1977-03-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration having stated in the House on Friday last that figures released by Statistics Canada regarding job vacancies are misleading, and having stated further, outside the House shortly thereafter, that such figures are useless and ought to be looked at with a jaundiced eye, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to investigate the serious charges made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and thereafter report to the House on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion under Standing Order 43 can be made only with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because all members of this House are said to believe in equal rights as between men and women and because the subject matter of this motion is urgent, I ask leave to present it under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to bring in appropriate amendments to the Canada Pension Plan for the purpose of providing pension rights for homemaker spouses equivalent to the rights of those employed outside the home, and also to review all of its employee pension plans to the end that in all cases the pension of a surviving widow will be the same as that of a surviving widower, it being the view of this House that there should be pension equality as between men and women.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government is reluctant to activate the proposed Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation despite the assurances of the former minister of state for urban affairs that such a program would be operative by April 1, 1976, and in view of the fact that enabling legislation permitting such a mortgage exchange vehicle has been standing idle, now, for more than three years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House instruct the government to invite tenders from the private sector with a view to allowing the private sector to capitalize and activate the mortgage exchange corporation in the earnest hope that this would provide lower mortgage interest rates and more liquid funds for the housing industry in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. R. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I, also, seek leave to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the lack of federal funds to maintain and expand day care centres for children of all ages, which seriously limits the opportunities of women with children, who want to work or who are forced to work out of economic necessity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House instruct the government to provide adequate funding for child day care centres.
sooio-ssyz

March 21, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In the light of a story, just released, to the effect that a Canadian technician said he was paid $5,000 by American Intelligence in 1962 to use germ warfare against turkeys in Cuba, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government be asked to investigate reports that U.S. Intelligence has paid a Canadian agricultural technician to practise germ warfare against Cuban agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a presentation can be made only with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That will get you the turkey vote.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or for the minister responsible for the status of women, or anyone who is acting for either-perhaps it is the hon. member for St. Boniface, the minister responsible for Lord knows what. My question relates to the fact that unemployment statistics released last week indicate there is a particular crisis facing Canadian women who are out of work and looking for work. It relates also to statistics indicating that 9 per cent of families in Canada are one parent families and that 78 per cent of those are headed by women. In light of this serious crisis for Canadian women and for the families that many of them have, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the budget at the end of the month, or any other legislative initiative this year, is going to bring to this House of Commons specific programs to encourage jobs for women who are heads of families?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be presenting his budget next week and it is not possible for me to forecast what the contents of that budget will be.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Charles Joseph Clark: We understand forecasting to the government is associated with Communist ideology or some other foreign intrusion.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps even the weather.


Charles Joseph Clark: Or perhaps the weather. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister about a matter that may be within his competence. Since the number of women employed at the executive level of the Canadian public service increased, from 1974 to 1975-the latest statistics which are available-by a total of three while the number of men in the Canadian public service at that level increased by a total of 94, can the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House of Commons why the increase in the number of women in senior executive posts in the Canadian public service has been so trivial?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice; it is not a field in which I have particular competence, as does the hon. member.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Neither the Acting Prime Minister nor his colleagues have any competence or any interest in this question, and that is what concerns us here. Since the latest statistics of which the Acting Prime Minister should be aware indicate that 70 per cent of the women in the Canadian public service now earn less than $10,000 while 70 per cent of the men in the Canadian public service now earn more than $10,000 a year, indicating that Canadian women in the public service are being frozen into the lower income categories, will the Acting Prime Minister now give us a commitment that the government of Canada will initiate immediately a review of the fundamental handicaps to women's career advancement in the public service of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has drawn the attention of the House to a matter of considerable importance. Obviously, I intend to ask the minister who is responsible for this particular aspect of government policy to look into it and to ensure that the facts which the hon. member has brought out are considered.
March 21, 1977


MANPOWER
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: We will try another minister, Mr. Speaker. May I direct a question supplementary to that of my leader to the minister of manpower. As more women worked both from economic necessity and also in order to pursue their goals yet their unemployment rate has been steadily increasing, as a matter of fact from 8.4 per cent in February last year to 9.8 per cent this year, what special measures can the minister announce to ensure that women in the labour force, or those who are not even able to be part of this dismal statistic, can have equal employment opportunities?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his expression of concern. It is too bad that he is just now catching up to the government and that it takes a demonstration on the Hill to get this question Finally into the House.


Walter David Baker: We have been asking you about this for years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't throw out red herrings.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In point of fact, speaking of my own department, to which the question was directed, the government has initiated the LIP program for example, and 41 per cent of the jobs created by the LIP program went to women, which is about 4 per cent above their percentage of the labour force, and I think that was a good move. Our Canada manpower industrial training program makes provision for numbers in that category to be trained. Under our Canada Works Program I assume the percentages will be equivalent, hopefully the same or even higher than they are under LIP. Under the Canada manpower programs-perhaps we should call them person power programs-we are trying to do our best.


PROGRAMS TO END DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN IN EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the demonstrations may have awakened the opposition to raising some serious questions; unfortunately they did not a waken the government or lead to giving serious answers. Given that unemployment consistently runs higher for women than for men, last month's figures being 9.8 per cent for women and 8.7 per cent for men, does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration say that the two aspects of his own department's program to which he just alluded constitute the government's total program to end discrimination between men and women in employment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my own department; I did not even spell out the affirmative action program, which is part and parcel of the initiatives my department has taken in
Oral Questions
this area. There is a responsibility resting on both levels of government and private enterprise to provide amenities like day care centres, in order that women can leave the home and enter the work force. Women must overcome certain handicaps and difficulties before entering the work force. Perhaps the initiative should be taken by some of the larger companies, and perhaps by the federal government. We shall need to examine this area and determine to what extent the taxpayer should bear the cost, or to what extent private enterprise should bear it if we are to remove that particularly significant barrier which stands in the way of women who want to enter the work force.


SUGGESTED ADOPTION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the government could take some initiatives on its own in this regard. It should not have to wait for the private sector to do it. Given the example of the government of Manitoba and certain governments in the United States, which have introduced affirmative action programs within government agencies, will the minister undertake to make a commitment to the House that the government will undertake an affirmative action program designed to upgrade the skills of women, and to qualify them for executive positions, now, inasmuch as fewer women than men now fill such positions on a proportionate basis?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to give careful consideration to the hon. member's representations.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM EFFECT OF CONTROLS ON EARNING'S GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Since one of the negative results of the controls program has been that it has widened the dollar earnings gap between men and women in the labour force, can the Minister of Finance tell the House what the government plans to do in order to redress this evil while the controls program remains in effect; or, how does it plan to close this widening gap after controls end?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the controls program right from its commencement contained specific exceptions to permit greater increases for women.


John Edward Broadbent: In how many cases were they applied?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course, the initiative in this regard rests with the collective bargaining representatives of the women in question. The delegation which was here at the

March 21, 1977
Oral Questions
weekend was invited to meet with Ms. Menzies, the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, for the purpose of making clear to them the exceptions which are available, and also that the trade union movement itself must desire strongly to improve the position of the women for whom they bargain. They have to take the initiative in this respect.

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Is he acquainted-as he should be-with the joint program for the construction of low priced houses, especially in Quebec, with funds from the federal government? If so, can he explain to the House why the federal government is levying a 10 per cent compound interest rate from Quebec for those loans refunded on a 50-year basis? Is he also in a position to consider our proposal to review that interest rate so as to reduce the taxation level in Quebec while encouraging the construction of low cost housing?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of that particular matter concerning housing, but I have exchanged correspondence with the colleague of the hon. member on the general problem of interest rates. The special case mentioned by the member would come under the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for housing whom I will ask to take it in consideration.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO JAPAN-POSSIBILITY MARUBENI ACTING AS AGENT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the press announcement from our Tokyo embassy late on Friday that Canada is on the verge of selling a CANDU nuclear reactor to Japan, can the minister inform the House whether AECL has retained an agent for the sale of a CANDU reactor in Japan and if in fact that agent is the Marubeni Corporation, which was the agent used in Japan by the Lockheed Corporation?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there were press reports about the pending or possible sale by AECL to a Japanese utility. I think it is too early to say that that sale is about to be consummated.
I can say that there has been a feasibility study, and the results of that study have been positive. As to whether or not the

Marubeni Corporation is the agent for AECL, I am not in a position to say at this time. I think the hon. member will remember that Mr. Campbell indicated to the committee that there was a renegotiation taking place between AECL and Marubeni, but I will be pleased to give him an update on that.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Would the minister inform the House, as soon as he finds out, if the matter is being renegotiated, and in the meantime can he confirm to the House that under the original terms of that contract it was the Marubeni Corporation which was to receive an even higher agency fee than that paid to Mr. Eisenberg and the UDI group in relation to the South Korean deal?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have confirmed on a number of occasions that the Marubeni Corporation was the designated agent by AECL. I have also made it very clear-and I repeat it-that that particular contract is, to the best of my knowledge, still under renegotiation.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO JAPAN-TERMS OF RENEGOTIATED AGENT'S CONTRACT WITH MARUBENI
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Inasmuch as Mr. Campbell, the chairman of AECL, made it clear to the committee that he was renegotiating the contract, and given the fact that, when the contract with the agent in Israel was renegotiated on the Korea deal, that part of the renegotiation that took place was to guarantee to the agent that if another reactor were sold to Korea it would be handled by the same agent, can the minister tell us what was given by Canada to the agent in the renegotiation operation? In other words, were any arrangements made with the agent in Japan as to whether he could have the exclusive right to sell reactors in the Far East?


Alastair William Gillespie: I indicated in my answer to the first question that I would find out the status of the renegotiation. I will be pleased to do so, and will provide the information.


REQUEST FOR IMPROVED PROGRAMS TO COMBAT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is also responsible for the status of women, but in his absence, I direct it to the Prime Minister. In a report prepared last October by the Advisory Council of the Status of Women, entitled, "Occupational Health Hazards to Women" it was statistically documented that occupational health research concentrates on males and on industries in which males predominate, even though two-fifths of the total work force is female. Is the Prime Minister aware of this study and,
March 21, 1977

if so, what steps is the government taking at the federal level to redress this imbalance in research and to develop programs designed to combat health hazards specifically related to jobs held by women?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot help the hon. member on this. I regret that the minister responsible for the status of women is not present in the House today. If he had had notice, I am sure he would have attempted to be here because we have taken a great deal of action on the recommendations of the advisory council and in other areas, and we have made considerable progress. For instance, of the order in council appointments since the beginning of the year, almost one in three were women. This is a percentage which is much higher than percentages in preceding years. There are many other areas in which we have acted, but I cannot give the hon. member an answer in this particular case.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that the minister had to have notice to come into the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My supplementary question refers to an unpublished federal study of 1976 entitled "Occupational Health in Canada" in which only one short section dealt with women and occupational health hazards. Since research into occupational health concentrates on such industries as mining, lumbering, pulp and paper and chemicals while neglecting many areas of manufacturing which normally employ large numbers of women, I wonder if the Prime Minister can say if his government is undertaking any initiatives with the provincial governments in order to re-orient research of health hazards to reflect the reality of women in the work force.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take notice of the question. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands must understand that ministers sometimes have duties which occupy them across the country, and they cannot be in the House every day. However, assuming that the hon. member really wants to get this information, I will take her question as notice, and I am sure the minister will be happy to answer when he is in the House.


REDUCTION IN OPERATIONS-POSSIBILITY OF ABSORPTION BY AIR CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Given the fact that Canadian Pacific Airlines has had to lay off some 200 employees, which seriously affects the community of greater Vancouver, can the minister assure us that it is not the intention of the government to peel the orange from Canadian
Oral Questions
Pacific Airlines and render it to a condition where its only future is absorption by Air Canada, which would be a national disaster?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, most certainly the government has no intention of taking any action to interfere with that or other private airlines. Indeed, our action has consistently been to try to improve the atmosphere in which the airlines function, and I wish the hon. member would appreciate that fact.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise why profitable CPA flights are bracketed by Air Canada, thereby causing both airlines to lose money on what could be profitable flights?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now raising a question of the extent of competition which exists and the nature of that competition in the ordinary case. It was not because of the nature of one or other of the organizations that there is this competition, but because as a matter of practice over time it has been allowed to develop.


AIR TRANSPORT
Arthur Ronald Huntington: With reference to the bilateral agreement can the minister please advise why the Chicago-Canada route was given to British Airways, a foreign airline, instead of to Canadian Pacific Airlines, a Canadian corporation?


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member wants detailed information of that sort, which goes back to long before I was minister, he should give me notice. I will take his question as notice and look into the matter.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Tomorrow it will be one year since the Minister of Finance told the House that activation of the proposed federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation had been delayed pending consultation with experts in the secondary mortgage market. Would the minister now indicate what has been the result of this round of talks? Are they still going on, and does the government still intend to proceed with this mortgage exchange vehicle?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the consultations to which the hon.

March 21, 1977
Oral Questions
member referred we arrived at the conclusion that the companies now operating in the private sector are making an adequate secondary market for mortgages in Canada, and for this reason we concluded that we would not proceed with that particular corporation. We decided that for the time being and in the light of restraint on government expenditures we will not be going ahead. Certainly, there is no provision for that in the budgetary estimates for the coming fiscal year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Many engaged in mortgage activity in the private sector do not agree that this corporation is not a desirable adjunct to facilitating mortgage exchange work. Will the minister indicate if any consideration has been given to allowing the private sector to capitalize the Mortgage Exchange Corporation and activate it in order to assure a more liquid second mortgage market in Canada and, hopefully, lower mortgage interest rates?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that has not been given consideration. Before taking that action, I would want to consider whether powers that were sought for a publicly owned corporation would be appropriate for one operated by a private group.


WHEAT-NATURE OF AGREEMENT SOUGHT WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Will the minister clarify the government's objective or position with regard to the minister's recent meetings with the United States Secretary of Agriculture? Is it the intention of the department or the government to start working toward a new international wheat agreement which would encompass Canada, the United States, presumably Australia and possibly Argentina?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it has always been our policy and our hope to develop an atmosphere in which an effective grains arrangement could be produced between importers and exporters of the world. The more recent discussions between Secretary of Agriculture Bergland and myself have been an exploration of our willingness to work jointly toward the necessary techniques or mechanisms to ensure that an agreement would be workable. The hon. member will remember that a previous international agreement did not work when it came under strain of heavy supplies and downward pressures on prices. Canada favours the idea of an international agreement which protects our producers against undue competition and when supplies are really needed, reserves are available. We do want working agreements. We do not want to get ourselves in the position we were in under the old agreement.


Jack Burnett Murta: Did the discussions the minister had with the Secretary of Agriculture involve maximum and minimum prices in so far as the new agreement is concerned? The second part of my question is whether the Secretary of Agriculture will be in Ottawa on April 4 and 5. If so, will the minister indicate what the talks will be about? Will part of them be about the matter of an international agreement in so far as pricing of wheat is concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in our discussions in Washington, we did not discuss specific details of such things as minimum and maximum provisions. We were beginning the discussion on such questions as techniques or mechanisms which would be required to make sure the minimum was effective, if one existed. We knew we would want to have discussions at the official level as well as further discussions among ourselves before we reached any conclusions in this regard. I understand that Secretary Bergland has been invited by the Minister of Agriculture to come here to discuss a good number of things in the agricultural field. On such a visit I would expect also to meet with him. We may well pursue this subject further at that time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He apparently announced a proposal to spend $2 billion to purchase new fighter planes. Against what sort of threat are these planes supposed to defend us? Is it not chiefly against a massive attack on North America by manned bombers and is this not entirely unrealistic in the age of missiles and immense nuclear retaliatory power?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the authority to seek bids on new fighter aircraft are for the various tasks our Canadian armed forces have to play with the first priority on defence of North American security, but also our role in NATO and elsewhere.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If this $2 billion is in fact spent, added to the $1 billion for the long-range patrol aircraft, how much will be spent inside and how much outside Canada? What would this vast expenditure of capital outside of Canada do to our exchange rates, rates of inflation and unemployment in Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we are looking for the best and longest range of industrial benefit for Canada in this purchase.
I am not certain at this time what percentage that might be. I have been asked what we are seeking. I would like to start off which industrial benefits of about 150 per cent of the contract. We are looking for the best proposals that will come forward for the best aircraft for the purposes for which they are being purchased.
March 21, 1977


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Supply and Services. To what extent does the Department of Supply and Services accept requests for tender by telephone and to what degree does the department imply that a tendered bid has been accepted and then some weeks later, after expenses have been encountered, host a meeting to reject the tender as in the case of Mr. R. E. Burton of Irma, Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That kind of detailed information should possibly be sought in another way. The hon. member may want to amplify his question now.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I gave the minister notice by letter. Perhaps with that notice he can respond to it.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to answer such a general question. Moreover, the hon. member provided me with the details of a specific problem, so I immediately asked my officials to make a report and I hope to have it by tomorrow to give the hon. member an answer.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


MEASURES TO IMPROVE FARM INCOME-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Since the minister responsible for the wheat board does not feel there is a serious problem in so far as the grain producers are concerned, I will direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Last Thursday the Minister of Agriculture suggested that many farmers are taking vacations and that their bank accounts are bulging. Everyone knows that an increase in the farm economy results in a boom in the total Canadian economy as farmers are great spenders. This also helps to relieve some of the unemployment problem. Can the Prime Minister indicate here and now whether he intends to have his government move in the direction of improving the farm economy so that the general unemployment picture will improve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question will find its answer in the remarks just made a moment ago by the Minister of Transport responsible for grains, and the fact that we have introduced in this House the grain stabilization plan which has indeed been of great benefit to the farmers.


WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN DOMESTIC PRICE PENITENTIARIES PROPOSED MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION AT SELKIRK- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Statistics Canada reported a large drop in farm income from $1.7 billion to $1.2 billion as compared with a year ago. A large portion of this is income received by grain farmers where a drop in total income of between 40 and 50 per cent was reported. Can the minister indicate whether it is his intention to take whatever steps are necessary to increase the price paid for wheat for domestic consumption?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of a review of that price is contained in the legislation. Currently, we are having discussions with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and some other farm organizations in relation to appropriate procedures to be used in examining that issue. It is a fact that the drop in grain income is from levels which were indeed very high. At this time we are still seeing the income effects of a price for wheat which was close to $4 for the top grade, and really very high prices for barley, which were still really the impact of last year's $4.50 price for durum. The fact that these are drops from previous levels does not remove the fact that they were still quite attractive levels. The problems of further drops in farm income raises the problem in a very real way.


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the new maximum security penitentiary planned for Manitoba. I understand that both the minister's department and the province of Manitoba favour the town of Selkirk as the site. Can the minister assure the House that pending the outcome of the internal discussions by the townspeople of Selkirk, either by referendum, plebiscite or other means, if the decision of the people of Selkirk is that they do not want this maximum security penitentiary it will not be placed in the town of Selkirk?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: I should like to advise the hon. member that no firm decision has been taken as to the location of the penitentiary to which he refers. A number of sites are presently being considered and one of them is that of Selkirk, which, I understand, is favoured by the provincial government. However, it is the policy of the department not to go to areas where the people do not wish a penitentiary to be established and where that will is expressed very clearly.
4146

March 21, 1977
Oral Questions THE ROYAL FAMILY


INVITATIONS TO HER MAJESTY AND PRINCE CHARLES TO VISIT NEWFOUNDLAND-REASON FOR FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO APPROVE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The government of Newfoundland, through the government of Canada, invited Her Majesty the Queen to visit Newfoundland during the jubilee year of her succession to the Throne but apparently the government of Canada did not recommend to her that she visit Newfoundland. Would the right hon. gentlemen tell the House the reason for taking that position, particularly in view of the fact that Her Majesty visited Nova Scotia, Ontario and New Brunswick last year in connection with the Olympics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter in the House last week. Perhaps the hon. member will check Hansard and find the answer to his question.


John Carnell Crosbie: The government of Newfoundland also invited His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, to visit Newfoundland during the Canada Summer Games in 1977. That invitation also was not approved by the government of Canada. Can the right hon. gentleman tell us the reason for that decision? Is there something against royalty visiting the province of Newfoundland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is my understanding that the Prince of Wales will be visiting the western provinces in the current year. I will check the details. But I would be very surprised if he would not have as much pleasure going to Newfoundland. I suppose he does not have time to do both.


RESOURCES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he advise us whether any joint federal provincial initiatives are currently being undertaken to encourage new coal mining ventures in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? I ask this because of the very high unemployment rate in these provinces and the need for alternative sources of energy to which attention has been directed so often by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the program we announced for Nova Scotia, the arrangements for home insulation and oil substitution, would fit into that category. Provision is made there for the conversion of oil fired generating plants to coal-firing, presumably using Nova Scotia coal.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I wanted to ask the minister whether there are any definite programs being undertaken to encourage the opening of new coal mines in that region.


Alastair William Gillespie: There is a possibility of another strip mining coal property being developed in Nova Scotia and I am talking to the premier about it. It was his hope that this project might qualify under the program announced some time ago and I think there is a good chance it may. It is possible, though, that some environmental questions will have to be settled first.
[DOT] * *


ASSISTANCE TO NEWFOUNDLAND IN DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to reconsider upward the offer made to Newfoundland in connection with the development of the Lower Churchill in the light of the inflation which has taken place since the offer was originally made? Is the minister now prepared to tell the House whether the government has taken any decision with regard to the exercise of the powers it possesses under the BN A Act with respect to the building of transmission lines so as to enable Churchill Falls or Labrador power to get into the Ontario grid?


Alastair William Gillespie: I stated in the House a short while ago that I had been in touch with the premier of Newfoundland and that I had raised the question of his interest in pursuing the Gull Island site-not just the transmission aspect but the generating facility itself. He responded in a positive way and our officials are at the present time updating the engineering and cost data with a view to working out an arrangement whereby this very considerable resource might be made available for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland, the Maritime provinces and, indeed, Canada generally.


James Aloysius McGrath: Given the serious unemployment situation in the province, coupled with the urgent need for energy, is the minister, on behalf of the government, prepared to expedite consideration of this matter, and will he look upon it as constituting a make-work project of considerable importance in the immediate future?


Alastair William Gillespie: I cannot go any faster than I am right now. I am waiting for the premier.


POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN MARITIME ENERGY CORPORATION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: A further supplementary to the minister of energy. Has the federal government reached a decision whether or not to take an equity position in the Maritime Energy Corporation?
March 21, 1977


Alastair William Gillespie: That decision has not been taken but as the hon. member will realize this is an option which, for the first time, we are prepared to consider with the Maritime Energy Corporation. Indeed, it is an option we are also prepared to consider with the premier of Newfoundland in connection with the development of Gull Island.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister given any consideration to the introduction of legislation with regard to divorce reform as proposed by the Law Reform Commission, with particular emphasis on the question of marriage breakdown, and has there been any consultation with provincial governments with respect to bringing divorce, alimony and maintenance under one common head, as has been proposed?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: There has been a good deal of discussion on the subject going as far back as the meeting of the provincial attorneys general in Vancouver last June. There have been consultations and discussions about various aspects of law reform relating to divorce and family law. What developed from those discussions was that we should immediately endeavour to make progress in the establishment across the country of experimental projects such as unified family courts and that action should be taken with respect to changing the law relating to the division of matrimonial property. I am happy to report that in line with the remarks in the Speech from the Throne last fall, very considerable progress is being made in both those areas with the provincial governments. In a third area, we are having consultations on the latter part of the report of the Law Reform Commission relating to the dissolution of marriage. I am not, at this point, in a position to indicate what, if any, legislation might be introduced.


Gerald William Baldwin: In order to try to accelerate the slow progress which, if I read correctly between the lines of what the minister has said, is being made, I would like to ask whether the hon. gentleman is prepared to seek the advice of the representatives of the people by introducing a green paper for consideration by a committee of this House with suitable statistics gathered as to what has been happening under the existing act. Such a committee of this House might then be able to lend its services to the government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is a worth while suggestion and one which is already being considered. However, with regard to the first part of the hon. member's question I would point out that very real progress is being made in the areas in which the attorneys general and I agree. There is an agreement with the province of Ontario as to the establishment of a
Oral Questions
unified family court as of July 1. There is an agreement in principle with the government of Newfoundland. There is one to be established in Manitoba, but that was postponed for legitimate budgetary reasons. Discussions have taken place with the province of Saskatchewan, which indicated support for the scheme in its speech from the throne two weeks ago. There has been discussion with the province of British Columbia about modification of their unified family court and an active evaluation scheme is now under way there. I think, therefore, that in those areas upon which agreement has been reached, very substantial progress has been made.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from his reply to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to the effect that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is renegotiating its agreement with the Marubeni Company, which is its designated agent in Japan? In view of the fact that the Marubeni Company has already indulged in some questionable business practices in connection with the sale of planes by the Lockheed company to Japan, and in view of the fact that the Auditor General before the public accounts committee on February 8 of this year said that any agreement with agents which did not provide the necessary documentation and follow the proper auditing practices would meet the same criticism as the agreement which AECL entered into with Shaul Eisenberg, can the minister assure the House that in any agreement negotiated, renegotiated or otherwise with the Marubeni Company there will be provision to ensure that the proper documentation and the auditing practices commonly followed by the Auditor General will be included?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give those assurances. Indeed, I can go further than that and say that the government adopted a set of guidelines for its Crown corporations and, of course, AECL will be required to follow those new guidelines.


SUGGESTION AGENT NOT BE USED IN SALE OF REACTOR TO JAPAN
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The history to date does not give me much confidence in that statement. In view of the fact that Westinghouse and other companies which are engaged in selling nuclear reactors have decided that there is no longer any need for the use of the services of agents, is the government giving consideration to suggesting to AECL that we dispense with the use of an agent in the matter of negotiat-
80010-56%

March 21, 1977
Oral Questions
ing an agreement with Japan, particularly in view of the fact that we have competent trade and commerce attaches in the embassy in Japan, as we have in many other countries throughout the world?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will draw that particular representation to the attention of the officers of AECL, but I would want to make this point. I think hon. members should realize the importance of the trading company in the commercial life of Japan. Indeed, it is the strength of the trading corporation on the importing side which gives it strength as an exporter. For that reason I think that if you are going to do business in Japan your chances are a lot better if you appoint an agent from one of the trading corporations.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that Canadians are protesting yet another increase in postal rates, can the Postmaster General advise the House whether these regular increases are designed to decrease the post office deficit or to maintain the subsidy for an essential service?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the hon. member's premise. I have received some protests, but generally the protests have not been what I would have expected.


