1977-03-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the sharp increase in the price of food in today's consumer price index, showing a steady increase in food prices for the year, and given the fact that this situation will be seriously exacerbated by a continual drought, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the government implement a co-ordinated food policy as recommended by the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices (1973), the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, and the special interdepartmental committee known as the DM-10.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the failure of the community employment strategy program to date to accomplish its objectives and the continuing need for measures to alleviate unemployment and in view of the high priority placed on the program by the former minister of manpower and immigration who said, on April 9, 1976 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, "anything goes for CES", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration reassess the community employment strategy program and expedite its imposition in view of the failure of this program to achieve its goals and to alleviate, in a meaningful way, the need for the creation of new jobs in distressed areas of the country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSAL TO DENY GRANTS TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD ORGANIZATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of extreme urgency and great importance. In light of the findings of the Badgley report that the organization known as Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion referral agency in Canada as stated at page 151 of the report, and that Planned Parenthood has had virtually no success in promoting responsible birth control, page 368, and that the majority of Canadians do not support the pro-abortion policies of Planned Parenthood, page 257, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
[DOT] (mo)
That this House direct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to refrain from extending Canadian tax money to the organization known as Planned Parenthood.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT TO ALLEVIATE CONCERN OVER BANNING OF SACCHARIN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the lack of direct evidence of any carcinogenic effects of saccharin on humans, in view of the general consternation among diabetics and others which the banning of saccharin will produce, and particularly in view of the statement on television this morning by a cardiologist in a New York coronary care unit that this ban will lead to alarming weight gains and increases in heart attacks among Americans and presumably among Canadians, I move, second-
3882

March 11, 1977
Oral Questions
ed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to announce at the earliest possible time his plans to relieve the anxiety which many tens of thousands of Canadians will have as a result of his recent announcement.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With this morning's disappointing inflation figures showing a three-month CPI rise of 8.4 per cent, a rate considerably in excess of the second year target of the anti-inflation program and even above the first year target, would the minister indicate if he is still confident that we will achieve a 6 per cent inflation level based on the implicit price index and the C.P. index by the end of this year?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I previously indicated to the House, we were anticipating the event which occurred both this month and last month; that is to say, an increase in food prices in the country. It seems to me that more than ever this is the reason we should seek greater success in the non-food price element of the consumer price index, while even further restraint in that area is necessary. If we can maintain additional restraint and achieve a further reduction on the non-food price side, then indeed the target can be attained.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I note that the most recent three-month rate of. increase in the consumer price index exceeds the second year target of the anti-inflation program, but more importantly, the implicit price index was actually 9.4 per cent in 1976. That is a much more comprehensive measure of inflation in this country. Statistics Canada makes it clear that the single most inflated ingredient of that index was government-incurred expenditures, which were up 13.4 per cent in 1976. Would the minister indicate if any further restraint at the federal level is planned in the expenditure field to ensure that a further inflationary impact will not be felt? Second, does he intend to take up with the provinces the matter of trying to get them to restrain their spending?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The federal government will continue to exercise restraint on the rate of increase of expen-

ditures, although I must say I find it rather odd that that plea should come from the hon. gentleman who just a week ago was asking for a big increase in federal government expenditure on urban transit.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I suggested to the minister where he could get funds to help with urban transit. It is a question of priorities.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is still an expenditure.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DATE OF TERMINATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the minister himself has noted, the only truly effective method of controlling inflation is monetary and fiscal restraint. Bearing in mind that the minister has stated that the controls are hardly a tonic for capital investment, which the minister knows is seriously lagging in Canada and is contributing to our relatively high unemployment rate, and while the anti-inflation program does not appear to be achieving the price targets which were set, would the minister indicate if prior to March 31 he will make a statement as to the government's current position on terminating the anti-inflation controls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make several comments on the hon. gentleman's brief speech. Whatever the source of funds for urban transit, the fact of the matter is that that would be an increase in expenditures which, if I understood the hon. gentleman, is something he is against. Second, with regard to the hon. member's urging us to tighter fiscal and monetary policy, we have, of course, been maintaining a strict monetary control through the Bank of Canada on the increase in the money supply. His advocacy for a tighter fiscal policy falls on my ears in an interesting way as well. I guess he is suggesting a more restrictive rather than stimulative budget. With regard to the statements about the timing of the anti-inflation program, I expect to be able to make some statements in that regard in the budget context.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Given the fact that today's consumer price index shows a two percentage point increase in the cost of food, the highest over-all monthly increase since July, 1975, and given the declining value of the Canadian dollar and the prospect of drought conditions in the west, we can expect that
March 11, 1977

