vimy, he was overseas, a soldier of the 22nd Regiment for 32 months as a volunteer. He wanted to serve Canada voluntarily and I am certain that he will be very happy when I get in touch with him tomorrow to let him know all the nice things the Minister of Veterans Affairs said today. He will be comforted and at the same time strengthened in a way by this patriotism he, like all the others, showed for our country.
Mr. Speaker, the minister's initiative in celebrating this event with fanfare by inviting the surviving Canadian soldiers of this battle deserves applause. There are enough disagreeable things that must be hushed up tactfully. When something nice happens, something that warms our heart like the minister's initiative today, we must commend him highly, and thank him on behalf of the soldiers who did their best to preserve the rights we still hold today.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will simply point out that the minister talked about national unity. I concur with him and think that it warrants further discussion. National unity was strengthened during the war, cemented in a way by the spirit of patriotism which moved both English- and French-speaking Canadians.
Today, in 1977, the situation has changed, but we should work together with the same eagerness and heart and love for our native land so as to strengthen even more the national unity which will not be at the expense of English-speaking or French-speaking Canadians, but a national unity which will prove profitable to all Canadians. There are many other comments, which I could make, Mr. Speaker, but I must heartily tell the minister how grateful I am and thank him for
Order Paper Questions
this initiative. He may rest assured that I will remember it forever.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,925, 1,265, 1,459, 1,470, 1,635, 1,636, 1,691, 1,703, 1,747 and 1,834.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total amount of public funds (a) expended to date (b) to be spent for all (i) renovations (ii) contents in the Langevin Building on Wellington Street?
2.	What is the (a) specific cost (b) total cost per square yard of all carpets in the Building?
3.	What is the identity of all offices that (a) are presently (b) will be located in the building?
4.	What is the total cost of furnishing the area occupied by the Prime Minister and his staff and what is a list of all items and the cost of each in regard to both building alterations and contents?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: 1. (a) and (b) (i) $4,336,489.16; (ii) $21,330.27.
2.	(a) $89,000. (b) $12.03 per square yard, supplied and installed.
3.	(a) Prime Minister's Office, Offices of the Privy Council, R.C.M.P. Parliament Hill Division, (b) There are no further changes in tenants anticipated at this time.
4.	Plastic floor mat, $77.


Mr. Muir: What are the names of the government agencies whose goal is basic research in (a) cancer (b) developmental genetics?


Marc Lalonde: (a) and (b) A primary function of the Medical Research Council is "to promote, assist and undertake basic, applied and clinical research in the health sciences ...", which includes cancer and developmental genetics.

March 10, 1977
Order Paper Questions METRIC CALENDARS


Mr. Neil: 1- Have 1977 metric calendars been printed and, if so (a) how many, (b) what was the cost of (i) printing, (ii) designing?
2.	Were tenders called for the printing and design of the calendar and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the companies who submitted tenders in each instance and the amount of such tenders?
3.	Has Miln-Bingham Limited/Metric Promotions Division, Toronto designed other brochures or material for Agriculture Canada under its metric programme and, if so, what are the details?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by Agriculture Canada and Supply and Services Canada as follows: 1. Yes. (a) 354,000; (b)(i) $82,622.60; (ii) $24,224.00.
2.	Yes. Separate tenders were invited for the design and the
printing of the calendars, and bids were received as follows; Design: Easlaw, McCarney & Mann, 780 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ont., $370/page; Criterion Art Co. (Ont.) Ltd., 202 Rochester St., Ottawa, Ont., $610/page; Talbot Communications, 75 Ann St., London, Ont., $780/page; Miln Bingham Limited, 1165 Leslie St., Don Mills, Ont., $725/page. Proposals were evaluated on basis of companies' expertise, design submissions as well as price. Printing: Twenty firms submitted tenders as follows:	Ashton-Potter Limited, Toronto,
$66,417.00; Commercial Print Craft Ltd., Woodstock, $67,067.70; McLaren Morris & Todd Ltd., Mississauga, $70,018.00; York Litho Ltd., Toronto, $70,226.86; Ronalds Federated Ltd., Richmond Hill, $72,224.02; Southam Murray, Weston, Ontario, $72,818.02; Lawson Graphics, Toronto, $73,134.60; Folph Clark Stone Ltd., Bramalea, $74,552.70; Les feditions Graphiques, Drummondville, $75,273.00; Gazette Canadian Printing Ltd., Montreal, $76,499.40; Pierre des Marais Inc., St. Laurent, $76,504.44; The Carswell Printing Co., Toronto, $76,390.88; Montreal Lithographing Ltd., Chomedy-Laval, $78,176.90; Graphic Centre Ont. Ltd., Toronto, $78,750.00; Miln Bingham Ltd., Don Mills, $79,505.60; Stovel Lawson Graphics, Winnipeg, $79,424.00; Evergreen Press Ltd., Vancouver, $79,856.00; Ronalds Federated, Montreal, $82,061.00; C.F. Haughton Ltd., Agincourt, $84,505.24; Ross Ellis Ltd., Montreal, $102,205.18.
3.	No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the 1975 taxation year, what was the total amount of income tax deducted from unemployment insurance benefits and what amount was (a) federal tax (b) remitted to the provinces?
2.	What method is used for the calculation of such tax?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. $209.3 million, (a) and (b) In accordance with the Income Tax Act, the Commission remits all Federal and all Provincial, except Quebec income taxes, which amounted to $162.9 million, to National Revenue, Taxation, and Quebec Provincial income tax, which amounted to 46.4 million to the Quebec Provincial government.
[Mr. Lalonde.J
2. The 1975 Income Tax deductions were calculated in accordance with the 1975 Income Tax Deduction Tables issued by Revenue Canada/Taxation.


Mr. Howie: Are there development plans for airports in the (a) Maritimes (b) rest of Canada which currently have priority over those for the DOT airport at Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so (i) for which airports (ii) for what development (iii) in what order of priority?


Otto Emil Lang: As reported in reply to question No. 960 of November 8, 1976, Transport Canada plans in 1979/80 to enlarge the air terminal building, acquire the furnishings, modify the car parking area, as well as construct a parallel taxiway and extend the aircraft parking apron at Fredericton airport, N.B., subject to the availability of funds and national priorities. Beyond the next fiscal year any program can only be considered tentative,and very much subject to the availability of funds and national priorities. It is therefore impossible to identify projects for which specific commitments in 1978/79 or subsequent years can be firmly established.


Mr. Coates: How many public servants in the Department of National Health and Welfare are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?


Marc Lalonde: As of December 31, 1976, the department employed 861 public servants on a continuing or term more than six months basis in the province of Quebec. Information on the estimated number of term employees, less than six months, is not available. The estimated payroll for the 1976-77 fiscal year in this province is $12,658,942.
(Note: Per the Public Accounts, payroll is interpreted as salaries and wages, including overtime. It does not include such compensatory benefits as commuting allowances, employers' contributions to unemployment insurance, Quebec Pension Plan, etc.)


Mr. Coates: What is the estimated total payment to residents in the Province of Quebec for the fiscal year 1976-77 (a) in old age security pensions (b) under the guaranteed income supplement (c) in family allowances (d) under the Canada Assistance Programme?


Marc Lalonde: (a) $806,815,000; (b) $295,693,000; (c) $524,421,000; (d) During the fiscal year 1976-1977, the federal government will reimburse the Quebec Ministry of Social Affairs an
March 10, 1977

estimated amount of $608,478,000 under the Interim Arrangements (Established Program) Act. This amount represents the amount otherwise payable under the Canada Assistance Plan. In addition, an estimated amount of $2,500,000 will be paid for work activity projects authorized pursuant to Part III of the Canada Assistance Plan. These amounts represent the federal share of provincial expenditures for social assistance and welfare services as authorized under the Canada Assistance Plan. Under the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government makes no payments directly to the residents of any province.


Mr. Howie: Have any community college courses been funded in Fredericton, New Brunswick, by the Department of Manpower and Immigration since January 1, 1976 and, if so, what were the courses and what was the extent of their funding?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, as of February 9, 1977 the following courses have been purchased by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in Fredericton since January 1, 1976: Reorientation for Inactive Nurses-Maple Syrup Marketing-Clerk Typist- Steno Upgrading-Bartender-Homemaker-Forest Ranger-Small Equipment Repair-Lineman (Pre-Employment)- Basic Carpentry-Carpet Laying-Utility Lineman-Construction Lineman-Stationary Engineer-Basic Training for Skill Development-Basic Job Readiness Training-Vocational Teacher Training (Special Arrangement)-Apple Production-Maple Syrup Production-All Round Logger. The cost to the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the purchase of these courses is $1,088,511.


Mr. Smith: 1.	Does the 1975-76 Annual Report of the Department of National Health and Welfare state that the Indian infant mortality rate is 2.64 times greater than that for the general population and, if so, what was the Indian infant mortality rate in (a) 1970-71 (b) 1965-66 (c) 1960-61 (d) 1950-51?
2.	(a) On what date was the Community Health Representative Programme initiated (b) how many representatives are located in Manitoba and in which locations (c) on what date did each begin?
3.	What programmes is the Medical Services Branch initiating or supporting to ensure that more Indian people have an opportunity to train in such medical fields as nurses, dentists, dental assistants, etc?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Yes. The following is a list of Indian infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births for specified years: 1975, 38.6; (a) 1971, 45.2; (b) 1966, 52.2; (c) 1961, 76.3; (d) 1950, not applicable.
2.	(a) 1961. (b) and (c)
3.	The Medical Services Branch sponsors the training of dental therapists in Fort Smith, N.W.T. Moreover, Medical
Order Paper Questions
Services' staff endeavour to encourage Indian people to take training in the field in existing educational institutions.
Location	Number Employed	Date Each BeganBerens River (3)	3	15/11/76Garden River	1 1 1 1	04/04/68 15/11/76 15/02/76 01/04/76St. Theresa Point (1)	1	15/11/76Wassagamach (2)	2	15/11/76Red Sucker Lake (1)	1	01/02/77Little Grand Rapids (1)	1	15/11/76Brandon (1)	1	01/10/75Poplar River (2)	I 1	22/11/76 07/04/75Portage la Prairie (1)	1	22/11/76Russell (2)	1 1	22/11/76 30/12/76Dauphin (4)	I 1 1 1	30/12/76 01/02/77 15/11/76 18/11/76Fisher River (5)	1 1 2 1	01/05/63 30/12/74 15/11/76 30/12/76Little Saskatchewan (3)	1 1 1	30/12/74 15/11/76 06/12/76Morden (2)	1 I	15/11/76 01/02/77Pine Falls (2)	1 1	15/11/76 15/02/76Lac Brochet (1)	1	14/12/76Cross Lake (3)	I 1 1	24/02/75 19/03/75 30/11/76God's Narrows (2)	1 1	04/04/76 30/11/76God's River (1)	1	01/05/75Nelson House (2)	I 1	30/12/74 30/11/76Norway House (4)	1 1 2	22/12/61 04/04/68 30/11/76Oxford House (2)	1 1	15/07/64 30/11/76Pukatawagan (1)	I	15/07/64Granville Lake (1)	1	01/05/75Shamattawa (1)	1	15/03/76South Indian Lake (2)	1 1	30/12/74 30/11/76Split Lake (2)	I 1	26/04/76 30/11/76York Landing (1)	1	09/01/75The Pas (2)	2	30/11/76Total	59	
3850

March 10, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What is the total cost of the report prepared by the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law, including staff, travel, accommodation, printing, translation and miscellaneous expenses from the appointment of the Committee to date?
2.	What is the cost breakdown of each of the items in Part 1?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: 1. See reply to part
2.
2.
Cost of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law
	Total to 8-2-77
Item	$
Professional Services (includes "Staff')	491,980
Travel	17,263
Accommodation	11,916
Printing	15,235
Translation	-
Miscellaneous Expenses	50,962
Sub-Total *	587,356
Additional estimated expenses	91,600*
Total	678,956
* Note: For services which have been rendered but for which billings have not yet been received.


Mr. Benjamin: Have any provincial governments complained to the Department of Transport about excessive noise levels from military airports near major urban centres and, if so (a) what is the nature, extent and location of such violations (b) for how long have Departmental officials known of the situation (c) what action, if any, has been taken to date?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada has no record of any provincial government complaint concerning excessive noise levels from military airports near major urban centres.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arnold John Malone: I rise on point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will not go through the whole preamble again except to say that I believe there are three other categories of people who are disabled. Other people are disabled, too-people not falling into the three distinct categories which now obtain tax relief,
(Mr. Lalonde.l
and these other disabled people are not entitled to receive the $1,420 tax relief.
Bearing that in mind, I placed my questions on the order paper, only to receive the response that information on the subject is not readily available. I grant that it may not be readily available, and therein lies our difficulty. I could not secure that information during the question period; 1 was told that the matter was too complicated. On the one hand, those who are blind, in wheelchairs or bedridden are entitled to this special tax deduction. On the other, hand, disabled persons in other categories are not. Many of the blind and many in wheelchairs especially have full-time jobs and earn money, but there are others totally disabled who are not given any tax benefits.
Bearing this in mind, I suggest that a response to my order paper question saying that that information is not readily available is not satisfactory. Surely there is information available to supply an answer to question 1,518. I submit that it is not a matter of whether it is easy or difficult to answer these questions. We must have the information because there is an inequity in the system which I should like to see corrected. 1 raise this matter as a point of order and hope that those with responsibility in this field will, instead of arguing about the difficulties of supplying the information, do their best to answer our questions and give us the information we seek.


Ralph Goodale: Mr, Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman's sincerity and draw to the attention of the House that with respect to statistical inquiries of various departments some material is handy and easy to obtain in response to written inquiries, and some is more difficult to obtain. Some is virtually impossible to obtain unless one spends much time and money trying to obtain it. I am referring to the kinds of detailed calculations the hon. member requires. I am not personally familiar with the specific requirement raised by the hon. member in his point of order, but I will undertake to inquire more precisely into the matter so that I can explain to the hon. member the rationale behind the explanation in the answer.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On February 18 I placed question No. 1,880 on the order paper. I realize that the government may not consider a three-week delay in answering as unduly long, but surely to goodness if the Department of Transport knows what it is doing the government could answer a simple question like mine.
March 10, 1977