An hon. Member:: Just wait a while.


Mr. Blais:: I also wish to indicate to the hon. member that preliminary indications are that there is no loss of volume as a result of the increases. Indeed, the price of stamps today corresponds to the price in 1955 when we were dealing with an increase in the CPI.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. Perhaps the protests are still in the mails. In view of the rapidly increasing costs and the continuing deficits and declining service which has been the pattern for the post office in recent years, will the Postmaster General inform the House of the steps he has taken since taking over responsibility to restore Canada's post office to its former high efficiency? In particular, what recommendations has he implemented from the Hays consultant report?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make a statement on motions at this time in reply to the hon. gentleman's question. I am pleased to note that his leader has finally received through the mail the invitation he launched for his leaders to attend in the hon. member's constituency, to make a welcome address, I am sure.


Charles Joseph Clark: He had to deliver it personally, J.-J.
(Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).]


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the action of the Canadian Wheat Board in prosecuting many farmers, agents and grain handling companies, giving in effect criminal records to worthy, reputable and productive citizens, does the minister consider the workings of the Wheat Board Act as presently constituted reasonable and justifiable?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would want to comment on matters which are before the courts. We had a good discussion on the question of law enforcement issues involved in connection with the Wheat Board. Of course, there have to be enforcement procedures for regulations, but I would not join the hon. member in referring to them as criminal records.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider any other means whereby transgressions of the regulations by reputable citizens, often unwittingly and in the interest of production, can be dealt with without laying criminal charges?


Otto Emil Lang: That certainly might be looked at again, Mr. Speaker, the next time the act is before the House. I hope the hon. member will agree with me that in order to protect producers generally and to assure equity of delivery opportunities we do need rules and that we do have to enforce them.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Selkirk and is addressed to the Solicitor General. May I ask the minister whether one of the locations in Manitoba that he is considering for the federal penitentiary is Churchill or Lynn Lake because of the high unemployment and the desperate need for economic development there?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we are more than pleased to consider all possible sites within the province of Manitoba. I will take the hon. member's suggestions and refer them to the appropriate officials in my department, particularly the group concerned with the selection process in Manitoba.
March 21, 1977


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent statement of Mr. Cosulich of Rivtow Straits that he can no longer operate without a subsidy, with reference to west coast shipping, and in view of the fact that the minister himself has promised an inquiry into the chaos that was created by his intervention on the west coast, can the minister now enlighten the House whether (a) there will be an inquiry, and (b) whether he is prepared to provide a subsidy to Rivtow Straits similar to the kind of subsidy Northland Shipping previously enjoyed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member refers. Any question of a commission of inquiry would have to await completion of certain discussions which are going on between ourselves and the government of British Columbia. I should say to the hon. member though, that the form of subsidy which had been given to Northland, I trust, will not be thought of as being reintroduced by anyone. It encouraged really the wrong form of transportation where a far more cost effective form was available, one which in the very short run would be giving far better service to passengers.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister refers to "far better service". I wonder whether he is referring to past service or future service? I hope he is not referring to present service. Is he prepared to answer that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Victoria.


CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Would he inform the House whether Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are on the point of selling the submarine H.M.C.S. Rainbow to a United States company for something less than a quarter of a million dollars?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker, and I will give an answer to the hon. member.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the Canadian navy on the west coast has two anti-submarine squadrons and no submarine to practice on but must borrow United States submarines for practice, has the minister thought of reactivating the Rainbow or of bidding on the sale of it, or indeed replacing it with a new submarine?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we thought of it and discarded the idea. One of our submarines, the Ojibway, is on the west coast now working with the Athabascan and the destroyer fleet in an anti-submarine role. We do share these facilities with our American'allies, as I believe the hon. member knows, and also other facilities in this range. There is a reciprocal arrangement which seems to be working out very well and in our view there is no justification for reactivating the Rainbow.


STATISTICS CANADA
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister of manpower and remind him of that interesting exchange which we had on Friday regarding the job vacancy figures published by Stat-Can. I remind him that he said in the House that the statistics were misleading. Then, he ran from the House, gave a press interview and said that they were useless and needed to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Does the minister not agree that these are extremely serious charges? Has he brought this particular matter to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who answers for Statistics Canada? Surely, we cannot continue the publication of statistics the minister does not believe.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there is no way I could run from the House; my briefcase is too heavy for me to do that. I was commenting on the vacancy rate and the use or misuse which has been made of those figures. For example-and I had this in mind-Canada manpower centres place about one million people a year. We participate in filling between 25 per cent and 35 per cent of all vacancies. At the end of any given month some 100,000 vacant jobs are available, just through CMCs. That was my point, and to take a narrow interpretation does not do a service to the people looking for jobs.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That was a lot of nonsense. The minister indicated in no uncertain terms that job vacancy statistics as published by

March 21, 1977
Tabling of Fifth Report
Statistics Canada are useless, misleading and need to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. In all fairness, since the minister and the associate deputy minister believe it, will he now take up this matter with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is responsible for Statistics Canada, in order that he may investigate this matter and report to the House. Surely, the minister can do that.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, much as I respect the hon. member's views, merely because he says something is nonsense does not make it so. I was speaking of facts. He might be interested in another fact. The Canadian labour market-


An hon. Member:: Yes, give us the facts.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Canadian labour market-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Does the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton not want the answer?


Mr. Dick:: Yes, but we want facts.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Canadian labour market is extremely dynamic. Over three million full-time jobs open up each year, something of which hon. members should be aware.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies, in both official languages, of the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, and statement of accounts for the year 1976.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of the fifth report of the advisory group on executive compensation in the public service, under the chairmanship of Mr. Allen Lambert.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, a publication entitled "Highlights of the Proposed New Legislation for Young Offenders". This contains proposals for new legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions (except those permitted before oral questions).
March 4, 1977-Mr. McCleave (Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments):
That the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, February 3, 1977, be concurred in.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter is to be called as a government order perhaps later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DISPOSITION OF ESTIMATES
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Tuesday, March 22, 1977, being the final allotted day in the present supply period, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment, proceedings then in progress shall be interrupted and every question as may be required by section (9) of Standing Order 58 shall be put forthwith successively, without amendment or debate;
That immediately thereafter, any other question or questions as may be necessary to dispose of any item or items of supplementary estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the supplementary estimates, or any opposed item in the supplementary estimates, and for the passage of any bill based thereon shall be put forthwith successively, without amendment or debate;
That, immediately thereafter, the questions on a motion to grant interim supply and for first reading of a bill based thereon shall be put forthwith successively, without amendment or debate; and
That, on a day designated by a minister of the Crown, the business taken up shall be the second reading, consideration in committee of the whole, report stage and third reading of the bill based upon the motion for interim supply and that, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on that day, proceedings then in progress shall be interrupted and every question necessary for the disposal of the said bill shall be put forthwith successively, without amendment or debate;
March 21, 1977

Provided that, on both the aforementioned days, the House shall not adjourn until all business referred to in this order is disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

[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: 598, 1,149, 1,221, 1,360, 1,497, 1,531, 1,542, 1,570, 1,718, 1,727 and 1,817.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REGIONAL OFFICES
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of External Affairs (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) Six regional passport offices are maintained by the Department of External Affairs, (b) They are located in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, (c) There are no defined geographical limits of responsibility or interest.
2. Office	Date Established	Permanent	Personnel Casual M/Y	TotalToronto	March 1970	18	6	24Montreal	February 1970	15	6	21Vancouver	March 1970	8	4	12Edmonton	February 1972	7	.25	7.25Winnipeg	June 1973	5	.50	5.50Halifax	February 1972	4 57	.25 17	4.25 743. The	1976-77 establishment of each office is:	Permanent	Positions Casual M/Y	TotalToronto	27	13	40Montreal	20	9	29Vancouver	14	5	19Edmonton	7	1.3	8.3Winnipeg	6	.7	6.7Halifax	4	.5	4.578	29.5	107.5
Order Paper Questions
4.	One sub-office is maintained in the Borough of North York, Toronto responsible to the Toronto Regional Office.
5.	The regional offices report directly to the Director of the Passport Office who is responsible to the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs for the administration of the Canadian passport service. From time to time, the officers of the regional offices respond to requests for assistance from other divisions of the Department of External Affairs, e.g. Consular, Protocol, Information, generally of an administrative nature.


PREMIER HATFIELD'S APPEARANCE ON CBC
Mr. Jones: 1.	Did Premier Richard B. Hatfield appear on CBC from Montreal, Quebec and act as a commentator on the Quebec election and, if so, what arrangements were made for (a) salary (b) fees (c) expenses (d) entertainment (e) other remuneration or the equivalent and, in each case, what was the amount?
2.	Were the Premier's expenses paid by the government and, if not, who did pay for his expenses?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Department of the Secretary of State: 1. To be answered elsewhere.
2.	No. Not known by Secretary of State.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, but as a guest, not as a commentator, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) None.
2.	To be answered elsewhere.


MONEY PAID TO NON-PROFIT OR COMMUNITY AGENCIES
Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1975, has any money been given by the Department of the Solicitor General to non-profit or community agencies for service work and, if so, to which agencies and in what amount?


Francis Fox: Ministry Secretariat. See table below. Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service. See table below.
Grant	Contribution	Contract
Social Planning Council-Metro Toronto		2,500.
The Elizabeth Fry Society, Toronto		4,450.
Native Clan Organization of Manitoba		79,400.
Kitchener House Project		1,000.
Elizabeth Fry Society, B.C.		3,800.
Les Ateliers Dominiques	67,400	23,143.
Y.M.C.A. Halifax		4,000.
Agence Sociale Specialises de Hull	26,600.	3,800.
John Howard Society, Quebec		12,000.
John Howard Society, Sydney		17,000.
Foundation for Human Development		12,863.
John Howard Society, Hamilton	51,000.	
Montreal West Island, Y.M.C.A.	34,500.	
Services de Readaptation Inc, Quebec City	10,000.	
Sun Youth Organization	99,137.	
Boys' Farm & Training School	6,500.	
Astra Society, Hamilton	7,000.	
St. Leonard's Society of Brant	8,500.	
Bethany House, Odessa	1,800.	
St. Leonard's House of London	17,000.	

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
	Grant Contribution	Contract
St. Leonard's Society of Canada	25,000.	
Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston	2,900.	
United Way of Greater Vancouver		36,487.
Mental Health Centre		4,000.
The Portage Foundation	5,000.	
Recreation Project 80 Inc.	10,000.	
Allied Metis & Indian Society	2,000.	
Community Diversion Centre Downsview Weston Action Youth	112,090.	
Committee Canadian Criminology & Correction	53,777.	
Association	175,000. 40,000.	
Grant Contribution Contract
Yukon Native Brotherhood	2,500.
Bureau de Consultation Jeunesse Inc.	26,325.
Youth of Otanabee United	6,700.
Ishtar Women's Resource Centre	1,960.
John Howard Society of Vancouver	23,000.
St. Leonard's Society of Canada	15,000.
Church Council on Justice & Corrections	20,000.
Qinuayooaq Society	17,000.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, National Parole Board. Nil.
John Howard Society of Canada John Howard Society of New Brunswick
John Howard Society of Vancouver Island
Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston Elizabeth Fry Society of British Columbia
Elizabeth Fry Society of New Brunswick
Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto Catholic Welfare Bureau of Manitoba Council of Catholic Charities of Toronto
Association of Social and Rehabilitation Agencies
Prison Arts Foundation Salvation Army
Elizabeth Fry Society of Brampton Elizabeth Fry Society of Hamilton Unison Society of Nova Scotia Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Alberta Elizabeth Fry Society National Elizabeth Fry Society Total
Grants to Authorized after Care Agencies
Increase to 1974-75	1975-76 Grants	Increases to 1975-76	1976-77 Grants	Grants (Paid January/75)	(Paid May/75)	Grants (Paid January/76)	(Paid April/76)	Total$42,164.00	$234,047.00	$26,353.00	$260,400.00	$562,964.002,857.00	15,982.00	1,799.00	17,781.00	38,419.002,857.00	15,982.00	1,799.00	17,781.00	38,419.00463.00	2,523.00	284.00	2,807.00	6,077.001,698.00	9,640.00	1,085.00	10,725.00	23,148.001,004.00	5,547.00	624.00	6,171.00	13,346.0077.00	375.00	42.00	417.00	911.00927.00	5,016.00	564.00	5,580.00	12,087.00541.00	2,818.00	317.00	3,135.00	6,811.00618.00	3,453.00	389.00	3,842.00	8,302.0019,151.00	106,285.00	11,967.00	118,252.00	255,655.001,158.00	6,579.00	740.00	7,319.00	15,796.003,708.00	20,753.00	2,337.00	23,090.00	49,888.00-	5,000.00	5,000.00	10,000.005,000.00	5,000.00	10,000.00-	8,000.00	8,000.00	16,000.00-	8,700.00	8,700.00	17,400.00-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00$77,223.00	$429,000.00	$85,000.00	$514,000.00	$1,105,223.00


MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BUILDING-MONCTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Jones: 1.	On what date and at what location will the proposed new old building for the Department of Transport in Moncton, New Brunswick be decided?
2.	What site was recommended for the DOT building in Moncton?
3.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts bid for the last tender call for the DOT building in Moncton?
4.	(a) For what reason were tenders not accepted (b) for what reason was construction not commenced?
5.	(a) Are tenders to be called again and, if so, on what date and at what location will the new DOT building be built (b) what is the estimated cost?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. At the present time an accommodation study and plan are being prepared for the city of Moncton. It is anticipated that this plan will be completed this spring. At that time the various alternatives available including the possibility of constructing a new building, will then be investigated.

2.	The bid by Centennial Brunswick Limited, on their Weldon Street site, was the lowest tender acceptable to both the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Public Works. This site is within the downtown core area and was approved by the Moncton Planning Authority for high-rise developments.
Offerer		Adjusted Rental
	Rental	Rate
	Rate	(includes tenant improvement)
	(per square feet)	(per square feet)
Castlemaine Management Limited	5.65	6.45Centennial Brunswick Limited	8.25	9.05W. H. Crandall and Associates (Management) Ltd.	8.82	9.62Greater Moncton Developments Limited	8.84	9.64The Hardman Group	9.69	10.49Atlantic Shopping Centres Limited	10.04	10.84Queen Court Limited	10.14	10.94
March 21, 1977

4.	(a) and (b) A decision was taken at that time to re-examine both the Ministry of Transport's specific requirements and other federal government programmes generally in the area concerned.
5.	(a) and (b) See answer to part 1.


INSULATION
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the names of the two largest manufacturers of insulation material for residential use in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec?
2.	Do these companies also manufacture insulation material in the United States?
3.	What are the tariffs on wool batt and loose insulation material (a) exported to the United States (b) imported from the United States?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and National Revenue as follows: 1. The two largest manufacturers of insulation material for residential use in Ontario and Quebec are Fiberglas Canada Limited, with plants at Sarnia, Ontario and Candiac, Quebec, and Canadian Johns-Manville Limited, with plants at Port Credit, Ontario and Brossard, Quebec. Both companies produce glass wool insulation products at these plants. Fiberglas Canada Limited also owns a vermiculite insulation plant in Lachine, Quebec. The plant operates under the name Vermiculite Insulation Limited.
2.	Neither Fiberglas Canada Limited nor Canadian Johns-Manville Limited, operate insulation plants in the United States. However, the U.S. parent or affiliate does operate insulation plants in the United States.
3.	(a) Fibre glass insulation batts and bulk glass fibres of the types for residential insulating uses are dutiable at a rate of 11 per cent ad valorem when imported into the United States. Mineral wool insulation batts, blankets and in bulk form for insulating uses are dutiable at a rate of 7.5 per cent ad valorem. Articles of various shapes and sizes, not decorated, would also be dutiable at the same rate of duty under an alternative classification in the United States tariff. Expanded vermiculite in material form used as insulation or as concrete aggregate is dutiable at 7.5 per cent ad valorem when exported into the United States, (b) Mineral wool loose insulation material is classified under tariff item 68905-1 and is subject to a duty rate of 20 per cent when imported from United States. Mineral wool batts with only sufficient binder to hold the fibres together are also classifiable under tariff item 68905-1. Mineral wool, when further manufactured than as mentioned above would be dutiable under tariff item 71100-1 at \l'h per cent.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE PERSONNEL
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New
(a)
(b)
(i)	1975/76 nil
(ii)	7
(iii)	nil
(iv)	15
(v)	159
(vi)	37
(vii)	2
(viii)	1
(ix)	nil
(x)	nil
(i)	1975/76 nil
(ii)	nil
(iii)	nil
(iv)	1
(v)	nil
(vi)	nil
(vii)	nil
(viii)	nil
(ix)	nil
(x)	nil
1976/77 (to date) nil 1
nil
104
nil
nil
nil
nil
1976/77 (to date) nil nil nil 3 1
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
2.	No, paid from Main Estimates.
3.
(a)	(i)	(ii)Alberta	$5.59	$6.25Manitoba	5.22	5.91Ontario	5.35	6.09Quebec	5.45	6.08New Brunswick	4.90	nilNova Scotia	5.75	nil(b) Not available from our records, this matter rests between employee and employment agencies.	(c)	(i)	(ii)Alberta	$ 2,053.00	$ 703.00Manitoba	5,675.03	3,848.10Ontario	84,625.23	85,265.55Quebec	36,326.13	45,988.22New Brunswick	387.10	nilNova Scotia	2,880.69	nil


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Nil.


SOLAR HEATING
Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what amount has been expended in research projects on solar heating in residential construction?
2.	What method is used to publicize the programme?
3.	By what means are residences selected that obtain grants towards the cost of solar heating systems and what proportion of the costs are covered by these grants?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in concerned: 1. 1976-77, Michael Berkowitz, University of Toronto, $19,000.
In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned: 1. From 1972-75, Nil; 1975-76, $696,000; 1976-77, $800,000 (estimated): 1977-78, $3,058,000 (estimated: NRC $2,408,000; CMHC $500,000, DEMR $150,000).
2.	The funding program in 1976-77 was announced in the Research and Development Bulletin of the Department of Supply and Services, March 1976; the Daily Commercial News; the Newsletter of the Solar Energy Society of Canada, Inc.; by direct mailing to attendees at the National Research Council Conservation Seminar; NRC Press Release. Successful recipients of contracts appeared in the DSS Research and Development Bulletins, October, November and December, 1976. Recipients of demonstration contracts were announced in a news release from EMR. Reports resulting from contracts will be housed in the CISTI library and announced to the membership of the Solar Energy Society of Canada, Inc. Same general procedure will be used in 1977-78.
3.	On the request for proposals form from the Department of Supply and Services one section set out the Evaluation Criteria indicating relative weights of each criteria. Bidders were advised to address these criteria in their proposals. The evaluation of the proposals, using these criteria, was subsequently done by personnel of the National Research Council and the Department of Supply and Services. The contract price awarded covered the cost of design, solar hardware purchase and solar system installation.


PUBLIC SERVICE-SALARIES
Mr. Howie: 1.	As of April 30, 1976, how many male public servants held positions with an annual salary of more than $15,000, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies and what proportion of all males does the figure represent?
2.	As of April 30, 1976, how many (a) male (b) female public servants held positions with an annual salary of less than $8,000, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies and what proportion of all males and females do the figures represent?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	As of April, 1976 the number of male public servants holding positions with an annual salary of more than $15,000 was 51,814 which represented 31.2 percent of all male employees.
2.	(a) As of April 1976 the number of male public servants holding positions with an annual salary of less than $8,000 was 4,210 which represented 2.5 percent of all male employees, (b) As of April 1976 the number of female public servants holding positions with an annual salary of less than $8,000 was 12,637 which represented 16.8 percent of all female employees.
Note: The selection criteria for questions 1 and 2 were full-time indeterminate employees subject to Public Service Staff Relations Act, Schedule 1, Part 1. Source was Personnel Applications Centre, Supply and Services, Canada.


NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN EACH PROVINCE AND TERRITORY
Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many public servants are in each province and territory, excluding the National Capital Region?
2.	Which of the provinces are being considered for additional public servants in the programme of decentralization?


Robert Knight Andras: 1
The number of full-time indeterminate public servants subject to Public Service Staff Relations Act, Schedule 1, Part 1, in each province and territory, excluding the National Capital Region is as follows: Newfoundland, 5,247; Prince Edward Island, 1,230; Nova Scotia, 14,524; New Brunswick, 7,323; Manitoba, 10,974; Saskatchewan, 7,754, Alberta, 16,235; British Columbia, 23,272; Northwest Territories, 1,239; Yukon, 833; Ontario, 51,915; Quebec, 41,943.
Source: Personnel Applications Centre, Supply and Services, Canada, January 1977.
2. All.


BORDER BETWEEN LABRADOR AND QUEBEC
Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Is the government aware of the statement of the Premier of Quebec, The Honourable Rene L6vesque, made December 9, 1976 during a visit to Wabush, Labrador that Quebec regarded the 1927 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the border between Labrador and Quebec to be unfair and that an independent Quebec would bring its claim for possession of Labrador before an international court and, if so, does the government take the position that the 1927 decision defining the boundary between Labrador and Quebec was unfair or that it was fair and binding?
2.	What is the government's position in relation to any question concerning the boundaries between the Provinces of Newfoundland, including Labrador, and Quebec going before an international court for adjudication?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
Whatever the government of Canada may have felt following the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
March 21, 1977

1927 concerning the border between Labrador and Quebec, that decision became part of the Constitution of Canada under the terms of the British North America Act (No. 1), 1949. It is therefore now an internal matter and not fit subject for adjudication before an international court.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions nos. 157 and 1,831 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. I again point out that we are treating these questions in this manner because of the lengthy and detailed nature of the answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of persons employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in each of the past five years?
2.	For each of the same years, what was the number of persons employed in (a) Ottawa (b) each region and, in each case, how many were (i) Native people (ii) Indian (iii) Metis (iv) Inuit?
3.	What was the operational budget and/or the amount paid for salaries for staff in each of the above categories?
Return tabled.


MEDIAN WATER LEVELS FOR GREAT LAKES
Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	For each year 1957 to 1977, what have been the (a) agreed-upon (b) actual median water levels for the Great Lakes as set by the International Joint Commission?
2.	For each year in which the actual median water levels have been higher than the median water levels as recommended by IJC, what were the reasons for these higher levels?
3.	Has IJC ever deliberately kept the actual water levels of the Great Lakes higher than the level recommended for any particular year by the IJC and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) by what authority (c) under whose direction?
4.	Has IJC or the government ever received a request to maintain the water levels of the Great Lakes higher than the median levels recommended by the IJC and, if so (a) from whom and on what date (b) for what reasons (c) what was the response of the IJC in each case?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I raise the point at this time since by so doing the Chair will have more opportunity to consider the matter than would be the case if the point were raised at the end of the day on which this matter will become extremely relevant. My point of order has to do with supplementary estimates D for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977. I and others will contend, as has been contended in the past, that inasmuch as several of the items propose to amend bills other than the Appropriation Act, they are not in order. I shall be specific and indicate the particular items to which I refer. I am speaking of Energy, Mines and Resources, vote L62d; Industry, Trade and Commerce, vote 77d; Post Office, vote Id; Public Works, vote lOd; Supply and Services, vote 27d; and Veterans Affairs, vote 45d.
If Your Honour examines each of these items you will find that in each case an attempt is made by means of a $1 item either to amend or to provide an exception to existing legislation. I should like briefly to indicate how these items are legislative.
Energy, Mines and Resources, vote L62d, proposes to allow Eldorado Nuclear Limited to issue securities up to a value of $40 million. This power does not exist under present legislation. Not only is a totally new authority being granted, but the issue will be decided "bearing such rates of interest and subject to such other terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve." Thus, we are to give the power to make more regulations outside parliament and would be basing it on a bill which parliament cannot discuss or amend.