this condition will get considerably worse thereby throwing out the entire controls program or make it almost inoperable. May I ask the minister what steps he is prepared to take to provide some relief to Canadian consumers who are controlled on the one hand and so have to experience the continuing phenomena of rising prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the hon. gentleman that there has been a dramatic drop in the cost of food over the past two year period. In that sense, while there has been some recovery in the food component, the rate of increase in the consumer price index in comparative terms remains very much lower than the over-all cost of living in Canada two years ago. With regard to the impact of climatic changes such as drought-


Mr. Stanfield:: We are back to the weather.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -I acknowledge that this may indeed cause difficulties from a consumer and price point of view. Even the hon. member for Halifax should be capable of understanding that from time to time weather may have an impact on agriculture.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Always the weather; never the Grits!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the weather does have an impact on crops.


An hon. Member:: That is what Turner used to say.


James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the serious competitive situation that exists in the cabinet between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which is thwarting any effort to have a co-ordinated food policy which would bring some element of relief to the Canadian consumer, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is prepared to take a hard look at the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee known as DM-10? Is he prepared to undertake the co-ordination of policies within the government which would serve the best interests of both producers and consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the allegations of the hon. gentleman about conflict in this regard are simply without foundation. I would have to point out to him that the question of whether there will be a drought in this particular year or frost in the food supply areas of southern United States are obviously not something that can be resolved within the context of a Canadian food policy.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbcnt (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in charge of housing. Considering that the cost of
Oral Questions
home ownership has increased by more than 12 per cent in each of the past three months over the cost of home ownership in the previous year, and considering the fact that with more than 30 items on the order paper there is not one new proposal from the minister, would the minister spend less time politicking in Quebec and give some thought to new proposals that would bring down the cost of housing for Canadians?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member surprises me by his remarks. There was a debate in the House in recent days and the figures stated show quite well the extremely dynamic action taken by the government in housing construction.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that some statistics show that the average price of a home sold in metro Toronto last year was $61,000, thus ruling out 80 per cent of income earners from any thought of buying a home in that city, and that both Montreal and Toronto have said they are only meeting 50 per cent of the need for low income rental units, I ask the minister to be specific and tell the House what the government plans in order to increase the supply of (a) low-cost housing and (b) low-income rental units?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Assisted Home Ownership Program has been developed to help middle or low income earners to own a house. This is one of the most popular programs in Canada and I remind the hon. member that an unprecedented number of new houses were built in Canada last year.


John Edward Broadbent: May I ask a supplementary question? Mr. Speaker, the minister has just confirmed that he does not really know what his department is doing. Considering that the Canadian Council of Social Development, for example, has pointed out that almost all the money has gone into such government programs as AHOP, which helps out middle-income people, and has stressed that there has actually been a decline in the amount of money for low-income Canadians, I ask the minister precisely what he plans to do about that important sector of the population not now having their needs met with low-rental units or low-cost housing which they can afford to buy?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to wait for the hon. member's question before acting. Two weeks ago we announced, with the cooperation of the province of Nova Scotia, a cooperative housing construction program designed exclusively for very low income earners. We just signed an agreement with the government of Ontario for home ownership at a reasonable cost by reducing the income standards applied to individuals who want to buy those houses. We are
80010-39^2

March 11, 1977
Oral Questions
holding discussions with other provinces on the establishment of joint programs which would help very low income earners to own a house.