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-35, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (p. 3820).
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long. I want to emphasize and put forward further information which will show that some of the answers of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) were at best inaccurate and at worst an attempt to mislead this House in terms of the situation concerning spouses' allowances. At present the government of Canada will pay one spouse between the age of 60 and 65 a pension if the other spouse is already receiving the old age pension; but when the older spouse dies, the government cuts off that pension. Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare suggested that our proposals with regard to spouses' allowances would cost in excess of $2 billion. I suggest that his response was totally unacceptable since in committee he suggested that the spouses' allowance program would cost a maximum of around $700,000.
The minister and government supporters tried to say that we cannot ask the government to increase its spending on the one hand but reduce expenditures on the other. You must remember that this is an inequitable situation, for the government has paid money to these people and they have become accustomed to a certain standard of living. Then, when there is a death in the family, the surviving spouse does not receive the allowance. I submit that the spouse needs the money to continue living in dignity.
How can the government's position be justified, in view of the most inefficient ways it uses money? Last year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) wasted $740,000 in jet jaunts across the country. Information Canada was costing up to $10 million a year. In the Post Office the numerical strength of its membership has increased in the last eight years from about
39,000	to over 60,000, or about 50 per cent. What can one say about the armed forces? The most significant observation about our armed forces is their relative numerical weakness in the lower ranks and their top-heavy nature. Their personnel includes only 19,300 privates, or merely 25 per cent of total military personnel, some 43,000 non-commissioned officers, and more than 14,000 officers. There are nearly twice as many captains as lieutenants, and nearly 50 per cent more corporals than privates.
I bring these facts forward to counter the government's argument that when the older spouse dies it must, because of the cost factor, take away the allowance from the surviving
Old Age Security
spouse if that spouse has not reached age 65. That is inequitable and 1 resent the government's suggestion that we on my side of the House are urging the government to spend more money. That is a fallacious argument. The fact is that almost any department of government one cares to examine wastes more money than it would cost to provide this program which has as its basis a humanitarian concern. Surely the government cannot say that it cannot afford the program, for it would cost only $700,000. To repeat what my former leader said, this government wastes more money than it would need to provide the spouses' program. The money would be only a little dribble. It should provide these funds to spouses who are without them. That is all I can say.
I underscore this: the arguments made by members on the government side yesterday were invalid and perhaps even designed to mislead the House. It was suggested that the program would cost an additional $2 billion. By the minister's own admission in committee, the cost would not be nearly as great. That point needs to be made.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate until I heard some hon. members speaking yesterday. I was inspired to enter the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and also prompted by a personal experience on Tuesday night of this week. I shall deal with the second reason immediately. I was attending a meeting of the ward 8 ratepayers' association in my riding to discuss the question of railway crossings when the president announced the death of one of the members of the association. Another member was collecting money to assist the widow. The question arose, why were people collecting money for the widow? The answer was that the husband who had passed on was over 65 years old and his wife, under 65, had been getting the spouse's allowance. Now, because the husband had passed on, the widow was to get nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Gilbert: Yes, people at the meeting were collecting money to assist the widow.
When we debated the spouses' allowance a couple of years ago we were told that the amendment before the House was based on the theory that two pensioners could not live on one pension. Hence the reason for the spouses' allowance. I remember that all opposition members who spoke tried to persuade the government not to include in the amendment the exceptions affecting widows, widowers, spinsters and bachelors. All people in the age range of 60 to 65 should be given an allowance, especially if the pensioner has passed on. I heard the response yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) about persons on spouses' allowance who, as a result of the death of a person receiving the pension, will get nothing. It made me realize that I had to get up and say something, especially when I had the personal experience I mentioned on Tuesday night.
80010-37%

March 10, 1977
Old Age Security
What did the Minister of National Health and Welfare say? He said that to pay a pension to people between 60 and 65 years of age would cost $2 billion and that we in the opposition ought to exercise some financial responsibility. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said it is very easy for the opposition to talk about changes in programs, but these improvements have to be made by increased taxes. He said it is not realistic to make these changes at the moment. The hon. member decried the members of the Conservative party who he claims have stated they want it both ways. He said they want government restraint on one side, and at the same time they want improvements in programs. I thought the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) ably set forth the argument with regard to the amount of money the government is spending on other programs and the necessity of having priorities with regard to its expenditures. When one thinks of the $25 million loss on the sale of the CANDU reactor to Argentina, one realizes that the government has not set its priorities in order. When one considers the corporate advantages with regard to depreciation allowances, and the huge savings to corporations as a result of those tax advantages, one realizes that the government does not have its priorities in order.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said it would cost $2 billion to pay pensions to persons aged 60 to 65. He does not realize the real thrust of the argument of members of the Conservative party, the New Democratic Party and, I am sure, the Social Credit party with regard to spouses' allowances. In reality, the cost of the program to permit spouses' allowances to continue until they attain 65 years of age, on the minister's own admission in committee, amounts to $700,000. Now, $700,000 is a far different figure from the $2 billion that the minister gave. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead the House with regard to this matter.
I am rather happy that the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) is in the chamber. I hope she participates in the debate. The real thrust of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in bringing forth the motion to refer back to committee clauses 8 and 9 of Bill C-35 was to persuade the government that this should be done and that they should accept the pleadings and arguments made in committee by the hon. member for York South-and made many times from this side of the House-that the spouses' allowance should stand regardless of age until the person attains 65 years of age. This gives the hon. member for York South, the hon. member for Davenport and hon. members on the opposite side an opportunity to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare in no uncertain terms that there is a deliberate injustice to these people by cutting them off the spouses' allowance because one member of the relationship passes on. I hope the hon. member for York South participates in the debate and in the vote to give us support to have this matter referred back to committee.
Why is it that the Liberal party always casts shadows on good programs and principles? I remind hon. members of the

label they earned, and deserved, back in 1957 when they attempted to give pensioners a $6 increase. They were known as the "six-buck boys". The result of that action was that they lost the next election to the Conservative party. I recall two or three years ago when at Christmas the government, in an endeavour to adjust the old age pension, gave old age pensioners a 42-cent increase. Why is it that two years ago they made those cruel and inhumane amendments with regard to the spouses' allowance affecting widows, widowers, bachelors and spinsters?
I ask the hon. member for York South and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), why it is that the Liberal party casts a shadow on programs that are essentially good? Why is it they get so mean, miserable and niggardly with regard to certain people within the community? This is why we in the New Democratic Party think the motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gives all of us an opportunity to tell the government in no uncertain terms that this is not the way most Canadians want to treat widows, widowers, bachelors and spinsters with regard to pensions.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has a very high-profile portfolio. However, he was disappointing when he attempted to justify his action by the statements he made yesterday. I spoke about the widow in my constituency who will be cut off her spouses' allowance because her husband passed on. She gets nothing. The minister had the audacity to say that she can apply for social assistance or welfare. There is a difference between a pension and welfare assistance. A pension is earned. Welfare assistance appears to be a grant or gift, something that may not be earned. Surely the wives and husbands of pensioners who are under 65 years of age should be treated in a more humane way.
When I heard the response of the minister that we have to tackle the problem of poverty, I could not agree with him more. However, I say to him that it is about time he started tackling the problem of poverty. It was not enough for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to go to Toronto last Friday and attempt to lecture the people of Toronto and Ontario by saying they must put their actions where their words are with regard to national unity. It was not enough for him to say they have to take the initiative with regard to programs in language, attitudes, and so forth. He has to tackle the problem in a more concrete and specific manner.
The minister would have been far better to go to Toronto and say to the people of Ontario that if we want national unity we have to tackle the problems of poverty, unemployment, housing and many of the social problems that prevail. If he had done that, instead of trying to lecture them on the bilingual issue, I am sure that he would have obtained the support of the people of Ontario, indeed of people throughout Canada. It is not worthy of a minister in a high-profile portfolio to say that sort of thing.
March 10, 1977

1 would remind the minister that one thing we have to get straight is basic security for all Canadians. I give the government credit for the Canada Pension Plan, but we have to be reminded at all times that at best the Canada pension provides only 25 per cent of the six best years of a workingman's life, which 1 suggest is not sufficient to meet today's costs. In view of the high rate of inflation today, is it any wonder that people who receive the Canada pension have to continue working to meet the expenses of the day?
At this stage, Mr.' Speaker, it is only right and proper that all of us should give full credit to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has spoken on pensions ever since he came into the House and yesterday put the position on pensions clearly and concisely. Many members, including the hon. member for Davenport, picked up points which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made, as did the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), not only with regard to spouses' allowance but also with regard to the double signature required on some pension application forms. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also outlined the problem faced 10 or 12 years down the road by people who come to Canada today and who, as a result of the changes contained in Bill C-35, may not have sufficient money to meet requirements of that day.
I was rather amused at the performance of the hon. member for Hamilton West yesterday, who jumped up after the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had moved his motion to refer back clauses 8 and 9 of the bill to test the strength of the opposition regarding spouses' allowance and said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had not told him what he was attempting to do. Mr. Speaker, there has always been a rather pleasant relationship between members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Conservative party concerning opposition we have to government programs, but this is the first time I have known a member to jump up and criticize our critic because he had not told him what he was going to do. I just could not get over the fact that he would whine and try to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was devious. I think he should have thanked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and said that he appreciated the opportunity given to him procedurally to express his concern about pensioners.


Mr. Alexander:: How about getting back to the bill?


John Gilbert: I think he should have said that the motion gives members an opportunity to support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, The hon. member should get back to the terms of the bill.


Mr. Skoreyko:: He is just killing time, that is all.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but 1 just wanted to tell my good friend what I thought of his performance yesterday and that I was not really impressed.
Old Age Security
All members of the House support the main principle of Bill C-35 and its new approach to calculating a pension. I think all of us acknowledge that some of the social programs we have in Canada are of the best. But we are not satisfied that the application of some of those principles gives the best to certain groups, particularly so far as spouse's allowance is concerned. This is why we are having a debate at this time, and it is why I ask the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Davenport, two members whom I know quite well, to give us the support that is necessary to make the Minister of National Health and Welfare realize that most of us in the House do not want to see widows penalized because of the death of their partner. I ask that all of us support this bill.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak at this point because I said a tremendous amount in committee the other evening, as hon. members are aware. However, since I have been quoted it strikes me as passing strange that members of the opposition should laud a member on the government side. I thank them for that. I just want to make a few points, and perhaps this will be my last plea to the minister to please review his decision on this bill. If it will help him to review his decision, I will be tremendously honest and open. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), both yesterday and in committee, asked where I was in 1975. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) excused my failure to speak up on my ignorance. I have to tell the truth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, 1 said because you were new.


Ursula Appolloni: Because I was new and because I did not have the courage.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, certainly we forgive you for that.


Ursula Appolloni: I hope my conscience will forgive me. I feel extremely strongly on these two points, Mr. Speaker. I think what we are doing here is overlooking the human factor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: I think at this stage in our so-called civilization the one thing we cannot afford to do is to overlook the human factor. I happen to believe that as legislators, as human beings, it is our duty to uphold each one's dignity and to save each one's pride. There is a sentiment, especially among our elderly, that hand-outs in the form of welfare, or whatever euphemism you care to use, are beneath their dignity. We might quarrel with, dispute and question the rationale behind that sentiment, but we cannot dispute the fact that the sentiment exists and that somehow we have to uphold the dignity of these people to whom this situation is very real. For some reason it is much more important to them to accept a cheque from the federal government than it is to accept one from the welfare office of a province or municipality. That cannot be disputed and must be accepted.

March 10, 1977
Old Age Security
Now let me take the case of widows and widowers aged 60 and over. They suddenly lose their spouse. They are by age and by every other concept in our language at the most vulnerable point of their lives. What are we doing to them? We are taking a few pennies away. Let us face it, we are not giving them through OAS a tremendous amount of money, but we are taking away the few pennies that their dignity demands, and doing this at the very time they have lost their loved ones. Is that humanity?
I have dealt with widows and widowers. What are we doing with the unwed? We have allowed common law marriage, but this is not the question here. What, in effect, this bill is doing is penalizing or victimizing those people who for one reason or another chose not to marry.
Let me quote just one case in point. We have a man aged 65 or over who for one reason-mainly cultural, I might add-is given the usual comforts of life. He is cooked for, he is cared for in many ways by his sister who is over 60. Obviously, they cannot marry. They do not want to be spouses unless they want an incestuous relationship. Perhaps I had better keep away from that. But just because they are not married, this sister who has given him all the comforts he needs in his old age is denied anything. The rationale behind this, we are told, is that two people cannot live on one pension. What happens to the sister who does not marry? She is excluded. In other words, we are penalizing the woman. It is usually the woman. I am sorry if I sound feminist-no, I am not sorry; I do not apologize: it is usually the women who are penalized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are right.


Ursula Appolloni: We are penalizing the woman who could not get her man. As I say, I have very little hope of making any change, but I want to go on record that I feel that by passing a law such as this we are perpetuating a very grave error, one to which I myself was a party in 1975. I regret my error in 1975 and want to rectify it now. I want the government to show its humanity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to commend the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) for the comments she has made with such courage and conviction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Too bad the minister was not present to hear them.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is, indeed, a pity that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) was not present to hear those comments. 1 sincerely hope they will be passed on to him quickly, before the vote, and that they will have an influence on the way in which he reacts to the amendment. I should like to comment on the amendment put forward by the

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, my party has expressed its intention to support Bill C-35. But what we are debating at the moment is an amendment which I feel would improve the bill and at the same time remove a particularly cruel form of injustice which presently exists.
The origin of that injustice goes back to Bill C-62 of last session, a bill debated in the spring of 1975. I state again, as I did at that time, that certain provisions of Bill C-62 were conceived in a spirit of meanness and callousness. That piece of legislation enabled the younger spouse of an old age pensioner to receive old age security, on the basis of need, between 60 and 65 years of age. A number of us who served on the committee of that time, all members of opposition parties, felt the benefits of such a proposal should not be denied to those who had the misfortune to lose the elder partner in a marriage, or to single persons in the same age category.
We were particularly incensed that a younger spouse who became the recipient of the payment on a regular basis should suddently have that payment terminated on the death of the elder partner. This seemed to us to be cruel, unjust and unfair. We protested strongly at the time. The amendment before us, introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, seeks to redress that callous action on the part of the government.
Statistics show that in 90 per cent of all marital union, the younger spouse is female and, as in so many other areas of discrimination, the inequity falls far more heavily on women than on men. It is ironic that this particular inequity should have been initiated by the minister responsible for the status of women.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I recall that back in June, 1975, the minister was asked whether any projection had been made as to the number of people who would become disentitled to pensions on the death of the elder spouse. The minister asked his officials for the projection, and the figures indicated that some 375 persons per month would be disentitled; that is, approximately 4,500 Canadians per year. So the figure is
4.500	people out of a total population of some 23 million. Not a great number, but obviously too few to warrant the concern of the government.
What does it mean in dollar terms? If you take the figure of
4.500	a year and calculate on the basis of the maximum benefit rate of $150 a month-and many people would not be receiving as much as that-the total amount would come to about $672,000 a year which, as some members have already pointed out, is less than the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) spends annually on his private jet flights. If you were to take another figure, that is, the $40 million which the government lost and pilfered away on the sale of the CANDU reactor to Argentina, and transfer it to those 4,500 people who are disentitled annually, you would be able to continue paying pensions to people in this category for the next 50 years.
March 10, 1977

I want the minister to tell us if he knows what a person feels like when suddently cut off from benefits. Has he ever been in contact with such individuals? Has he ever listened to them? Has he ever talked to them? If so, what does he tell them about this? Yesterday, when he was addressing himself to the amendment, he proudly trumpeted these words: "We have no lesson to learn from anybody." As was said of the Bourbons, so it could be said of the Minister of National Health and Welfare: he has learned nothing and he has forgotten nothing.
I suggest the minister learn to listen to a few of these people to whom he is causing such unnecessary hardship. It may be trite to say the government is practicing restraint upon the backs of the poor and the aged, but that is certainly what is being done in this case.
In his usual devious manner, the minister sought to distort the amendment by claiming that its intent would cost some $2 billion. Obviously, his figure is inaccurate if you look at that amendment and, I would say, deliberately inaccurate. But if there is one thing that we have learned to expect from this government, it is that it is pretty poor at doing its arithmetic on anything. Some 4,500 Canadians are affected annually by this discriminatory piece of legislation-4,500 Canadians who have already had to prove their need in order to receive this payment. I suggest that if there was need in the first place for them to receive payment, surely that need exists to a greater, not a lesser, degree after the death of the older spouse. I want to see these benefits retained by the 4,500 Canadians who are presently receiving them. The minister wants to snatch them back, and again I have no doubt that he will vote against the amendment: he said he would do so.
He also said something else back in 1975 when he was before the committee. He told the members at that time that he would provide us with a copy of the letter of notification which he sends bereaved pensioners notifying them that they are no longer eligible for benefits. Perhaps now is the time for him to do so; now is the time for him to make that letter public when he takes this uncharitable action today in voting against this amendment, because his uncharitable letter of disentitle-ment would certainly be a suitable accompanying gesture to that action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is upon the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Health-Alleged refusal of Connaught Laboratory to supply gamma globulin to Malta; the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-National Defence-Alleged necessity of sending parachutes of airborne regiment from Ottawa to Edmonton for repacking; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski)-Farm Credit Corporation-Alleged denial of loans to farmers getting less than 50 per cent of income from farming.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill S-2, respecting Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
John Gilbert: Don't speak for six hours.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly love to speak for six hours. I would love nothing more than to speak on Bell Canada, and I can speak for four times six hours on Bell Canada. I am sure that by the time we are finished with this bill and my remarks have been tabulated we will find that the time will have come to somewhere around four times six hours.
It is very appropriate that we are dealing with this private member's bill which is being sponsored through the House by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). I was
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
prepared to be very sensitive and understanding of Bell's problems, but I am upset about Bell today.