The second one, Industry, Trade and Commerce, vote 77d, is even more blatant, in my respectful submission. It proposes to amend sections 26 and 28 of the Export Development Act to increase the amounts which may be guaranteed in the form of exports credit insurance by the Export Development Corporation. The original limits were set out in the act and have previously been amended by specific legislation. There was an amending statute in 1974, an act to amend the Export Development Act, chapter 17 of the statutes for the session 1974, 1975 and 1976. This was, and remains, the procedurally correct way to amend a statute. An increase in the guarantees available to exporters is important to our trade policy and should not be excluded from full discussion in this House.
Post Office vote Id proposes to provide that, contrary to the Olympic Act, money from the Olympic stamps in philatelic packages will go to the Olympic account. This is a desirable and straightforward proposal, but the method is highly undesirable. We should be able to read the statutes to find what the law is, and not have to root around in scattered appropriation bills for "notwithstanding" provisions.
Supply and Services vote 27d will allow the minting of a $100 gold coin, contrary to the provisions of the Currency and Exchange Act on two counts. First, gold coins may only be issued when the dollar is pegged, and then the coin must be worth its face value in gold content. This twofold exemption

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
from the act should not be passed without any opportunity for debate. It would be a curious irony to honour the sovereign by circumventing her parliament. Finally, Veterans Affairs vote 45d will deem employees of veterans hospitals, transferred from the jurisdiction of the federal government, to be public servants so they may continue to contribute to the public service superannuation plan. Again, a good idea, but if it is done this way it will produce a bad procedure. In many of these cases the objects are highly desirable, but it is not healthy for the future of the House of Commons to have things done in this manner, for while the convenience of the government is frequently the convenience of everyone, this will not always be the case.
Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell long on the rulings made in the past which relate to $1 items because I believe the precedents are quite clear and well known to you. For the benefit of other members who may wish to reply, I would draw their attention to Mr. Speaker Lamoureux's ruling of March 10, 1971. He said, in summarizing the argument of those who contended that the new rules prevented $1 items from being used as they once were:
They suggest that the rules changes were effected to remove the consideration of detailed estimates from the floor of the House but that no decision was ever made that a motion which is tantamount to a legislative enactment should be removed from the floor of the House. They urge that the items which have a legislative effect should not be allowed to be proceeded with by way of items in the supplementary estimates but should be introduced in the usual way, as is done for all other legislation, by way of a bill.
That is certainly still our feeling. He then said:
However, in relation to items 35c and 10c, 1 must come to the inevitable conclusion that, in view of the situation created by the new rules, these items are not before the House in proper form.
My respectful submission, sir, is that that is a resounding precedent in favour of the proposition which I am attempting to make to Your Honour. I should note, as well, that on that occasion the items questioned were speedily dealt with in the proper way after the matter had arisen. This question arose again on December 10, 1973. In again reaching the conclusion that the items questioned were improper, Mr. Speaker quoted from May's where that work described the temporary nature of an appropriations act and its unsuitability for long-term legislative goals. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux concluded:
I suggest that if such justification were put forward, it would have to be based on emergency rather than on principle. The Chair has to make a ruling on principle and on this basis I would have to say that these three specific items are not properly before the House.
My submission to you, sir, is that these six items are legislative, and as such have no place in the estimates and in the appropriations bill where they cannot be amended or discussed in the House and where they are shielded from sufficient comment either here or in the committee. If you find that there is some point to the argument which I have begun, and which will be advanced by others, I am prepared to discuss with the government House leader the means for quickly disposing of those items which are urgent and uncontentious.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a recurring debate that we have had from time to time. I recall
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).J
that prior to the establishment of the CRTC it had been the attempt of the then minister of communications to create the CRTC with a $1 item in supplementary estimates. It suffered the fate it deserves and was totally rejected as a procedure. The government would not proceed with it because it realized that the practice was totally wrong.
My colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, has referred to the rulings of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the one on March 3, 1969, March 10, 1971, and, again, on December 10, 1973. It is remarkable that it brings to mind a motion that I moved in the miscellaneous estimates committee in 1969 which gave rise to the debate in 1969 on a motion of the opposition based on the report of the miscellaneous estimates committee in which I criticized the government for bringing forward $1 items to amend legislation. In fact there were three such items. I recall that on that occasion I had the majority; the reason was that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) joined me in expressing that view. I find it strange that he should now be part of an administration which on this occasion moves to transgress that principle, not once but half a dozen times.
I would commend to Your Honour the House of Commons Journals of December 10, 1973, at page 737, in the first column, second paragraph. This is a quotation from a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. It reads:
Since the adoption of the new rules, it seems there has been only one item with direct and specific legislative import that has been included in estimates. This particular item, included in the estimates for the year 1970-71, was allowed to go unchallenged and no point of order was raised in respect thereto. Thus, no practice has yet been established except perhaps that particular items proposing to amend directly and specifically a statute, had not been included in supplementary estimates since the rules were changed in 1968 but for the one exception just mentioned. The House therefore has not had the opportunity at this point to reaffirm the proposition that such proposals, when they are clearly intended to amend existing legislation, should come to the House by way of an amending bill rather than as an item in the supplementary estimates.
That was a quotation from March, 1971. The ruling continues as follows:
I think this was a good principle to guide the House in its consideration of legislation and estimates and I think I have to reaffirm the principle at this time.
My colleagues and I have pointed out a number of items in supplementary estimates D the purpose of which is to extend legislation. This is to be an appropriation act, not a legislative statute. We are not saying anything about transferring moneys from one vote to another. That is clearly the established and, I think, very justifiable procedure, because by so doing the government is coming back to the House and seeking permission to change votes of money. That move is unimpeachable, but to change existing legislation within appropriation bills or to create, in effect, new statutes as is proposed by the recognition of Via Rail is totally wrong. You, Mr. Speaker, being practised in the law, would recoil with horror to look at a statute and-without additional indices which would indicate going to an appropriation act-see a $1 item which totally
March 21, 1977

reversed the trust of the legislation, either restricting some powers or expanding some others.
What certainty is there, if that is the way to proceed? Amendments to existing statutes must be brought before this House, accepted at second reading, considered in committee and come under the total legislative process. It is legislation; it is not a matter of the voting of moneys. Therefore, I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, take this matter into consideration and, if it is possible to do so, to indicate, as have Mr. Speaker Lamou-reux and others in the past, that amending legislation by way of a $ 1 item is a reprehensible practice which must not occur, and that those items should be deleted from supplementary estimates D.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to rise on this very important and fundamental point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I say it is fundamental because as far as I am concerned we are dealing here with a matter that affects the main function of this chamber. Your Honour will recall that last week I raised the question of the extensive use of $1 items in supplementary estimates during the question period, and at that time Your Honour indicated that this was a matter which should be discussed and considered by way of a point of order rather than in the question period. It is with that in mind that we wish to elaborate on the issue before us today.
I want to contribute briefly to one aspect of this question, and that is the unsuitability of estimates and appropriations bills for legislative action of the nature proposed in these items. Reference has been made to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux of March 10, 1971. The section which determined his ruling of that date is referred to in May's nineteenth edition at page 747. I believe that citation describes the limitations of the Appropriation Act. I think it is very pertinent to the issue we are discussing today and I should like to quote, for the record, the citation at page 747 as follows:
On the one hand, there is, so far as this question is concerned, no legal restraint on the discretion of the Crown in presenting an estimate, or on that of Parliament in authorizing the expenditure provided by such an estimate by the Appropriation Act.
The question has repeatedly arisen in the past as whether in a particular case the authority given by the Appropriation Act is an adequate substitute for authorization by a specific bill. I refer again to May's as follows:
On the other hand, the Appropriation Act is a general measure, containing a great many items, and is not adapted to defining the conditions, etc., of expenditure. Also, this act only gives authority for a single year, and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a period or indefinitely. There have been cases, too, in which the Appropriation Act has been used, not merely as a substitute for specific legislation, but to override the limits imposed by existing legislation.
The next paragraph goes on to note that this practice has been justified in the United Kingdom on the ground of emergency but not of principle. But it is principle upon which our democratic assembly must base its decisions and its findings, and it was Mr. Speaker Lamoureux who rejected emergency as a proper foundation for that precedent. In this context I would also like to refer to Driedger's comment on the nature of
Order Paper Questions
the appropriation bill at page 214 of the new version of "Legislative Forms and Precedents". He said:
These acts authorize the expenditure of a specific sum for the purposes enumerated in the schedules. The authority under these acts is to apply a specified sum out of the consolidated revenue fund towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service from the beginning of a specified fiscal year to the end of that fiscal year.
The noteworthy feature is that the appropriation is for one fiscal year only; balances of the appropriations remaining unexpended at the end of the fiscal year lapse. The authority does not extend into any subsequent fiscal year.
It would be very odd indeed if we were to adopt the principle that an appropriations act can only authorize the expenditure of money for one year but can permanently alter totally unrelated legislation. There have always been problems with $1 items. Previously, the Appropriation Act could be debated and thorough consideration given to one of these items almost as if it was a proper legislative proposal. Now, however, we are subject to the new Standing Order 58. Estimates go to committee, and there is no debate on the appropriations bill, which means there can be no amendment. Therefore, there is effectively no way of dealing with a $1 item in the House outside of an opposition day. Even on such a day, or in committee, it is doubtful what could be done. By tradition, and under the terms of the Financial Administration Act, no alteration can be made in the form of an estimate and, of course, there is no point in moving to reduce a $1 item. Therefore, we have a legislative proposal which is inviolate in terms of amendment or effective debate, subject as it is to a guillotine after very restricted committee discussion.
I simply want to reinforce the point raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. It seems to me that in this case the House of Commons is, in fact, being denied the right to debate a legislative proposal. To me, that is wrong in principle. To me, the right to debate a statute or an amendment thereto is a fundamental right of parliament and that right should be guaranteed and preserved. No legislation should be immune from the judgment of the House and so approximate in essence to an executive degree. In addition, there is bound to be confusion in the future about the proper course to take respecting bills which amend the Appropriation Act. I think all members of this House should work to make our statutes more, and not less, intelligible.
These considerations led the previous Speaker to disapprove of the use of appropriation bill for this purpose. I hope your ruling will agree with him and call for the deletion of legislative proposals from appropriations bills. I think the Speaker summed up his case very appropriately, as reported at page 8608 of Hansard of December 10, when he stated as follows:
-legislation by way of a dollar item in the estimates... is not a practice which ought to be condoned and supported by the House.
It is also worthy to note that the second report of the Standing Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments had this to say about the use of $1 votes in terms of affecting legislation. I quote from page 34 of the report:

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Legislating by means of dollar votes and altering the purpose of previous votes by a number of successive votes are practices with which the committee does not agree.
The actions of the government by using and abusing $1 votes in this connection may be expeditious as far as it is concerned. It may be shrewd parliamentary tactic on the government's behalf. This route may be acceptable to them, but in terms of preserving the role and supremacy of parliament, I believe the principle is wrong.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to make a few remarks with respect to the point of order that has been raised by my colleague. I would like to make particular reference to vote 77(d) of Industry, Trade and Commerce being increased by the amount of $2 billion.
In weighing whether this $1 vote procedure is proper, we must do some degree take into account the magnitude of what would be passed tomorrow if this $1 vote were to remain part of the Appropriation Act. It would be a $2 billion extension of possible liability on the part of the government of Canada. We believe there is no authority to pass it in the form that is being proposed.
In committee we attempted to obtain evidence as to whether this procedure was in order. The vice-chairman of the committee stated, and I quote from page 24:29 of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
I think that may be a question more properly brought up in the House with the Speaker, on a point of order.
With that reference from the standing committee meeting, I would point out that considerable evidence was given to us by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as to why they had proposed this $1 item which would extend the eventual insurance guarantee limit of the EDC by $2 billion. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has said they had been caught with only $46 million of available guarantee money left, and they had no alternative. The important things to bear in mind are the comments of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the committee? He showed very clearly that the government felt in all likelihood that it was out of order, and should not be proceeding in this way. As my hon. colleague from Vegreville has indicated, the government was pleading some type of emergency in order to get the legislative guarantee process through.
I would refer to page 24:14 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. As to why this $1 item was included, the minister stated:
I agree, and I am not absolutely comfortable with it. I would have preferred to deal with this in the House of Commons, but I have to be a realist about those things when I look at the other papers and the speed by which those things are dealt with in the House of Commons.
In short, the exchange was simply that he was being pressed as to why he included it in the estimates that are before us. The minister, oddly enough, stated that he agreed that he would be more comfortable if it had been included or handled in the usual legislative way through the House of Commons. The minister at another point stated:

People have come and asked for the services of EDC and we have reached the limit. We either lose the business or change the limit. I am sorry to have to come this way;
That is, "I am sorry to have to come to the committee this way."
I would have preferred the other way. But I have no choice, and that is why I have taken the risk of coming before this committee.
Then he said:
I personally would love to have a better procedure, too.
Considering the magnitude of what is before us, it behooves this House not to pass a $2 billion extension by reason of a $1 item to amend the Appropriation Act. I hope it is found that this procedure is incorrect, and that it will be denied.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in considering this point of order we have heard, in general terms, three possible objections to the "$1 items" which appear in the appropriations legislation. They have been referred to in general terms. To itemize them, I think members are registering complaints that the measures referred to are, in the First instance, legislative in nature; second, in the form that they have been presented they allege there is inadequate opportunity to discuss them at this stage in our proceedings; and third, in some way they allege they are foreign to the business of supply.
With respect to the First two points with respect to the legislative nature of the proposals and, second, the inadequacy of debate, those two points, even though they may be of concern to members must, from a procedural point of view, fall immediately-because if they were of real and substantial difFiculty in relation to the so-called $1 items which are before us they would surely be of more real and substantial difficulty in relation to those items which have a substantial amount of money attached to them.
In dealing with $1 items, it is no valid to try to single them out and object to them in principle and, in particular, on the first two points which I have mentioned. Surely, those two points, if they were valid, would apply equally as well to other items, and perhaps even with more impact because those items have substantial amounts of money attached to them. In fact, members opposite are not making those two arguments in relation to all the items in the Appropriation Act. Therefore, I do not think those first two objections can stand.
It seems to me that the argument reduces itself, then, to consideration of whether the matters which have been complained about today are, in reality, part of the business of supply. It would be my submission to Your Honour that they are properly part of the business of supply. This matter, as has been mentioned, has occupied the attention of the House in the past. The practice complained of today by members opposite is by no means an innovation. The precedents are long-standing in support of the practice. The most substantial commentary about the point at issue was made by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, in 1971 as reported in Journals at page 395. If one carefully considers what Mr. Speaker Lamoureux had to say on that occasion, one would see that he based his
March 21, 1977

decision largely on lack of precedent following a rule change made in 1968.
In other words, he was basing the decision he handed down in 1971 on a lack of body of law, or body of precedent, on the point at that moment in time some nine years ago. Since that time we have had in this House many precedents which in fact support the position which the government is taking in relation to the several items complained about today.
I refer to two sets of precedents in relation to the votes which have been objected to. It might be most convenient to refer to the precedents one by one as I consider the various specific items which were mentioned by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I would begin by referring to Industry, Trade and Commerce vote 77d. In this connection it is worthwhile to remember that since the adoption of our present supply procedures no fewer than 11 such items similar to this have been presented and carried. For the record, they are Fisheries and Forestries vote L20a, 1970-71; Privy Council votes LI6c and LI7c, 1970-71; National Health and Welfare vote 40a, 1971-72; Secretary of State vote 63a, 1971-72; National Health and Welfare votes 45b, 1972-73 and 50a, 1973-74; Finance vote Id, 1974-75; Agriculture vote 50d, 1975-76; Regional Economic Expansion vote 40a, 1975-76; Secretary of State vote 62a, 1975-76; and Environment vote L23b, 1975-76.
I refer particularly to that body of precedent because those precedents are all subsequent to the decision in 1971 by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. They establish the body of precedent which Mr. Speaker Lamoureux could not find at that moment in time in the records of the House subequent to the change in the rules of 1968. There is a second body of precedent that I would refer to, particularly in relation to Post Office vote Id and Department of Supply and Services vote 27d. These precedents are also instructive on the point, particularly because they came after the decision by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux.
For the record, these precedents which I think might be helpful are as follows: Transport vote 70a, in 1970-71; Industry, Trade and Commerce vote 23c, in 1970-71; Labour votes lc, in 1970-71 and 5b in 1971-72; Treasury Board vote 12b, in 1971-72; Veterans Affairs vote 30a, in 1973-74; Justice vote la, in 1973-74; and National Defence vote Id, in 1974-75. All those precedents follow the decision in 1971 by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux.
There were two other specific items to which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred. The first is Veterans Affairs vote 45d. I suggest that both sets of precedents which I have just mentioned to apply to this particular item. More particularly, I suggest that those precedents cited in relation to Industry, Trade and Commerce vote 77d have application to the Veterans Affairs matter. With respect to Energy, Mines and Resources vote L62d, I suggest that both sets of precedents again apply, but particularly the first set of precedents in relation to Industry, Trade and Commerce vote 77d.
Order Paper Questions
I again make the point that although there have been some complaints in the past about the procedures that have been raised in the House today, there are ample precedents, both before the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and, in particular, since his decision in 1971. From reading his decision as reported in Journals, it seems that his primary concern was that there did not seem to be at that stage, after the rule change in 1968, ample precedent upon which to support the items which were before him. During the proceedings of the House since his judgment, a number of those precedents have come to exist. They might be instructive in dealing with the complaints raised this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was going to commence my remarks by saying that this issue is so important that it amazes me that up to this point no cabinet minister has spoken to it. I see that my concern about that is altered slightly by the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources apparently wishes to rise. I assume he will do so after I have spoken. I see that another minister, the Postmaster General, is also going to speak on this question.
I will back up now and say that with all the respect I am prepared to pay to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council for the way he tries to do his job, I think it was a failure to recognize the importance of this issue for a cabinet minister not to have participated in this debate long before this.


Jean-Jacques Blais: We don't want to give you the last word.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)-. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that Your Honour has the last word. I am satisfied it will be exercised in the'responsible way in which Your Honour always performs his duty.
The other comment I would like to make by way of an introductory reference is that I was surprised, almost amused, at the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council saying that members on this side are raising only $1 items; that they are not raising items in which substantial amounts of money are involved. The hon. member for Assiniboia misses the whole point. Treasury Board, by authority of the Financial Administration Act, has authority over estimates. Treasury Board has the right to put substantial sums of money into the estimates, main, interim or supplementary, and to ask the House to vote on them.


Walter David Baker: He did not miss it; he just tried to avoid it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing today is not the right of Treasury Board to put substantial amounts of money into the estimates, but the right of the government, through the President of Treasury Board, to use what are known as $1 items to achieve what ought to be achieved by ordinary legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before allowing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to continue, I might point out that as I understood the point raised by the parliamentary

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
secretary it was slightly different from that which, has been described. This is a point that interests me. Therefore, I want to straighten it out before we go further. If it is possible to amend legislation by a $2 billion item in the estimates, is it possible to amend it by a $1 item in the estimates? That is the point. Basically, since there was no complaint about occasionally amending legislation by an item in the estimates that was properly there, there ought not to be a complaint about it being done by a $1 item. My understanding is that if it cannot be done by an item in the estimates, it cannot be done where the item is there properly with every dollar and cent, comma and dot, or it cannot be done by a $1 item, equally.
The question of estimates, in my mind, is whether there is a limit to what can be done by placing an item in the estimates, whether it be a full and substantial item or a $1 item; or is that limit reached when the proposal contained in the estimate is to amend legislation? That is the point that seems to be at issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if that is your understanding of the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, I shall be glad to deal with it in a moment or two. The other comment I would like to make on the remarks we have had from across the way is that no matter how many precedents the hon. member may be able to cite, if they are wrong, and if the House is being asked to repeat a wrong committed several years ago, that is no reason for us to continue committing that wrong.
I say, with respect-and I think what is in my mind now deals with at least part of what Your Honour has raised-that at times $1 items are simply an abuse. They may not be illegal, but are simply an abuse. There are other times when $1 items, in the view of some of us, are out of order and should be so designated by Your Honour. Let me put it yet another way. There are times when by a $1 item all the government is doing is, in effect, voting money; for example, when a $1 item proposes that money voted in the main estimates for a specific purpose be deemed to be available for a different purpose. I do not find that offensive. The government could achieve its end by letting money which was there for the original purpose lapse and by putting into the estimates the actual number of dollars it wants for the new purpose. In the end, no extra money would be spent. There would have been a higher appropriation and some of it would lapse. So when the government uses $1 items to cancel spending for a certain purpose and provide for the spending of the same money for another purpose, it would seem to me this is within the four corners of an appropriation act. It is a form of appropriating money, which is what a supply bill is all about. But when a $1 item is used to amend a statute other than an appropriation statute the government is certainly indulging in an abuse because it is denying parliament the right to discuss that other statute and deal with it in the normal way.
Let me take an example from last session. There was a $1 item to create Loto Canada. Some of us felt this involved the

creation of a corporation and that it should have been the subject of a special act of parliament. But it was done by way of a $1 estimate. The result was that we did not have an ordinary bill, with first reading, second reading, reference to committee, third reading, and so on. Furthermore, the consideration of Loto Canada in the last session was put under a form of closure. It was put into an appropriation bill in respect of which there was no discussion on the floor of the House. There was some discussion in the committee, but when the bill came back it had to be dealt with under the form of closure which applies to supply bills. It seems to me that when the government does this, it ought to do so by way of legislation. It is legal to do as I have described, but it certainly is an abuse of the right of parliament to deal with legislation without going through the normal stages and thus making it subject to an indirect form of closure. We have experienced closure in various ways, for example, through the operation of Standing Order 75C in the present session, and there may be further examples.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some hon. members across the way are applauding. That shows what they think of parliament. Let me say, further, that I think Via Rail Canada is a substantial proposition and is one which ought to be the subject of legislation. I will come to my point in a few moments, that it should not be a $1 item, but in the context of what I have been saying, if that proposal for Via Rail Canada were made the subject of a bill, that bill would be presented for first reading, second reading, and so on. But no: it is a $1 item in the estimates, so it has already been to the appropriate committee and it will be back among the estimates which will be voted on en masse tomorrow at 9.45 p.m. Parliament will be called upon then to deal with a major measure which is outside the confines of the voting of money without having an opportunity for debate. Therefore I say this amounts to an indirect way of imposing closure.
The other day when the hon. member for Vegreville, I believe it was, questioned the President of the Treasury Board on this point, the minister's reply was a revealing one. He said, in effect, "We feel that way about it, too, but the limitation upon parliamentary time is such that we cannot deal with all these things by way of separate bills." This is an indication, Mr. Speaker, that the government is putting a number of measures into supply bills because it cannot find the time in which to deal with them through ordinary parliamentary procedures. I suppose that if some day the government decides it wants to bring home the British North America Act, and parliament is running short of time, we will find a $1 item in the estimates deeming the British North America Act to be a Canadian statute. That is no more far-fetched than some of the things which are being considered now. Some of these things are an abuse of the rights of parliament, an abuse of our privileges, an abuse of our right to debate. Maybe in some instances that is all one can say; they are an abuse. But in other instances I believe they are contrary to the rules and are out of order.
March 21, 1977

Previous speakers in this discussion, in referring to the nature of a supply bill, have pointed out it is a bill for one year. I have in my hand a copy of Bill C-28, a supplementary estimates bill which we passed earlier in this session. So 1 know the bill which will be before us tomorrow will contain exactly the same preamble, that is, it will be an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the year ending March 31, 1977. Then there are some more words in which the Governor General says he has sent a message that "the said sums hereinbefore mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the public service of Canada not otherwise provided for in the financial year ending the 31st day of March, 1977." That date appears time and time again. Sir, when you lead us over to the other place when this bill has finally been passed, and when you have the opportunity to present it to the Governor General or to his deputy, you will say:
May it please Your Honour, I have the honour to present a bill being sums required for the public service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1977.
But lo and behold, we find in these supplementary estimates a number of matters in respect of which provision does not end on March 31, 1977. Continuous financing will be required, in some cases for a few years, and in others in perpetuity. For example, once we set up this Via Rail Canada it will cost money down the road as long as we can foresee, at least until we find some other way of dealing with our transportation needs.
Like other members of the House, I have done some study of $1 estimates over the years in which I have been here, and I recall having some correspondence with Mr. Watson Seller when he was auditor general, years ago. He had gone into the subject and he quoted from papers which had been prepared a generation earlier with regard to it. All those who have studied it have said that $1 items inserted in the estimates for convenience are legitimate, but that if they are used as a vehicle to evade the bringing in of legislation they become highly questionable. As I say, the act itself applies only for one year and then the authority it contains lapses. How, then, have we the right to include in the bill items which provide for expenditure down the road? The legal answer is, of course, to say that all we are passing is an estimate for $1. Well, take that Energy, Mines and Resources estimate 62D, on page 22, or take the Industry, Trade and Commerce item 72D, which is on page 52 of the book-perhaps I will take it rather than the other, because the sum is larger. There we are providing for an increase from $750 million to $2,500 million and then an increase from $750 million to $1 billion-despite the amount set out in the act, incidentally.
We will provide, as I say, for the expenditure of many dollars in future fiscal years, but the bill provides, of course, only for moneys to be spent in this fiscal year. All that is to be spent in this fiscal year is $1, though I do not think anyone even gets that; it is just symbolic. However, by the process of having parliament approve $1 in the fiscal year for which we
Order Paper Questions
are voting money we give the government the right to spend money next year, the year after and years down the road.
All of those who have wrestled with this problem over the years-and they have been wrestling with it certainly throughout this century-are right in their view that $1 items are all right for convenience, particularly when they specifically relate to the spending of money, but they are questionable-I would even say illegal-when they provide for the enactment of continuing legislation.
Let me take a moment to look up some of the precise items, despite the chiding we were given on this point by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. I think there are questions about all the items which were raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and added to by one or two others. I should like to speak about three of them and then I want to speak about three or four items which they did not mention.
Let us look at page 22, the item L62d under "Energy, Mines and Resources". It gives Eldorado Nuclear Limited, "with the approval of the governor in council, power to borrow money for capital expenditures by the issue and sale of securities up to an aggregate amount not exceeding $40 million, bearing such rates of interest and subject to such other terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve". Either that is going to cost us money down the road and we will have approved it by voting $1, or it is a piece of legislation telling a private corporation what it can do. If it is a piece of legislation telling a private corporation what it can do, it should be before this House as legislation and subject to all the debating and procedural considerations attaching to legislation. I think my friend for Grenville-Carleton is perfectly right to raise that; I think it was his first concern as a case which is serious indeed.
Let me now turn to page 52, to the item I have already mentioned, namely, vote 77d under the Export Development Corporation. I have already used the figures in this vote, but what to me is more important than the figures, even if the money amounted to only a few dollars, are the words "to increase from", so and so, "the amount set out in section 26 of the Export Development Act". Then in (b) there is another set of figures, and the words "the amount set out in section 28 of the Export Development Act". This is legislation, Mr. Speaker; this is not voting of estimates. This is not just a case of voting $ 1. The item is a subterfuge. It is pretty close to being dishonest.
We are amending the Export Development Act and doing it under the closure which applies to a supply bill. We are departing from the whole purpose of supply legislation and are going beyond the right of Treasury Board to deal with estimates. Certainly, we are passing something which is beyond the requirements of a supply bill which Your Honour will present to His Excellency in the other place for the specific year ending March 31, 1977.
I turn to another item mentioned by my hon. friends to the right which appears on page 72, item Id under the Post Office Department. To me, the offensive words in this item are "notwithstanding the Olympic (1976) Act". If this is legal,

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Speaker, we can abolish the legislative process and just bring in a couple of sets of supplementary estimates over the course of year, put in a string of $ 1 items and-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -shut the place down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, shut the place down, as my hon. friend says.