RRAP-POSSIBILITY OF EXTENDING REGULATIONS TO GREATER NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
As part of the federal residential rehabilitation program in rural areas, could the minister tell the House whether regulations will be amended or extended to enable more rural municipalities to make use of that program, which is quite interesting as a matter of fact?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, we hope that the provinces, which are responsible for selecting municipalities this year, will increase the number of such selections. We substantially increased that budget to meet the many applications throughout Canada, especially in the province of Quebec, so that people can make use of that program.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a
supplementary.
In view of the minister's reply, perhaps he could tell us whether he has had consultations with the new Quebec minister so that the department in charge of designating municipalities can give a favourable answer to the requests the municipalities have made; in addition, would he agree to having the municipalities advise his department of the requests they have made and will make to Quebec?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the hon. member is very helpful. I would like to say two things: first, meetings have been held at the civil servant but not the ministerial level.
Second, to facilitate the implementation of that program, this year, in the case of already designated municipalities, we will let them know ahead of time how much money they can bank on spending in their area.
With regard to the other municipalities, 1 encourage the hon. member, if he has some in mind, to suggest to their authorities that they advise their provincial government and so facilitate the designation of the new ones.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROGRAM TO PROVIDE GRANTS FOR INSULATION OF UNITS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs? My question relates to RRAP, which provides for grants for insulation. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not see fit to extend grants for insulation and for conserving energy to other provinces. We have been hearing for four years that the funds are going to be extended to those provinces where the need is greatest, where

low income earners who own their own homes cannot afford to maintain or insulate them. Will the minister take the initiative to get that program on a broader base?


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The province of Newfoundland submitted a very adequate program to help veterans on low incomes insulate their homes and repair them under the emergency repair program. There has been a delay of two or three years since they were promised by the minister, the former Minister of Veterans Affairs and the former minister in charge of housing that they would implement that program which has been presented. Why has there been this delay?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the program is concerned, a lot of responsibility lies with the province. I am not prepared to say at this time the reasons for the program not being implemented. I know it is a two way plan, federal and provincial.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It arises out of a report this morning emanating from "Canada A.M.", which I did not hear but which has been reported to me. It has to do with the Queen's Jubilee on June 6. On that date in the United Kingdom and in the self-governing dominions that acknowledge her as Queen, there will be satellite broadcasting of bonfires that will be lighted. Is it a fact, as stated this morning, that when a request by the CBC was made to the hon. gentleman's protocol office, the reply was that it could not be done because of a shortage of funds?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not hear the broadcast either. I remember that we did have some discussion on the feasibility of lighting bonfires. How-
March 11, 1977

ever, I will have to check to see exactly what decision was taken and the reasons for it. I will report to the right hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know that the question of cost and the reducing of expenditures is something that worries this government tremendously. However, to have a bonfire on Parliament Hill on that date would be the first time in history that Parliament Hill has been so lighted up. Surely, the government is not going to follow so niggardly policy like this and place Canada in the invidious position of being the only country acknowledging the Queen as Queen which in order to save a few dollars, will not put on a celebration on that date.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. member talked about bonfires, I had a hard time envisaging him as a latter day Guy Fawkes, particularly when he talked about bonfires on Parliament Hill. I will have to consider not only the cost of starting the fires, but the cost of putting them out. I will look into the question and report back.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State in charge of small business. 1 have already provided him with the document and I think he has the answer to this question. Did the minister receive a letter from the secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool dated February 25, signed by J. O. Wright, secretary, stating that, and I quote:
-no resolutions were received from the 800 active Wheat Pool local committees or from annual meetings held, or from other membership meetings held throughout the province to discuss issues dealing with the operations or farm policies-
That is referring to Bill C-23, the metric bill.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive this letter from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. However, there is perhaps some discrepancy in the interpretation. If you read the particular paragraph which the hon. member quoted, it starts:
During all this period, no resolutions were received-
If you go to the top paragraph on page two of the same letter, you will find that "during this period" referred to the period, meetings held and so on during 1974, 1975 and 1976. This particular letter was dated February 25, 1977.
[DOT] (U30)