Stan Darling: Don't be so harsh on them.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Parry-Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) says that I am kind of harsh on Bell. I am not. I was prepared to let the goodness of my heart overflow in dealing with this bill, but when I saw the text yesterday in the Globe and Mail of the president of Bell, Mr. James Thackray, that was it-my goodness blew away. I want to quote from the testimony of Mr. Thackray before the CRTC yesterday regarding Bell's latest application for a rate increase. According to the Globe and Mail:
Bell Canada may stop installing new telephones service if the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission does not give it the full rate increase it wants, according to Bell president James Thackray.
There is a threat which one of Canada's multinationals and largest companies has thrown out to the regulatory body set up to regulate Bell Canada's rate increases. When I read that I became very interested and wanted to participate in this debate to the full. In digging around for material I discovered some rather interesting things about this particular bill. When it was brought to this House several weeks ago and my colleague for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) spoke on this bill, he clearly indicated that the thrust of the bill is to increase the capitalization of Bell Canada without reference to the regulatory body, the CRTC.
So here we have a corporation which is regulated because at the time of the setting up of the body to govern this corporation it was seen that the corporation ought to act in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. One would assume that a lot of corporations try to maximize profits, but the thrust of this bill appears to be to minimize regulations so there is no reference back to the House whatsoever, and this concerns us.
The first thing that threw me off about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it originated in the other place. If there is one thing in this House which makes me very skeptical and run immediately to the record, it is to see what those minions of the corporate sector in that last bastion of capitalist free enterprise in this country have to say about a bill. No one looking at the list of senators in the other place would doubt that they are indeed experts in the way the economy works and in the way financial institutions work. So I said to myself, "Now, fellow, you had better get the debates of the Senate committee and the debates of the Senate and read what they have to say, because I am sure there will be words of wisdom for any member". So that is what I did, Mr. Speaker. I had a little bit of difficulty because it took this bill one day, exactly, to go through committee stage and third reading debate, occupying one page of Senate Hansard. But I want to tell the House that those gems of wisdom that I was looking for were missing. There was not one expose of why Bell Canada wanted this legislation.
Before the Senate committee meeting, which I presume all took place in the space of an hour or so, was Mr. A. J. de Grandpre, chairman and chief executive officer of Bell
March 10, 1977

Canada. It appears he was the only one who spoke throughout the brief committee meeting on December 14, 1976. Some senators may have said, "Phew, it is warm in here; can we open a window?", but there was no questioning of Mr. de Grandpre. Interestingly enough, he gave a very abbreviated history of Bell Canada and he had this gem of a statement, to be found at page 1:7 of the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications report:
Bell Canada is a typical example of a company which was, at one time, under American control and influence and which has been gradually brought back into Canadian hands, not by decree or legislation, but by long-term planning and performance.
Well, Mr. Speaker, since we have had Mr. de Grandpre's abbreviated history of the development of Bell, I think it only fair to this House that I put on record a more complete and detailed history of the development of Bell Canada. I think it is important to take a look at the development of Bell because, in effect, we will see certain practices of and developments in Bell which we should look at in light of today's threats which were made before the CRTC by Mr. Thackray, in light of the manner in which Bell wants to develop, in light of some of their responses to the need for rural service, in light of the propaganda they put out, and in light of their political influence in the other place and even in this House. This is why I want to put the real history of Bell Canada on the record. It will then be there for generations of Canadians to read and to get the other side of the picture.
Alexander Graham Bell obtained the basic patent on the telephone for the United States on March 7, 1876, and a second patent on January 30, 1877. These two patents formed the basis of the Bell system monopoly in the United States until their expiration in 1893 and 1894. Recognizing the competitive potential of the telephone upon telegraph service, however, the Western Union Telegraph Company attempted to enter the telephone business on the basis of competing patents held by Elisha Gray, Thomas Edison, and others, in 1878.
The Western Union Telegraph Company and the American Speaking Telephone Company in 1879 signed an agreement with Bell Telephone Company, a predecessor of I.T. & T., which admitted to the validity of the Bell patents. It agreed to withdraw from the telephone field, and in exchange Western Union was to receive 20 per cent of all rentals or royalties received by the Bell Company from telephone instruments for a period of 17 years and Bell was not to enter the telegraph field.
Canadian patents for the telephone were given by Alexander Graham Bell to his father Alexander Melville Bell for $1 and to Charles Williams of Boston for 1,000 telephone instruments. Melville Bell hired agents to solicit subscribers for private lines in Canada, and in 1879 the Dominion Telegraph Company became the general agent for the Bell interests in Canada. It secured a licence to operate Bell patents for five years. However, the Dominion Telegraph Company found it impossible to raise the $100,000 demanded by Melville Bell for
Bell Canada
the purchase of the patents and later that year the Canadian patent rights were sold to associates of the National Bell Telephone Company of Boston. This group brought Charles Fleetford Sise to Canada to organize the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Rival telephone service was offered by the Montreal Telegraph Company, an affiliate of Western Union, utilizing the Edison patents. For a time, both telegraph companies offered telephone services in Montreal. In other communities, telephone service was offered by local groups under the arrangements with Melville Bell prior to the agreement between Bell and the Dominion Telegraph Company. For example, in Hamilton telephone service was offered by the Hamilton District Telegraph Company in 1878, later the Hamilton Telephone Company which opened the first telephone exchange in Canada.
In 1880, two subsidiaries of the National Bell Telephone Company in the United States were incorporated under federal charter. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada was incorporated in 1880 and given certain powers. Those powers were outlined in the course of the proceedings of the select committee on telephones. They were as follows:
-to manufacture telephones and other apparatus connected therewith used in connection with the business of a telegraph or a telephone company, and to purchase, sell or lease the same and rights relating thereto, and to build, establish, construct, purchase, acquire or lease, and maintain and operate, or sell or let any line or lines for the transmission of messages by telephone in Canada or elsewhere.
The company was empowered to construct and maintain its telephone lines along the sides of and across or under any public highways, streets, bridges, water courses and other such places. Attempts were made by legislators to submit the new company to regulation of tolls through the provisions of the 1875 telegraph act, but they were defeated. We should note, at this point, a voice from history coming to us over time. A solemn warning was sounded at that time. A member of the other place, Senator Haythorne, called attention to the danger which might arise and he did so at the time the Telegraph Act was implemented. This is what he said, and I quote from the debates of the Senate:
There is nothing which this House ought to look after with greater jealousy than the establishment of large monopolies ... I consider it one of my most important duties as a legislator to guard against the evils of monopolies.
That was a warning which has obviously not been heeded over the years. It is one we should keep in mind as we debate Bill S-2. Under various agreements in 1880, Bell Canada obtained exclusive patent rights to offer telephone service in this country. The Canadian telephone company was set up as a subsidiary of Bell (United States) to hold the patent rights and to own all telephone instruments in Canada. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada was incorporated to lease the patent rights and to lease telephone instruments from that company. In 1884 and 1885 the Canadian patent rights held by Bell Canada were voided by the minister of agriculture on the grounds of non-manufacture and refusal to sell. This opened the way for the establishment of independent telephone
3858

March 10, 1977
Bell Canada
companies, provided they could secure easements and rights-of-way.
Due to high rates, refusal to extend service and poor technical standards on the part of Bell, a large number of telephone companies arose, many of them in direct competition with Bell. In reaction to this Bell lowered the price for telephone service, sometimes to zero, when faced by direct competition. In his testimony before the select committee on telephones, here is what Mr. Sise had to say, and I quote his evidence:
There was a time in Peterborough when we charged nothing for our service and your argument (on discrimination) would be that we would have to give a free service all over Canada.
One of the committee members then commented:
In Peterborough, you gave it to them for nothing. That is very cheap.
To which the witness replied:
I do not know that anybody in Peterborough ever objected.
Well, they were loss-leadering telephones in those days. It was one of their ways of destroying competition. When I see the advertisement, "Let's free enterprise", when I hear corporate leaders telling government that it should not interfere in the operations of legitimate business, I confess I am irritated because when we look at history we find that the principle upon which business has operated has been one of eliminating competition, not of encouraging it. Here we find Bell Telephone engaged in loss-leadering to eliminate competition. Then this gentleman, Mr. Sise, stood up and said, "Yes, we did it", and nobody complained.
As I say, Bell's policy involved, first of all, predatory pricing. Second, it involved refusal to interconnect services. Bell refused to interconnect competing companies with its telephone exchange, thereby barring such companies from access to its long distance facilities. The third aspect of this policy was that of collusion with the railway companies. Bell succeeded in preventing independent companies from gaining access to railway stations by offering the railways free telephone service in exchange for this exclusive privilege. Finally, there was the aspect of propaganda. Bell paid newspapers to publish false and misleading allegations regarding its competitors.
The one example which stands out in my mind is the situation involving the muncipalities of Port Arthur and Fort William in northern Ontario. These two towns had established a municipal telephone system. Incidentally, it is still in existence today. In 1902 both towns agreed, due to the discontent over the service provided by Bell during the preceding five years, to set up a joint system with provision for the exchange of conversations. To indicate the degree of discontent with the Bell service, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that only 15 persons among all those to whom a plebiscite was sent voted against the construction of a municipally-owned system. The municipal systems commenced operations in November, 1902, and in March, 1903, one of the exchanges was sabotaged and burned mysteriously. As a matter of fact, the evidence given by the mayor of Fort William, Joshua Dyke, to the select committee

on telephone which was investigating the situation reads as follows:
One still, drizzly night.. . about two in the morning someone connected the 2,000 volt electric wires to the 30 volt telephone wires, thereby destroying the exchange. During the time in which the municipal system-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow him to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am rather disappointed in some of the Liberal members not allowing the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to continue relating a very interesting and exciting incident concerning the Bell Telephone Company. I will continue the story if I have time at the end of my remarks, but first I have some important things to say with regard to Bill S-2.
I should like to start by saying that I have been here 11 years, and in that time I have seen the erosion of the public accountability of many corporations operating in Canada. There are two types of corporation, the private corporation and the public corporation. When I came here, most private corporations were under the control and regulations of the Canada Corporations Act. There are certain corporations which have to be regulated, controlled and incorporated by the federal government, such as banks, insurance companies and some trust companies. Before they could get letters patent of incorporation, their capitalization, their objects and purposes and many other factors were scrutinized by parliament.
In my 11 years here I have seen a gradual erosion in some of these institutions. Banks can now operate under the Canada Corporations Act and are no longer under the scrutiny of parliament. Insurance companies are treated in the same way. In fact, very few public corporations which now operate right across the country are scrutinized by parliament to determine whether they should be given letters patent to operate and whether they should be allowed amendments to their letters patent. Bill S-2 is a typical example of that. It is an attempt by a corporation which is privately owned and which issues public shares to free itself of the control of parliament. Therefore, it is a very important bill because it affects social and public accountability.
I was rather impressed by the historical and factual background of Bell Canada which the hon. member for Nickel Belt gave. We see that the company originated in the United States and developed in Canada. He traced very convincingly and with great clarity the manner in which that company has operated since its inception in Canada. It has had a tremendous effect on Canadians. In fact, most Canadians feel rather sentimental and affectionate with regard to the Bell Telephone Company which they sometimes call Ma Bell. Ma Bell needs to be checked and scrutinized, and we in the NDP feel it is
March 10, 1977

incumbent upon us, when the company brings forth amendments to their letters patent, not to permit them to do things which will free them from the control of parliament over their conduct and operations.
I heard the hon. member for Nickel Belt say that the president of Bell Telephone appeared before the CRTC and said that if the company did not receive rate increases it would stop installing telephones across the country. Let me point out that this is not new for Bell Telephone. They had threatened it in certain parts of Ontario, especially in the Bramalea area where there was a new housing development in which people needed telephones. It was only as a result of public pressure that the Bell Telephone Company yielded and installed telephones. In the last six years there have been no less than five or six applications by Bell Telephone Company to increase their rates. This brings into perspective the need to study the purposes and objectives of the Bell Telephone Company because we feel a telephone company operating in telecommunications should be a public utility servicing Canadians at the lowest cost possible.
That is what we in the NDP believe, namely, that the Bell Telephone Company should be a public utility operated for the benefit of all Canadians at the lowest possible cost. Recently I saw some Bell Telephone advertisements on television which I found to be clever, expensive and, in many cases, immoral as one of my colleagues has said because a public utility should provide a service as its first objective and should seek to be profitable as its second objective. Therefore, the costs should be minimal. This is what we in the NDP are saying.
Having set forth that main proposition, I notice that the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), who is an economist by profession, is listening attentively to what I am saying because he knows that under the present system we operate on a profit basis. However, we say that the profit objective of a public utility should be secondary, not primary. We know that there are two types of costs, capital costs and current costs. Capital costs are absolutely necessary for further expansion, yet we all know that sophisticated equipment is necessary to give better service to subscribers. Not one member of the NDP would challenge the expenditure of capital costs provided they were reasonable, because we realize that by providing capital costs we may obtain, through sophisticated equipment, the best possible service. There are also costs which take into account wages and other ordinary operating expenses. Again we feel that the working-man should be given a reasonable wage for the service he performs. We have no objection to a reasonable wage for Bell Telephone workers. In fact we have stood on the front line to assist workers across the country to receive a decent and fair wage.
There should be a reasonable profit concept. Any profit should be reasonable. It should be up to the representatives in parliament to study in detail what Bell Telephone means by a reasonable profit concept. We in parliament have said that we
Bell Canada
would like to set up a regulatory body to study in detail the movements and approaches of the Bell Telephone Company with regard to its profits. I said in my earlier remarks that the Bell Telephone Company has made an application for a rate increase every year for the last five or six years. Therefore it behooves all of us to determine whether Bell is making a reasonable profit.
It is absolutely necessary to have a regulatory body such as CRTC to determine Bell's rates and for parliament to set out the telecommunications philosophy. That philosophy may be that there should be public ownership, that there should be private ownership, or that there should be part public ownership and part private ownership, but from my casual study of the profits of Bell I think I am being very gentle when I say that it is a carnivorous corporate giant. It makes unregulated profits which are not reviewed by the CRTC. It has been said many times that the widows of Canada purchase shares in the Bell Telephone Company so that they can make a profit, be paid dividends, and enhance their security. Many of us feel compassion toward widows when it comes to the matter of security, but we do not think that Bell Telephone is the vehicle by which they should get their security. The basic thrust of the Bell Telephone Company should be service to a certain segment, and people should come before profits.
Over the last month I have had the opportunity to read a book about International Telephone and Telegraph, which is a large corporate organization operating in the United States. It also operates in Europe and in Chile, and when we look at International Telephone and Telegraph's multinational operations we find that it has no less than 400 corporations under its wing. I have the very uneasy feeling that Bell Canada may want to operate in the same way as International Telephone and Telegraph. When I know of the political intrusion in Chile of Harold Geneen, who is the president of ITT, and when I know of his financial support of the overthrow of a democratically-elected government, I feel it is my responsibility to check and double check any utility in Canada which wants to take itself out from under the regulatory powers of CRTC and beyond the scrutiny of parliament.
Those are general remarks, and I would now like to make some specific remarks about Bill S-2 because we are studying the philosophy and principle of the bill and some of its provisions. As the hon. member for Nickel Belt said, it is odd that this type of bill should be initiated in the other place. It shocks me to be advised that it took less than a day to pass it in the other place. It shocks me that a bill of such magnitude and of such importance should be considered in less than a day and that only one witness should appear before the committee. That witness was the chairman of the board, who attempted to give a very brief history of the company. That very same person threatened Canadians that if there is a separation of Quebec, Bell may move its head office from Quebec. If we are talking about national unity, it behooves the chairman, Mr. de Grandpre, not to make that kind of statement with regard to the operations of Bell in Quebec.
80010-38%