Mr. Abbott:: It would not put you in Weekend magazine if they shut you down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I can say to my hon. friend is that jealousy will get him nowhere.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You are in
enough trouble now with the competition bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister will find Canadian magazine annoyed with him now for having used the wrong name. Here, under the Post Office, is a $1 item by which we set aside the provisions of the Olympic (1976) Act.
I have picked out three items, Mr. Speaker, which my friends to the right have identified, and I think that in all cases they go beyond the rights and prerogatives of the government when it brings in a supply bill. May I now look at some other items which my hon. friends to the right did not include. I am not suggesting that they overlooked them; they probably felt they had enough. Let me go to item Id under, Industry, Trade and Commerce, on page 48. This is a long item occupying half the page, but again the key words are "to authorize notwithstanding section 5 of the National Design Council Act", a transfer of certain sums of money and authority, and so on, and I see the figures of $9 million and $7,500,000. All of this is apparently contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the National Design Council Act. In other words, by this $1 item we are amending that act. How can that be justified, Mr. Speaker?
I know hon. members can go back to the record and probably find my saying this sort of thing a good many years, indeed decades, ago, but it is still wrong. This practice has continued and in fact it is getting worse. We have 52 $1 items in this book. I am sure my hon. friends across the way will say that, with all these precedents, what am I complaining of? But it is still wrong, Mr. Speaker. I have lots of sympathy for my hon. friends across the way in regard to how we use parliamentary time, but let us solve this problem in some other way, not by this subterfuge, this practice which I think is dishonest.
May I turn now to page 76, the Department of Public Works. My hon. friends raised another item under Public Works and I want to raise item lOd which again authorizes the Minister of Public Works "notwithstanding paragraph 4(1 )(a) of the Public Lands Grants Act and section 39 of the Public Works Act", to sell, lease, and so on. We live by the rule of law, Mr. Speaker. When legislation is passed, the government is supposed to follow it. If the government wants to make changes, and it does not have time to get parliament to amend

legislation in the proper way, it sticks in a $1 item and says that notwithstanding the legislation, it will be done in this way.
Let me turn to page 120 and also page 126, both under the Department of Transport. I think my hon. friend, the Minister of Transport, has a higher percentage of $1 items than his colleagues, but not doubt he will get his reward for that. I refer particularly to item 52d on page 120 which has to do with surface transportation. It provides, "With respect to surface transportation: (a) to deem Via Rail Canada Inc., a railway company incorporated pursuant to section 11 of the Railway Act". The largest committee room on this Hill is the railway committee room.
Why, Mr. Speaker? The reason is the importance of the railways for the whole country. Governments fose and fell on the railway question. Canada was brought into being as a nation from coast to coast by the railways. Having passed legislation which called on the Canadian Pacific Railway to provide certain services in perpetuity-I thought that meant forever-parliament is now to change all this by setting up a new corporation.
Perhaps it is a good idea. Surely if the setting up of the Canadian Pacific Railway was worth debating as a separate piece of legislation, the setting up of Via Rail Canada Incorporated should also be worth debating under a separate piece of legislation brought properly before the House of Commons. Most of a page is taken up with spelling out this item. I will not read it. It sets out all the privileges and authorities which are necessary. It talks about the reimbursement out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament of a railway company, uses the phrase "from time to time", and mentions the figure of $240 million.
We are establishing expenditures down the road and setting up a corporation to carry on down the road. All this has nothing to do with the principle of the suply bill, which is to provide, as you will say to His Excellency in the other place, funds for the operation of the public service of Canada in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977. Similarly, on page 26, item L116d, under "Transport", will cancel a debt associated with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. The item uses the following words:
-and to authorize the minister, from time to time, to fix the amount that shall be paid by the authority annually out of its toll revenue as return on capital.
Note "from time to time". You know, years ago Mr. Bennett set up a $2,000 car allowance for his cabinet ministers to replace the use of chauffeured limousines. He did this with $1 item, and the members who passed it thought it was a good idea; it would save money, and it was to be temporary. Well, that "from time to time" lasted 30 years. They did something then which was allowed by a $1 item. And here we are, providing something again "from time to time" with a $1 item.
The only other item I shall mention is vote 30d, under External Affairs. That is a particularly interesting one. Vote 30d has to do with the Canadian International Development Agency, otherwise known as CIDA. That vote is a $1 item and
March 21, 1977

is split in four parts, (a), (b), (c) and (d). I have complained mostly because these $1 items amend statutes or acts. But, sir, CIDA was set up with a $1 item. There was no proper statute. Now, with a $1 item we are to amend several of the $1 items which we passed previously regarding CIDA. How ridiculous can you get? We have estimates, we have supply for the voting of money, and we have ordinary bills for the passage of legislation. In the case of CIDA, no bill setting it up was passed. It was done with a $1 item. Now, when changes must be made, and they all may be good changes, they are to be made with a $1 item. We are now, by a $1 item, changing legislation which in the first place was established with a $1 item.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has raised an important and timely issue, and I think Your Honour, your friends at the table and those in the office who assist you, will have an interesting 24 hours. You must give this question serious consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I observe confirmation that Your Honour and your associates will have an interesting 24 hours. This is not just a passing point of order which the opposition has raised. Actually, we are not objecting to the items. Last year, when we spoke on these $1 items, I opposed Loto Canada. I do not think I particularly oppose any of these $1 items. Actually, some of them I favour strongly. I think we should put them through, particularly the ones concerning veterans affairs. If they were brought in as a separate bill, they would pass almost at once.
Sir, the principle of bypassing the legislative process, of imposing closure on parliamentary debate which this method entails, is wrong.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope Your Honour and your assistants will study this whole proposition carefully. We hope, particularly, that you will study carefully the particular items raised by hon. friends to my right, and the four or five I have added. I think most, if not all, of them should be ruled as not proper in a bill the legal purpose of which is to pass money for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, you will be considering the learned arguments of hon. members who spoke this afternoon and considering, particularly, the procedures and precedents of the past. Much has been made of the government's effort to broaden or amend legislation or broaden the powers of the subject of the legislation. Eldorado Nuclear Limited has been cited as an example of that process. It might help if I were to deal specifically with this particular corporation. Hon. members mentioned vote L62d, which reads:
To authorize Eldorado Nuclear Limited, with the approval of the governor in council, to borrow money for capital expenditures by the issue and sale of securities up to an aggregate amount not exceeding $40,000,000 bearing such
Order Paper Questions
rates of interest and subject to such other terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve.
Hon. members should understand that Eldorado was set up with broad powers. It was set up as a proprietary corporation and was intended to operate as a commercially successful venture. It became, in the process of its birth and through the enabling legislation, an agent of the Crown which technically requires authority for borrowing. That is all we are seeking. We are not seeking funds from parliament; we are seeking only authority to borrow.
In committee hon. members had an opportunity to deal with the question of the borrowing powers and whether there was to be widening of those powers or any new direction with respect to those powers. I think members of the committee were satisfied on the point. This is not an attempt to widen the powers of Eldorado in any way. No new directions are contemplated. We were contemplating merely the financing of the corporation's growing operations. It does not seek money from the government. It does not seek a guarantee from the government, and it does not seek an appropriation of any kind from the government or from parliament. It is seeking permission to raise on its own credit, not that of the government, a certain sum of money up to a maximum. However, no specific amount is stated. This vote would provide the corporation with the flexibility it requires for its growing operations.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments about the serious issue raised in connection with several votes in supplementary estimates D. I know Your Honour will have noted carefully the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council about the parallel between the impact of items in the estimates which are substantial and those which are $1 items but have legislative impact. That point perhaps relates to the argument raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West about lawyers' procedural problems and difficulties in finding the law. Obviously, whether the item is substantial or a $1 item, the point remains that lawyers must keep track of the law and its many amendments, and many systems are available for helping them do so.
It is sometimes argued, in connection with substantial items or $1 items that if a certain amount is originally set out in the statute more cannot be added or voted in an estimate because the item would have to say. "Notwithstanding the statute, the following may apply."
It would seem to me to be rather strange that if in an estimate item one could vote $400 million for a new program one could not add $100 million to a program if in a previous situation a certain sum had been voted perhaps as a result of specific legislative enactment. It seems clear to me that the addition of money should be possible and that explains why, on occasion, items which are powers to borrow, and the like, rather than actual votes of money and which require a $1 item and have in the past in particular pieces of legislation or estimates been included as an accompaniment to the actual

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
money voted, may themselves be changed by the $1 item in the estimates.
In listening to the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I found that he noted very carefully the many precedents which exist in defence of the practices that are contained here. The parliamentary secretary has mentioned them as well. It was clear that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was arguing in favour of what he would like to see the procedures be, but was not effectively dealing with what they are in fact.
I would like to refer to one particular item and to clear up an apparent misunderstanding. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the Loto Canada precedent in supplementary estimates A for 1976-77 in June of last year. That would have been a precedent perhaps for establishing Via Rail or other similar organizations, but I should make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members-because in the remarks of several members it was not made clear-that this is not an item to create Via Rail Canada Incorporated. That company has already been created under the Canadian National Railways' power to create a subsidiary, and therefore fully in accordance with the law of the land and with the order in council approving the acquisition by CNR of the shares of that company.	_
The item might come before the House from time to time with specific, large sums of money in order to accomplish the purposes of a better rail passenger service. The main reason it is here is in answer to some concern on the part of the men and women working on the rail passenger service that the regulations have an immediate statutory base, so the item is contained in the estimates to give that base. I do not think the fact that it is $1 rather than a more substantial amount can affect the argument, as the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Assiniboia, has said. In the case of the Seaway, I should like to point to the immediately previous precedent in vote 108b in 1976-77 with regard to the Northern Transportation Company Limited where the same type of item was used to transfer debt to equity.
I am not sure whether hon. members opposite would find it any different if, instead of the use of the $1 item, there had been a vote for the amount of $624,950,000 which could have been voted for to purchase shares in the St. Lawrence Seaway, which money would then be used by the St. Lawrence Seaway to pay back to the Receiver General the same amount. Clearly, that would have been a straightforward item in the estimates in any hon. member's argument. However, it would have been rather misleading if the $1 item which has been used for other transfers of funds were used again for what amounts to that transfer not between votes but, between forms of equity, being created. I think it is clear that the argument of the parliamentary secretary is correct. Items in the estimates which affect legislation or which purport to create new programs must stand on their own merit, and that argument is the same whether the item is $1 or is for a substantial amount.
Therefore, I believe Your Honour will find, in the deliberations you will give to this question, that the precedents are

strongly in favour of the maintenance of $1 items of the type being attacked and that, as I said earlier, whether or not one could argue about what the procedures might be one day in line with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he would like to see, the fact is, and the precedents indicate, that our procedures support these items at this time.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the arguments have been canvassed very thoroughly and therefore I will be brief. With reference to vote Id, the Post Office item, I think it supports quite readily the arguments advanced by both the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. First of all, this is a supply vote, an addition by $1 to the total Post Office vote, and therefore that $1 is deemed to be a supplementary estimate. Its purpose is to authorize the payment to COJO of amounts that will be received by the Olympic organization for the sale of Olympic coins and Olympic products after December 31.
Under the existing statute which was passed for one specific purpose, namely, the indirect financing of the Olympic Games and the sales of philatelic items, the authority to pay the income to COJO from philatelic products ceased on December 31. What we are doing through the $1 item, the vote for supplementary estimates totalling $1, is to pay to COJO the amount less $1. The figures have not yet been completely defined. Without the additional $1 it would be impossible to pay the amount to COJO and it would have to be included within the general Post Office revenue. All that proves is that in this instance we are dealing with the authority that is extended by the House, which is master of its own procedures, through a legislative measure, namely, a $1 item in an appropriation bill to authorize the payment of funds in a way that was not contemplated in the original statute.
I adopt the argument presented by the Minister of Transport in the sense that what we are doing, in effect, is to take a $1 item and, by adding it to the estimates which have been previously voted by the House and adding to it a description of the purpose of that $1 item, permitting, through a bona fide legislative measure, something which otherwise could not have been done.
The precedents have been quoted by the parliamentary secretary and they support the contention that this practice has been honoured for some time. Once you accept that it is possible through a $1 item, which is a supplementary estimate, to transfer votes from one vote which is unused to another vote, or, as quoted in the precedents which have been cited, created a corporation such as Loto Canada, it must be recognized that the practice is established and it is a valid way of legislating changes. This has been demonstrated time and time again in precedents, and I see nothing in the arguments of hon. members opposite which would justify a change in that practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Postmaster General said that the subject has been canvassed very thoroughly, and I am
March 21, 1977

sure the matter can be successfully concluded by the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the last remarks of the Postmaster General, he was in effect saying that if you successfully engage in embezzling funds once and get away with it another dozen times, it then becomes a precedent and it is perfectly all right. The government says it engages in embezzling funds because it is more convenient, it is simpler and it does not have to go through the process of bringing before those nasty members of parliament all the reasons it wants this money so that it can be discussed in standing committees or in the Elouse. The government says it does this by the simple, slippery method of using a $ 1 item in the votes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That was the essence of the argument.


Gerald William Baldwin: I ask Your Honour to take judicial notice, because you are now presiding, and I ask you, as judge, to direct yourself and the jury to take notice of the fact that it is now 4.30 on Monday afternoon and three ministers of the Crown have risen, not to defend the principle, which is secondary, but to defend their own particular connivance with regard to the use of this method of obtaining money.
These ministers did not deal with the principle. They completely forgot the principle. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that all the government is doing by vote L62d is authorizing Eldorado Nuclear to borrow some money. That constitutes an appropriation of funds, as far as this parliament is concerned, and it. is designated by the statement put out, as I understand it, by the government. The estimates division of the Treasury Board put out a list of $1 votes included in supplementary estimates D. Category E is defined as being votes which authorize, guarantee or affect existing legislation. Obviously, this is not a guarantee and this, therefore, constitutes an admission of guilt by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the very instance of the words which have been put into the mouth of the estimates division of the Treasury Board that it is legislation.
I am not going to retrace the arguments which have been made by hon. members on all sides of the House with regard to this question, but the primary purpose of parliament is to pass on the appropriation, the voting and the expenditure of money. That is what brought parliament into existence. That is why we continue, albeit with extremely limited powers. There is no doubt about it; Hansard is full of statements of that kind. Beauschene's, page 198, citation 233, reads in part as follows:
It is one of the old standing principles of our constitution that the House of Commons should control the finances of the country. That is the right, privilege and duty of the House.
We cannot control practices of this kind. There is simply no way by which we, on behalf of the people of Canada, can control the expenditures of this government. I intend to prove that very briefly in my remarks. I call to the attention of Your Honour what was said by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in a
Order Paper Questions
statement which has already been referred to. At page 4126 of Hansard, third session, twenty-eighth parliament, in 1971, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said the following:
The minister is right, of course, when he suggests that the introduction and passage of statutory items in supplementary estimates is not an innovation in this House. This is a practice which goes back many years. At the same time, it has never been accepted readily by the House.
So much for these so-called precedents.
Our debates record many instances when members have taken exception to the practice. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself is not a neophyte in this regard. For example, on March 31, 1952-if he does not mind my going back so far-as reported at page 969 of Hansard of that day he voiced strong objection to an item in the estimates which, he contended, would circumvent section 3 of the Atomic Energy Control Act. Another example of such objection is a statement by the then hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who stated in part as follows: "You have statutes; you may repeal them; you may amend them; but you cannot do it by supply bills."
The then member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was a very good friend of mine and a great parliamentarian. I am glad to be standing next to Mr. Nowlan's son at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The gist of the argument we are making at this time is that hon. members of this House are deprived of the opportunity to check, to challenge, to call witnesses, to examine in detail and to see to what extent there is adequate protection for the tax paying public of this country. Those rights are indispensable to our obligation to discharge our duties on behalf of the people of Canada, but they are taken from us by the use of $1 items which are, in effect, not legislative items and they do not amend legislation.
I conclude by calling to the attention of Your Honour two or three examples which indicate the grave dangers which exist if this practice is allowed to continue. The hon. member for Vegreville referred to the second report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. One of the things which was brought before that committee was the way in which the government slyly and surreptiously enacted regulations based on items of this kind in such a way that nobody was aware of what was being done, of how much money was being spent and the circumstances under which it was being spent. On page 33 of that report the following appears:
In delving into the intricacies of enabling powers under votes, the committee soon discovered that the enabling powers were often not found in the votes themselves, but in items in the estimates to which individual votes related.
I pause here to say that the committee discovered that there were at least 104 illustrations of this practice from 1972 to 1976. There are still some we were not able to discover. The committee had occasion to consider two amendments to the shipbuilding temporary assistance program regulations. I suppose these regulations were enacted properly in connection with shipbuilding temporary assistance. We perused the votes of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, assuming that we would find the basis for those regulations. But we found none. We then went back and inquired of the department and we were told that the authority lay in vote No. 5 and the item entitled "Capital subsidies for the construction of

March 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council", listed in the details of the printed estimates for 1970-71, five years earlier. Vote 5 read as follows:
Trade-Industrial-The grants listed in the estimates and contributions and to increase to $150,000,000 the commitments during the current and subsequent fiscal years for payments to develop and sustain the technological capability of Canadian defence industry, and to increase to $60,000,000 the commitments during the current and subsequent fiscal years for payments to advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development projects.
On the basis of that vote six years later the government enacted regulations giving it the power to pay out moneys in connection with the shipbuilding program. Those are the dangers the House and the people of this country face if this kind of practice is allowed to continue without some caveat filed by us which is given serious consideration by Your Honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly want to thank all hon. members who contributed to this discussion. As has been described, it is far from an incidental aspect of our procedures. It touches very fundamentally upon the right of parliament to function, the right to examine the spending program and to control the spending program through parliamentary votes, which is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the work of parliament.
In conjunction with that is the legislative role. It is clear that some statement ought to be attempted to separate those powers which the House possesses by way of supply and those powers which the House possesses by way of legislation. That is not a task that I look forward to with particular relish. It is an important task. It is a statement that I will attempt in the hope that it may assist the House in guiding itself in future procedures. It is a responsibility which I take very seriously.
I thank all the hon. members for their very conscientious and well though-out presentations on the subject. I note that the last allotted day in the supply period is tomorrow. The first reading of the supply bill will be given in accordance with our slightly modified practices of recent date. By the order passed earlier today, the second reading of that bill is deferred until some other time. Is my impression incorrect?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary estimates, with contain all these $1 items, are to be completed tomorrow night. It is the interim supply bill that has been put off until Thursday.


Mr. Speaker:: During the course of the argument, I took a quick look at the order to see what impact it had, and I wondered if we were not leaving ourselves open to the deferral of a portion of the decision we would have to face tomorrow night. In any case, if it is possible to do so we will work around the clock to try to come forward with whatever statement I ought to make on this question just as soon as we possibly can.

There was an indication, during motions, when the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants was called that there had been some arrangement whereby his motion would be called during orders of the day.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that this matter would be proceeded with after presentation of the report of the statutory instruments committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we proceed with the immigration bill under orders of the day?


Walter David Baker: That is agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, members may recall that on the closing of the debate on this measure last Wednesday I was mentioning that it seems to me, in dealing with Bill C-24, that we have before us a basic change in terms of ultimate concepts, if not in terms of practices. I have before me a pamphlet that is widely available in immigration offices throughout the world and our own immigration office here. It is called "How Canada Selects Immigrants". It begins by responding to the question, "Who can apply?" The answer is given, "Anyone can apply to come to Canada. There is no quota on the number of immigrants who may be admitted from any area or country".
Theoretically, that has been the position of the government for many years, and certainly particularly so since the white paper about ten years ago. What we have been launched on over the last two or three years, particularly with the publication of the green paper, and subsequently with the work of the joint committee, has been an attempt to move away from that position with the very active encouragement of the government. I suppose that is the reason the committee, in issuing its report, said in section 29:
For these reasons, the committee recommends a shift from the present immigration system, which allows for the admission of everyone meeting certain criteria regardless of numbers, to a more managed system capable of regulating the total flow. However, the proposed system must do this in a fair and non-discriminatory, efficient, and manageable way.
March 21, 1977

That, perhaps, is the crux of the issue and the crux of the position that has been taken by the government in response to the committee's report. As hon. members may know, at the time the report was published I and a number of other members identified ourselves in the publication of a minority report. In addition to that, I issued a kind of minority comment of my own with respect to the work of the special joint committee, not in any way attempting to downgrade much of the work done by the committee but to point out some of the weaknesses of the process and some of the shortcomings of its final report.
What we have had over the past two years-and this has been supported by a number of volunteer organizations who have been extremely critical of this process-is a kind of illusion of full participation. There was the publication of the green paper with its extensive supporting documents. There was the intensive and extensive series of hearings across the country, some of them verging on violence with the kind of confrontation that took place. Finally there was the published report, and now the bill.
What the minister and many of the officials would have us believe is that there has been the widest kind of participation and consultation possible. Yet I do not think it takes much penetrating analysis to realize that there was not really an adequate consultation or an adequate probing beneath the surface of previously held prejudices and false assumptions. I said in my own minority comment on November 6, 1975, in terms of the work of the committee of which I was a member:
From the outset, the committee did not fully understand or agree on what a meaningful consultation on immigration involved... As well, by allowing extremely little time, serious-minded and extensive national organizations had insufficient time to consult their membership and stimulate a worth-while, educational and thoughtful response.
I went on to say:
The committee, perhaps without realizing it, became a sounding board for extremist groups and had little opportunity to balance the hearings in favour of those who were more thoughtful and did not have an immediate axe to grind.
If there is any doubt about the willingness of the government to engage in full dialogue with the people of this country, let alone the members of this government, it should be in the shocking reluctance of the minister to present to this House the regulations that have already been drafted with respect to this particular bill.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Not true.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If the minister indicates that it is not true, I hope he will be able to explain it to his senior officials who some weeks ago provided him with a packet of fairly well-defined draft regulations that would accompany this legislation. If it is not true, I would like to know how he expects, as he said in the debate, to discuss the substance of the more important regulations. The minister cannot have it both ways. If they have not been drafted, it will be impossible to discuss them. If they have been drafted, the only reason I can conclude he is not willing to present them to the House
Immigration Act
and the Canadian public is that he is not willing to trust their judgment, not willing to state the full ramifications of this new immigration policy on which we are being launched.
I would like to know why the minister is reluctant to take the Canadian people into his confidence. Why is he not willing to trust the people in their ultimate judgment, particularly on a matter which will so profoundly affect the unfolding development of this country?
I will be delighted to hear the hon. member speak and state his position with respect to the importance of these regulations.
I will be very surprised if any member of this House, on either side, believes that the bill before us for debate this afternoon in any way adequately states or defines the basis on which, or the practices by which immigration policy is going to be followed in this country. While the minister may be accepting congratulations for the fact that a number of anachronisms are being removed from the legislation of 1952, a number of aspects of this bill strike me as the classic example of taking one step forward and two steps backward. I hope members on all sides will think very carefully before giving the minister and his department any more power than that which they presently enjoy.
Let me give a couple of examples of the way in which this bill seems to be, at best, a poorly-drafted document. I said on Wednesday last that this bill is particularly important because it deals with people. It attempts to regulate the comings and goings of people in and out of Canada. It is a major operation, when you think of something like 70 million crossings that take place with respect to our national borders each year. It is perhaps more than 70 million now: that statistic is likely out of date. I look at the bill and the statement of principles. While this may seem like a semantic quibble, surely it is a profound criticism with regard to the human quality of this legislation. Clause 5(2) reads:
An immigrant may be granted landing if he is not a member of an inadmissible class-
Clause 5(3) reads:
A visitor may be granted entry and allowed to remain in Canada during the period for which he was granted entry-
Clause 6(1) reads:
Subject to this act and the regulations, any convention refugee, member of the family class or other immigrant may be granted landing if he is able to establish-
I would like to know why immigrants are referred to throughout this bill as "he". Maybe I missed something along the line. I have looked at other legislation. It seems we have moved beyond the kind of sexist definition in legislation and refer to people as "persons", "individuals" or some other non-sexist definition. To provide a new immigration act in the seventies which has a sexist language base certainly is most inappropriate. Even the definition of the minister refers to him as being "he". I suspect that future governments might well want to question whether the Minister of Immigration should always be male. Of perhaps more profound concern with respect to this legislation is the general definition in clause 8, where it reads:

March 21, 1977
Immigration Act
Where a person seeks to come into Canada, the burden of proving that he has a right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this act or the regulations rests on him.
This seems to reinforce, or at least this puts into very definite law the situation where each and every individual- not just immigrants, visitors or aliens, but Canadian citizens- could well be faced with the position where, through no fault of their own, they might come to one of the national borders of their own country without specific documentation. Perhaps they are people who are new Canadian citizens. They discover that they are not able to document or prove what in fact, their citizenship is with respect to their own country. Here is a case of turning traditional British law upside down. According to this Immigration Act, a person is presumed to be an alien until he can prove himself a citizen.
What has bothered me most about this legislation from start to finish is that it has a kind of suspicious or mean quality to it. People are being taken, not at their best or not even as they might normally be, but potentially at their worst. I suggest a clear indication of that can be found in clause 19 of the bill where we find a marginal note used to explain the inclusion of a new definition with respect to inadmissible classes. The clause I am referring to is 19(l)(d). The following persons would not be admissible:
-persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe are likely to engage in criminal activity-
The marginal note says this is new and is intended to deal with persons who, though never convicted of any offence, are known to be closely connected with organized crime. This is an interesting definition. The marginal note is even more interesting: it provides for a new class of people who would be inadmissible to Canada because they might potentially be criminally-minded or criminally-active. While the note explains this is intended to deal only with persons known to be closely connected with organized crime, the clause obviously encompasses a much wider group of persons. How the minister, in law, can defend or explain this particular definition, given the nature of our society, profoundly disturbs me.
I do not know how the minister can think this kind of definition would be acceptable when people are increasingly concerned about the danger of false arrests. They are increasingly concerned about the way civil liberties can be so readily violated with regard to the use of secret information that is often traded between countries which in many instances cannot be adequately documented. I think, in particular, of organizations which have little definable reputation in this country, such as Interpol. I am not sure in what way the minister is able to defend this guilt by association clause which he has so willingly included in the inadmissible classes.
More important for people who will come here as legitimate immigrants is the clause which deals with the increased grounds for deportation. That has attached, now, terms and conditions. The minister, quite obviously, is attempting through this piece of legislation to provide some mechanism under the Immigration Act to determine where people will live and what they will do. This will not be in terms of incentives or

in terms of the creation of a climate, as suggested by the joint committee report which talked much more about inducement than regulation. Perhaps this is the difference between the bill before us and the joint committee report. Sections 84 and 85 of the joint committee report deal with the problems of regional development and immigration. The joint committee recommended:
As now proposed, the only inducement offered to a prospective immigrant to settle in a designated community is the opportunity to emigrate immediately.
That, of course, was the backing-up of its position, explored by the joint committee, that there would be some kind of incentive to, as the committee said, jump to the head of the queue if a person would agree to settle in a community or area which would help to balance off the inflow of new immigrants. The committee went on to say:
That the proposal be approached imaginatively and that consultation with the provinces be undertaken about the various ways of applying the principle which the committee wishes to promote, the one of the goals immigration can help to serve in regional development.
That is a very different kind of proposal than that brought forward by the minister, one which would in a sense impose terms and conditions on the landing of this immigrant. If those terms and conditions are violated, that person even might be required or forced to leave the country. Indeed, if there was a violation of those terms and conditions, clause 27(1 )(b) would allow for the deportation for any contravention of a term and condition even beyond his or her control. This certainly misses both the point and the spirit of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Finance- Request for increased financial support for housing for low income groups; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-External Affairs-Soviet action against symposium of Jews in Moscow-Possibility of Canadian protest; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)- Income Tax-Possibility of change in treatment of revenue earned by Indian bands-Government position.
March 21, 1977