METRIC SYSTEM-POSSIBILITY MEMBERS OF WHEAT POOL SENT RESOLUTIONS OPPOSING SYSTEM
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In
view of the fact that this letter is dated February 25, and since the minister now has in his possession official copies of the resolution sent in by members of the Saskatchewan Wheat
Oral Questions
Pool to their Board of Directors, would the minister consider, in his reply inquiring whether the locals themselves have sent any letters opposing the metric system?


Len Marchand: I would hope to do that. I know there has been a good deal of concern among farm groups about this program but I also believe there has been a lot of misinformation, too. I hope that when giving information to farm groups hon. members will point out that Bill C-23 has nothing to do with land measurement. Land measurement is in the hands of the provinces. Anything having to do with changes in land measurement is in the hands of the provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I shall raise this further as a question of privilege at the time set for that purpose.


METRIC SYSTEM-SUGGESTED DELAY OF LEGISLATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENTS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: In view of widespread and growing protest among rank and file producers in Western Canada regarding metric conversion and the failure of producer organizations to consult with the actual producers, would the minister be prepared to reconsider his intention to proceed with this bill and has he given any thought to accepting the amendments which have been advanced by members on this side of the House to preserve the acre and bushel?


Len Marchand: We have heard the representations which were made in committee and the representations made by the organizations which appeared before us. The advice I have received is that if we are to go metric we must do so in its pure form. If we mix it, we would be creating unnecessary confusion. Either we go metric, or we don't, and the advice I am getting is that we should go forward with the system in its pure form.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Might I preface my supplementary question by stating there is not a pure metric system in the world of which I am aware.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that he speaks for the producers of Canada-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, no he doesn't!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 11, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, he may not, but he is supposed to-will the Minister of Agriculture undertake to ensure that the views and opinions of the producers, the grass roots producers in this country, will be taken into consideration since there is a strong desire by the producers of this country to maintain the bushel and the acre? Will he urge his colleague in charge of this bill to see that those views are taken into consideration? Would he impress upon him the importance of accepting the amendment advanced from this side of the House?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the metric system which the government is proposing and in answering every letter I am getting from anyone I am explaining the advantages of the system. I will even have a meeting with the hon. member and try to explain the advantages to him so that he can explain them to the producers in his area.


FINANCE
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is in a position this morning to give some information about any merger or take-over involving the Unity Bank?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 cannot make a comment in this regard. As the hon. gentleman may have read, there have been discussions between the Provincial Bank of Canada and the Unity Bank about a possible merger. At this stage, proposals are being put to the respective shareholders of the two companies. I cannot give any indication this morning whether or not they have been accepted. I have indicated in a preliminary way that, subject to further examination and the approval of the shareholders, that kind of merger would be approved by myself as Minister of Finance.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. On several occasions we have asked the hon. gentleman about a school milk program. I should like him to note that the government of Quebec in the inaugural speech announced the other day the introduction of a school milk program in that province. Would the minister meet with his provincial counterparts and set up a program under which the federal government would jointly finance school milk programs?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member has stated what is being done. I hope he realizes it is the governments that are doing this, it is not the farmers or the ministers of agriculture who are doing it. It is the governments under the leadership of the Liberal leader of Nova Scotia which was one of the first provinces to initiate such a program; it has been very successful in the province of Nova Scotia. The Province of Quebec announced a similar program in the speech from the throne. It is a social program which the province intends to instal. As I said the other day, the farmers of Canada have proven their ability to produce if somebody wants to pay for the product.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As usual, the minister has missed the point of my question. I asked whether he will make a commitment that the government of Canada will co-finance or jointly sponsor such a program. I ask this in view of the fact that the consumption of milk has dropped in Canada while the consumption of soft drinks is rising.