March 10, 1977
Bell Canada
We must remember that only 7 per cent of all Bell's revenue comes from competitive operations and that 93 per cent of its profits comes from telephone services. There should be public accountability, and telephone and telecommunications operations in Canada should be treated as a public utility rather than as a corporation operating for the purpose of earning profits for shareholders.
Bill S-2 proposes two distinct amendments to Bell's act of incorporation. It proposes the revision of the act of incorporation relating to the company's ability and methodology of capitalization, including the removal of the scrutiny of the appropriate government regulatory body, namely, the CRTC.
The bill grants Bell the power to borrow, issue stock, bonds, debentures or other securities as the company deems necessary. In addition, the bill would give Bell the right to fix whatever price on such sales as it wishes. It is a necessity to have a telephone company operate for the people at a reasonable cost. Bell enjoys a monopoly. It wants to bypass parliament and the CRTC. It wants power to borrow, issue stocks, bonds, debentures and other securities, and to fix whatever price on sales it wishes.
Subsequent clauses would provide Bell with the authority to establish such voting rights, by-laws, procedures and alterations to share issues as Bell may deem necessary. The present authorized capital of the company is $1.75 billion. Bell proposes to increase its capitalization capacity to $5 billion. That would be an increase of three times its present authorized capital.
I note that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Elaidasz) is listening attentively. He realizes the importance of the increase in capitalization, the changes in the capital structure and the voting structure, the changes in the borrowing powers and so forth.
The second amendment proposes broadening the company's incidental and ancillary powers, and proposes that the company be given the authority for the alteration by letters patent of the company's objectives and powers. That is very important because once we start dealing with the company's objectives and powers, we are talking about the company's total operations. At the moment it has a monopoly of telephone service and telecommunications services in some instances. Once the objects of the company are changed, however, it would mean it could not only increase its vertical operations but also its horizontal operations. It could get into the money business in the same way that ITT in the United States has done.
ITT has more than 400 companies under its wing-it is almost a nation in itself-and it dictates the rates, makes the highest possible profits, and sometimes resorts to unwarranted political interference. This would be achieved by revoking the relevant clauses in Bell's act of incorporation and replacing them with the authority granted under the Canada Corporations Act and authority for using letters patent as outlined in the Telesat Canada Act. Proposed section 5.2 and 5.3 of clause 2 in Bill S-2 are the essential elements of this objective.
(Mr. Gilbert.]
We all enjoyed the six hour-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the last time a bill relating to Bell Canada came before the House of Commons was just a few years ago. As far as I am concerned it would be here still if it had been possible to arrange that. I was very concerned then, as I am now, with the question of whether Bell Canada is serving the public or is bilking the public for the benefit of the shareholders or someone else in the corporation. At that time it was simply asking to add five members to the board of directors. I was able to propose an amendment suggesting that one of those directors be appointed by the government without the requirements normally stipulated, that he hold a certain amount of stock, and other considerations and that such a person have the function of protecting the public. Of course, Bell made a great fuss. I did not suggest who the government should name to the board; the important thing was that the appointee be there to protect the general subscriber.
Bell Canada is not like any other company, but its lines run down the road, run down the street, run down the lane in exactly the same way as hydro lines. There can only be one telephone company in a town. Even people who believe that free enterprise must triumph at the expense of the public would agree that there cannot be four or five telephone companies in the same town. Bell got rid of other companies in the country, but even Bell would not suggest there could be competition in a community. So the company has a monopoly. It is operated to supply a service to the people, but the free enterprisers allowed it to do something else, to be established as a private company and at the same time gain a considerable return on its money. It was set up to provide the service and make money for its shareholders.
Over the years the company has made application to parliament when it wanted to change its relationship with the shareholders or wanted to change its rate structure. We have not been hard on this company, Mr. Speaker. It is a big company and enjoys quite a reputation in the country. This is a very lenient country and has allowed this public utility to expand beyond the boundaries of Canada. It is interesting to note how much money it has made in the process. It has not made money any way except by subterfuge in the market or by selling something, whether it be expertise or service.
I am not interested particularly in its subterfuge in the business world, but I am interested in what happens to the subscriber. Because I consider this to be a public utility I would be happy to join with members of this House, who should be working on behalf of the people, to see that a proper service is provided to subscribers at the lowest possible cost.
March 10, 1977

If necessary, I would support a move to nationalize this public utility. I would not care too much about whether we sold all the subsidiaries, although it seems to me we are treating them as we are the CPR, that is, giving away a very large grant.
The list of subsidiaries in which Bell owns more than 50 per cent of outstanding shares is interesting. Here is a breakdown: Northern Telcom Ltd., 69.2 per cent; Bell Northern Research, Ltd., 51 per cent; the New Brunswick Telephone Company, 50.4 per cent; Newfoundland Telephone Company, Ltd., 78.2 per cent; Northern Telephone, Ltd., 99.7 per cent; Telebec Ltee, 95.1 per cent; Liviere Valley Telephone Company, 100 per cent; Capital Telephone Company, Ltd., 100 per cent; TelOntario Incorporated, 100 per cent; the North American Telegraph Company, 100 per cent; and Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company, Ltd., 51.7 per cent. I should like to refer particularly to a couple of these subsidiaries. Every cent of the money that bought them came from the shareholders or the subscribers. Bell has been set up as a corporation that has shareholders, and it should be pointed out how it has taken advantage of them. If we agree to this application then we agree to watering down the stock.
Bell Canada owns the Capital Telephone Company, Ltd., just a litte company not far from the city of Ottawa that was formely owned by the subscribers. There was an exchange at Carp, one at Constance Bay, and one at Maberly serving 2,031 telephones. This was bought with the subscribers' money; we are not really going to believe that the shareholders put up the money. They really did not know what was happening, and in some cases it was not happening for the shareholder but to the shareholder. This was certainly true in some of the subsidiary companies.
Bell wanted to do a number of things. It wanted to produce telephone books. Consequently, Tele-Direct was set up. Mr. Speaker, Tele-Direct is an example of Bell's ability to spin-off profitable sectors of operations to subsidiaries, to escape regulation. At the same time that sort of move enhances Bell's rate case when applying for rate increases. Therefore, Bell takes money out of the operation, which provides a good excuse for asking for another increase.
Until 1971 Bell produced its own directories. That was and still is a most lucrative proposition, because those directories carry advertising. If anything, the operation has become even more lucrative. Now the printing in the directories is so small that you have to pay somebody 25 cents to find a telephone number.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, but the ads are bigger.


William Arnold Peters: In 1969, revenue was $35 million, and net revenue before tax $15.5 million.
To escape regulation, Bell sold this sector of its operation, Tele-Direct, to Capital Telephone Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell. Mr. Speaker, since Capital has always
Bell Canada
operated in the province of Ontario and has no exchanges outside the province, it is regulated by the province of Ontario.
We never worry about these companies until they ask for a rate increase. Once they ask for a rate increase, you start making inquiries. What did Bell do with regard to Capital's exchanges? It took over two of the exchanges, but left alone one little exchange at Maberly which serves 121 telephones. If you live in Maberly your telephone rate will never go up. No matter if Bell rates to other subscribers rise to $50 a month, rates to Maberly subscribers will stay at the level of the take-over in 1969. Why will they stay at that level? Bell is not giving away something for nothing.
Bell is able to do some remarkable things with this little company-and this information is available from CRTC experts. Bell owned Tele-Direct, which it sold to Capital, and Tele-Direct controls Place Bell Canada, that showcase of Bell Canada. No one will say that 121 subscribers support a company big enough to put out telephone directories, own printing plants, and all the rest of it. But the small company can rent Place Bell Canada back to the large telephone company. It then becomes an expense to the telephone company.
It may interest those from the Maritimes to know that Capital Telephone owns a fleet of fishing trawlers.


John R. Rodriguez: Are you speaking about a telephone company?


William Arnold Peters: A telephone company, yes. Also, I am told it owns Bell executive jets, and rents them back to the company, always at great cost to Bell.
Nobody is ever going to look at Capital Telephone, Mr. Speaker. There will never be an occasion when Capital Telephone will approach the Ontario government and say, "We want our subscribers to pay increased rates." Talk about a rate increase! They are having one hell of a time getting rid of the money they earn.
According to my latest figures, the book cost of Capital Telephone was $1.2 million in 1969; by 1974 the book cost had risen to $4.2 million. And how much income do you suppose 121 subscribers generated? Why, the company's total income in 1974 was $3 million. Bell's share of that net income amounted to $3 million. The little company's earnings sure did not help its subscribers. They were not compensated for having telephones in their houses. If they all took their telephones out, there would be no justification for Capital's existence. It is interesting to note that Bell's return on the book cost of Capital Telephone was, in 1974, $64.3 million. Did they raise that from 121 subscribers? Let's not kid ourselves. Telephone companies don't make that much money, unless they are not telephone companies but something else.
In our consideration of this bill, we are not talking about allowing Bell to increase its capitalization from $1.7 billion to $5 billion. We are not talking about the raising of capital for the development of a telephone company.


An hon. Member:: Then what are we talking about?

March 10, 1977
Bell Canada


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member thinks we are, I ask what does he think Bell will do with all the extra capital-build telephones from igloo to igloo?
I mentioned some of Bell's subsidiary companies. Bell already owns a 27 per cent share of Telesat, that satellite in the sky. What will the company do with all the money it wants? It surely is not going to provide telephones, instal direct dialling in rural areas, or embark on anything useful. No. It will get bigger and bigger, not in the sense of a company providing telephone service, but in a corporate sense. It will not provide better telephone service to people on your street, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else's. No, it will become a bigger corporation, by raising the price of its stock to almost any figure it wants, by watering the stock, and by hosing the shareholders. After all, shareholders do not count in a multinational corporation; they are only a cipher, a number. What counts is the corporation's existence. The corporation has a heart and a soul, and exists by itself. You can do away with ordinary shareholders, and it will still run itself.
What are the 121 subscribers? The original shareholders in Capital have long gone. There are no shareholders, except the multi-national corporation, and the smaller company is part of the corporate soul of the larger.


John R. Rodriguez: I'm going to move to Maberly.


William Arnold Peters: If you move to Maberly, I can assure you that you will never have to pay more for your telephone. But you will not get a Princess phone, a coloured telephone-


John R. Rodriguez: Shucks!


William Arnold Peters: -or any other sophisticated telephone equipment, because the company gives nothing away for nothing. It could afford to give you a video-phone, which lets you see your caller, but you will not get it. Bell wants to use the little company to build up its corporate heart.
If that is what our free enterprisers want, for God's sake why don't they stand up and say so? Why do they not separate these other operations from those of the public utility which I call the Bell Telephone Company? Why not separate all these functions, and talk about Bell Telephone providing telephone service? If they want a multi-national corporation to be involved in telephones, let them be honest about it. I say, don't screw the subscribers. Be honest.
I have much more to say, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder how the minister felt some 25 years ago when he stood on second reading of the 1952 bill. I am sure that he thought it historic. 1 want to say for future generations I feel this is in fact an historic moment because it is in the final analysis the coming together of a tremendous amount of work by many thousands of Canadians. I hope we have been able to incorporate into this bill that which will be to the betterment of Canada and be of benefit to future generations.
I am sure that all members know that the genesis of this bill dates from an announcement made by my predecessor, now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), just over three years ago. On September 17, 1973, he informed the House that the government was launching a fundamental review of immigration policy in the widest possible context as a first step toward the preparation of modern legislation on which to base the future conduct of Canada's immigration program.
The process that undertaking set in motion has involved an unprecedented nation-wide debate. Literally thousands of organizations and individuals across the country responded to the government's invitation to submit briefs. Conferences and seminars were organized, many with the financial support of my department. Throughout the entire period, provincial governments have been closely consulted.
The contribution of the special all party joint committee of parliament created to examine the green paper which was issued early last year deserves particular mention. The report that committee submitted in November, 1975, after an extensive program of hearings, provided invaluable guidance in the framing of the present bill, both as regards its general philosophy and on innumerable points of detail. I would be remiss if I did not stress how much this bill owes to the tireless efforts of the members of the special joint committee in sifting the views they received from Canadians from so many walks of life and from so many organizations. The results of their work are in a very real sense manifest today, since very nearly all the recommendations in their report find themselves reflected in one way or another in the bill now before us.
There is a need for a new Immigration Act. Before discussing in any detail the major provisions of the bill, I can think of no better way of providing an overview of its basic intent than
March 10, 1977

to list some of the essential features of the bill, contrasting these with the situation existing under the present act of 1952.
The bill in clause 3 lays down in clear terms the basic objectives which the government considers should govern Canadian immigration policy now and in the future. This statement of objectives is not a pious preamble but an integral part of the proposed act. The substantive provisions of the bill flow directly from one or more of the objectives established in this clause. What the bill does here, then, is to establish a charter for the entire legislation edifice. Clause 3 is the foundation, not only for the bill itself, but for the regulations which will be made under the statute.
This, I think, is a most important innovation. The present act contains no such statement of positive purpose. It is anomalous that the law on which such an important social and economical program rests should be silent about the positive purposes immigration must promote. The current law merely tabulates methods for controlling the entry of people to this country. This bill, however, sets out the essential reasons why Canada is a country of immigration, states the underlying principles that must inspire this major program, and specifies the national goals which all our activities in the field of immigration must be designed to support.
I will have occasion to refer again to this key provision of the bill. I wish for the moment simply to draw attention to the fact that for the first time immigration law will enshrine such fundamental principles an non-discrimination, respect for the family, humanitarian concern for refugees, and the promotion of national economic, demographic, social and cultural goals.
Secondly, the bill abolishes a host of provisions which are totally archaic and unjust. Although there are many points at which the current act is outdated, this is particularly true in its approach to the prohibited classes. The present act, which has remained virtually unamended since it was passed in 1952, contains prohibitions that are universally acknowledged to be harsh and incompatible with contemporary Canadian values. The bill removes these offensive prohibitions, notably the bar against epileptics, the mentally retarded, and those who have been inmates in mental institutions. It also replaces the obsolete criterion of "moral turpitude" with objective criteria based on the provisions of Canada's Criminal Code.
Thirdly, in contrast to the present statute, which makes the crucial question of the volume of the immigration movement entirely a matter for administrative decision, the bill establishes a system under which the level of immigration to this country will become a matter for open decision making by the government in consultation with the provinces.
Fourth, the present act confers very wide regulation-making authority on the government and the minister, and is deficient in the guidance it provides for the exercise of discretion by immigration officers. The new act rectifies this unsatisfactory situation. It establishes through the statement of objectives an explicit policy framework to which everything done under the authority of the legislation must conform; and it spells out precisely and circumscribes specifically the ground to be covered by regulations.
Immigration
In the present act, the 1952 act, there is almost a basket clause which gives the minister almost unlimited authority to pass regulations to do almost anything he wishes to do so far as controlling immigration to Canada is concerned. That, I suggest, is wrong, and it is why we have changed it and been so careful in the bill to spell out the authority over the regulations which will flow from the bill.
Fifth, given the important place which refugee policy occupies in Canada's immigration practice and our outstanding record in assisting refugees, it is a curious fact that the present act makes no mention of this subject. The bill incorporates for the first time in Canadian law a regime for protecting refugees in conformity with our obligations under the United Nations convention, and establishes a refugee class.
Sixth, the bill includes measures to protect Canada against dangers, unfortunately a feature of the contemporary world, with which the provisions of the current law are inadequate to cope. In particular, it contains essential safeguards against terrorists and subversives to replace the provisions of the temporary security bill which expired at the end of this year.
Finally, the bill is sensitive to the need to safeguard the civil rights of those who are subject to immigration proceedings. Notably it introduces an important restructuring of the inquiry process as well as a more supple and humane approach to the methods for excluding or removing those persons who are found ineligible to enter or remain in this country.
Having touched on the highlights, Mr. Speaker, I should like now to discuss more fully a number of areas where the bill breaks new ground.
Dealing first with immigration levels, clause 7 requires the minister, after consultation with the provinces "and such other persons, organizations and institutions as he deems appropriate", to quote the bill, to announce annually the number of immigrants which the government considers Canada should admit over a specified time period. This important provision responds to two distinct but closely related considerations. It implements the system I mentioned earlier of open management by the government of immigration volume, which will replace the practice of essentially administrative control, which has thus far governed the total number of immigrants Canada admits. And it will permit the government to give effect to one of the important objectives stipulated in clause 3, namely, that immigration should be related to long-term planning with respect to the growth of Canada's population.
Let me deal first with the question of management. In a central recommendation, the report of the special joint committee concluded that, and I quote:
There should be a shift from the present immigration system which permits the admission of everyone meeting certain criteria without regard to total numbers, to a more managed system capable of regulating the total flow.
From the public debate the special joint committee drew the conclusion, rightly I think, that most Canadians believe that there should be a legislative means to predetermine the rate and volume of immigration to this country. The public debate revealed no clear consensus as to what that volume should be. But there is wide agreement that our immigration system