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general consensus to proceed with notice of motion No. 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), which is the resumption of debate at this stage.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from November 22, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Forrestall:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide benefits to the adoptive parent of an infant, similar to the maternity benefits now provided to workers who are unemployed due to pregnancy.
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we have raised this issue of paying unemployment benefits to adoptive parents. It has been under review by the Unemployment Insurance Commission for nearly five years. This issue has several aspects. For example, let us talk about the concept of adoption in society. There used to be a lot of children for adoption. Now there are fewer. More than ever single mothers are likely to keep their child. Contraceptives are more sophisticated and more widely acceptable. There are much fewer unwanted children available for an increasing number of adoptive parents to be. Let us consider also the possibility of a single parent adopting a child. Some 10 or 15 years ago that was unthinkable. Nowadays it is done much more frequently.
However, social values alone must not be considered. The phenomenon of adoption itself is being altered. Nowadays children's aid societies encourage the adoption of older children. It often happens that those children have physical and emotional behaviour problems. This is why the needs of those children and adoptive parents are really different. The development is carried on.
In this new world of adoption, it is probably true to say that adoptive families have an adequate income. The adoption agencies carefully select a family and the annual income is an important criterion. Thus most adoptive families have an adequate annual income. The necessity of providing some financial assistance can be reconsidered.
Unemployment Insurance Act
We cannot rule out the possibility of extending benefits to adoptive parents without considering the objective of the unemployment insurance scheme. It is indeed an insurance. A temporary income is provided to any individual who has lost an insurable job. During that time, the individual must actively look for some employment except when unable to work due to illness or pregnancy. Thus the unemployment insurance plan provides interim assistance to workers who lose their jobs unintentionally, who are able to work and who are looking for a job, or to workers who are not physically able to work for a while.
Let us consider this definition in the light of problems which face the adoptive parent. For example, is the fact of adopting a child reason for being unemployed and unable to find a job? I think the answer is no. Being able to work and being available for this purpose are the two main points of the unemployment insurance legislation. The adoptive parent may meet both requirements. For example, if the adopted child needs the constant care of an adoptive parent and if this parent is obviously able to work but not available under the provisions of the unemployment insurance legislation, the adoptive parent who retired from the labour force is physically able to work but not available.
Furthermore, a mother who has a child and who receives unemployment allowances is considered as physically unable to work. Consequently, if the adoptive parent is not available to work, he or she is not eligible for benefits under the unemployment insurance plan. Both principles of ability and availability enable to define clearly the eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits.
By giving benefits to the adoptive parents, however commendable in principle, we would somehow pay people who are able to work but who left the labour force of their own free will. This has nothing to do with the uncontrollable physical reasons I mentioned earlier. When they make their application for adoption, the parents are clearly made aware of the infant's needs. It may be necessary for one parent to stay home. If both parents work when they file their application, they voluntarily decide that one of them will stop working to stay home.
If the government were considering extending benefit eligibility to adoptive parents, it would create a precedent which would undermine the very principles of unemployment insurance. Anyone capable of working but unavailable for reasons other than those related to the labour market could take advantage of the system. To push the argument further, someone could advocate excellent reasons to say that he is unavailable for work and, consequently, he could be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits by deciding that he is not available.
I do not want in any way to discredit children adoption, quite the contrary. As I said earlier, adoption plays a primary role in finding a home for orphans or disadvantaged children or orphans. This is an opportunity to experience the joy of parenthood for those who cannot bear children or decide not to have any for reasons of their own. The question put before the
4170

March 21, 1977
Unemployment Insurance Act
House is not a vote in favour of or against adoption. Neither is it a vote for or against a kind of assistance to adoptive parents who need some temporary assistance to take care of their child. The Unemployoment Insurance Act is by no means the appropriate instrument to provide them with income security.
It is true that some adoptive parents need financial assistance whereas others do not. But neither these nor the others have been involuntarily taken away from the work force. The decision of adopting a child is taken consciously. So is also the decision to leave the labour force, which is a consequence of it. Let us think about the basic goal of unemployment insurance, which is to provide temporary income when somebody is no longer on a payroll, so that the worker may resume his place within the labour force as soon as possible. That is the basic goal of unemployment insurance. In Canada, unemployment is a serious problem, and the unemployment insurance plan is not a welfare program.
Nor is it a remedy to give general comfort in every new social need, regardless of how legitimate it may be. I am convinced that unemployment insurance is not the appropriate vehicle to supplement the income of parents who decide to adopt a child and who must, for extremely valid reasons, quit the labour force for a while.
As maternity benefits already exist, I understand readily why some would like adoptive parents to receive them as well. At first glance, it seems reasonable enough. But, in fact, this would conflict with the insurance principles on which the unemployment insurance system is based. Maternity benefits are paid out because the prospective mother is unable to work. Adoptive parents on the other hand are physically able to work, though the adoption centres require that a parent stay at home for a while.
Above all, the unemployment insurance system must not become a substitute for other social benefit programs. That is one of the great fallacies of our times: that unemployment insurance should be the mechanism through which the federal government meets all legitimate needs of Canadians. Unemployment insurance is a social insurance but not the answer to Canadians' need for income, regardless of their nature. The House of Commons is now studying Bill C-27 which will amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. During the debate, I am sure all hon. members will have the opportunity of presenting their views on the subject. The aim is to make unemployment insurance more efficient and to bringing it closer to its intended purpose. The amendments are drawn up in such a way as to reinforce the insurance aspect of the plan, to underscore its basic insurance principles.
I do not deny the fact that adoptive parents may really need some form of assistance for their worthy efforts. In some ways, the role of the adoptive parent may be even more difficult and demanding than that of a natural parent. Still, I cannot support the motion because I am convinced that, although adoptive parents may need help, unemployment insurance is not the vehicle through which it should be given.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have two immediate reactions to the suggestion that the unemployment insurance benefit be extended to adoptive parents. The first is to point out that this is not a new subject. Indeed, it has been considered by the Unemployment Insurance Commission on many occasions over the last five years. My second reaction is that adoptive parents certainly deserve consideration of the special problems that they face. There is little doubt that in some cases adoptive parents may-and I say "may"-have more difficulties in caring for their new child than the parents of newborn infants. So a proposal to extend UIC benefits to adoptive parents cannot be dismissed lightly. We have to see how adoptive parents and natural parents differ under the Unemployment Insurance Act and then weigh whether unemployment insurance is the proper program to assist both groups.
I am convinced that adoptive parents may well need support programs. In many cases I feel bound to question whether the Unemployment Insurance Act is the proper piece of legislation to provide this support. The adoptive parent plays an essential role in our society and the adoption process brings the joys of parenthood into many lives.
There have, of course, been dramatic changes in adoption in our society over the last several years. At one time the majority of adopted children were infants and there were in fact a large number of infants available for adoption. Now, changing social values have radically altered this pattern-for better or for worse it is an individual's decision to make. Conception control measures are more sophisticated. Single mothers are more and more tending to keep their babies instead of putting them up for adoption. For both reasons there is no longer a large surplus of unwanted babies available for an insufficient number of prospective parents; quite the reverse is true in many areas.
Social values regarding adoption are changing in many ways. For example, it would have been virtually unheard of 10 or 15 years ago for a single parent to adopt a child. While it is still far from the norm, it is happening more and more now. Children's aid societies are encouraging the adoption of older children. In many cases these are children with behavioural, psychological or physical problems. Their needs and the needs of their adoptive parents are, therefore, different from the need of many adoptive parents in the past.
In this new world of adoption it is probably fair to say that many adopting families have adequate means of income, although I must say that that is not the criterion of the Children's aid societies. Children's aid societies pay a great deal of attention to the suitability of adopting families, and income is one of the criteria which they use in making their decisions, though I can assure the House it is not the major one. Because of requirements like this, many adoptive families are in the middle or upper income brackets. Their need for financial support, including unemployment insurance, may therefore be questioned.
March 21, 1977

The core of my concern here is not whether adoptive parents may need some form of support. Some will, and others will not. I believe the issue before the House is whether the unemployment insurance program is the proper place to provide the support for those who need it. To answer that question we may have to consider the objectives of the unemployment insurance program, so often stated yet so often misunderstood.
The fundamental objective of the unemployment insurance legislation was, and remains, to provide adequate, short-term income maintenance for workers who, for reasons beyond their control, are unemployed, capable of work, available and seeking employment or temporarily physically incapable of work. Let us examine that definiton against the problems faced by adopting parents. The operative words are, first, "for reasons beyond their control". There can be no question that adopting a child is a voluntary decision, however laudable it may be. It is not, I submit, a reason beyond a person's control for being unemployed. Capability for work and availability for work are two cardinal principles of the unemployment insurance legislation. Here, again, the adoptive parent may or may not qualify.
If, for example, the early care of an adoptive child requires a period for one working parent to remain at home, clearly that parent is physically capable of work but not available for work within the meaning of the unemployment insurance program. An adopting parent who has withdrawn from the labour force is physically capable of work but not available for work. But the mother of a natural child, while on unemployment insurance maternity benefit, is presumed not to be physically capable of work within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act. So if the adopting parent is not available for work, in terms of the unemployment insurance program, he or she is not entitled to any benefit. These two principles of capability with availability and incapability function as clear instruments to define those who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
To pay benefit to adopting parents, laudable though this may seem in principle, would be to pay people who while capable of work are not in the labour force by their own decision. There is no question here of physical reasons beyond their control, as I mentioned earlier. In the adoption process, the particular needs of the child are carefully explained to the parents. Virtually, at the outset, the possible need for one parent to remain at home becomes apparent. If both parents are working when they decide to adopt a child and the adoption requires that one parent stay at home to supervise the child, adoption becomes a conscious decision that one parent leave the labour force at least for a short time.
Were the government to consider extending unemployment insurance benefit to adopting parents, this would set a precedent which would begin to cut away at the very roots of unemployment insurance principles. It would open the door to any capable but unavailable insured person whose unemployment was caused by exigencies not directly related to the labour market. Any person could, by this reasoning process, elect to become unavailable for work for any good purpose in their own mind, arguing that they were entitled to unemploy-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ment insurance benefit on the grounds that their decision made them unavailable for work.
Let me stress, again, that I am not attacking the valid and worthy process of adopting children, because I am an adoptive parent. As I have said, adoption plays a vital role in our society in providing good homes for disadvantaged or parentless children. It also makes it possible for parents who cannot, or choose not to, have natural children, for whatever reason, to experience the wonder of becoming parents.
The question before this House is clearly not a vote for or against adoption. Nor is it a vote for or against some form of aid for those adopting parents who may need transitional aid in caring for their adopted child. The real issue, I submit, is that the Unemployment Insurance Act is not the proper vehicle to provide adoptive parents with income security. It must be admitted that some adoptive parents need financial aid and others certainly do not. But in neither case are they involuntarily out of the labour force. Adopting a child remains a conscious decision and, for a working parent, perhaps a conscious decision to leave the labour force at least for a time.
Let us all remember that the basic purpose of unemployment insurance is to provide income maintenance where interruption of earnings has occurred, and to do so in a way which ensures that the worker will return to the labour force as soon as possible. This is the basic purpose of unemployment insurance.
Unemployment is a serious problem in Canada today. But unemployment insurance is not a welfare program. Neither is it a sort of catch-all mechanism which can be used to provide general support to every social need which arises, legitimate though it may be. My own conviction is that the unemployment insurance program is not the proper vehicle to provide income support to parents who choose to adopt and who must, for very valid reasons, drop out of the labour force for a short time.
At first glance there appears to be authority in the Unemployment Insurance Act for aiding adopting parents. Because the unemployment insurance program already provides maternity benefits, I can easily understand why some believe that these benefits should be extended to adoptive parents. Viable as this may seem at first glance, it would entail a radical shift away from the insurance principles upon which unemployment insurance benefits are provided. Maternity benefits are paid because of physical incapacity to work. Adoptive parents are not physically incapable of work, though adoption societies may require one parent to stay at home with the new child for a period.
Especially at this time the unemployment insurance program must not become a substitute for other social aid programs which are really needed. It is one of the great fallacies of our time that unemployment insurance is the general aid mechanism through which the federal government can solve virtually any legitimate social need of Canadians. Unemploy-
80010-577/2

March 21, 1977
Unemployment Insurance Act
ment insurance is, in truth, social insurance, not a general answer to Canadians' income needs, regardless of their nature.
This House is considering amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation in Bill C-27. These are designed to make the unemployment insurance program more effective and more responsive in its true role. These amendments are quite rightly designed to reinforce the insurance character of the program and emphasize the insurance principles upon which it is founded.
I do not dispute that adoptive parents may very well need some form of support in their very worth-while endeavours. Indeed, in many ways the role of the adoptive parents is often harder than that of the natural parent. But I find I cannot support this motion because I firmly believe that if help for some adoptive parents is needed, unemployment insurance is not the right way to provide this help. I hope we can consider other ways to do this through different programs in the federal as well as in the provincial field.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for proposing and seconding the motion we are considering. Hon. members show, by proposing such motions, a concern for human need in society. The motion we are considering reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide benefits to the adoptive parent of an infant, similar to the maternity benefits now provided to workers who are unemployed due to pregnancy.
Clearly, the motion involves two areas of concern. One part of the motion recognizes that there is a need for people to adopt somebody else's child. The motion speaks of "an infant" but, of course, not only infants are adopted. The other part of the motion concerns the fulfillment of that need, and this is the part which raises difficulty. Nobody will deny the importance of the first part of the motion; for the need in this regard is evident in all parts of the country and all parts of society. However, the proposal that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be the mechanism for providing benefits to the adoptive parent can lead to great difficulties, especially at the present time.
Let me talk about adoption. Many of the points I shall raise have been made previously but I think they are worth repeating. Anyone who adopts a child deserves our greatest admiration. It is difficult enough these days for natural parents to bring up their own children; their children confront a changing world, a world in which our social and moral values are changing. It is difficult to raise children, and expensive. In fact, it is so expensive that many young people are not having children. But we must have them, for society must continue. We must do our best to raise good citizens. Everything I have said about natural children applies to adopted babies. They are fun to have around, and gratifying. But bringing up children entails sacrifice. For them we give up part of ourselves and in that way we help, not only the child but society in general.

Difficult though it is to adopt a baby, it may be even more difficult to adopt an older child who may have gone from foster home to foster home. The history of such children is often tragic. I know this point is not strictly pertinent to the motion, but it is worth mentioning. The unfortunate foster child is often bounced, as it were, from home to home and, in the process, becomes psychologically disturbed. Perhaps the foster child is one of our most serious social problems. I raise this point to throw light on the role of adoptive parents, and because I have had some experience in this field.
Hon. members will recall that about two years ago there was great excitement concerning the adoption of Vietnamese babies. It was not long before members of parliament were aware of all the excitement and commotion, for I remember distinctly three cases in my riding, in my town. I looked into these cases. What I learned was not encouraging. One family which adopted a Vietnamese baby has done well. The child has been raised as one of their own children and they are all living together as a stable, traditional family. Another family left town, hence I do not know what happened to it. But the third family worries me. This couple took a long, expensive trip to the United States, to take charge of the baby. Within a few months of the baby's arriving home, I noticed that the mother was working again. I am not sure why she is working; the family is well off. I suppose it is the usual case of the woman wanting to pursue her own career and have her own job. But it ought to make us think carefully about the whole business of adoption.
Inasmuch as there are responsibilities and duties in adopting-and the adoptive parent certainly deserves credit for adopting-there are also joys and benefits that come from having an adopted child, particularly if it is the only child in the family.
Along with credit for adoptive parents who, by and large, are mostly capable, wonderful people, credit should go to our chief provincial agency, the Children's Aid Society. I think everybody will agree they are doing a good job of this, whether it is the business of adoption, their involvement in homes where there is child-beating, or their numerous other responsibilities with respect to runaways, and so on. It is a remarkable organization. I think of people such as Ron Copeland and Mrs. Joan Lee in my riding, whom I have personally seen in action. I have great admiration for both of them.
In the case of adoptions, probably the most remarkable job that the Children's Aid Society has done is in matching up children with parents. We have probably all made the same mistake of saying to adoptive parents, "My goodness, your child looks just like you" and then being told, with some embarrassment, that the child is adopted, that there is no physical relationship. This is the type of work that the Children's Aid Society does, and it makes a big difference.
They have a great responsibility in making sure that the income of adoptive parents is adequate. I understand that in some cases they go so far as to require what is called a
March 21, 1977

supervising parent for a period of up to six months, but that is optional. This is an indication of the kind of care that is given in the adopting process and how well it usually works out.
That is not to say that there are no problems. We are all aware of the difficult adjustments that are required sometimes by the child, the parents, and anyone else involved in the process. In spite of the excellent modern work of the Children's Aid Society, there are physical and psychological problems that occur. Sometimes it is the question of both parents working. This is a serious enough matter with natural parents. There is a great deal of concern about what it does to the children as well as to the parents if one parent, usually the mother, is not at home. In spite of their income needs or wants, being at home when raising children, at least until they are psychologically mature at which time the parent who is at home can resume his or her career, is very important. The suitability of parents is certainly another serious concern, not only in terms of their ability, both natural and acquired, in terms of how much they prepare themselves to raise the child, but also their emotional stability and the stability of their marriage. The emotional and psychological needs of the child must also be considered.
The subject of income, as I understand it, unless our part of the country is not typical, is not a problem usually, and this bears directly on the bill before us. This bill is concerned with the income of the adoptive parent. What we find in Halton is that adoptive parents are well screened in this respect. They usually have the necessary income, and one of them has the motivation and desire to stay at home.
Then we get down to the availability of children for adoption these days. There has been a dramatic change in our times. There used to be a great shortage of adoptive parents; now there is a great shortage of children for adoption. That may change in the future, but it is an important factor which, I think, has a bearing on this bill.
With regard to the first half of the bill, I think we have a clear picture with regard to adoption itself. We all approve the adoption process. We probably all agree that in perhaps the majority of cases no assistance is necessary from the state to help the adoptive parents. They have their own income and one parent is prepared to stay at home. We all welcome the joys and the value to society of the adoption process and we recognize the fact that in some cases there may be a need for aid. I am not aware of any such cases lately, but I would certainly appreciate hearing if there are any. Perhaps there are parents who need some assistance who are willing to adopt children who are without an adoptive home.
Now we come to this whole business of unemployment insurance. For me it has been a very difficult and soul-searching subject for at least the last two years. Certainly it was a hot subject for me during the 1974 election campaign. I have been working hard on it with a great deal of agony ever since. As we know, originally the UIC program was designed to be a straight mathematical program for those who paid an insurance premium. Then it was extended to those who were included in the whole process of unemployment, and it became
Unemployment Insurance Act
a national social program, which at first covered 4 per cent and later, under a certain formula, over 5.8 per cent, and perhaps the level will go higher than that. There is a great deal of concern about that. There are still some people who want this to be a straight program of insurance with no government assistance. This is a tough line, but at least we know where they stand.
It became more difficult a few years ago when certain other provisions were added, but there was an argument over the business of sickness benefits. Certainly sickness is not a form of unemployment, yet in many cases there was no good sickness coverage. Nothing was provided by the provinces to help people when they were laid off, workers who were not unionized. But somehow we managed to get by and most people have accepted it. Beyond that the next step was more controversial, namely, maternity benefits. I do not know what the experience of my colleagues was in that respect but it gave me a difficult time in the last election campaign.
There are people who simply cannot accept the concept of maternity benefits under the UIC program, and some of their arguments are understandable. There is the question of whether a person has a choice in being off work due to maternity, whether this was or was not a planned event. I suppose that in some cases it is planned, and in others it is unplanned. Nonetheless, there is a definite need in the case of some people and we will probably not have much luck in sorting out the planners from the unptanners, so we might as well include the latter in a universal program.
This leads me to the motion. If natural maternity is in question, what about adoptive maternity? There is no indication that the person had no choice. This is a voluntary process. The parents-in some cases the single parent-know what they are doing when they adopt. They have a clean-cut choice. They do not have to be off work, and that is the main point in considering whether or not maternity benefits should come under UIC. Unemployment insurance, even though it has become very complicated, is still a process of financial support for those who are out of work through no choice of their own. It comes down simply to that and no more. We have some grey areas, but when it comes right down to it, adoption is hard to imagine as one of those grey areas.
We have many other problems. For the first few years of this parliament the pressure was great-it certainly was for me as one member of parliament-on the question of abuses and disincentives. We all heard of the terrible outcry about the so called UIC ski teams out west, those who took UIC payments and used them for a holiday instead of trying to find a job and getting back into the productive work force. There are many other examples, even when there is a cracking down, a toughening and a tightening up which the government and the UIC have brought about.
There is tremendous concern about the total pay-out of unemployment insurance per year of $3 billion to $4 billion. That is perhaps 10 per cent of our total annual federal budget.

March 21, 1977
Unemployment Insurance Act
That budget is considered to have grown very fast, and it is very large at the present time. There is just too much money being paid out for too little productivity. The amount of money being paid out is high enough, but the loss of productivity is even more pronounced.
Without being the least bit partisan, it has to be mentioned that if the government has been pulled into line, part of the credit should go to its own backbenchers. Certainly the official opposition has traditionally taken a very stern, tough, clear stand on UIC payments, particularly abuses and disincentives, although lately in times of suddenly much greater unemployment it seems to have taken a more conciliatory stand, which makes life a little confusing around here.
I give credit to the New Democratic Party for its stand on unemployment insurance benefits and other social benefits. If rather one-sided about favouring these payments, the NDP has certainly been consistent. It certainly has not switched its position in any way at all. It is consistent, and we know where it stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: We have a few problems. One is basically a misunderstanding of the character and purpose of this social program. Another one is the search for a proper vehicle for all our financial support needs as they come up. This bill brings to our attention a very real need. It is small but real. There is a temptation to use something like UIC as a catch-all if we cannot work anything else out in a logical way. Another problem is the timing of Bill C-27, the main purpose of which, as I understand it, is to go the opposite way, to pull in the reins on the UIC program, to rationalize and to bring some measure of control to this valuable program so that it is not discredited, even to the point of bringing it down to the original plan it was supposed to be.
To put it very frankly, we need to check abuses and disincentives, and people from the Maritimes, including the hon. member who proposed this motion, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, will certainly appreciate that because this is of concern to the people of the Maritimes, which now have a high unemployment rate.
I apologize to the House for talking for so long, but I think we need a real social welfare program for something like adoption, not the unemployment insurance program. That is just not the right program. That program already has too much pressure on it.


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


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this motion has behind it an excellent intention. It was brought forward because of the character of its proposer and its seconder. They are generous people who are trying to find, through the Unemployment Insurance Act, some means of giving special benefits to a special small group. However, it
[Mr. Philbrook.)
should be pointed out that, as most of the other speakers have mentioned, the Unemployment Insurance Act was brought in for a certain purpose. That purpose must be adhered to; otherwise, we will need a completely new act.
The government has handled unemployment insurance in a very imaginative way in Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In what way?


Samuel Victor Railton: I always enjoy talking to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), but I cannot do it directly right now.
Canada has been singled out by other countries as a leader in trying to deal with the tragic problem of unemployment. United States Senator Hubert Humphrey recently wrote to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).
The letter said that the United States is very fortunate to have a neighbour to the north which not only faces many of the problems of its own economy but which has the leadership and foresight to take innovative approaches to these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Samuel Victor Railton: The letter goes on to say that young people in the United States will be very fortunate indeed if the United States merely follows that lead and establishes the same kinds of programs there. I ask the hon. member for Hamilton West, what do you think of that?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member asking a question?