Eugene Whelan: We are sharing with the industrial milk producers of Canada the cost of a program of advertising as a result of which the consumption of cheese rose by 15 per cent last year while the consumption of fluid milk in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia has been maintained at a steady level, indeed, consumption has actually increased. These programs are in place. Yes, I do support a school milk program. I think it is a wonderful idea.


SUGGESTED DEBATE ON PIPELINE TO TRANSPORT ARCTIC GAS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the question of a pipeline to transport natural gas from the Arctic is of such importance to the people of Canada, would the minister take into consideration the possibility of arranging a full-scale debate on the subject in this House before a final decision is taken?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I have indicated that there will be plenty of opportunity in committee for debate. I hope there will also be an opportunity in the House, but that is a matter which the House leader would have to arrange. I stated in another answer earlier that I would refer this matter to him.


TRANSPORT
Douglas Charles Neil: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister con-
March 11, 1977

firm that his department has commissioned a study of the costs involved in developing the LNG tanker system to transport natural gas from the Arctic and, if so, when does he expect such a study to be completed? Is he prepared to table the results of the study in this House?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Work is being done on the feasibility of this form of transportation. I am not sure at this point whether this is the kind of study the results of which could be tabled, but I will look into that aspect.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? 1 should like to ask him whether the department has awarded a contract for new uniforms to replace the uniforms traditionally worn by cadets of the three armed service elements.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that a number of contracts have been let to several sub-contractors.


William C. Scott: Can the minister tell us to whom the contracts were awarded? Can he give us the dollar value involved?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I will be pleased to answer those questions if they are placed on the order paper, or by way of a letter to the hon. member.


SUGGESTION &quot;BRAS D OR&quot; BE DONATED TO MUSEUM
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It has to do with the experimental hydrofoil Bras d'Or, built at a cost of some $52 million, which has been mothballed for more than five years at an annual cost of about $500,000 and which, due to the cracks in its foils, cannot be used either for defence purposes or for fishery surveillance. I should like to ask the minister whether he would give consideration to offering this ship as a museum piece either to some local museum or to the Alexander Graham Bell Museum at Baddeck, where the concept of the hydrofoil originated?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's figures regarding the annual storage costs are considerably higher than those I am aware of, but we will continue to do some checking work on the Bras d'Or until decisions are made on the new ship program. Certainly, his suggestion is one I would consider very seriously.
Oral Questions



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question that 1 will direct to the minister responsible for regional economic expansion. It arises out of a meeting yesterday of the Maritime Advisory Committee of the Canadian Labour Congress at which the national presidents of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, the CB of RT and the Seafarers' International Union undertook in response to Mercator Enterprises' charges that there are not enough Canadian seamen to man the cruise ship Mercator One, and at which they said "we can assure the company, the Nova Scotia government and MAGI that these crew members will be residents of Nova Scotia". Has the minister received that communication and, if so, what response can he make to it?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have here the communication the hon. member is referring to, but yesterday I received a telegram from him telling me about the steps taken by this group of fishermen of the Atlantic coast. Therefore I took immediate action to see what could be done so that some preference be given at least to the fishermen who are prepared to take the available positions.



MANPOWER


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Following on the exchange in the House on March 1 initiated by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent pertaining to the allocation of funds for status Indians, particularly as it applies to communities with a high Metis population and with an equally high or higher unemployment rate, will the decision on the Canada Works application in those areas be deferred until this dilemma is resolved?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. Typical of the Metis population, when they saw the situation they put together what I thought was an excellent brief. They made an appointment with me, came down and discussed the situation as it existed on the site. We have made a pitch to them about a compromise for the next phase of the funding which I think they will find acceptable.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will a decision on the second phase be made?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prejudge the situation. Frankly, I am awaiting for a response from the Metis to find out if my compromise suggestion is acceptable to

March 11, 1977
Oral Questions
them. When I have that I will probably be able to make a comment.