March 10, 1977
Immigration
should not be open-ended as to numbers, and that it would be desirable that, within a system which makes full provision for consultation, family reunification and the non-discriminatory application of selection procedures, the government's intentions with respect to the total volume of immigration should be the subject of an open policy determination. Within the framework of the act, clause 7 fully respects these considerations.
Over the post-war period the volume of immigration to Canada has fluctuated widely, ranging from a high of 280,000 in 1957 to a low of just over 70,000 in the early sixties. Wide year-to-year fluctuations in immigration volume are undesirable on several grounds. They complicate rational labour market planning, impose unpredictable strains on community services such as housing, schooling and the like, and render difficult sound decisions with respect to the deployment of immigrant processing resources abroad. It will be one of the government's objectives in implementing the new system of setting immigration levels in advance to avoid the high peaks and low valleys which have characterized immigration patterns in the past.
A highly significant aspect of this new arrangement will be its contribution to the creation of a new era of collaboration between the federal government and provincial governments in the immigration field. Immigration is a national program which must be responsive to the needs of all regions of Canada. Constitutionally it is a field which, while it has primacy of jurisdiction, the central government shares with the provinces. Annually announced immigration levels will be the visible end product of a regular and mandatory process of federal-provincial consultation which I am convinced will make the future administration of the program more sensitive than heretofore to the aspirations and requirements of all parts of the country.
Besides improving our capacity to manage the immigration movement in conformity with shorter-run requirements, economic and other, the advance determination of immigration levels will establish an indispensable framework for planning long-term demographic growth nationally. Whereas the minister, in accordance with clause 7, will be required each year to announce a forward figure for immigration, I envisage that the specified period covered by the announcement might well be longer than a single 12-month period. Thus, for example, in making his annual announcement the minister may find it appropriate, in the light of the consultation he has held, to announce a planning level covering a five-year period. This figure in turn would be subject to revision in the annual announcements he would be making in subsequent years.
Accordingly the arrangement will allow a very considerable measure of flexibility in determining both the actual level of immigration in any given year, as well as an opportunity to revise the longer-term level in the light of changing circumstances. It would obviously be a serious error to lock ourselves into any set figure with respect to the contribution immigration should make to Canada's population growth. Our system

must respect the fact that the factors that go to make up population policy are dynamic, variable, and unpredictable. Equally, we should be in a position to plan ahead in the light of the best data available at any given moment, and after full consultation with all those institutions of our society with a vital interest and responsibilities in the immigration process.
Since introducing the immigration bill on November 24, Mr. Speaker, I have been frequently asked what figure the government intends to set with respect to the future level of immigration to Canada. From what I have just said, I hope members appreciate that this question may betray a certain misunderstanding as to the basic purpose of this legislation. It is not its purpose to enable this or any other government to fix for all time some preconceived "ideal" number for immigration to Canada. If there is a "right" figure it will emerge only after consultation, and will be set only in the light of a judgment as to the national interest given the circumstances then prevailing.
But I acknowledge that members may properly expect me to indicate the results of the demographic studies we have pursued over the past few years, and the preliminary conclusions we have reached after discussing this subject with provincial authorities. As my predecessor in this portfolio has more than once suggested publicly, our general conclusion is that, of all the options open to Canada at the present time, the case for a moderate rate of population growth is the best. Canada's position internationally as a major food producing country, our estimate of future energy demands, the need to upgrade both the quantity and quality of housing-these are only a few of the most significant factors that have entered the government's calculation in reaching this conclusion.
It is through immigration that federal policy operates most immediately on population growth. Immigration has been an increasingly important component of annual population growth over recent years. If fertility rates remain at or close to current low levels, an annual figure for immigration from now until the census year 2001 equal to the post-war immigration average to date would mean that the Canadian population would grow from its present level of around 23 million to between 28 and 30 million by the end of the century. Expressed as an average yearly growth rate, this would represent approximately 1 per cent annually, which compares to the 1974 rate of 1.6 per cent.
This rate of population increase would, in the government's view, fairly meet the criterion of moderate growth, as contrasted to either a slow or accelerated rate. Translated into immigration figures, it would indicate an average-and I stress the word average-range of something of the order of 140,000 to
150,000	immigrants annually. Last year we received 149,429 immigrants.
Clearly I would envisage considerable year-to-year variations from such an average, either upwards or downwards, according to national requirements, including unforeseen refugee developments, and so on, although as I have said, we would aim to avoid violent fluctuations. But the main point, I hope, is evident: the government's present view of the role
March 10, 1977

immigration should play in Canada's futute population growth does not entail any departure from the position Canada has occupied since the end of the last war as a significant immigrant-receiving country.
One of the demographic characteristics which will affect the future well-being of Canadian society, the distribution of our population geographically is likely to prove just as significant as its total size, if not more so. In common with the situation in most countries, Canada is becoming increasingly a country of city-dwellers. Should present trends continue, between 80 and 90 per cent of our people will be concentrated in urban centres by the year 2000, as compared to 75 per cent at the time of the last census in 1971.
All the available evidence points to the heavy costs associated with the over-concentration of population on the one hand, and its inevitable concomitant, de-population, on the other. The achievement of more satisfactory distribution patterns for Canada's population poses formidable problems, but it is a challenge which I believe all levels of government must take up. There are very recent indications that metropolitan growth rates may be tapering off somewhat. If indeed such a trend is in the making, it must be encouraged and strengthened.
Although the federal government can provide leadership in this field, most of the levers that directly affect settlement patterns are in the hands of the provinces. For example, resource development and land use policies in general fall within provincial jurisdiction. Accordingly, to develop and implement a long-term strategy to promote the most beneficial distribution of Canada's population, active collaboration between all levels of government is imperative. Eventually, I can envisage federal-provincial agreements as providing a framework through which we could jointly work to achieve national demographic goals.
Meanwhile the government believes that immigration law should be framed in such a way that the immigration program can support whatever policies are developed in collaboration with the provinces to promote the most rational distribution of Canada's population over the years to come. I reject the notion that immigration is either the cause of population imbalances, or that immigration can be the solution. At the same time it is evident that a wider dispersal over the long term of the immigrant movement would be advantageous as we seek to restrain the forces behind metropolitan expansion, and favour the development of smaller communities.
Elere the cardinal principle to which I subscribe is that people, whether native-born Canadians or immigrants, follow opportunities. The best and most effective way to encourage immigrants to make their new homes away from the major centres is to provide incentives for them to do so-employment prospects, schools, a welcoming community. In addition, I concur with the special joint committee's conclusion that our selection standards should accord some weight in favour of those who are willing and qualified to take jobs in communities which have been designated, after federal-provincial consultation, for expansion in population. It should be self-evident that the process of designating communities for this purpose will
Immigration
require very careful study. It would be both wrong and futile to steer newcomers to Canada toward places which did not afford the prospect of a full and satisfactory life in every sense.
The new immigration legislation will do three specific things to assist a wider settlement pattern for immigrants. First, it provides for immigrants to receive their status as permanent residents-landing, as we call it-when they arrive at the destination in Canada which they chose when they were selected abroad. This would be a change from the present practice of granting landing at the port of entry, which more often than not is an airport in one of our major cities. This change may, we believe, operate as a modest factor in encouraging immigrants to stick to the destination they gave during the selection process, rather than changing plans and settling immediately elsewhere.
Secondly, it is the government's intention that the revised selection standards-the points system-which will be the subject of regulations under the new act, will include selection points which may be awarded an immigrant who is destined to a designated community. The application of the selection criteria in this respect, and the priorities which will be applied to facilitate the movement of certain categories of immigrants, are matters which I assume will be discussed in detail when the legislation is in committee.
Thirdly, clause 14 will allow an immigration officer to attach such conditions as may be prescribed in detail under the act to the grant of landing. In so far as the question of settlement is concerned, for example, this would allow a residence requirement of up to six months in the case of an immigrant who has been selected as a result of the additional points received for the designated community factor, and who benefits from priority processing as a result.
It may also be found advantageous to prescribe conditions in certain other areas. For instance, an immigrant selected because he or she agreed to take up a specific prearranged job could be granted landing on the condition that this specified employment undertaking was fulfilled. The bill provides that any such conditions in the case of immigrants would expire automatically after six months, and affords ample opportunity, if reasonable grounds exist, for the immigrant to seek relief from or changes to the conditions imposed.
Immigration law must regulate the admission, not only of the immigrant but also of the millions of people who visit Canada each year for some short-term purpose. Clause 3 of the bill acknowledges that one of the purposes of immigration policy is to facilitate the entry of visitors into Canada for the purpose of fostering trade and commerce, tourism, cultural and scientific activities, and international understanding. At the same time it is important to ensure that the welcome Canada extends visitors is not abused.
The special joint committee was impressed by the need to prevent our immigration system being circumvented by people coming to Canada as visitors with the intention of residing and working here illegally. The bill, I believe, meets the concerns

March 10, 1977
Immigration
expressed by the committee on this score. It makes it a specific offence for an employer knowingly to hire a person who is not authorized to work here. This provision ties in with the new social insurance number system, which identifies persons who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents, and thus alerts the employer that he must verify that the person concerned is in possession of a valid employment visa.
Again following a recommendation of the special joint committee, the bill requires every visitor who wishes either to work or to study in Canada to obtain the requisite authorization from a visa officer overseas before seeking admission. With few exceptions, which will be specified in regulations, visitors already within Canada will not be eligible to apply to take temporary employment or to enrol in educational institutions. Any visitor who, without the necessary authorization, takes employment or enrols in a course of study becomes liable to deportation.
There are other provisions in the bill which complement this scheme and reinforce the basic principle that visitors enter and remain in Canada as a matter of privilege.
To balance the measures designed to combat illegal immigration, the bill introduces new bonding and security deposit provisions designed to facilitate the admission of those visitors who may find it difficult to satisfy the examining officer at the port of entry as to the purpose of their visit. Under the present law an officer is empowered to take a cash bond from the person concerned in such cases as a guarantee that he or she will leave Canada when the authorized period of the visit expires. This bill extends the type and source of security which may be deposited to cover security, other than cash, which may be deposited either by the person seeking admission or by a third party, such as a friend or relative in Canada. In brief, the bill provides for greater control over potential illegal migrants, without adding to the requirements which must be met by the genuine visitor.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the bill introduces a number of significant procedures designed to guarantee the fair treatment of those persons who may become subject to exclusion or removal from Canada. In the first place, it eliminates the present distinction between persons coming from overseas, who enjoy inquiry and have the right to counsel, and those coming from the United States or St. Pierre and Miquelon who are subject to a truncated procedure, known in the present law as a "further examination", with no right to counsel. The bill makes the full inquiry a universal procedure, regardless of the country from which the person seeks admission to Canada.
A very important change concerns the restructuring of the inquiry process itself. The special inquiry officer will be replaced by an adjudicator who will be entirely removed from the process of developing the case against an individual subject to inquiry. The adjudicator's role will be to weigh the evidence adduced by the departmental presenting officer on the one hand and the person subject to inquiry or his or her counsel on the other. The duty of the adjudicator will be to act solely as
(Mr. Cullen.)
an objective and impartial judge, to hear all the evidence, and to reach a decision according to the law.
I should also mention that the bill introduces new provisions with regard to detention which will afford individuals who are detained under the Immigration Act safeguards similar to those found in the Bail Reform Act.
Finally, I should draw attention to the alternatives to deportation which the bill provides. At a port of entry where the grounds for exclusion are relatively minor, the adjudicator will be able to issue an exclusion rather than a deportation order. The effect of the exclusion order will be to bar the return of the person to Canada for 12 months only; a deportation order, which will be used in more serious cases, will continue to constitute a permanent bar to admission unless the minister gives consent.
Similarly, if a visitor already in Canada is found at inquiry to be removable, the adjudicator may issue a departure notice rather than a deportation order when only minor infractions of the immigration law are involved. Once the person has left Canada in accordance with the terms of the departure notice, it has no further effect and the person needs no consent to apply for admission at a later date.
Included in the statement of objectives in clause 3 is the recognition that immigration policy must protect the safety of Canadian society, and should deny the use of Canadian territory to those who may engage in criminal activity. This objective is implemented in revisions to the inadmissible classes which will enable us to deal more surely with the risks presented by the contemporary phenomenon of international terrorism, highjacking, kidnapping and the like. These revisions will also enable us to deal effectively with persons seeking to enter Canada who are known to be involved with organized crime but who may have eluded conviction.
It is a characteristic of cases in the categories I have just mentioned that problems arise because evidence at the government's disposal cannot be divulged at a normal inquiry for security reasons. It will be recalled that parliament, through the passage of the Temporary Immigration Security Act, acknowledged that there were loopholes in the law in this area which needed to be closed. This bill rationalizes the manner in which these difficult cases will be handled in the future, and provides as many procedural safeguards for the individual concerned as are consistent with the overriding need to protect the safety of Canada and Canadians.
Where it is a security case involving a permanent resident, the bill establishes very special procedures. The current law provides for the deportation of a landed immigrant through the inquiry process, but does not adequately cover those very serious security cases which preclude resort to that procedure. Accordingly, the bill makes provisions for a special advisory board which will consider evidence submitted by the Minister of Manpower and Immigation and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). The individual concerned will be given an opportunity to be heard in accordance with regulations which will resemble those set out in the Public Service Security Inquiry Regulations. If the board is satisfied that grounds for removal exist, it
March 10, 1977