Samuel Victor Railton: That was a rhetorical question which does not require an answer.
I would like to re-emphasize that the basic purpose of the unemployment insurance program is to provide income maintenance where an interruption of earnings has occurred, and to do so in a manner which ensures that the worker will return to the labour force as soon as possible. My colleague from Brampton identified the needs of recipients of unemployment insurance, and he went into the question of how to fulfil those needs.
In 1971 the government recognized the need to cover interruptions of earnings relating to maternity, and that the provision of adequate maternity legislation was of the utmost importance in Canada where over one-third of the active labour force is female and where approximately one in six workers is a married woman. Because of the plight of many thousands of women who had little or no protection when unemployed due to pregnancy, in 1971 the government included in the Unemployment Insurance Act provisions to provide up to 15 weeks of unemployment insurance maternity benefits to women with at least 20 weeks of insurable employment.
Furthermore, the payment of benefits to major attachment claimants who have incurred an interruption of earnings due to pregnancy is a recognition of the principle that this condition
March 21, 1977

causes a claimant to be incapable of work. I do not think anyone would gainsay that fact.
As a very young physician I practised for a short time as a country practitioner, and I think my instructions to stay in bed for a certain length of time were often ignored. 1 remember driving in my Model A and seeing a woman running from her back porch, and when I got in, she was in bed waiting for my call. This occurred sometimes. The same day that woman had her youngster, she was up preparing a meal for her husband and his hired men who were doing the harvest. There are real work barriers for women as well as for men. People like the woman to whom I referred are few and far between.
Usually after six months of pregnancy-in the third trimester-women are not welcome in places of work because there is a certain amount of danger, particularly in factories. There is a danger of too much activity and overwork which could lead to miscarriage. In addition, pregnant women deserve a certain amount of courtesy and help during that period of their lives.
After the baby is born, the first seven or ten days are frequently a matter of real illness, and certainly the strength of the mother does not return to a full pristine state for at least four to six weeks. I think the periods for maternity benefits from unemployment insurance are fairly sensible and we should not deviate from them. However, the payment of benefits to these people recognizes, as I said, the principle that the condition causes them to be incapable of work. From the medical standpoint, a certain amount of time is required before the woman can be considered fully capable of resuming her role as an active member of the labour force. These benefits are not paid to her because she has a new child. They are paid to her because she has been physically incapacitated and has been unable to do her job.
In the case of the adoptive parents, they do not experience the physical state which rendered the patient incapable of working for a period of time. For this reason it is not possible, according to the act, to consider granting maternity benefits to them. There is no doubt that adoptive parents play a very great role in our society, a very essential role. However, the unemployment insurance program is sometimes misconstrued-this was taken up by the most recent speaker-as a potential general aid mechanism through which the federal government can provide support to whatever needs can be identified. The needs of adoptive parents are quite legitimate though not through this act. The unemployment insurance program is not the proper vehicle to support incomes of parents who wish to adopt children and, who, for some legitimate reasons, think they should drop out of the labour force for a period of time. This is debatable.
It has been argued that there exists an anomaly in the unemployment insurance legislation which affords benefits to the natural mothers but which discriminates against adoptive mothers. This is so much ballyhoo. Adoptive parents emphasize that the experience of parenthood is similar, whether the
Unemployment Insurance Act
parents are natural or adoptive. Adoptive mothers, they say, have the same need and desire to be with their child. Of course, but this is not why the benefits are being paid. They are being paid only because the natural mother was incapacitated, and she had to take herself away from the labour market for a certain period of time. When there is a couple who adopt a child, the woman is viewed as being capable of performing a job at all times, unlike a pregnant woman who is, to varying degrees, incapacitated during the period surrounding childbirth.
The quality of treatment of natural and adoptive mothers is an area of some concern to some women's rights groups, and has been studied in a preliminary fashion by the federal Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It is most interesting that this Council expressed the opinion that the unemployment insurance program would not be the best means of providing the adoption or maternity support that may be required. You must remember that unemployment insurance is a program designed to provide income maintenance during an interruption of earnings under specific conditions. It is supported by employers, employees, and the federal government. We feel we have a responsibility in that direction. It is not intended to be a general answer to the income needs of Canadians regardless of the origin of those needs. There are other methods.
We cannot avoid the question of whether existing programs are meeting the needs of adoptive parents. However, if we cannot, what sort of support should be provided and who should provide it? In the case of those families who need some form of income support and who are judged to be good prospective parents, the means of providing this type of assistance are available. There are provincial programs available to provide this type of help. In general they are supported by the federal government through the programs of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Do not forget that the federal government contributes 50 per cent to practically all these programs.
One of the things we are always harping on is the need for the provinces to take up, if they have not done so already, the question of the Canada Assistance program. Family allowance payments are provided for adopted children as soon as they are placed in the family. That is federal money. To provide unemployment insurance benefits to parents, on a needs criteria basis, would overlap with provincial and other federal efforts, and would undermine the income-related and the individual nature of the program.
Unemployment insurance benefits are intended to provide income replacement based on the previous earnings and the labour force attachment of an individual rather than on the needs of the family.


Mr. Forrestall:: We are not talking about the needs of the family. We are talking about the income of the family.


Samuel Victor Railton: May I continue for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker?


J. Michael Forrestall: Continue.

March 21, 1977
Immigration


Samuel Victor Railton: There have been some recorded Unemployment Insurance Commission experiences, just as the previous speaker emphasized, with examples of "beating the government" and so on. I do not think we can criticize the government social security programs in every way. I felt the article published in the Globe and Mail today by Mr. Malone, the publisher of that wonderful newspaper, was a little bit too critical. It was mainly saying that the government has been too generous in its social security programs. I cannot agree with this.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think this is on the instalment plan. When I was in college I was told that there were at least three good points to every sermon. I did not know there were three good sermons to every point. This is the third opportunity, on second reading, that I have been speaking on this subject.
I want to deal very quickly with two or three aspects of the bill which concern me very much. One has to do with respect to the violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If one reads the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed in 1948 by the United Nations, Article 13 certainly touches on measures within this bill which would certainly come close to being in direct violation of the Universal Declaration.
Hon. members will recall that Article 13 states that everyone has the right to freedom of movement more particularly residents within the borders of each state and, second, everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country.
Clause 8(1) of this bill with respect to proof of citizenship deals with the individual who comes into his own country.

Clause 21 (1 )(b) deals with the whole question of the regulated residency under the so-called terms and conditions of the bill. This certainly seems to fly in the face of Article 13 as it is stated in the Charter on Human Rights.
Third, in Clause 115( 1 )(n) the governor in council has the ability to make regulations, and I quote:
requiring any person or class of persons to report to an immigration officer before leaving Canada and prescribing the information to be provided and the manner in which such report shall be made to the immigration officer by any such person;
The possibility of requiring some sort of notification, or even permission, before departure is one that I find most offensive, certainly offensive in light of the Declaration of Human Rights. More than that, more recently we have had the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights. It is interesting to note Article 12 and 13, Article 12 in particular, which reads:
1.	Everyone lawfully within the territory of a state shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2.	Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
That is an additional reinforcement of the way Bill C-24 appears to violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent convention. The interesting thing is that the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights was only acceded to by our country on May 19, 1976. It finally received the assent of a sufficient number of nations to bring it into force on August 19 of last year. Presumably that was just at the time when this particular bill was in its final drafting stages. It is for that reason that one cannot be sanguine about the possibilities and intent of this legislation. As it is stated in the explanation clause, Clause 115( 1 )(n) may be used at some time in the future to provide for examination of outbound travellers if this step becomes necessary for the proper identification and control of illegal immigrants. As the minister well knows, it does not stipulate that it will only be used in the case of those who are illegal immigrants.
This is one of the reasons I brought in Bill C-404 on March 3 dealing with the question of human rights. I will quote from one aspect of it, that part which, and I quote:
denies its citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate or imposes a discriminatory tax, levy, fine, fee or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of such citizen's desire to emigrate.
These are the things which concern us very much about countries in eastern Europe which place very real proscriptions on those who desire to leave their own country. For us even to have the possibility of these provisions in the bill seems to be, quite frankly, an illiberal and retrograde move.
As I said before the supper hour, this bill, when compared to the joint committee about whose report I even had some considerable reservations, seems to fail both in the letter and in the spirit.
I mentioned earlier the problem with respect to regional development moving from inducements and incentives, which was in the joint committee report, to that of absolute regulation.

There is the whole matter of the question of refugees. The minister has taken a forward step by indicating there will be a new classification of refugees. However, in his statement and in the bill it seems to be almost totally tied to the United Nations convention definition of refugee. If the minister has read the report, in particular Section 93, he will note that the special joint committee stated very clearly that it regards the United Nations definition of refugee as too narrow and not adequate to accommodate the present variety of circumstances.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take up much more of the time of the House as I know there are others who wish to speak on this subject.
To continue with that quotation from the joint committee report, section 93:
One difficulty is the stipulation that the person be outside his country to qualify as a refugee. Canada has eased this requirement to accommodate Chileans and Ugandans.
More specifically, as the minister well knows, there was in the case of Uganda, and particularly in respect to Chile, the establishment of a new definition, that of the "oppressed minority" group to deal with the very difficult situation of people who to all intents and purposes would be suffering or experiencing the same kind of difficulty refugees normally encounter but who were still resident within their own country. For the minister to go only as far as adopting the UN definitions and conventions on refugees seems to me to be an inadequate approach. It is a fact, of course, that the minister has not stated clearly either the framework or the procedures for dealing with refugees. In view of recent problems concerning refugee movements from Latin America, this does not give one much encouragement or confidence in the fairness or efficacy of the refugee provisions in the bill before us.
The move to establish a system of visas as suggested in the bill, is ignoring the firm recommendation made by the special joint committee to use exit and entry cards as a first step toward proper and effective control of illegal migrant movements, which seems to me to have been a sensible recommendation from the standpoint of the committee. Again, the minister did not see fit to accept that recommendation, and moved instead to provide for the utilization of visas under the measure before us, something which at best will be cumbersome and, 1 think, at worst, could create some great difficulty for Canadians who have generally enjoyed satisfactory travel arrangements with many countries and would find it increasingly bothersome, if not offensive, to be saddled with the kind of visa requirements which the minister seems to be favouring.
Immigration
The whole question of appeals under the Immigration Appeal Board is interesting. When the Immigration Appeal Board appeared before the special joint committee a great deal of discussion, and their recommendation, centred on a return to the pre-1973 situation with respect to providing at least the possibility of an appeal in each and every instance, rather than ruling them out automatically for a number of different categories or classifications. This was the substance of much of the discussion taking place before the committee before the recommendation was made. The attitude or response reflected in the bill has to do with a reduced ambit of power with respect to the Immigration Appeal Board.
With regard to the department itself, again the minister seems intent on moving in the opposite direction. The committee wrestled for a long time with the question of whether or not the Departments of Manpower and Immigration should be separated. There were arguments both pro and con on the advantages of such a division. There were also discussions on bringing in other aspects of immigration policy in terms of the whole demographic question, cultural questions, and citizenship.
As I am sure the minister knows from reading the report of the special joint committee, the recommendation was to develop an immigration department which would include much more than the narrow definitions of manpower and employment. Yet we have before us not only this bill, but companion legislation which the minister is presently bringing before parliament, Bill C-27, which attempts to establish a Canada employment and immigration commission. One reads of the structure and definitions outlined in that legislation and gets the clear impression that what the minister is attempting here is to direct the thrust of immigration policies more and more toward an employment and vocational kind of arrangement. The joint special committee made it clear that the tying of employment opportunities to the day to day movement of people with respect to immigration is to get into a program which, I think, becomes unworkable, and in many instances unjust.
If the minister has studied the workings of his own department in recent years he will realize that by the time much of the information made available with respect to favourable employment opportunities became available and could be matched with those who were applying as immigrants at various immigration posts around the world, there would really not be too much which could be made of it in terms of either the specific immigrants involved or the general health of the Canadian economy.
Now we come to the delicate question of the impact of immigration on the province of Quebec, the problem of the increasing assimilation of elements of the Francophone community and the larger Anglophone community of Canada and North America, and the necessity of doing as much as is, with justice, humanly possible under the Immigration Act to assist the development of the population of Quebec through immigration. Apart from the general references with respect to consultation which will take place under this new act with all
4178

March 21, 1977
Immigration
the provinces, the specifics with respect to the Francophone community in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, are really neglected.
Most significant of all, perhaps, is the question of the actual numbers of people who will come. We are told very clearly that there will be an arrival of a definite number of immigrants after the appropriate kind of consultation, and that the minister will announce that figure. Mr. Speaker, I presume I do not have to remind the minister of the fact, but the special joint committee said very clearly that if this was to be seen to be a fair and just policy there would have to be some kind of parliamentary approval, likely by resolution. There should be a presentation delivered by the minister, not only of a target figure for the immediate year but also some kind of projection for a three-to-five year period. Then there should be some kind of resolution which would give parliamentary acceptance, and perhaps a referral as well to a committee of the House which would examine the proposals of the minister in detail. Again, there has been no willingness on the part of the minister to provide the House through this bill with that kind of opportunity.
Indeed, I suppose if one were to tackle this piece of legislation and its presentation by the minister, its greatest point of weakness would be that when you look at the opening pages of the introduction to the green paper and the final result in the bill before us, there is literally no explanation yet, no indication as yet from the minister as to what is the long-term demographic policy of this government. The references which are made in the minister's speech on the demographic question are fleeting, at best. They refer to establishing some kind of moderate growth by selecting a figure of somewhere between
140,000	and 150,000 immigrants annually. Surely the minister can do much better than that. If he has seen reports similar to the one which was presented to the committee, well over a year and a half ago now, on the demographic objectives for Canada, which indicated the implications of various immigration levels in relationship to the present fertility level in Canada, he would know that the figure he proposes is one of the lowest in terms of whether or not there will be any substantial growth in the population of the country, and indeed of whether or not there would be a fairly dramatic shift in terms of dependency groups toward the latter part of this century. For the minister not to tell us in greater detail what the conclusion and projections of the government are with respect to the responsibility for various dependency groups in this society, the way in which Canada's population should grow over the 10 to 50 year period, is really to have no kind of demographic policy at all.
I was shocked, quite frankly, when the minister was asked on February 1 by my colleague, the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp), whether or not, in line with the recommendations of the special joint committee, there would be a basic statement on the government's demographic policy. He asked whether the minister would table the government's demographic studies on which its well-hidden national population policy is based, in order that the information might be at the disposal of the House during second reading of Bill C-24. The

minister replied "I will consider it." That was over a month and a half ago, and I presume the minister is still considering it. I say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is not very good.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps he is still looking for it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Maybe that is true. I will be happy to send him some of the documents that we on the standing committee received some time ago. But if that is the best the minister can do he has little justification in asking the House or the Canadian people to accept the measure before us.
We have before us a proposal which calls itself an immigration act. It has no definite policy attached to it. We have been given no hint whatsoever as to what regulations will apply or be enforced. We have the experience of the special committee to know how difficult it has been in the past to obtain a full and frank insight from the minister's own officials into how our immigration procedures operate on a day-to-day basis. As I said at the outset, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation which we will have to consider in this parliament. The minister has really shortchanged this House and the people of Canada in providing us with so little information on the basic question behind the establishment of this new Immigration Act.
I want to close by reading two brief quotations which I take from appearances before our committee, and which I repeated in my own minority comments at the time of the tabling of the report. The Council of Religious Sisters of the diocese of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, said this:
What we need in Canada is a people policy, a policy that gives greater priority to the welfare of human beings than to material resources. We need a new economic order based on justice which is concerned about the people of our own country, and those of others.
Finally, I agree with the Young Progressive Conservatives of British Columbia when they stated before our committee:
If we look at the long range problem of immigration, we believe that our general principles governing policy-making should be generally unselfish and world-wide in context.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-25 may I say at the outset that it is not a question of what the bill says but of what the bill does not say. I have either heard or read what other speakers on this bill have said, and every one of them have said that, after all, this country has been made up of immigrants from all parts of the world. So far as western Canada is concerned, they came from all European and Asiatic countries and settled there.
When we first developed the west we were a rural-oriented area; now we are like the rest of Canada and have become fairly urban. It was people who came from the Ukraine, Hungary, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom who settled on the land, and the first and second generations of these immigrants became professional and business people and built up our towns, villages and cities.
March 21, 1977

We are dealing here with a very important piece of legislation, one that sets the tone for the kind of culture that is going to prevail throughout Canada. I suppose that when in the early days la Verendrye, a French Canadian, and his sons forged out west, up various rivers, and saw the foothills of the Rockies for the first time, even he with all his imagination had very little idea how that particular area was going to develop into ranching, farming, cities and towns. 1 also suppose that when Cook and Vancouver came to the Pacific coast a little later, they too did not have the vision to see the great city of Vancouver and what has developed on Vancouver Island.
Let me come immediately to what concerns me about this bill. I have done a considerable amount of work on it, and perhaps when I am finished most members will agree that this will probably be one of my drier speeches in that I want to document what is in this bill. I feel it should be documented. As I say, this bill is to set the tone. All it does is build a house which has no siding, no roof, no shingles-nothing. Everything is left to orders in council.
It has been said before, but nevertheless I remind the House that in 1976, 3,326 orders in council were passed, of which only 653 were published in the Gazette so that Canadians would know about them. This means that there were 2,673 orders in council, pieces of legislation, about which Canadians had no opportunity to know. As we all know here, ignorance of the law is no defence, but how in the world can a person determine whether he is breaking the law if the law is not published anywhere?
This is why the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and Senator Forsey in the other place, are doing such an excellent job in regard to confidentiality and secrecy of government. Even Hitler, bad as he was, published his decrees so that the people there knew what was happening. But this government-and perhaps all governments, federal and provincial are moving in this direction-is administering the law by order in council, not by the passage of an act.
A former prime minister set the tone when he said this:
Let us come to another point which I wish particularly to stress. I refer to the right set out in Magna Carta that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land; not the law as made by the Governor-in-Council, not the law as made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting body, but the law of the land as known to everyone.
I have already pointed out that 2,673 laws were passed in one year about which no one knew except those who drew them up, someone in the public service. He continued:
It is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known, that it should be so known that every man as he runs may read. The law should not be something which is to make its appearance in the Canada Gazette after some board or Governor-in-Council, not Parliament, has passed a regulation; it is something that should appear in the statutes of the country.
Surely that is a fundamental principle. The late William Lyon Mackenzie King said that during a debate in 1934, and what he said then is just as true today. However, at that time we had not reached such complexity of government as today, when most legislation is passed by order in council.
Immigration
I want to tell the House a story, a very simple story, to illustrate what the danger is here. Back in the 1970's a Chinese girl by the name of Pui Chan Inoue came to Canada. She was granted permanent residency, or landed immigrant status, as it is called. While in Canada she met a Japanese and they were married. They lived in Vancouver for a considerable length of time, had three children, and then went to Japan. When they got to Japan she found that he already had a wife, so she packed up her belongings, took one or more of the children and returned to Canada. She landed in Vancouver, but no sooner had she done so than she was arrested because she did not have a visa. She could not get one from Japan, she could not get one from Communist China, the only passport she ever had was from Taiwan and she had never seen that country. As a result she was thrown in jail.
It fell to my lot, Mr. Speaker, to do something about this case, and I did not realize until I looked into the matter and worked with a number of young students how complicated was the Immigration Act at that time, as indeed, the proposed Immigration Act will be complicated. I want to ask the question: if once you are given landed immigrant status, can you leave the country and return still retaining it?


An hon. Member:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend says no. My next question is: if you give up your permanent status, have you the right to appeal before the Immigration Appeal Board? The answer to that question is, of course, no. I want to tell hon. members about something that developed at the beginning of this case. When some people come to Canada from other countries-a lot of people cannot leave communist countries because they will not let them out-to visit their relatives, if they do not want to return they make an application. This is why the Immigration Appeal Board had a backlog of some 10,000 cases. In fact the backlog reached 18,000 cases. Orders in council were passed; then the courts ruled against them. On July 28, 1973, after the government had said, "Look, things are getting so bad that we must straighten them out with an act of parliament" parliament passed the requisite act. The new act, being chapter 28, of July 27, 1973, said in part:
1. For greater certainty, subsection 28(1) of the Immigration Regulations, Part I, expressed to have been made pursuant to Section 57 of the Immigration Act by Order in Council P.C. 1972-2502 on November 6, 1972, shall be deemed for all purposes to have had, and to continue to have, the same force and effect as if it had been made on at day pursuant to an Act of Parliament that authorized the making of that subsection and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, that subsection shall be deemed to have been applicable to any person who reported to an immigration officer as an immigrant in accordance with subsection 7(3) of the Immigration Act on or after November 6, 1972, and to be applicable to any such person who so reports to an immigration officer on or after the day this Act comes into force.
The government passed orders in council under the old act. Finally, realizing that was not legal, the government passed another law.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.
4180

March 21, 1977
Immigration


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. member is not interested in what I am saying, that is fine by me. Section 5(t) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 1-2 reads in part as follows:
"(t) persons who cannot or do not fulfil or comply with any of the conditions or requirements of this Act or the regulations or any orders lawfully made or given under this Act or the regulations. R.S., c. 325 ...
The government discovered that that law did not work. The point I am dealing with is whether a person who has been given permanent residency and leaves the country, can come back. Is he entitled to come back now, under the present law? According to the Immigration Appeal Board, "permanent resident" means a person who has been granted lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence under the Immigration Act. That is clear. Next I look at the Immigration Act, and it has this to say on the point:
"admission" includes entry into Canada, landing in Canada, and the return to Canada of a person who has been previously landed in Canada and has not acquired Canadian domicile;"
Please note the words "has not acquired Canadian domicile."
I submitted to the board, on the basis of the law quoted, that once you were a permanent resident you could leave Canada and return, without needing a visa. Despite my arguments, the lady in question was thrown in jail.
Let me tell you what happened. Mr. Speaker, I have placed on record definitions concerning permanent residency and admission. What did the government do? In October, 1974, it passed an order in council which said that "permanent resident" means an immigrant who has been granted lawful admission, for permanent residency under the act, and has maintained his place of domicile in Canada since that admission. Please remember what I said about residency, as defined in the Immigration Appeal Board Act. I ask Your Elonour to bear in mind the words previously quoted "has not acquired Canadian domicile." Clearly, the order in council totally contradicted the definition in the act. This should be apparent if one compares the two sets of definitions previously quoted. But the consequence was that the girl went to jail. She finally got out and we went before the appeal board, but the point is that this is typical of what has happened.
We all know that an order in council is not supposed to contradict an act of parliament. Parliament passes the act. Regulations flow from the act, and as lawyers in this House well know, if regulations flow from two separate acts of parliament, the first set of regulations cannot apply to the administration of the second. The point I want to drive home is this: under the old Immigration Appeal Board Act, and under the Immigration Act, the department thought that not only did it have power to pass rules and regulations, but that it had power to contradict parliament.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The law said this was wrong. It was wrong. Unfortunately a person was denied her freedom for a short time owing to the shortcomings of the law.

This is a dangerous bill, too. Let us examine what it can do. I ask, what orders in council can be passed pursuant to Bill C-24? Clause 38(2) provides among other things that:
... the governor in council may authorize the landing of any person not described in subsection (1) who at the time of landing has resided continuously in Canada for at least five years . ..
In other words the department can, by order in council, create substantive law affecting people who have lived in Canada for five years. Does that mean that somebody who has sneaked over the border, is here illegally, and gets somebody like Hal Banks to intervene with the minister, can stay in this country? Can this be done by order in council? Does parliament want to pass that sort of law?


An hon. Member:: Oh, don't be so partisan.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Clause 40(4) says that after procedural requirements regarding reports on a person are fulfilled, the governor in council may make a deportation order under this section. In other words, there is to be power to contradict the act, even to make an order in council for deporting people, as the department sees fit. Then, clause 41(1) says that the governor in council can appoint the three-member special advisory board. There is nothing wrong with that. That is to be done by order in council.
Under clause 41(2) the governor in council is required to designate one of the members as chairman of the special advisory board established under clause 41(1).
Under clause 43(2), pursuant to the Citizenship Act, the governor in council designates a member of the Privy Council as minister for the purposes of that act, and it is to this person that questions concerning claims of Canadian citizenship are referred. Therefore by order in council it will be possible to make certain sections of the Citizenship Act relate to the new Immigration Act and the new rules which will be passed thereunder.
Under clause 59(2) the governor in council is entitled to appoint up to 18 members to the Immigration Appeal Board. Under clause 60(5) he may remove any member of the appeal board for cause.
Under clause 61(1) the governor in council designates the chairman of the appeal board, and up to five members as vice-chairmen of the board. The governor in council is also to establish the remuneration of members of the board, and also living and travel expenses.
Under clause 64 the governor in council has discretion to designate what members of the board shall live in the national capital region, which extends beyond Ottawa, as described in the National Capital Act, or within 40 kilometres thereof.
Clause 67 provides that, subject to the approval of the governor in council, the board may make rules "not inconsistent with this act", concerning the board, practice and procedure in appeals, applications for determination, and applications for release.
Clause 109(2) provides that, with the approval of the governor in council, the minister may enter into agreements with the
March 21, 1977

provinces for the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of immigration policies and programs. If that is not playing at politics, I do not know what is. In other words, the clause says that the federal government may make deals with the provinces. If a politically hot situation arises, say, in Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia, the federal government is allowed to make a deal with the provincial government with respect to matters of immigration, even though immigration under the British North America Act falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I suggest that the reasoning behind this clause stems from our make up as a people, that is to say, we are all supposed to be Canadians, period. We are not French-Canadians, English-Canadians, German-Canadians or Ukrainian-Canadians. We are Canadians. Hyphenated Canadians never had a place in this country. We are all Canadians. But that is put in there for a purpose, and I do not need to outline what the purpose is.
Clause 115(1) to (2) deals with extensive regulatory discretion given the governor in council to establish immigration selection standards. This is supposed to give equal opportunities to all people applying to enter Canada, whether they come from the Ukraine, Germany, Japan, China, the U.K. or France.
Let us find out what the bill says. It establishes immigration selection standards as regards education, family relationships, language, skills, occupational experience, personal attributes and attainments, demographic considerations, and labour market conditions. What we are really doing tonight is assigning to the public service, to officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and of other departments, the right to make the law for Canadians regarding what people we will allow to come to this country. Worse than that, we are putting it in the field of politics, because when you give public servants the right to make rules and regulations such as these, you give that right to cabinet ministers who might want to play a little politics by playing one province against another. This is playing politics with the most important thing in the nation, namely, the kind of people we will have here in the country, a right which is laid down in our constitution.


An hon. Member:: We have been doing this for years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then they should be told they are wrong.