FINANCE


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in the last number of months representations have been made to him regarding the scissors industry in this country and the government has not responded to the fact that Brazil has a 150 per cent tariff on imports of scissors whereas Canada lets Brazil's scissors in for nothing, is there any chance that the minister could explain why the Canadian government would not protect the fledgling scissors industry in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, along with other members of the developed world Canada has entered into an undertaking to accord a general preferential tariff to the developing countries so that by building up their trade they may replace the kind of development assistance they are now receiving from us with economic advantage. It is for this reason that Brazil has been accorded general preferential tariff treatment on imports of this kind, and it is for this reason that the government has concluded that it should not reverse the GPT with regard to scissors from Brazil and will continue to offer this assistance to the developing world.


Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that other leading countries in the western world which are also trying to adapt to the GATT resolutions, particularly the United States, still have a 20 per cent tariff on hot-forged scissors, Which is exactly what was requested in the case of Canada which lets in cold-stamped scissors free of duty, is there any change the minister can foresee in the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker.



POLYSAR


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance but in his capacity as minister representing the shareholders of the Canada Development Corporation, the shares held by the government of Canada. Has the minister instructed or at least passed on to the chairman of the board of Canada Development Corporation for communication to subsidiaries, particularly Polysar,

that it is the position of the government of Canada, as repeated by the Prime Minister many times in this House, that witnesses before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts should be forthcoming in their answers in order that that committee is able to draw conclusions respecting the charges which have been made by the Auditor General? Has the minister requested that that position be put forth?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not in any doubt that witnesses, either from Polysar or from any other company in which the government has an investment, would do their very best to assist the committee. I have not really felt it necessary to tell the directors or to ask the directors nominated by the government in CDC or other corporations to co-operate. I believe the assumption is that they will so co-operate.
The particular question has arisen as to whether or not, by his appearance before the public accounts committee, a particular employee could be put in legal jeopardy in his place of employment or in his own country. That, obviously, is a very special problem. It seems to me that it is a difficult situation in which to put an employee, where he could be compelled to answer questions in this country which might then result in severe legal implications for him in Switzerland. That is a problem which I have asked the government directors of the Canada Development Corporation-that is to say, the public service directors, to take up with the executive committee of the CDC to see whether some satisfactory resolution can be achieved.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I certainly understand the answer the minister has given and I can understand the concern, but my question arises from the fact that a witness before the committee refused point blank to supply information to the committee which would make it possible, and only possible, for the committee to discover whether or not Polysar was engaging in activities which allowed it to avoid, or at least to minimize, taxes it should have paid in Canada. I should like to know whether or not the minister would in fact direct, or if he cannot direct at least pass on to, the CDC and through the CDC to Polysar that in issues which are very pertinent to considerations going forth, and which do not put in jeopardy the legal status of any employee of the corporation but which are essential if the investigation is to make progress, he should indeed be instructed to answer questions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with the general principle I would have no argument; but I am sure that the hon. member understands that I could not ask the directors of the CDC to require an employee to break the law.
March 11, 1977



INDUSTRY


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can the minister tell the Elouse whether the government is going to improve the shipbuilding assistance legislation to make our Canadian shipyards more competitive and more able to maintain the employment level in this industry?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had a number of representations on this matter from both sides of the House, particularly from the hon. member, and I am glad to announce that the government has decided to increase by 12 to 20 per cent the subsidy granted to shipbuilding in Canada so as to help this industry which is going through a difficult period because of the low level of foreign orders and also perhaps the very strong competition of some countries.