will report to the governor in council which may make the necessary deportation order.
There are several important aspects of this legislation which deserve more attention but which it is impossible for me to cover adequately at this time. Because of the complexity of some of these issues, I believe that their detailed examination had best be reserved for the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, to which I hope it will be possible to refer the bill after appropriate debate, and where it would be my intention to discuss the substance of the more important regulations. One complicated area which I know the committee will wish to discuss in detail is the regime the bill provides to protect refugees.
Another less complex area, but about which some concern and misunderstanding have become evident, is the provision in the bill which can require persons other than Canadian citizens to be fingerprinted under certain circumstances. Many immigrant-receiving countries routinely require applicants for visas to be fingerprinted. We certainly do not intend to go that far. Fingerprinting will be the exception rather than the rule, used only where there is doubt about a person's identity or his possible involvement in criminal activity. For persons in Canada we will fingerprint as a matter of routine only those who have been ordered removed from Canada. The two other situations in which we will require fingerprints are when a person is arrested under the Immigration Act, or when a visitor requests a change in or extension to his status, and, in either case, the person is unable to satisfy the immigration officer of his identity. It will therefore be a rarity for a permanent resident to be fingerprinted. In all cases, when the fingerprints have served their immigration purpose, they will be disposed of under the normal file retirement program.
Another complicated area which the committee will wish to study in detail is the revision of the selection standards which, of course, will be a matter for regulations. On this subject I will only say now that the recommendations of the special joint committee appear to provide a very solid basis for a new points system.
I cannot neglect to mention at this time the strident criticism of the bill put about by a few small groups in Toronto and Montreal, claiming that the bill is racist, discriminatory, repressive, and reduces the civil rights of visitors, immigrants and citizens alike. I have examined those accusations in some detail, being alarmed by their shrillness. I am satisfied that the groups concerned have not only misinterpreted the bill's provisions, but I have also been forced to the sad conclusion that their reports constitute a deliberate and shocking attempt to discredit the bill. I propose, if the committee has any interest in pursuing the matter, to demonstrate to the members the exaggerated and frequently completely invalid nature of those criticisms.
In these remarks I have not addressed the question of family immigration, since the government's present intentions with respect to the expansion of the family class and the admission
Immigration
of more distant relatives were the subject of a communication addressed to all members at the time I introduced the bill. In brief, the new family class will include those relatives who are now sponsorable, plus parents of any age when sponsored by Canadian citizens. Additionally, the government proposes that those relatives eligible for nomination will continue to receive under the new regulations the same level of preference they now enjoy.
It only remains for me to say that I am convinced that this legislation will provide a strong and imaginative foundation on which to conduct Canada's immigration program in the future.
I wish again to express my appreciation to those members on both sides of the House who have already made a significant contribution to this bill through their participation in the special joint committee. I trust that the standing committee can complete its examination of the bill during the first months of the new year to enable the House and the Senate to pass the legislation by the middle of 1977.
I would also be remiss if I did not comment on the splendid work and service performed on behalf of that committee by one of its co-chairman, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to represent my party today in opening debate on Bill C-24. I intend to direct some of my remarks to the speech of the minister, but primarily I will leave some of the areas he touched for debate at committee stage.
Public affairs tend to concentrate on immediate problems and very often address themselves only to short-term solutions. The attention of the public and the attention of the public media generally focus on the immediate. As a result governments and public officials frequently are seen to lurch from crisis to crisis. The accusation that we do not spend sufficient time and thought on issues which require long-term solutions is frequently made. The issue before us today addresses itself to Canada's future, and I believe the minister was correct in stating that it will have long-term implications for many generations to come.
As the official representative of my party I intend to outline our position on Canada's demographic policy. In order to do that I believe it is essential that we review the process by which we have arrived at this point. It is only in the historical context that we are able to evaluate Canada's development. It is the lessons of history which enable us to project possible future developments.
Canada is a land of immigrants. This phenomenon dates back to our colonial history. Not only were France and England concerned about development of Canada's economic resources and population base, but even more so in more modern times administrations of both Conservative and Liberal political affiliation saw the need for the development of Canada's population. They were also concerned about the enrichment of that population. As we make plans for Canada's future and established population goals, we as Canadians

March 10, 1977
Immigration
should view this task with enthusiasm rather than fear. It is a task filled with great potential. It is a task which will affect the lives of our children and grandchildren. To put it in simple terms, the policies we establish today will affect the future of our children.
What kind of Canada do we want to see developed? Before one can answer that question, Canadians and the government must have a clear sense of national priority. Just as Canada's history is marked by periods when national priorities gripped the attention and captured the enthusiasms of Canadians, so the time has come for us once again to establish a national goal. This national goal must be to develop a demographic policy which will ensure a future for all Canadians in which not only economic opportunities will exist but, more important, where principles of freedom, racial equality, and justice will prevail for everyone.
While these goals are high sounding and by their very nature nebulous, this is a task to which we must address ourselves. It is of utmost importance that the process of consultation between the federal government, the provincial governments, and Canadians generally takes place. Not only must this consultative process be on a regular and ongoing basis, but it must be meaningful, and the consultation must take place in the open. If we fail in this task, we fail in the greatest challenge facing us today.
At the time the green paper on immigration was tabled in the House indications were given by the government that Canada's immigration policy would be examined as an integral part of the larger demographic policy. At that time our party called for a select committee to be established, the responsibility of which would be to do the following: first, to examine immigration policy up to the present time; second, to examine the main principles of Canadian demographic policy of the future; and third, to conduct hearings across Canada, thus ensuring the input of Canadians in this all-important question. As I look around the House tonight it is with interest that I see many members of parliament who sat on that committee as it travelled across Canada.
I believe all of us admired people who had come to this country, and we were filled with admiration when we saw the loyalty and the love they held for this country. We were particularly impressed with their determination to make Canada a better place in which to live.
At the time the green paper was tabled our party criticized the government because we felt that insufficient attention had been paid to Canada's demographic policy. Further, we stressed that Canada's immigration policy could not be examined without first establishing our demographic goals. That accusation was valid in 1973, and I suggest that it is still valid today in 1977. Again the government has failed to follow that advice. Instead, we are faced with an immigration bill, and while reference is made to demographic policy, and while the minister addressed himself to that question superficially tonight, it is our view that demographic principles are again taking secondary importance to that of amending present immigration legislation.
I Mr. Epp.]
The government has attempted to create the impression that it is dedicated to a demographic policy. It has taken great pains to stress that demographic considerations are extremely important. The bill states demographic studies as one of its objects in clause 3, and stresses provincial consultation regarding demographics in clause 7. Yet when the minister is asked to table the report on demographic studies so that members of parliament can make an educated assessment of the bill, the minister's response is that he will consider it. I was under the impression that at second reading the minister would table demographic projections. He had an opportunity to do that today, but he failed to do so.
I suggest to the minister, as forcefully as I can, that we want the regulations before us during second reading debate, and also the principles upon which his demographic projections were based. If in fact demographic and population policy is to be one of the major factors affecting the determination of immigration levels, and perhaps even the points system, then all these factors must be evaluated as an integral part of the new immigration legislation. I must reiterate that the entire selection system by which immigrants will come to Canada is not part of the bill. This means that it is not open for debate. It is our intention to place the selection system, the points system, in the bill through an amendment in order that all future Canadians may clearly understand the manner in which they would have to qualify to come to Canada.
At the present time world population stands at approximately four billion, with an annual growth rate of approximately 2 per cent. World population, if this trend continues, will be doubled in approximately 35 years. Even if the fertility rate were to decrease to replacement levels by as early as 1980, the world would still have an increase in population to 6.3 billion in 75 years time. In order to appreciate the enormity of the problem, if the replacement level were reached by the turn of the century, a goal which is more possible than the 1980 supposition, the world's population would number approximately eight billion by the year 2050.
The average net increase on a world basis today is 200,000 people per day. Further, adding to the world pressure is the fact that over 90 per cent of any future growth will take place in the underdeveloped countries. This increased pressure on the world population adds to the task of finding sufficient resources. Despite the tremendous increase in world population, world energy conversion is increasing three times faster than the world's population. We all speak of energy conservation, but still the fact remains that in spite of rapidly developing world population, the conversion of world energy supplies is increasing three times more rapidly than the world's population.


Mr. Caccia:: What is your immigration policy?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is again in fine form. He has chosen to make a speech sitting flatly on his seat. If he wants to speak I suggest he rise like the
March 10, 1977

rest of us. When the rabble is through, we will continue. I think we have given more than sufficient time to the hon. member for Davenport already.
When speaking of energy conservation one has to look at land resources and the use of non-renewable natural resources. It seems to me that the Canadian public, or western society in general, is not yet ready to put its house in order and critically examine its use of energy and land resources and how they can be conserved for future generations.


Charles L. Caccia: What would you do?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Again I am asked what we would do. I can tell the hon. member that what we would do would be a sight better than they have ever done.
The 1960's saw marked increases in the development of the world's food supply. The so-called green revolution spelled hope for millions of persons in underdeveloped countries that they might at least look forward to the day where they would receive daily nourishment. Unfortunately the race to increase food production more rapidly than the world's population increase is now also being lost. Today we are faced with the fact that despite tremendous gains in agricultural production, the world's population is again growing faster than the increase in food production.
As a partial response to an ever-increasing world population and the need to provide basic food and shelter, the world plan of action which was adopted at the Bucharest conference urged national governments to develop population policies, keeping in mind the need to develop policies which would result in some hope for the world's teaming millions. In the developed countries, opposite trends have been taking place.
Hon. members opposite ask what we would do. This is another case where they have not looked at the facts but rather rushed in with the hope that the public would buy arguments not based on present trends. Assuming that Canada's fertility rate will remain at 1.8 as is presently the case, we already are below our replacement level which is placed at 2.3, which is the average number of children a woman will bear during her child-bearing lifetime. While fertility rates are presently below replacement levels, the birth rate of 15 per 1,000 population is still double our mortality rate. With this rate plus the fact that an imbalance exists in our age structure, namely, that the postwar baby boom has resulted in a higher percentage of women of child-bearing age, it is projected that even without any immigration at all Canada's population by the year 2000 will rise to some 26 million. Having said that, one fact becomes startlingly evident, namely, that immigration will become an ever-increasingly important component in any future demographic policy.
At the present time immigration accounts for roughly half our population increase. We have to go back to the 1920's to find another trend in which immigration resulted in 50 per cent of Canada's population increase.
The joint committee travelled throughout Canada, and representations varied all the way from a closed-door policy to
Immigration
one which would allow large numbers of immigrants to enter Canada yearly. Our party has opted for neither extreme. Rather, based on the principle that immigration is a privilege, we opted for moderate growth. The joint committee on immigration put that figure at approximately 125,000; tonight the minister put it at from 140,000 to 150,000. What are the results if we look at these figures, Mr. Speaker?
If the figure of 100,000 immigrants per year was to be used in the next five years, and assuming that the fertility rate remains at 1.8, we have already indicated that our population would rise to 26 million without any immigration by the year 2000. With immigration in the area of 100,000 per year, combined with net emigration of some 50,000 per year-and I want to say to the minister that we have no adequate emigration figures in Canada at the present time-the result would be that by the year 2001 our population would be 29 million or 30 million.
Demographers project that if these trends were to continue, in the first half of the twenty-first century our population will rise to approximately 33 million before stabilizing around that figure. If one were to accept immigration figures of 200,000 per year, as is generally done by those who argue for a more open immigration policy, the higher immigration flow would result in Canada's population rising to approximately 33 million by the year 2001. The rationale for adopting a figure such as I have indicated is based on the observations I gave earlier.
A number of Canadians have also expressed the view that Canada should virtually stop all immigration. Let me point out at this time that our party applauds the contribution immigrants have made to the development of Canada. As Canadians we have prided ourselves that we have created a pluralistic society. While we favour the belief that all immigrants should have the opportunity to enter the main stream of Canadian life we have been the beneficiaries of their enthusiams, their vision, their culture, and possibly most important, Mr. Speaker, their love for their adopted country.
Those of us born in Canada often take the freedoms we enjoy in this country for granted. Those who count themselves among the members of Canada's ethnic communities cherish their Canadian home, cherish it in a way which is a lesson to all of us. Therefore we say Canada is the better for the immigrants we welcomed to our shores. We say that we need a continued flow of immigrants. Our country is going through a period of economic difficulty, going through a period of inflation and unemployment. We say that these conditions always make it more difficult for immigrants to integrate into Canadian society, but it is important that Canada should retain an immigration flow. Demographic projections indicate that if Canada's fertility rate remains low, below replacement levels, Canada will need additional people to enter the labour market by the early 1980's. By the 1980's we shall experience a sharp decline in the annual growth of the labour force, a decline between 2 per cent and 3 per cent.

March 10, 1977
Immigration
The former chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, appearing before the joint committee on immigration, said this:
This decline to a lower and more normal rate of entrance into the labour force could mean that, without immigration, future economic development might actually be held back by labour shortages.
In its 1975 study entitled "Looking Outward" the Economic Council of Canada said:
Council projections suggest therefore that the labour force including net immigration will grow by about 2.7 per cent per annum between 1975 and 1980 compared with about 3.4 per cent from 1969 to 1974, and barely 2 per cent per annum from 1980 to 1985. This slowdown is likely to continue into the 1990's. The priorities of Canadian economic policy are in consequence also likely to shift steadily to emphasize less the number of jobs available in the economy than the quality of employment provided.
As we look ahead to the 1980's and 1990's, it becomes evident that we are justified in opposing a closed door policy. Rather, we ought to encourage immigration in moderate quantities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The second factor which emphasizes this relates to Canada's welfare system. Since World War II, Canada has developed a comprehensive program of social welfare benefits. These benefits have long-term implications for Canada's economic growth. They are based on the assumption that not only will economic activity be able to maintain the increased costs of social welfare benefits in place, but that the growth in the labour force will be large enough to support those receiving social benefits. Consideration of this factor, more than any other, has led us to the conclusion that moderate growth is necessary. If we were not growing, or if our population growth were approaching zero, future generations in Canada would be hard-pressed to pay the cost of continuing social benefits.
Owing to the post-war baby boom, a large percentage of women now living in Canada are of child-bearing age. If the population does not increase, as the dependency factor on the population grows, that is to say, as the population grows older, a smaller percentage of people working will be asked to pay for social benefits. Surely it becomes self-evident that one of two options remains: either social benefit programs must be reduced, or continued growth of the population must take place.
Having said that, I make this point: demographers generally agree that even though additional points are provided for immigrants entering the labour force, only a natural increase will make a significant difference to Canada's age structure. One might ask why does Canada not opt for more immigrants, possibly in excess of 200,000 or 250,000 per year? The first reason relates back to a matter to which I have already addressed myself, namely, the increase in world population.
At present world population is increasing by 200,000 per day. It is evident that at no time can Canada develop an immigration policy which could significantly reduce the world's over-population problem. Rather, it is incumbent on us, as Canadians, to help in the development of agricultural techniques and resources in the developing world, in order that

those countries may develop the capacity to increase their own food production.
Further, an ever-decreasing number of countries are willing to take in significant numbers of immigrants. In the past Europe, Australia, New Zealand and North and South America were designated as receiving areas. In the latter part of the 1970's not only has the number of receiving areas been reduced, but those countries willing to receive immigrants are reducing the numbers they will allow to enter. This fact, along with the desire of much of the world's population to emigrate to countries such as Canada in the hope of economic betterment, will put additional pressure on Canada in the last quarter of the century to accept more immigrants. This trend is already evident in that Canada is receiving over 750,000 immigrant applications per year from persons expressing a desire to emigrate to Canada. It remains unclear how many more would be received if potential immigrants were not told that their chance of emigrating to Canada is virtually non-existent.
An additional argument militating against larger population increase is the question of economies of scale. Generally, it has been argued that large populations result in a larger domestic market and it therefore follows that increased economic growth is the result. The joint committee on immigration studied at length the question of economies of scale. Recent studies indicate that if significant shifts in economies of scale are to be achieved, Canada's population growth must be significant, since in developing societies every individual places additional pressures on non-renewable resources, transportation, housing, education, etc.
Traditional arguments concerning economies of scale have become less valid in today's society. One could say that Canada is the beneficiary of economies of scale-economies of scale not relating to our domestic population. I say this simply because we are a major exporting nation. Unfortunately an examination of 1976 figures reveals our trade deficit, reveals part of the reason for our economic slump. That slump has led to a loss of jobs and economic hardship in Canada. And there is hardship when a trading nation is in a deficit position.
A Canadian ecomonist, Spencer Star, wrote one of the most significant papers I have seen on this subject. After studying economies of scale he concluded that population growth is an insignificant factor in the annual growth of income per person. He also wrote that it is safe to say that population and immigration policy discussions may proceed without being concerned that a policy directed toward a relatively low population growth rate will have any measurable net loss to Canada in terms of foregone economies of scale. Similarly, there is no reason to expect a relatively high population growth rate to confer any measurable net benefits through realized economies of scale.
A further reason which militates against excessive population growth is the trend toward urbanization. Our pattern of distribution in this country can best be described as a failure. We have increased the size of our three major urban areas, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Historically, immigrants
March 10, 1977