Mr. Peters:: But it keeps them elected. Surely they will not change that system.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is because people do not know what is in the act. I thought my friend would say that reading is dangerous. It is dangerous for some people.
The bill prescribes the classes of immigrants who may be sponsored by Canadian citizens or permanent residents. That is the very essence of the law. If you can do that by order in council, why can we not have one section in the act saying we will have a new immigration policy to be administered by the government of the day, and rules and regulations designating
Immigration
what kind of people we will bring here, how many of them, what language they will speak when they land here, what culture they will have, what standards they will have, and what labour requirements they will fulfil, instead of having this verbosity, this rhetoric, this big act which says nothing because all these things can be done behind our backs?
The bill exempts particular members of "the family class" from any requirements and regulations; and substitutes "special regulations" for such individuals. They even go further and make a regulation setting up a standard. Then they make a regulation to administer the standard, and finally they administer by regulation. That is what this act is all about, and that is why it should be scrutinized and carefully studied before being passed.
The bill designates the classes of persons referred to as refugees. If that does not enter into the field of politics, I do not know what does. I can imagine my friends to the left preferring left-wingers to come to the country, and my friends to the right preferring right-wingers. It would depend on what kind of government we have. They would pass regulations and choose the refugees that would suit the government of the day. As my friend says, we will elect that government and perpetuate its right to govern, which its members think is their divine right.
The bill would establish a system of priorities for applications. In other words, if you wanted to have people from the United Kingdom here, or if you wanted people from another country, you could give them priorities. You could set up your own priorities. If that is not dictatorial legislation, I do not know what is. Is that what the human rights bill is all about, or is the human rights bill a piece of window dressing to cover up the dust on the window, to cover up the fact that there is discrimination based on race, language, creed, etc.?
The bill prescribes the universities, colleges and other institutions for the purposes of academic, professional or vocational training, and prescribes the courses at these institutions for visitors granted entry for the the purposes of study. In other words, as soon as you land in Canada they tell you what university you will attend, where you will study, whether you will be an accountant, a lawyer, or a doctor. If they do not want you to be any of those, you can be forced to go to a vocational training school to be a carpenter or a plumber. And if you are not the kind of person who will bend that easily, you will not be admitted to Canada because a regulation will deny you the right to be here even though you have the qualifications spelled out in the act.
The bill prescribes the requirements for a returning resident permit. I suppose this means that if you wish to visit your brother in Chicago and you have landed status in Canada, you might be allowed to go to the United States and return here and retain your permanent residence in Canada.
The bill specifies the documentation that will be required of visitors. It prohibits aliens from engaging in employment in Canada, and also specifies the type of employment such persons may engage in. Imagine that! You pass an order in council and you tell these people, whom you call aliens, that

Immigration
they will be prohibited from engaging in employment in Canada. You tell them that now they are here, they cannot get a job. "You cannot work, but if you have the right to work, we will tell you what you should do, and then we will tell you in what province you will be, and in what village you will live." All that is done not through approval by parliament but by order in council.
The bill determines health and public safety factors in relation to the admission of a person, and whether such a person could become a charge on the health or social services of a community. I suppose that an American who takes saccharin will be denied the right to come to Canada. I do not know, but you can do that by order in council. Just think about it.
The bill requires health examinations of persons outside Canada to determine whether they will be admitted to Canada. I thought the human rights bill protected those who have some physical or other disability to enable them to function in society like the rest of us, without discrimination. This bill totally contradicts the human rights bill. In fact, if I had my way-and I do not have it because there are 264 members here-I would throw this bill out.
It is a horrible bill. It requires persons leaving Canada to report to an immigration officer before leaving the country, and prescribes the information required, the manner in which the report is to be made, and sets out fingerprint, photographic or other identification requirements for those seeking admission to Canada or for persons already here. That sounds as if it came from the U.S.S.R., and I talked to some of my Ukrainian friends who are trying to get their sisters and brothers over here for a visit.
I agree with members who have criticized the Communist countries for not allowing their citizens to leave and for their denial of international agreements. This bill is as bad as anything that has been put together by a dictator. Surely our friends, brothers or sisters who come here should not be subjected to fingerprinting before entering this country. All that can be done by order in council, and when we pass this bill we will be giving public servants the right to do that.
The bill would determine removal and detention costs and expenses. It would require that transportation companies ensure that immigrants and visitors have visas. The little Chinese girl about whom I argued did not need one. The board upheld my argument. In other words, if they do not have visas, Air Canada takes people to the RCMP, and they are either put into a motel room or locked up for the night.
The bill will establish procedures for inquiries, establish the procedure for re-determination of convention refugee status, and prescribe the duties of the special advisory board. These boards will be told what powers they will have. As I see it, the Immigration Appeal Board no longer has the right to hear an appeal unless the person appealing has already obtained or has at the time permanent status to remain in Canada.
(Mr. Woolliams.]
The bill would authorize the making of loans to immigrants. They cannot go to a bank, even if they have security, because an order in council will tell them from whom they can borrow money, how much they can borrow, and at what interest rate they can borrow. And we advertise that Canada is the freest country in the world! That is quite a panic; it is hypocrisy of the worst kind. The bill would require licensing by a provincial bar before any person, except a member of the bar, can appeal before the board as counsel. If they do not like the Alberta bar, an order in council can be passed saying that counsel has to come from some other bar. I am talking about bars to which lawyers belong, not the ones they visit. The bill would authorize issuance of visas to representatives of foreign governments and international organizations, and prescribe almost any matter. I have read what it can do. I picked out the highlights.
Then there is a catch-all clause. It is a basket clause whereby public servants can pass orders in council prescribing any matter required by the legislation. Last year 3,326 orders in council were passed of which only 653 were published in the Canada Gazette. Most people do not read the Canada Gazette; however, 2,673 were not published.
I conducted the defence of Mrs. Inoue when she went before an inquiry officer. She was supposed to know the law of Canada. Even though she was a student she could not determine the law of Canada if there were some 2,600 laws which were never published or made known. If ever there was a bill which should be taken back and put on the tracing board, or at least taken into a committee, this is it. I am glad to see the hon. member for Peace River here because we are talking about government secrecy and confidential information. I never thought the situation was as bad as it is with regard to orders in council. You would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to prepare appeals and to know how to present a case to the Immigration Appeal Board.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have a government of pack-rats; they hide everything.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think that would make a great headline for what I have said. In light of what the bill says, in light of what I have outlined, and in spite of the fact that the Immigration Appeal Board Act and the Immigration Act produced regulations which contradicted the substantive law of the two acts, we are now asked to give the government the full power to create its own immigration policy and to do what it wishes with people seeking admittance to Canada.
The committee should do the same thing as the committee dealing with the gun control bill did. Representing my party and as chairman of its justice caucus I demanded that Bill C-83 not move past the committee stage unless the regulations which were to be passed thereunder were laid before the House so that we could debate them the same as we could debate the clauses of the bill. That is what should be done now. This bill should be held up and stalled until the government comes forward with its package of regulations. And the way I see it, without any exaggeration, we may need a wheelbarrow to wheel in all the regulations which could be passed under this
March 21, 1977

legislation and which will likely be passed. The government changes the law from Wednesday to Thursday, and from Thursday to Friday, and Canadians do not even know it happens. It will happen while aliens are here with permanent status, and it will happen before they get here. If that is the way this parliament is going to operate, it seems to me we have reached a sorry day and a sorry state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a few comments in the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the proposed immigration act of 1977.
I want to say at the beginning that the first over-all impression I get from this legislation is that the manpower requirements for the evolving Canadian community are now to become secondary to the principle of family reunion.
I would like to draw attention to page 19, Volume 1, of the green paper on immigration which says that in 1966 the white paper on immigration set out more thoroughly than ever before the government's appreciation of the economic determinants of immigration policy. The white paper emphasized, and I quote:
Immigration policy must be consistent with national economic policy in general and with national manpower and social policies in particular ... It must be related to the conditions of national and international life in 1966 and the years ahead rather than to past events.
Although this was written 11 years ago, according to the green paper, it capsulizes several ideas basic to sound thinking about immigration policy, and serves as a good introduction to an examination of the impact of labour market considerations on immigration planning.
The green paper states:
First, the statement is a reminder that immigration is intimately linked to economic realities. Immigration policy must be shaped by the same general aims as national economic policy of which, from the manpower viewpoint, it is a constitutent element.
Second, it stresses that policy on immigration must be forward-looking. The international and domestic setting is subject to such rapid change that the relevance of past assumptions and the effectiveness of yesterday's techniques are continually exposed to obsolescence. Both demand constant reassessment to prevent policy from becoming outmoded, and to ensure that the immigration process as a whole remains a national asset. There is no room for entrenched doctrine or rigidity in managing a program that must be geared to economic and social change.
I agree with the principle that Canada needs immigration, and I subscribe to and support the reasons given in the second reading debate by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I also agree that a consideration of manpower requirements in our immigration policies is fundamental to the quality of life and the survival of the welfare system that makes Canada so attractive to so many people from other countries of the world. I therefore have to express my surprise that Bill C-24 seems to move away from this fundamental fact of life, contrary to statements in the 1966 white paper and more recently to the conclusions and recommendations of the special committee of this parliament which placed emphasis on a points system geared to our work and demographic needs and problems.
Immigration
Today in Canada we have some one million without work, and I note that the special committee of parliament, which held 50 public meetings, heard some 400 witnesses, received 1,200 letters and read some 200 briefs, recommended that the limit for immigration annually should be around the 100,000 level. I am therefore puzzled at the minister's continuous insistence on the figure of 140,000 to 150,000 immigrants annually. I remind hon. members that this figure does not include refugees who, by the way, have accounted for one immigrant in ten since World War II. I drew that figure from the green paper. I also remind hon. members that, with the trend toward increasing instability of governments throughout the world, this figure will increase drastically in the years to come. I agree with the rationale for the 100,000 average as recommended by my colleagues on the committee, and urge the minister to lower his plateau of 140,000 to 150,000.
If one can assume the accuracy of statistics contained in the green paper on immigration and population, then I refer the minister to page 26 which shows that at a fertility rate of 2.2, and with an annual net international migration of 60,000, the population of Canada in the year 2001 will be 30.6 million. I also urge the committee of the House to hear the call of my colleague from Provencher, and insist that the quota for immigration be brought to the House each year for approval and discussion by the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration.
Although our joint committee of parliament favoured special treatment be given to families and refugees, it also recommended that the nominated category be dropped. It is on this point that we now find the minister and his advisers playing political games, to their everlasting shame.
As I understand it, the parliamentary committee recommended that the nominated category be dropped and that the family category, formerly the sponsored category, be expanded to include parents under 60. This recommendation reaffirmed the principle of "reunification of families", with which we all agree. However, the committee also recognized the need to protect the independent category which brought in the skills and attributes important to the economy of Canada. Paragraph 56 of the immigration committee's report to parliament lays out this concern in very clear and precise terms. I quote from it:
The committee is concerned that over time the present classes of sponsored and nominated immigrants, given substantial advantages because they have relatives in Canada, would absorb an increasingly larger share of places available each year in Canada. To ensure that this does not happen and that "new seed" immigrants continue to find a way to enter Canada, all committee members except one recommended that the present class of nominated immigrant be dropped and that the ties between members of the non-dependent extended family be recognized in a different way.
Then it went on in that paragraph and the last sentence said:
Of course such persons could still come to Canada but they would have to be assessed on a more equal basis with independents.

March 21, 1977
Immigration
This parliament, to its credit, has gone to a lot of trouble to obtain the views of the Canadian people toward a new immigration policy and act.
When a recommendation by the parliamentary committee on a matter as important to the manpower requirements and future economy of Canada can be overruled by a minority of one, and when the minister and his advisers allow this minority view to show up in Bill C-24, then one surely can be allowed the conclusion that the democratic parliamentary system in Canada is not only degraded but its very survival as a meaningful arm of government is threatened. I urge the minister and the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to give urgent priority to this point in their deliberations.
At this time may I ask why the bill mentions nothing about the sickening abuse of our concepts of family life through marriages of convenience for the purposes of circumventing the immigration laws. By allowing sponsorships based on non bona fide marriages we are, as a result, allowing prostitutes and the financially destitute to select immigrants for Canada's future. Mr. Speaker, on this point I am aware of a document outlining 102 cases of what appear to be marriages of convenience in the city of Toronto. In 70 out of 102 cases the sponsors were women of questionable reputations in that many had been convicted of prostitution or other charges and/or were considered mentally sick or retarded. In many cases large fees were paid. The married couples spoke different languages, and there are examples of 40 to 50 year age gaps. There are examples where the couples are divorced as soon as the sponsored person gains landed status. In most cases that were investigated, the couple never lived together.
In the Saturday, March 19, edition of the Ottawa Citizen I note that the 102 cases that I have been aware of have now expanded to some 250 such investigated cases in Canada, where bigamy has also been alleged. A Crown attorney, Dave Gorrell, told the court that so-called marriage brokers recruit Canadian women and pay them $1,000 to $1,500 to marry illegal immigrants to gain them permanent admission to Canada. The husband and wife in these situations do not live together. They do not intend to do so. They have no idea of each other's lifestyle, and usually the marriage is not consummated. He points out that there were more than 250 such marriages in Canada since January 1, 1976.
In these cases I know of, there was one where the registrar of marriages in the city of Toronto overheard the argument of a couple as to how much was to be paid. The woman was age 36. She was Jamaican and English speaking. She did not speak Hindi. The man was age 18. He was Indian and spoke Hindi, and could hardly speak English. Many are admitted illegally because the act does not provide for the discretion of immigration officers to deny entry in such cases.
I have another case that illustrates the problems that the immigration officials are facing. I will call them S and M. S was landed and married M. M received immigrant status on January 14, 1976. M was sponsored. M got a divorce on March 31, 1976, 2'/2 months later. M's lawyer handled the

landing, handled the divorce, and S's sponsorship. All this happened in less than a year.
In committee consideration of Bill C-24 I urge that the following points be given serious consideration with regard to marriages of convenience:
First, that the minister allow immigration officers to refuse to approve sponsorships of questionable bona fides.
Second, where a bona fide marriage is doubtful, that the person be placed on a minister's permit for five years. In five years the department could again check if it is bona fide and, if it is, landing can be granted at that time. In the United States and in New Zealand sponsored people must wait a considerable length of time before they are granted landed status.
Third, that sponsorships be refused if either party is of poor character, i.e. has a criminal record, is a public charge, or made previous sponsorships where the marriage was not considered bona fide.
My fourth point is that an index of maiden names of wives who sponsor should be kept at every Canadian immigration centre and at immigration headquarters. At the present time women can make an infinite number of sponsorships using a legal name each time, because every time a woman marries she has a different legal name.
My fifth and last recommendation is that if a confession is made that it is a marriage of convenience, immigration officials should be allowed to proceed with enforcement action immediately. Under the present system, immigration headquarters approval must be obtained for withdrawal of sponsorship, which takes approximately eight weeks. Where a confession has been obtained and they have waited for immigration headquarter's approval to proceed, in almost 100 per cent of the cases the applicants have disappeared before approval has been received. What a spinning of wheels this exercise is!
I would now like to offer some comments on the refugee aspects of Bill C-24. As I mentioned before, one out of ten immigrants enters as a refugee, and the numbers are increasing. In the 20 years between 1947 and 1967 there were 45,267, which averages out at about 2,260 per year. In the five years between 1968 and 1973 there were 16,327 refugees, plus 7,000 Ugandans, or a total of 23,327 which averages out at 4,665 per year.
The point is that due to government instabilities in today's world, it is reasonable to expect that these figures are going to accelerate. The terms of the U.N. Convention on Refugees are such that it is almost impossible to prove that those entering under this category are in fact refugees. This leaves our immigration procedures open to abuse. Under the new act they can apply for refugee status from within Canada, and it has come to my attention that many people are now applying for refugee status after having their visitors' visas renewed several times.
March 21, 1977

If one reads the United Nations convention, page 103 of the green paper entitled "The Immigration Problem", one can see that it would be all but impossible to control the refugee status or category other than on an offshore basis.
I am told that traditionally we have processed refugees abroad. They were examined outside of Canada and this assured Canadians that basic criteria for entry were met and that the applicants had a chance of fitting into the Canadian mold.
Due to the very complicated and extensive appeal system contained in the new act for refugees, and the fact that they can apply from within Canada for refugee status and can only be deported if they have committed an extremely serious crime, we are losing our selection control, and risk a complete jamming of our appeal system. As I look at the critical path of the appeal chart, this could become constipated in a period of months.
I support the refugee status and intent of the act, but seriously question the mechanics that are being set up under Bill C-24. I would urge the minister and the committee to examine the hazards and re-examine the possibility of returning to offshore processing in order that we may retain a degree of selection control. Why has the minister ignored the two-year recommendation of the committee of parliament and opted for six months' service in areas in Canada that are labour short? How can a person get established or be meaningful in six months? I can remember when I was in the farming community and involved on the farms. We had people who were grateful to come to this country and remain on the farm or in the area of need for up to three years. These people today are the landowners and farmers of this country. What is this six months' business? It serves nothing. It is just one more of the minister's games.
On this point I would remind my colleagues again that if we keep the nominated category over and above the new expanded family category, there won't be enough room in our immigration quota to serve the work needs of Canada with immigrants from the independent category to whom this demographic work demand applies.
I also note that the act makes provision for entry-exist card controls, which I think are a great step forward, and, which make me wonder where we have been all these years. However, I have been informed that there is no rush within the department to implement this, and I suggest the committee examine this point.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister on removal of restrictions on epileptics and retarded people. This is a very much needed and humanitarian situation. Both the minister and I have seen examples of the great relief his compassion in this area has given families.
I have dwelled on what I have considered to be serious shortcomings within Bill C-24. I urge both the minister and the committee of the House to give these points very serious consideration.
Immigration
There is a balloon in the Canadian labour force that will pass through their productive work period and who will consider themselves entitled to the welfare and retirement benefits that they have paid for and supported for others. This expanded call on our tax resources will have to be carried by the productive work force of the future. Unless we enhance the skills of tomorrow's work force by protecting the independent category, we will have a welfare burden that will crush tomorrow's taxpayer.
We must have a balance in favour of productive work in our immigration policies and laws. We should do everything possible to clean up our act so that people will have respect for, not play games with, the laws of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been presented to this House since I became a member of parliament, and that says a lot for a Chamber filled with crises from unemployment, inflation, separation, and scandal. In all of these other areas we are dealing with matters that can be changed later. In all but immigration we have a second chance.
In immigration there will be no turning back. What we do today will, for better or for worse, determine what we will become in the future. It will determine the kind of Canada we will pass on to our children, and the standards and the culture under which they and their children will live.
If there was ever a time for statesmanship, this is it. The members of this House must put aside their narrow personal interests, stifle their natural political instincts, and place the nation first. If we fail to do this we will have misplaced the trust that the people have given us. We will have become the self-seeking politicians we are sometimes labelled.
How many times have we heard the backroom boys tell us to go easy on immigration or we may lose those precious ethnic seats in Toronto or in other areas? I have always thought that such advice was spurious and false, but even if not, it is better to lose such seats than to compromise the nation and its future.
Members on all sides of this House should put aside party politics, personal interests, and other narrow, partisan considerations. Let us make sure that what we do here with this bill in the weeks ahead represents our best effort. In the years to come, let it be said of this parliament that they were honest men and that they did their best. After all, legislation like this does not arise very often. The last amendments were made in 1952. This time we must be very careful about getting on the right track. The last time we got off the track and this caused serious problems to the country, something we have been aware of for the past five or six years at least.
First, let me say a word about the way this bill has been written and presented. I do not want to belabour points that have already been made, but the real meaning behind many of the clauses is obscure, and unless we gain access to the regulations we really won't know what we are being asked to

March 21, 1977
Immigration
approve. Different words mean different things to different people, and parliament cannot, and should not, be expected to make laws without knowing precisely what those laws mean.
I feel a little like the fellow who goes in to buy a car and is shown the paint job and the interior trim, but is not permitted to look at the engine or take the vehicle for a test run before making a decision on whether to sign on the dotted line. I would not want to buy a car in that way. 1 am sure I would not want to buy a used car from the minister. I am not sure I would even buy a new car under conditions like that. Not one of us would accept such an absurd situation, and yet this is what the government is asking us to do. The minister should tell us why he is taking this approach.
We are the representatives of the people. We have been charged with the responsibility for deciding how Canada's affairs will be managed. Why have we not been given the facts? Is it because the minister and his departmental officials do not know? This may sound absurd, but I wonder.
Several weeks ago, in preparation for this debate and the meetings that will follow, I asked the government to give me some routine information on the organization and management of the immigration branch. There was nothing unusual about it. I just wanted to know how the immigration branch was organized, who the people are, what they are supposed to do, and how the work flows through the department. These were questions that should have been answered in a few days. It was information that had to be available or the department could not function or prepare its financial estimates. A few days later I got a telephone call from an agitated departmental officer who told me it would be impossible to provide this information. When I insisted, I got nowhere. Then another person 'phoned and said that they would try, but it would be difficult. Of course I have not received any of the information I need.
It is difficult to feel much confidence in the department if their officials cannot even tell us how they are organized or how they operate. It doesn't exactly give me confidence that they will be capable of administering the vague legislation now being proposed.
There is only one area in which the minister gives us a slight glimmer of his intention. The underlying assumption in the proposed legislation seems to be that the country and parliament should accept, without question, the principle that our immigration program should be non-discriminatory, and racially and culturally colour blind. Let's cut away this politically oriented nonsense.
About 25 per cent of our people are of French-speaking origin, and their spokesmen have consistently maintained that their share of the immigration flow be designed to sustain and enrich French-Canadian culture. This has even been emphasized in the proposed legislation. When these spokesmen give lip service to the pious platitudes contained in this bill, they are thinking of the rest of Canada, not Quebec. And let us not be fooled by the notion that this suddenly occurred after the

election of the Parti Quebecois. This has been going on for years, and it has been supported from external sources with questionable motives.
And what about the rest of Canada? Do hon. members really think we can accept the introduction of large numbers of culturally different people without changing our whole way of life? Of course not, and I doubt very much if such a view would be supported by the average Canadian from any ethnic background if he really knew what was going on.
Let us take a look a little further down the road and see where all of this may lead. Obviously the government will continue to cater to Quebec, so we will end up with a doubleheaded immigration policy. One head will be racist and narrow. That head will be for Quebec. The other will be middle-headed and damaging. It will be for the rest of Canada. Quebec will end up united and strong. The rest of the country will become divided and weak. It is not a pretty picture.
Our immigration policy must be based on our ability to absord needed workers at rates consistent with productivity requirements, and without endangering or changing our cultural balance.
Let us use some common sense for a change before we become balkanized and lost. My parents came to this country because it provided us with a wonderful heritage of freedom and opportunity. I will not stand idly by and see this great society destroyed by short-range political greed and ambition.
Some time ago the government decided it would no longer record national or racial origin in its immigration statistics. Prior to this decision we were told how many people were entering Canada from various countries, but we were also told where they originally came from. For example, 5,000 immigrants might arrive from, say, Sweden. But this group might contain Englishmen, Italians and Ugandans, so this was broken down again to give us a clear picture of where our immigrants were originating. Suddenly this system was changed, and now we only know about the last country in which our immigrants were living before they set out for Canada.
What was the purpose of this change? The minister may say it was done because we do not discriminate, and because details about countries of origin or racial background are discriminatory. Surely this is the height of nonsense. Is anyone ashamed of his origins? Is a Scotsman ashamed of being a Scotsman? Is a German ashamed of being a German? Are Chinese, Phillippinos or Greeks ashamed of their national origins? Of course not.
These statistics were changed so that established Canadians would not really be aware of where immigrants were originating, and this was deceptive and unwarranted. When we are told the majority of immigrants originate in this or that country, the information is meaningless. How many of the last
50,000	immigrants who came here from the United Kingdom were English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish? And how many were West Indians, Pakistanis, or East Indians? We have a right to
March 21, 1977

know, and no democratic government should withhold such information.
Now I wish to turn to the ugly questions which surround appeals, deportations, and illegal immigrants. I am seeking the minister's advice and assistance. I have trouble understanding the functions of the Immigration Appeal Board. I am told that it reviews appeals against deportation orders issued by the department. But what is the extent of its authority? It has been said it may not only quash deportations, but that it can also instruct the minister to give the appellant permanent residence in Canada without further immigration or medical examinations. If this is true, and I want the minister to put his cards face up, then the Appeal Board has taken over a function which belongs to the government and parliament. To have a quasi-judicial board review these cases is one thing, but to have it make management decisions outside of the law is quite improper.
The minister should tell us whether he, or any member of his staff on his behalf, has ever instructed his officials to accept these appeal board directives without question. He should also explain what happens in cases where it is later discovered that the immigrants in question have communicable diseases that would otherwise have barred them from entry. When we, as members of parliament, decide that people with highly infectious and dangerous diseases should not be permitted to enter the country, no Immigration Appeal Board should have the authority to overrule us.
If what I suspect is true, then this appeal board system is really designed to assume political responsibility and shift the onus for decision-making in awkward cases away from the minister and the government. It is a neat trick, but it is hardly consistent with the national interest.
The minister should provide the House with a list of all cases handled in the last five years where the Immigration Appeal Board has quashed deportations and instructed the department to grant permanent residence without further examination. The list should include the names, backgrounds, criminal records, dates, names of authorizing officers, and details of representations that may have been made on behalf of these undesirables.
It would also be helpful for the minister to provide us with the names and locations of the Immigration Appeal Board members. I hear that some are former secretaries to ministers, some are the widows of deceased Liberal politicians, and some are simply out-of-work politicians. To avoid any misunderstanding it would be useful for the qualifications and backgrounds to include details of any judicial experience these people may have had before being appointed to the appeal board.
The hon. member for Dauphin, (Mr. Ritchie) has asked some important questions about illegal immigrants. I endorse what he has said and urge the minister to answer his questions promptly. But there is another aspect of this terrible situation which requires explanation. There have been persistent stories
Immigration
about the possibility of immigration officials being directly or indirectly involved in illegal immigration activities. I suppose this is not very surprising as many of the illegal entrants are connected with criminal syndicates and other forms of crime. But it is of paramount importance that the immigration officers who handle these cases be clearly above suspicion. Will the minister tell this House if there have been any cases of this type in the department during the last five years? If so, what has been done about them?
I am not suggesting that the officers who may have been involved be named, because I am sure that we would all wish to protect innocent members of their families. Nor am I calling for some kind of a witch hunt, so let me give the minister a few leads that might help him to seek the answers to my questions.
We have heard about illegal immigrants being apprehended by the police as they attempted to jump bail while they were awaiting trial for criminal activities, and in connection with these cases there were indications that the actions of the bail jumpers had been known to immigration officials and had not been reported to the proper authorities. We have also heard about cases where immigration officials may have been blackmailed. There were others where police documents may have been found in the improper possession of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation proceedings, and it has been suggested that these documents were given to them by departmental officers. There have even been rumours that some illegal immigrants, while incarcerated in Canadian jails, have received official correspondence from immigration officials that may encourage them to think they will obtain permanent residence in Canada after they have served their sentences. I will not go on, to avoid becoming repetitious, but this does give the minister a sample of my concerns and I hope I receive prompt and satisfactory explanations.
There is one other thing that concerns me deeply. I have heard that the minister has deferred deportations for a number of people with criminal backgrounds and later it was decided that he could not reverse these deferments after it had become obvious that the deportations should be carried out. Perhaps in this case I should give a more specific example. Was Paolo Violi or any member of his family-and I mean his real family, not his criminal associates-ever given ministerial permission to remain in Canada, and later provided with permanent residence in spite of his criminal record? And in this connection, was there ever a time when a deputy minister of immigration was issued a permit to carry a revolver for self-defence after being threatened by any member of the Violi family?
The purpose of these questions is to determine how the present act has been administered so that we can have a better appreciation of the advantages and disadvantages of Bill C-24. We must be able to judge whether it will be wise for parliament to give this government a blank cheque to continue in the same pattern.
I am very uneasy about the entire immigration situation, and although I have dealt with only one or two aspects of the