have tended to settle in large metropolitan areas. For example, Ontario receives in the neighbourhood of 55 per cent of all new immigrants to Canada, but this is only half the story. The other side of that coin is internal migration.
Internal migration has also resulted in rapid increases in the growth of Canada's urban areas. This trend again shows that the government's policies, such as those of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, have had little or no effect on significantly changing the rural to urban movement.
It is incumbent upon the government to establish policies whereby Canada's rural areas are able to attract secondary industry in order to develop a more mature economy. This would not only reduce pressure on Canada's urban areas, but would allow Canadian citizens in rural areas to develop the potential that is now only available in Canada's urban areas.
It is essential if our regions of Canada are to remain in Confederation that a more equitable distribution on a regional basis be undertaken immediately. It is self-evident why persons are attracted to Canada's urban areas. Surely it goes without saying that the main reason is employment and with it the opportunity to advance one's economic well-being. The Progressive Conservative party would develop a consultative process with the provinces and municipalities to develop policies which would allow for the same economic opportunities to be existent in Canada's less urbanized areas that presently exist in our larger urban areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: For some time today in my speech I have dwelt on our general projections on population growth. I believe that this really is the central question that should be discussed by members on both sides of the House, but as 1 stated before, it is a question that many members shy away from because of the obvious pitfalls one can get into as one discusses demographic policy.
As one reads Bill C-24, one must agree with the general objectives as stated in clause 3. Let me draw specific attention to some with which we completely agree. We are pleased that they are incorporated into a bill and will now have the power of law rather than be simply good intentions.
This is a day of which we should all be proud, a day in which we are getting a bill which clearly states that Canada's immigration goal is, and I quote:
(c)	to facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad;
(d)	to encourage and facilitate the adaptation of persons who have been granted admission as permanent residents to Canadian society-
Also, we finally have a refugee policy that is included in the legislation. The joint committee clearly stated that these objectives should be in legislation. I commend the minister, and possibly even more so his predecessor, on those objectives being included in the bill.
Immigration
It is our view that much more openness must exist between the federal and provincial governments in discussion of immigration policies. This is possibly where we have our greatest objection to the minister and Bill C-24. While the minister gives lip service to openness, there is not much more openness in Bill C-24 than in the 1952 act. Why do I say this?
The minister says there will be a consultative process with the provinces. The minister has indicated that immigration is a shared responsibility with the provinces but the prime responsibility rests with the federal government. The minister has not placed before us any projections, or agreements that have been made between the federal government and the provinces. The minister might say that that is impossible at this time. While that might be the case and we can possibly accept that, the mechanisms and the consultative process are not before us once again. It goes without saying that if the provinces have to bear the cost of additional housing, transportation and education, it is incumbent that the provinces have input in this consultative process. We are not interested in balkanizing the various regions of Canada, but we are interested in recognizing the special needs that immigrants have and the special problems immigration resettlement programs bring to the provinces.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that as a party we do not feel it is sufficient that the minister should simply announce the annual level. Rather, we are proposing an amendment whereby the minister not only will have to announce the annual level, but will table a report in the House of Commons, and further that this report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for debate and review, thus enabling the committee not only to question the appropriate minister as to the reasons the level was established in quantitative terms, but also on the projections the minister has for the future of the demographic policy.
When my colleague from Hamilton' West (Mr. Alexander) spoke of immigration, he had a favourite phrase to describe Canada's immigration policy. He called it legislation by regulation. Bill C-24 follows in that tradition. To a great extent it is legislation by regulation. Having said that, there is not much disagreement with what the bill says in its philosophy. But Bill C-24 is even more important in what it does not say. For one, the regulations are not written into the bill. While I recognize that all regulations cannot be written into the bill, I believe that selection criteria, annual targets, demographic targets, mechanisms and how they are to be modified, should be included in the bill. This is of particular significance in terms of the points system.
In other words the minister has structured the bill in such a way that there will be no opportunity for meaningful debate on the mechanics of immigration. Therefore it is the view of my party that the government has been dishonest in its public portrayal that the bill is open. The bill is grossly lacking in that it gives no indication as to the selection system. In fact if any meaningful debate is to take place, I want to stress again

March 10, 1977
Immigration
that the regulations must be made available during second reading debate and in committee.
The very nature of the immigration department indicates that it is regulatory in nature. It is essential that those regulations be placed before us. As one reads the act, one can only conclude that in some ways it is more arbitrary than the previous one in that it places even more power in the hands of the minister and the bureaucrats.
If one wants to look at the bureaucratic jungle created by Bill C-24, one comes to the conclusion that immigration policies will become more confusing and therefore more discriminatory and more unfair. I simply cannot accept that persons in the department who are generally manpower oriented have the same perception for immigration needs as persons who would be responsible to a department of immigration and citizenship, as opposed to the monstrosity the minister is now proposing.
I base that on the white paper on immigration which the government tabled in 1966. That report was tabled after two years of study to review all aspects of immigration. As one reads that paper of some years ago, one notices that the government's observation of Canada's economic future was expansionary in nature. The philosophy was one of a great future. It stressed the traditional reasons to encourage immigration. While it concerned itself with a selection system as it pertains to immigration, its message was clear: Canada's economic future was bright, and immigrants not only would contribute to that economic future but would share in it.
That was in 1966, and 10 years later, with the same government, what has happened? The government's economic policies are in a shambles and the government has to retreat. I say to the bureaucrats in the manpower area that again their projections in 1966 have not been found to be factual in 1977.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the selection criteria? This is one of the objections that we have to Bill C-24. At the present time three categories exist for immigrant classification, namely, the sponsored, nominated, and family class. Clause 115, while designating the classes, indicates the manner in which persons will now be selected based on future regulation. Therefore one has to look at the minister's press release that accompanied the tabling of Bill C-24 in order to discover the new selection system. The special joint committee, after reviewing the selection system at length-and I repeat, Mr. Speaker-at length-generally agreed that the sponsored class should remain, or rather that it now be called the family class.
In fact the committee said, to quote from the committee report:
To ensure this all committee members except one recommend that the present class of the nominated immigrant be dropped and that the ties between members of a non-dependent extended family be recognized a different way.
After lengthy debate in the committee, the committee recommended, based on the principle of family reunification, that the family class should remain and that parents of any age could be placed in the sponsored class, as presently they

must be at least 60 years of age before they can be sponsored. It was on that basis that the committee recommended expansion of the sponsored class and also recommended the removal of the nominated class.
It is our recommendation that the present sponsored class be expanded to include parents at any age; but when one reads the press release of the minister, not only is it parents of any age but grandparents as well. I do not know if the minister or his officials have in fact studied the ripple effect of that change, but I suggest to him that if he sets annual targets at between 100,000 and 140,000 per year, the ripple effect could be such that hardly any independent immigrants, or what he prefers to term "others", will have an opportunity to come to Canada.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: You are referring to nominated?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister asks if I am referring to nominated. The present bill has a family class which has now been expanded, or which the minister says, if we are to take his word, will be expanded to include parents of any age and grandparents. The committee also recommended that the nominated class be removed. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has done that, but he has not. He has retained the points for the nominated class. The committee, after lengthy discussion of this question, indicated that new seed immigration would be severely hampered if annual targets were established, and that most immigrants who came to Canada would qualify to come to Canada through prior family connection.
It is new seed immigration, Mr. Speaker, which longitudinal studies indicate will more readily move to areas outside our metropolitan cities. While the minister has reduced the nominated class or eliminated it, he has retained the points which are presently in the nominated class, and I believe that that is something that must seriously be looked at by the committee.
As to the second class, Mr. Speaker, we favour the inclusion of a refugee class. It is the first time, I believe, in Canada's immigration policy that, by legislation, Canada confirms its obligations which we have undertaken as a signatory of the United Nations Convention and Protocol on Refugees. As a party we favour this inclusion in the bill. As refugee situations frequently demand immediate and direct attention, one has to ask whether Canada should establish a policy whereby we are a country of first asylum. A number of representations were made that Canada accept the principle of being a country of first asylum. This would mean that persons who claim refugee status could enter Canada and remain here on a minister's permit until such time as we could determine whether in fact they were refugees under the terms of the UN charter.
Proponents of this concept generally refer to the Swedish experience, but the point must be made that Sweden only accepts 1,000 refugees per year, and Canada's record is much more exemplary than that of Sweden. Therefore, we see no reason why Canada should accept the proposal that it be designated as a country of first asylum. It is our view that in a world where increased tensions will take place, especially
March 10, 1977

within countries, pressures to accept increased refugee flows will remain with us for some time.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, regarding selection, the category of other immigrants, as the minister's press release describes them, would be comprised of all applicants who do not qualify under the family class or as refugees. Again, Mr. Speaker, these people ought to be judged on the points system, which again is not included in the bill. Therefore it becomes difficult to assess the manner in which the so-called independent immigrant will be selected. It would be my view-and I hope the minister will see the wisdom of this suggestion-that these persons should not be designated as other applicants but rather as independent applicants.
I have therefore served notice on the minister and the government that we intend to move a significant number of amendments to improve Bill C-24. It is our thinking that it is the only way that changes to the points system, and therefore to the selection criteria for immigrants, can in future be debated in parliament. We have seen in the last two or three years that significant changes to regulations have taken place without any debate in the Elouse of Commons, and therefore without any input by Canadians or their representatives.
Regarding the so-called inadmissible classes, I am pleased to note that exclusion of potential immigrants will be based solely on danger to public health or safety, or excessive demands on health or social services, to quote the bill. In the past, as the House knows, the 1952 act barred epileptics and those suffering from mental disease. Many of the provisions in section 5 of the 1952 act were, as the minister has already said, archaic. There is agreement that members of families should not be separated because one member of a family suffers from mental retardation. Therefore the special joint committee recommended that sponsored dependents who are mentally retarded should be admissible. Further, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that those suffering from epilepsy will not be placed in the prohibited class any longer.
A matter a deep concern to our party, though, is the question of illegal aliens. I have already stated that additional pressures will be placed on Canada in that persons view Canada as a land of opportunity. Generally, there are two types of illegal aliens seeking to enter Canada. The first category we have seen, for example, arrive at our major airports having left their home under the impression that they can enter Canada as visitors and also find work, in many cases. Having arrived in Canada many of them find themselves bitterly disappointed. When these persons arrive at Canada's international airports, frequently they have little or no financial resources with which to maintain themselves for the period of time they intend to stay in this country. The result is that they are detained and placed in detention centres until a special inquiry takes place the next day or so, and they are then sent back to their country of origin. Many of these people are unfortunate victims of misinformation or, even worse, of travel agencies who indicate to them that if they have a return ticket in their pocket they will automatically be allowed to remain in Canada.
Immigration
Those of us who have seen these detention centres know that a better method must be developed in order to reduce the heartbreak of these persons and their relatives and friends in Canada. The excessive amounts of money that are needed for them to travel to Canada add additional hardships on these persons. Therefore a visitor visa system must be developed whereby a person must attain an entry visa before being allowed into Canada. These visas would be made available at Canadian embassies abroad. As a starting point, 1 suggest this be done on a reciprocal basis with countries which themselves presently require an entry or exit card system. The same system might be adopted with respect to visitors from those countries to Canada.
The second group of illegal entrants are those who have been able to escape the secondary line of inspection and enter the mainstream of Canadian life. Estimates as to their number vary, but range as high as half a million. I do not know how many there are, and the minister keeps saying there are no projections. If a visa system were devised we would at least have some idea as to the number of visitors present in Canada at any time.
It is the view of my party that the government has lost control of the illegal alien question. Examining the situation, especially in Canada's urban areas, immigration officers indicate they do not possess the resources to enable them to cope with the illegal alien who is able to escape immigration controls. Studies in Toronto indicate that many illegal aliens who are eventually detained have already worked in Canada for an average of one year. Officials indicate that they lack the proper training or equipment to do the job they are required to do. Also, a number of these illegal immigrants are engaged in criminal activity.
It goes without saying that the illegal immigrant has often been a victim of extortion. I was pleased to hear the minister state that Canadians who knowingly employ illegal immigrants will also be subject to prosecution. There is a feeling abroad in Canada that another amnesty program will be undertaken, possibly at the time the new bill is proclaimed. In 1972 when the amnesty program was announced, that program received support from my party. I want to say very clearly this evening that an amnesty program to make legal that which is illegal will not receive support at this time from the Official Opposition. I also wish to stress that additional steps must be taken to screen out persons engaged in organized crime. Immigration officials have expressed fears to me that this is an ever-increasing problem.
I do not have time to go into the substance of the bill at this point. Other members of this party will do so, but in conclusion, let me say this: as Canadians we have always prided ourselves on the development of a pluralistic society. The Immigration Act clearly states that our immigration policy is not to be discriminatory. The Bill of Rights confirms it as well. These are the principles upon which this party wants to see any future immigration policy based.

March 10, 1977
Immigration
Having said this, our party must stress the need for the federal government to show leadership and devise policies which will promote inter-racial harmony, in consultation with the provinces, and explore how best we can develop racial understanding in our communities. This could go a long way to ensure the fair and just treatment of racial minorities. It is our view that education and the development of understanding are essential if racial harmony is to exist. Such a development of understanding is essential if racial unrest is not to become part of the Canadian urban scene.
Finally, we hope the minister will be forthcoming in the presentation of regulations during the committee stage. The hon. gentleman nods his head, and I take it that is an affirmative answer.


Mr. MacFarlane:: No. He is just falling asleep.


Walter David Baker: At least he is not reading his paper like you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We look forward to studying the basic regulations at that time.
Immigration will remain a major factor in the determination of Canada's population and economic wealth. We welcome immigrants who are challenged by the opportunities this country affords and, especially, those who cherish the freedom we too often take for granted. Many of them came as refugees. They did not have a choice in a real sense; they went to whatever country was willing to accept them. A large number who came here under the most dire conditions have become leading citizens. Approximately three million immigrants have come to Canada since 1945. They look upon this country as a new home and, once established here, they ask that they be judged not by their background, not by the accent with which they speak one of Canada's two official languages, but rather by the fact that they are simply being "good Canadians". This, Mr. Speaker, is their legacy and our heritage. We hope Bill C-24 will go a long way toward perpetuating that tradition.


Charles L. Caccia: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Paproski:: Ask it during the question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the hon. member seeking the floor on a point of order or a question of privilege?


Charles L. Caccia: I am asking the hon. member if he would permit a question-if he is not afraid to answer a question.


An hon. Member:: There is another speaker to come.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) will in due course ask me a question. By "in due course" I mean late in my speech, not immediately.


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow!


Francis Andrew Brewin: graphic considerations-I promised the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that I would only use the word "demographic" once, and I used it this time, but I will not use it any more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I heard it 20 times tonight.


Francis Andrew Brewin: But, Mr. Speaker, all these things are to be the basis for selection standards, including labour market conditions. One would have thought that parliament would be asked to lay down in a broad way the selection criteria, but that is not the case. It is to be done by regulations. Furthermore, the regulations are to set out rules whereby the immigrant will be allowed to come to Canada if he shows he can be successfully established in this country.
When we come to the sponsored classes, precisely the same is true. As hon. members know, those who are sponsored are close members of a family. But the rules on who can be sponsored, under what conditions, and so on, are again left to the regulations. For example, the minister has made clear, or I think he did, that parents under 60 years of age of Canadian citizens may be sponsored, and we welcome this provision.


Mr. Lee:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not think the spokesman for the Conservative party did, but we do. We think that the right to bring in one's parents is a reasonable provision in a bill which says that one of its principles is to reunite families, but the minister is asking us to discuss this legislation without seeing the regulations.
I have mentioned only a few of the subjects which are to be dealt with by the regulations. The whole points system, setting out the qualifications and attributes for independent or nominated applicants, appears nowhere in the act. I do not know whether there will be nominated applicants. I thought I heard the minister say at an earlier date that there would be, but if so, we do not know. We do not know whether or not that will be true. We have had, and I presume we will continue to have, a points system without qualifications and attributes, but we do not know what changes have been made in that.
The joint committee, as I remember, included amongst its recommendations the suggestion that more points be given for working experience and fewer points for academic successes. I perceive these to be good provisions, but we do not know whether they will be in the regulations or not, and yet we are asked to give approval to the bill.
The minister has pointed out-and I want to say something about it later in approval-that clause 3 of the bill in fact sets out immigration objectives, but these are put in a general way. They would not take effect over the specific rules contained in the regulations. They are useful, perhaps good for assisting in the interpretation of the act and of the regulations, but in no way enforceable by law. They are just a series of well sounding and very justifiable objectives, and I am glad to see them
Immigration
there, but let us not fool ourselves that they take the place of actual, concrete legislation dealing with these matters.
The regulations may exempt any groups from the requirements of the regulations. Persons to be admitted on compassionate grounds are to be designated by regulations, not by parliament, and when we come down to the question of refugees we find that there again the standards that they are required to achieve are to be spelled out in the regulations and are not clearly enunciated in the bill. I want to say something about the refugee system later.
We provide for students coming here, but the regulations decide what educational institutions can receive students. Parliament is not asked to deal with this and to say what students from abroad should come and what type of education we think we can afford and should afford to give to people coming from outside this country.
All questions related to required documentation in respect of any visitor can be dealt with by regulations. The regulations prescribe the factors to be considered as to whether any person is likely to be a danger to public safety or whether he would be expected to cause excessive demand on health and social services. As I read clause 19(1) of the bill, a medical officer is given the ultimate right to determine whether an excessive demand on the health and social service exists.
In clause 115( 1 )(n) I find entirely different meaning in the words and the language. 1 do not know how some people manage to read into perfectly clear words limitations that are in no way stated. Clause 115(1 )(n) requires any person or class of persons to report to an immigration officer before leaving Canada and the appropriate regulations will prescribe the information to be provided and the manner in which such reports shall be made to the immigration officer by any such person. It is true that there is a note in the yellow document at the side which says that this will only be done when it is necessary for proper identification and control of the illegal immigrant. I think the minister has something to say on this. I want to impress upon him and upon members of the House that it is the act and the regulations that will count, not side notes and observations by the minister, and we should not be fobbed off with these vague, general statements.
This is a radical, new proposal-I use the word "radical" in an uncomplimentary sense-which somehow or other will require what might well be Canadians of long standing to go to an immigration officer to provide information. It is not made clear in the legislation whether the immigration officer is bound to or can refuse to give a person leave to depart from Canada. In any event, this may well be a restriction on the rights of Canadian citizens to freedom to travel, and runs counter to the declarations signed by Canada as to the right to such freedom of travel. It is a backward step, moving in the direction of a police state, to have to report to immigration officers whenever people want to leave the country, and if parliament passes this bill in this form it is not parliament which will control this matter but the regulation-making authority.

March 10, 1977
Immigration
Clause 115(1 )(o) is equally, if not more, objectionable. It enables the regulations to set out the circumstances under which a person other than a Canadian citizen seeking admission to Canada may be required to be fingerprinted and photographed. For myself, I would not feel it necessarily a serious invasion of rights if all Canadians were required to be fingerprinted for the purpose of keeping records, but I think it is wrong to select a particular group.
Hitherto we have gone on the assumption that once a person is admitted to Canada for permanent residence, he has the same basic rights as other Canadians. This clause will cause extremely hard feelings amongst ethnic groups affected and will alarm all those who believe in civil liberties.
Clause 14 provides that if an immigration officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the legislation or the regulations to grant admission, he may grant admission and impose terms and conditions. What kinds of terms and conditions? Are they spelled out in the legislation? No, they are not. They are terms and conditions of a prescribed nature, which is another way of saying prescribed by regulations and not by parliament. Once again the government has the power to impose these terms and conditions through an order in council and without interference by parliament.
It might be said that to object to provisions because the bill contains regulations rather than incorporating the law in the main legislation is a question of formality and without substance, but the truth is different. The effect of transferring powers of legislation to the governor in council means that the basic rules as to immigrants can be dealt with through the normal bureacratic process in an almost secretive way, and very often without adequate public notice.
On a matter as sensitive and as important as immigration, the basic rules should be made and set out by parliament itself.
I want to illustrate the sweeping nature of these regulations. There has been a very substantial decline in the number of people admitted to Canada as immigrants. That is not due to any will of parliament, and it was not discussed in parliament. It is due to a regulation passed on October 22, 1974, which said that independent applicants, in some cases nominated applicants, must not only arrange definitive employment, which is defined, but what was even more important, they must arrange to obtain from the national employment service-in other words, the manpower branch-a certificate saying that no Canadian citizen is willing, able or qualified for the employment in which the applicant is willing to engage in Canada.
The Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, of which I happen to be a member, in its recently filed report referred to the secretive nature of many immigration directives. I am not making this up out of my head because of some degree of hostility toward the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Far from it; I am quoting what a committee of this House representing all parties says is the fact.

When we do these things in this way the directives to which I referred are not available to the public or to the would-be immigrant. The picutre is one of great secrecy. In many cases neither the applicant nor his advisers can discover what the rules are by which their admission is being considered, and if refused, why they were refused. Under the old act and under the decisions given by the courts, an applicant was entitled to a hearing, and at the hearing the reasons for refusal of admission had to be stated. The trend has now fully developed toward the department answering all such questions with generalities such as "you do not meet the requirements" or "you are not able to establish yourself successfully in Canada." This tells the applicant absolutely nothing of the basic reasons why his application is refused.
I suggest that the whole bill be withdrawn and that there be inserted in the bill all the minor basic provisions which are necessary. As it stands, there is an ample indication by parliament that it will accept its legislative responsibilities. True, many detailed procedures can indeed be left to regulations.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The law which affects Canadian residents and citizens seeking to bring in their relatives must be open and above board. Parliament should re-assert its authority.
I hear a plaintive voice saying ten o'clock, so I will call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, during the question period on Friday, March 4, of this year I appealed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to use his office to make available 60 vials of human gamma globulin on an emergency basis to our fellow Commonwealth country, Malta. On Wednesday, March 2, at 6 p.m. I received from the office of the Malta Trade Commission in Toronto an urgent request to help find some gamma globulin which was urgently needed in Malta. This followed a negative response from the Connaught Laboratories in Toronto.
Immediately following this urgent call I telephoned the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare conveying this request. Forty-two hours later, after no positive response, I was compelled to raise this matter in the House by way of a question to the minister. With great disappointment I have to state this evening that my telegram of March 4 to Mr. March 10, 1977

Hampson, Chairman of the Canadian Development Corporation, which acquired the Connaught Laboratories, has not yet been answered as of this moment.
However, I am grateful that the blood transfusion service of the Canadian Red Cross answered my telegram within a few hours informing me that a gift of human gamma globulin was in the hands of the representative of the Malta Trade Commission in Toronto by 3 p.m. on Friday, March 4. On this occasion I want to thank the Canadian Red Cross for responding so quickly and so generously to this request.
However, I want to obtain some kind of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae) as to why Connaught Laboratories have shown such a negative attitude toward an urgent request for a biological product which was so urgently needed by our fellow Commonwealth country, Malta.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) is certainly an important one. I am pleased that he has taken the action he has and that he has received a response from the Canadian Red Cross.
1 would like to give him the following brief explanation. After the hon. member's intervention in the House on March 4, the minister told his officials to investigate the matter immediately. According to Connaught Laboratories, the agent of Connaught in Malta was approached by Maltese officials in December to request the price of immune serum globulin. On February 3 an order was mailed by Maltese officials to Connaught Laboratories without explaining any urgency of the delivery of the order. Since it is common practice to submit a letter of credit with an order, Connaught Laboratories waited for the letter of credit. Although there was no urgency indicated in the order, 1 am informed that Connaught Laboratories decided to ship the 60 vials on March 8 regardless of the letter of credit because of the apparent urgency indicated by the hon. member. It was the hon. member's intervention which produced these results and also ensured the support of the Red Cross.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ALLEGED NECESSITY OF SENDING PARACHUTES OF AIRBORNE REGIMENT FROM OTTAWA TO EDMONTON FOR REPACKING
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, as far as can be ascertained, no component of Air Command was consulted to examine the implications of the move of the Canadian Airborne Regiment from Edmonton, and the effect this would have on air operations in Edmonton, and the effect on air operations in Trenton. Associated with the air transport support implications will be a brand new series of costs associated with the transfer of the bulk of the Airborne Regiment from an all-weather air base to Canadian Forces Base Petawawa.
Adjournment Debate
In the light of what appears to be the latest decision not to move the airborne training facility and the parachute packing facility from Edmonton, it is clear that significant additional costs must be faced in terms of transporting personnel and cargo parachutes from Edmonton to eastern Canada and to increase the number of such parachutes to take the place of those that will be tied up in transportation east for use, and west for packing.
In addition, the joint training use of the C-130 Hercules aircraft of 435 Squadron when they are performing their own tactical air training will be impossible when the units are separated. In other words, the degree of close co-operative air training now possible when all units share a common air base will be impossible except at prohibitive expense with the split of the Airborne Regiment and its separation from the air base.
As a direct result of the move of the Canadian Airborne Regiment into Petawawa and Ottawa, there will be a requirement for significant new construction programs at both bases to provide adequate accommodation and training facilities. In addition, there will be a ripple effect on units in Ottawa and Petawawa that will be crowded into existing accommodation, or in the case of Petawawa some units may be forced to move to Gagetown, adding appreciably to the expenses connected with the replenishing of the Airborne Regiment.
In addition to the costs of the move, new and refurbished accommodation, new training areas, additional parachutes, additional and unknown transport support costs, there are the not inconsiderable costs associated with finding new and suitable drop zones, as the minister mentioned to the news media in North Bay. He is quoted as saying that North Bay is being considered as a jumping off point for their exercises and that North Bay, Trenton and Uplands are all being considered as transportation sites for the regiment. He said that the regiment would be trucked to one of these sites so they would board large aircraft to take them to deployment areas. Also to be considered are the additional costs in air transport hours to get exercises launched into the Canadian sub-Arctic and Arctic.
The most puzzling aspect of the entire redeployment plan for the Canadian Airborne Regiment lies in the fact that at no time has there been a clear and logical explanation of the military appreciation that led to such a questionable military decision. There is ample evidence to indicate that little or no consultation took place with the Air Command side, which in any airborne operation is probably the most important component in the airborne capability. In addition, there is considerable evidence to show that the current configuration of the Airborne Regiment has, for the first time in the history of the Canadian armed forces, led to the development of a truly effective land/air team which is capable of carrying out its operational missions effectively.
The puzzle to any objective military thinker or any informed layman is that on the surface there seems to be no military justification whatsoever for the move and separation of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

March 10, 1977
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that the jump training school will remain at Edmonton for the foreseeable future. All parachutes are used daily when the school is conducting courses. The regiment jumps, on average, two or three times per month. It is also essential to point out that each person in the Airborne Regiment does not have a parachute with his name on it. It is not as if an individual's parachute were the only parachute in the armed forces. Further, it is not unusual to have a parachutepacking unit remote from the para-airborne units or regiments which use parachutes.
Prior to the formation of the Airborne Regiment the parachute-packing unit was located at Shilo, Manitoba, while the jump school was at Rivers. Parachute companies of the mobile strike force were located at Valcartier, Calgary and at London, Ontario. The parachutes were shipped to Shilo, at that time, for repacking, and the same process will be followed now.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member raise certain issues this evening, since they had been raised this morning.


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, they were not.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I suggest they were raised this morning in the standing committee, and answered by the Chief of Defence Staff.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We sure cannot air the issue in seven minutes.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I was amazed to hear the hon. member suggest that there was no consultation with Air Command, or that there is no military justification for this move. The decision was recommended by the Chief of Defence Staff, and only this morning 1 heard the hon. member heap elaborate praise on the Chief of Defence Staff for his competence, dedication, and brilliance.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I still feel that the minister does not know why this is happening.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The minister took the advice of the Chief of Defence Staff. He made his decision on the basis of that advice. Therefore the hon. member's logic is as faulty as his facts are faulty.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are sucking and blowing at the same time.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-ALLEGED DENIAL OF LOANS TO FARMERS GETTING LESS THAN FIFTY PER CENT OF INCOME FROM FARMING
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I first raised the matter I raise this evening on November 29 last. The question relates to a young farmer who wishes to obtain a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation. I asked the Minister

of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) the following question, as reported at page 1454 of Hansard for November 29:
Is it government policy that the Farm Credit Corporation should deny young farmers, who are temporarily employed and not necessarily getting 50 per cent of their income from farming, loans as a result of their extracurricular work in an effort to try to make ends meet?
At the same time, would he also indicate whether a father who is retiring would be denied a grant from the Small Loans Assistance Program . . .
Mr. Speaker ruled the question as not acceptable. I rose on a point of order, in which I tried to elaborate on the matter, but Mr. Speaker again denied me the right to pursue it. I then took it upon myself to write to the Farm Credit Corporation about the matter I raised. The Corporation wrote back to me.
Before dealing with that, let me tell the House some of the circumstances of the case. A young man wanted to apply for a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation. He had been farming the land in question for two years. His father had retired and was receiving the old age pension. This young farmer had been renting the land and the father offered to sell it to him on good terms. When the father went to the Farm Credit Corporation asking for a grant, he was told that he could not get it, but that if he sold the land to the provincial land bank, he could qualify. That was the gist of the response I received. I was not satisfied with it and took the matter up in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Would you believe me, Mr. Speaker, when I tell you that the chairman allowed me only five minutes to put my case? How many questions can you ask in five minutes? How can you ferret out government policies in five minutes?
What is more, five minutes ago I saw the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) behind the curtain. But the Minister of Agriculture is not in the Chamber opposite me, to answer my inquiry this evening. He will delegate that obligation to someone else. Mr. Speaker, this involves a matter of policy. I do not want to hear a lot of words or phrases. I want to hear some clarification of the policy. It is not good enough to hand me a lot of junk, as he did the other day. When discussing matters pertaining to the secretary of agriculture in the United States, he handed me a bunch of junk to do with storage.
I asked if that boy could get a loan, and why that father could not get a grant, if it was available and if he sold the land directly to his son. 1 also asked the minister in the Standing Committee on Agriculture whether he was in favour of state owned land. He said, no; yet he is not here to answer my question.
I have a letter from a branch manager of the Farm Credit Corporation which reads in part, and I quote:
That is why a vendor is not eligible for a grant unless he sells to someone who adds it to other land or sells it to the Saskatchewan Land Bank-
The minister cannot tell me he is not in favour of state owned land when the Farm Credit Corporation writes a letter like that to me.
March 10, 1977

I cannot get any information. I tried to get it this morning in the Agriculture Committee by continuing the questioning. Would you believe the chairman said he would allow me one question? Can you imagine that situation?
The minister ran out of the House. I do not want a secondhand answer from anyone who has been delegated. I have a right on behalf of that young man to know the government's policy. If I cannot get that information in the House or in the Committee discussing the estimates, I do not want someone else giving me a bunch of junk such as statistics about how many loans were made, in what areas, for what purpose, and so on.
I want to know the policy. I cannot get it from somebody who has been delegated. It has to be from the minister. Only a minister can enunciate policy as far as the government is concerned. It is a futile effort to try to get information from this government.
The minister was here five minutes ago. It is a shame that he could not stay. I warned him in committee about the
Adjournment Debate
question I would raise tonight. For him to tell me that he is not in favour of state owned land is a lot of baloney. He pulls manure wagons all over the country and he wants me to believe that he is in favour of small farms.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply for the minister in terms of his favouring state owned land. He has not shown any indication of this.
I am told that in the case of the young gentleman applying for the loan that he was not working as a farmer at that time. As a matter of fact, he is still not working as a farmer. There is money available if the farm units are going to be viable farm units. This seems to be the problem, that the units may not be viable. If they are traditional farm land, certainly money can be made available. That is the understanding I have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

Friday, March 11, 1977