March 21, 1977
Immigration
problem, I share our spokesman's concerns and the concerns that have been expressed by other members of our party. I urge all members to withhold their support for this bill until all the facts are available and the minister has been more forthcoming about what he really intends to do by letting us see the regulations that will be issued under the authority of this bill.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject currently under discussion I appreciate the opportunity of making a few comments on the question of immigration. Since there is some disposition, I believe, to conclude this part of the debate this evening, I shall try to govern myself accordingly so that second reading stage is concluded.
Canada has never had what one could term a long-range or far-sighted immigration policy. Rather, our immigration policy could quite correctly be called a short-term reactionary policy moulded by relatively short-term interests and pressure. The government traditionally has responded to these social and economic pressures by changing the regulations governing entry and residency in Canada.
In this debate we have heard the word "haphazard" used to describe the government's approach to immigration policy. We have also heard the term "government by regulation" to describe this approach. This is particularly disturbing because we had been expecting a piece of legislation on immigration that would deal with statute law rather than simply regulations. As I have pointed out, our history in immigration within the last few decades has been that of immigration by regulation, and now we find when we examine this bill that, when you strip away the rhetoric and facade, we really have a continuation of that arbitrary system where everything of import is decided by bureaucratic decision.
My understanding of the report of the joint committee on immigration that held meetings all over Canada was that there ought to be a better balance between statute law and regulation. From reading the speeches so far in this debate I gather that a number of other hon. members interpreted the committee's report in the same way. What are we presented with, however? We are presented with a piece of legislation that has no effective balance between principles enshrined in law and regulations. In this sense it is no better than the 1952 act.
In fact, as far as delegation of ministerial authority to the bureaucrats is concerned, this bill is even worse than the present act. The minister may, under this proposed new act, delegate authority to "such persons employed in the Public Service of Canada as he deems proper". My hon. colleague from Hamilton West called this "a complete abdication of powers to persons unknown". I agree with that analysis and I would submit that it is dangerous for any matter of such importance to be so lightly dealt with as to provide for its administration and implementation in such anonymous, abstract, and unclear terms.
The regulations must be made available for debate and, as other speakers from my party have stated, we will continue to push for this information until the government comes clean. As

well, I think it important for the minister to be absolutely clear about who will be delegated authority, as the bill says, "to exercise or perform any of the powers, duties and functions that may or are required to be performed by him". What is this line of authority? Who are these persons employed in the Public Service of Canada that clause 123 talks about? Surely the people of Canada have a right to know this line of authority.
To the extent that this legislation has incorporated most of the recommendations of the special joint committee on immigration policy, the government is to be congratulated. To the extent to which it has changed those recommendations and corrupted them, however, it is not to be congratulated. The government has a facility for taking good ideas, twisting them around and implementing them so that the least amount of good can come from them. I am afraid that is the case with the recommendations from the special joint committee.
It is a positive step to lay down in relatively clear terms in statute law, first, what the objectives of Canadian immigration law should be. Presently there is no such enunciation of intention, and possibly the instability of our immigration policy, or non-policy, is a result of that fact. If we do not really know what we want to achieve by immigration it is almost impossible to develop a coherent, useful immigration policy. I believe that the fundamental objectives of our immigration policy should be formulated in terms of what could be called enlightened self-interest. We should proceed from the premise that immigration is a privilege, not a right. It cannot be otherwise. This is not to imply that immigrants ought to be second-class citizens, or that they are somehow not as good from now on as were previous immigrants. On the contrary, we ought to make it clear to those emigrating to our country that they are privileged persons.
In the past, and there are some who would argue this way now, immigration to Canada has sometimes been looked on as a right, especially if that immigration had political overtones to it. Refugees, for example, are a special class of immigrants, and so they should be. However, I have received letters, as have most hon. members I am sure, from people lobbying for the admission of certain individuals to Canada from the standpoint that we "ought" to admit them.
Let us be clear on this point: Canada is not "obliged" to admit anyone other than Canadian citizens and established residents. Every one else who is in this country is here by privilege, or is here illegally. And at this point let me reiterate what was said last week by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), that an amnesty program to make legal that which is illegal will not receive support from this side of the House.
In 1972 when the amnesty program was announced, we supported it because of the uncertainty caused by the change in regulations implemented by the government. We felt that there ought to be a time lag whereby people who were living in the country illegally could make their residency legal. There is
March 21, 1977

now no excuse for people who are in Canada illegally. Our regulations governing this have been in effect for some years now, and I submit anyone living here as an illegal resident is doing so deliberately and knowingly in contravention of our laws.
We are happy and, as I said, consider it a positive step to have enunciated in statute the fundamental objectives of Canadian immigration law. These objectives are family reunification, non-discrimination, concern for refugees, and the promotion of Canada's economic, social, demographic, and cultural goals. I think these are consistent with a position of enlightened self-interest and we commend the government for laying down our national objectives in such terms.
I feel that family reunification must continue to be a priority in our national objectives, and we should take every opportunity through diplomatic channels to achieve this end. I think every member of this House would applaud the minister's efforts to reassure those Canadians with relatives living in eastern Europe that, to use his words, "We shall continue our efforts to reunite their families and will apply our rules and procedures with compassion and flexibility." The family is the basic unit of our social system, and the condition of the family in our society is reflected in the condition of society in general. It is a natural, reasonable, and predictable response for people who come to Canada to want to bring their family here at some future date. Because we believe in the importance of the family, we must encourage and promote the reunification of our immigrant families.
A concern that is foremost in the minds of all Canadians, and I am sure is a concern of all members of this House, is that our immigration policy be non-discriminatory. A further concern should be that it be perceived as or believed to be non-discriminatory. The plain facts are that no immigration policy can be completely free from all discrimination, that everyone in the world, for example, has equal opportunity for making application to come to Canada. This was pointed out quite aptly by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), in his speech on Tuesday, March 15, '1977.
As well we know that extra points have been given for educational level, special training, expertise in certain areas, personal assets, and so on. In a sense we are discriminating against individuals who do not have these certain characteristics. However, we do not call this process of selectivity discrimination, and the important thing we try to keep in mind and adhere to is that within the guidelines of educational status, special training and so on we do not favour one race more than another, or one language group more than another.
While it remains to be seen how the minister will interpret and administer the act and regulations, I feel most Canadians would be encouraged to see the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in statute law. I think that, on the whole, most Canadians would agree that in the past our policy in this area of non-discrimination has been fair and that those seeking to come to our country have been accorded reasonable and
Immigration
equitable treatment. I hope it will remain that way in the future.
I do not want to take too much time to discuss refugees, because other members from this side have covered the topic quite well. I want to say, however, that since Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees, it is about time our nation did something to formalize our commitment in this direction. Canadian statute law has never confirmed this principle in any way relating to immigration policy. The government may consider claims for refugee status on the basis of fear of persecution due to race, religion, ethnic origin, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion. This is as it should be, and the government ought to have a certain amount of flexibility in handling refugee situations as they arise.
In recent times, and here I think of the emigration to various parts of the world of refugees from Vietnam and Chile, there has been some controversy over what a refugee actually is; and, further, what role political affiliation ought to have when consideration is being given to asylum in Canada. My understanding is, as well, that provision is being made by this legislation for the establishment by regulation of special selection standards for refugees, to modify the criteria applicable to normal immigrants so that special assistance can be made available within Canada to assist in the refugees' successful establishment.
I now come to the discussion of the area that is of direct enlightened self-interest to Canada, the promotion of Canada's economic, social, demographic, and cultural goals. The other areas I have spoken of are in Canada's interest, but really in an indirect way. The demographic goals and the lack of government direction in reaching those goals were well dealt with by my colleague from Provencher when he spoke for the Official Opposition the day this bill was introduced.
I think that the provision to steer immigrants away from our already crowded urban areas like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Ottawa is a positive one. My feeling is, as I stated earlier, that immigration is a privilege and that it should not be unreasonable to expect people coming to Canada to help us achieve our economic and demographic goals. The bill provides for a period of service where the immigrant's abilities could be used for six months. I think the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) said that it should be longer. I agree. It could be extended. Some choice could be provided within particular types of categories. In other words if, for example, dentists are needed for rural areas of Canada, give the immigrant dentist a choice of rural Manitoba, rural British Columbia, or rural Quebec. I suggest that the government should provide incentives for immigrants to settle in certain areas. Canada is certainly large enough and diversified enough to allow some choice of location under this particular requirement for residency for six months in a specified area.
Another part of our social, economic, demographic and cultural goals involves the participation of the provinces. I believe in the principle enunciated in this legislation that consultation with the provinces will take place. I hope this

March 21, 1977
Immigration
means meaningful consultation, not the type of consultation this government is used to carrying on. All too often, for this administration, consultation means announcing or informing the other party of a decision after it had been made unilaterally by the federal government. I hope this will not be the case under this legislation.
As I said, I think the provinces should have a major role in decisions involving immigration, especially in the decisionmaking involved in matching incoming personnel with manpower or demographic needs. There has been a real need in the past for some rationalization of our immigration with respect to manpower and employment needs. I hope the government will make full use of the provincial resources available to determine areas or communities requiring available immigrant skills.
In conclusion I want to say a few words about unemployment. There are presently some one million people without work in Canada. That is a national tragedy. We are projecting an immigration flow of about 125,000 people for next year. The minister thinks the figure will be between 140,000 and 150,000, but I think that is too high in view of our present unemployment.
I know that immigrants bring capital to the country, I know they set up businesses; I know they have made a tremendous contribution to the development of the Canadian way of life. But I believe we must understand the fact that there are many Canadians who are unable to obtain employment, and I believe that careful consideration should be given to the level of immigration so that it does not contribute toward increasing the rate of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Alexander Bell Patterson: It does not make sense to permit immigrants to come to our country when there are a million people who cannot find jobs. We let them in and then say, "Sorry, boys, we do not have anything for you to do. You will have to sit on the shelf. There is nothing open for you, and therefore you will have to go on welfare". I do not think that is helping the immigrants, and it is certainly not helping Canada.


Mr. Gilbert:: This must be Tory policy.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It is Tory policy; it is sensible; it is sane. I reiterate that we would not be doing the immigrants a kindness by bringing them in if we are not able to provide them with work and to allow them to make a contribution when they come here.
I see that time is moving quickly to the zero hour. I thank all hon. members. I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, having heard the representations from all hon. members, for which I am most grateful, let me say that I think we can deal with them more adequately and in some detail in committee. There is not too much that I should say at this time. Let us get the bill into committee where we can deal with it in some detail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Pursuant to the order made Thursday, March 17, 1977, a recorded division stands deferred on this question until Wednesday, March 23, 1977, upon calling of orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it was originally understood that the motion on the report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments would be called upon the conclusion of this part of our proceedings. We have had an all-star cast around all day. I think they could be persuaded to come back another day, as I am sure nobody would want me to take to the ice for about two minutes before ten o'clock is called. I wonder, therefore, if we could retain our place under motions rather than being shifted to government orders so that House leaders could pick another time for our deliberations to enable us to deal with this very important report.


Ralph Goodale: That is a very good suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the House leaders will want to get together shortly to select an appropriate time when this important debate can be commenced and given the scope it deserves.


Walter David Baker: If I may explain, so that all hon. members, as well as the hon. member who has spoken, are made aware of what has occurred, there have been preliminary discussions with respect to finding an appropriate time. It has been our understanding-and I hope it is the understanding of the House-that the matter, if it is not proceeded with today,
March 21, 1977

will not lose its place, as suggested by the hon. member in whose name the motion stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is our understanding, also.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the opinion of the Chair, the matter not having been brought up for debate, it retains its present place. To make sure this is clear, let us make it an agreement of the House that it is understood that the House leaders will get together to find the appropriate time for this matter to be debated. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 16, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) I directed some questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) relating to the CMHC budget which had been tabled the day before.
I indicated that the CMHC budget showed a massive swing away from funding for rental housing for low and moderate income people. In view of the high number of unemployed construction workers and the low apartment vacancy rates in large cities across Canada, I asked the Minister of Finance whether the government would reverse this incredibly regressive and unfair policy, and increase financial housing support for low income Canadians, because this matter affects Canadians with an income of less than $10,000 who are forced to rent apartments.
The Minister of Finance, in his usual glib way, stated that there had been a record number of houses built last year, particularly low income houses, and he cited AHOP as being the salvation for all low income people.
What is the record of the government with regard to housing for low income people? What is the housing policy for Canadians? Most houses are well beyond the financial capacity of most Canadians. For example, a three bedroom house in Toronto last year cost $76,000. With a down payment of $6,000 it would leave a mortgage of $70,000. At an interest rate of 11 per cent, a person would have to pay $673.78 for principal and interest on a 25 year basis, and the total amount would be $202,134, which indicates that on principal of $70,000 a person has to pay $132,134 in interest. This indi-
Adjournment Debate
cates the record of the government with regard to building affordable houses across the country.
What is the CMHC record on low income or social housing? The CMHC budget for 1976 indicated that 16 per cent of its capital or money was for social housing. That 16 per cent amounted to only 2 per cent of all the new housing starts across the country. Mr. Speaker, only 2 per cent of more than
250,000	homes were built for low income people. That gives an indication of the minister's save-all policy for AHOP.
What has the Canadian Council of Social development said with regard to the attitude of CMHC towards those people who are trying to develop social housing, third sector housing? There has been an indication that it has been indifferent and difficult. It has built up all the necessary walls to prevent social housing from moving forward in Canada. In fact, there has been a far different approach to people who are interested in social housing compared with those who develop homes by way of private enterprise.
What is the result of all this? The result is that there is a crisis across the country as a consequence of CMHC budget cutbacks for rental housing. There is going to be a crisis of available apartments, and there is going to be a crisis of increasing rents across the country.
The House should not take my word for it; it should take the word of the experts as recorded in the Toronto Star no later than March 12 of this year, and I quote:
As far as rental apartment construction goes, senior citizens and low-cost public housing is the only game in town.
The number of private condominium and rental apartment units built in Metro last year dropped to 5,508 from 10,650 in 1975, according to a recent study by A. E. LePage Ltd., one of Canada's largest realty firms.
The following is the important line:
Even fewer apartments are expected to be built in 1977.
Is it any wonder that we talk about a rental crisis developing right across the country? Here we have CMHC in its capital budget cutting back on rental housing. This indicates to me that the new minister is in the clutches of developers, builders, speculators, and financial institutions, and that he has spent little or no time on the housing needs of most Canadians, otherwise he would not cut back on the CMHC budget for rental housing. More money is needed for rental housing, not less. More money is needed for non-profit and co-operative housing.
Instead of the slight increases which were set forward in the CMHC budget, which did not even cover the inflation we experienced in the last year, it seems to me that the minister should spend more time on housing needs. If he spent more time on housing than he does preparing lists of separatists in Radio Canada, he would direct money to rental housing to meet the needs, we would overcome the apartment shortage which prevails across the country, and we would allay the fears of most Canadians about rent increases. It is for this reason that I bring this question to the attention of the House this evening.

March 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of State for Urban Affair (Mr. Ouellet) I will attempt to answer the hon. gentleman.
The hon. member is correct in his assessment of some reduction in certain of the housing program allocations in CMHC's 1977 capital budget. It should be noted, however, that in the public housing area, where the amount of money allocated for 1977 shows the greatest reduction, the number of additional households assisted during 1977 will not be reduced but will be slightly increased. This is to be done through a couple of mechanisms that have been added to this program, and which do not entail capital costs. These mechanisms were devised because of the negative reaction given by the provinces to this type of housing assistance.
In the other programs specifically mentioned by the hon. member, the co-operative and non-profit housing programs, he should know that although the allocations have not been increased for 1977 there have been, however, substantial increases since the inception of these programs in 1973, and a number of low income Canadians have already been assisted under these arrangements. I would like to add that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation 1977 budget, as designed by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, reflects a re-ordering of priorities in the light of the large proportion of housing built in 1976, as mentioned by the Minister of Finance last week, a large portion of which was moderate or medium cost housing. It also takes into account the desire on the part of the government to limit the increase in government expenditures in 1977-78.
I would also like to point out that in trying to assist the very low income people the government has substantially increased the number of households to be assisted through the residential rehabilitation program. It is estimated that some 22,000 units are likely to be assisted in this manner during 1977. This represents a substantial increase over the 1976 figure. The program is aimed at helping people in the very low income groups. This program also has a substantial employment generation element which should be very well received in light of the present climate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SOVIET ACTION AGAINST SYMPOSIUM OF JEWS IN MOSCOW-POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN PROTEST
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on January 25, 1977, I asked two questions in the House concerning the Jewish symposium in the Soviet Union. My questions were, first, what steps has the Canadian governmertt taken to indicate its dismay to the Soviet government of the stifling of the December symposium in Moscow, the symposium which was organized by Jews who wished to discuss the present state and possible future of Jewish culture in the U.S.S.R., and second, what effect this action will have on the intent and the meaning of the Helsinki accords?

The minister answered in a letter to me which reads:
As discussed in our exchange of correspondence of November and December last concerning the emigration of Soviet Jews, the Canadian government's approach to the issue of human rights in the U.S.S.R. relies heavily on the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I think those who are sincerely concerned about the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act and the promotion of human rights throughout the world will regret that action was taken to prevent what appeared to have been a serious effort to discuss a subject of concern to Jews in the Soviet Union.
The minister went on to say:
This is one of the subjects that will have to be looked at during the Belgrade meeting this summer that has been called to review progress in the implementation of the Final Act.
In a recent speech to the B'Nai Brith in Toronto on March 13, 1977, the minister stated:
The issue of human rights is commanding significantly greater attention on a global scale.
Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), on March 16 in a speech to a seminar sponsored by the Canadian Council of Churches and the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, stated:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a binding legal instrument, and other covenants and conventions which may have enforcement provisions are binding only upon their signatories.
These are conflicting statements. This disturbs me somewhat.
I would like to bring a number of individual atrocities to the minister's attention which I feel he should bring up at the Helsinki Final Act meetings that are going to be held this summer. One of the particular cases is an Ida Nudel, who is under 30 years of age and has been waiting six years to emigrate to Israel. She has been subjected to vicious harassment by the K.G.B. She cannot leave her home because K.G.B. agents follow her everywhere.
Another case is that of Dina Zlotver and her husband, Isaac. They are living in the city of Sverdlovsk. Both are elderly and both have cancer. They applied to emigrate to Israel but were turned down by the Russians. Their children were allowed to immigrate. This is inhumane. Also, Mr. Speaker Mr. Zlotver was a World War II hero. Why is he receiving such treatment?
Another case I would like the minister to raise with the Russians is Joseph Mendelovich. He is 29 years of age and is serving the seventh year of a 12 year strict regime sentence at Vladimir prison east of Moscow because he wanted to emigrate to Israel. He is in poor health and should be released and allowed to emigrate.
Why will the Russians not let Jews emigrate to Israel or elsewhere? These are issues the minister should raise with the Russians at the meetings that will be held this year in Europe.
On January 22 of this year the Russian government produced and displayed a film entitled "Traders of Souls", a government inspired film on anti-semitism. Why are the Russians going to such extremes and using such inhumane methods against the Jews in Russia?
March 21, 1977

These are examples of individual cases which the Canadian government should discuss at the Belgrade meeting this summer on the Helsinki Final Act.
I wrote to the minister with regard to the treatment of Mr. Leib Khnokh, a Russian native who was sentenced to ten years for trying to escape. He still has four years to serve in Vladimir prison east of Moscow. The report is that he has become very ill, suffering from internal bleeding and has not received any medical attention.
The Toronto Group of 35, a Jewish group working to assist Jews in Russia who are being harassed, stated that Soviet policemen are beating and kicking Moscow Jews. An article in the Toronto Star reported:
MOSCOW (AP)-Twelve Soviet Jews said last night that auxiliary policemen kicked and beat them after they enquired about visas to leave the country.
The Jews, all previously denied visas, said they visited the public reception office of the Soviet parliament yesterday and asked for written statements on when to expect their exit documents.
After waiting all day for an answer, they told Western reporters at a news conference, about 30 men wearing red armbands of auxiliary police ordered them into a bus and drove them about 28 miles out of town to a wet, snowy field.
But they refused to leave the bus, said journalist Arkady Polishuk. "We said it was very dark, we didn't know where we were and we are afraid. Then they started to throw us out of the bus by force and were beating us powerfully at the same time, hitting us with their fists and feet, and striking us in our faces."
They did not know if the policemen had intended to beat them, or only did so when they refused to leave the bus. Although some of the group wore bloodstained clothes none appeared to be seriously injured.
These are the atrocities being committed in Russia against the Jewish community. These are the issues which the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be discussing with the Soviet government when its representatives appear at the Helsinki meetings in Europe.
The Toronto Group of 35 is a women's activist organization working on behalf of Soviet Jewry. They ask us to read the article which appeared in the Toronto Star on Wednesday, October 20, 1976, which I just quoted.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister is interested in the cases that the hon. member has just mentioned.
The hon. member quoted from a letter in which the minister has said that he believes those who are sincerely concerned about the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act and human rights throughout the world will regret that action was taken to prevent what would appear to have been a serious effort to discuss a subject of concern to Jews in the Soviet Union.
It is our understanding that the Soviet government regarded the organization of such a symposium as illegal. That is not for us to comment on. It does, however, seem on the surface to be inconsistent with the undertaking in the Helsinki Final Act to facilitate the contribution which national minorities or regional cultures within their territory can make to co-operation among the CSCE participants in various fields of culture.
Adjournment Debate
This is one of the subjects which will have to be looked at during the Belgrade meeting next year that will be called to review progress in the implementation of the Final Act. We think that this would be the most appropriate place for any Canadian comment.


INCOME TAX-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN TREATMENT OF REVENUE EARNED BY INDIAN BANDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on February 18, as reported at page 3190 of Hansard, I raised a matter of considerable concern to Indian bands throughout Canada, especially the Musqueam Indian band which is in my constituency of Vancouver South. I asked the minister if she could inform the House whether there was going to be a change in the policy which has existed until recently, that is, that Indian bands with a certain status have been treated for taxation purposes as Canadian municipalities.
The minister did answer. She stated as follows-and I am reading from Hansard:
Concerning the specific point raised about the eventual change in the interpretation bulletin IT-62 which is the one to which the hon. member refers, I can assure him that the Indian band councils on Indian reserves are considered as Canadian municipalities. Should any change be envisaged in the future, consultations will take place.
That answer was very satisfactory-until it is viewed in the light of a letter dated November 25, 1976, from the minister's department and directed to the solicitors of this particular band council. That letter reads in part:
It is our position that Musqueam is not a municipal corporation pursuant to paragraph 149(l)(d) as the council of the Musqueam Indian Band does not qualify as a Canadian municipality pursuant to paragraph 149( 1 )(c), despite the fact that the band council, pursuant to sections 81 and 83 of the Indian Act performs in respect of the reserve many of the functions provided to communities elsewhere in Canada by municipal governments. It is our view that the term "Canadian municipality" contained in paragraph 149(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act refers to an incorporated body.
It is our understanding that Interpretation Bulletin IT-62 dated August 18, 1972 will be amended in the near future to reflect this view.
Until now the interpretation bulletin referred to in that letter and referred to by the minister has amounted to a statement by the government, if I can put it that way, that these particular enterprises on Indian reserves will be treated in the same way as those of Canadian municipalities for tax purposes. Since it now appears that certainly as long ago as November, 1976, departmental officials were stating that this policy is being changed, why is it that the minister should have stated as recently as February 18 that it will not be changed? If she had stopped at that point, I would be satisfied, but the minister went on to add:
Should any change be envisaged in the future, consultations will take place.
My question, therefore, to the government and to the parliamentary secretary, is this: what confidence can Indian bands have in a minister's answer when they find that only a few months earlier departmental directives were stating exactly the opposite? Does the minister's answer mean that the matter is still under review and that it may well be changed-but only after the Indian bands have been spoken to? I use those words

March 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate
wisely, because the word "consultation" can mean many things.
What the Indian bands need is a measure of certainty. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to clear up this point once and for all so that the bands, especially this particular one in my riding, can get on with the planning they must do if they are to serve the people on their reserves.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the minister was asked on February 18, 1977, by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) if there was to be a change in policy relating to the treatment under the Income Tax Act of band councils on Indian reserves. The minister replied briefly that "a key group of officials" of her department had been established and was working in conjunction with officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and with representative of Indians "on a better and more fair application of the Income Tax Act on matters of great concern for the Indians".
Regarding any possible change in the status of Indian band councils, she indicated that interpretation bulletin IT-62, dated August 18, 1972, was still in effect; that if a change is to take place, there will be consultations.
A change has been under consideration, but any new policy relating to the question had not been determined when the question was asked; in fact there has not yet been a final
determination of a change. And the minister clearly promised there would be consultations before any change took place.
The interpretation bulletin to which I have referred deals in paragraphs 7 to 14 with the department's treatment of band councils, and generally provides that Indian band councils on Indian reserves are considered as Canadian municipalities. But, as the hon. member would be aware, that policy is extended only to certain band councils. Paragraph 11 reads:
The powers exercised by Band Councils that have reached the advanced state of development required by Section 83 of the Indian Act and the powers exercised by other Canadian municipalities are so similar that such Band Councils will be regarded as Canadian municipalities for purposes of subparagraph 110(l)(a)(iv) and paragraph 149(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The fact of a band council being a Canadian municipality within paragraph 149(1 )(c) does not concern us greatly if that is all that is implied. The problem that arises is this: a band council might so qualify and acquire a municipal corporation within paragraph 149(l)(d), and hope to shelter its income no matter the nature of the corporation's activity or its source of income.
However, there is a legal view that a band council, not being an incorporated body, cannot be a Canadian corporation. Thus, a corporation it controlled could not be a municipal corporation within paragraph 149(l)(d). That is where the matter stands at the present. As the minister has stated, if a change is to take place there will be consultations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, March 22, 1977