G150)   CANADA DAY REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANS FOR CELEBRATION

Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and it arises out of a motion that I presented last June under Standing Order 43 and a motion put yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. It has to do with celebrations on Parliament Hill which the government cancelled last year and which are symbolic of national unity and pride which we all feel on Canada Day. Would the minister inform the House what specific plans he has to restore those celebrations to a level that would be symbolic of the kind of nationalism we all feel to give every Canadian a change to show his patriotism?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been working on such plans for several months, including not only celebrations in Ottawa but in other parts of Canada as well. I am not in a position to make any specific announcement, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he indicate
Oral Questions
in the House why the Canadian government has not yet implemented the policy announced in the House regarding Canadian government action on the Arab boycott related to Canadian firms doing business with Israel?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have started to implement the policy. It took considerable time to draw up the guidelines and to distribute them to our embassies and other organizations abroad, but I am satisfied with the arrangements that are now in place, and I believe the guidelines have been made public. If not, my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will be glad to do so. I repeat that the program will be effective.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Windsor West indicated the other night that because there is no legislation backing up the guidelines they will not really be effective, is it the minister's intention to introduce legislation in the House, similar to that now being contemplated in the U.S. Congress, which would clearly spell out that our Canadian firms and banks are prohibited from going along with the Arab boycott as they have been until now?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is not our intention at the moment to introduce legislation. 1 repeat what I have said earlier, that I believe our present provisions will be effective, and I think the hon. member knows there is considerable difficulty being experienced in the U.S. with precisely this question of the form of legislation to be used. We will monitor the policy that was introduced last fall to see how effective it is, and after a reasonable period has elapsed, we will see what steps, if any, are necessary.



HER MAJESTY'S JUBILEE


Donald Campbell Jamieson: While I am on my feet, may I just add to an answer which was given to the right hon. member for Prince Albert to tell him that in terms of Her Majesty's Jubilee I am delighted to inform him-and I know he will be pleased and the House will be pleased to know-that we have made arrangements for the RCMP musical ride team to accompany Her Majesty in the procession for the Jubilee celebrations in London.
3890

March 11, 1977
Oral Questions MANPOWER



COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY PROGRAM-MEASURES TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is about a program in his department which I know concerns him as it concerns most areas of the country, namely the CES program which, because of bureaucratic impediments appears not to achieve the high hopes that were once held by his predecessor for its success. Can the minister tell us whether he has particular measures under way to cut through some of the red tape and present a better picture in terms of performance for this program?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support for this program that was an initiative this government embarked upon in 1975. It still remains a very high priority with the government. In the hon. member's region or area there is a technical problem which we are working on and with which we will press ahead. This is a commitment to the area concerned and it remains a high priority. Within the limits of fiscal responsibility we intend to press ahead.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that a large proportion of the budget of CES in Nova Scotia- the approximate budget is slightly over $1 million-appears to be devoted to administrative costs and to topping up other programs. About $750,000 out of approximately $1 million appears not to be going for the primary purpose of producing jobs. Does the minister intend to look into the situation and to try to make the program more efficient in this respect?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: When we have an excellent program and we can make it better, we most assuredly will look into it.

[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Girard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since he has had recent talks with his Quebec counterpart, could he tell us now whether he has received a request for financial aid from the Quebec government for the construction of a road leading to mines north of LaSarre, mainly to the SELCO and AMOCO mines in that area?



GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA-LACK OF FUNDS FOR KOOTENAY DISTRICT-REQUEST FOR ACTION

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the General Development Agreement between British Columbia and DREE specifically spells out the northwest, the northeast and the Kootenays in British Columbia, and in view of the fact that there has not been any notification of any funding for the Kootenays, has the minister had recent discussions with the provincial government on funds specifically earmarked for the Kootenays in British Columbia under the GDA as spelled out?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not had any specific discussions about the Kootenays. Our discussions were about the whole province in light of the kind of assistance we might be able to put together to provide support for industrial activities in the remote parts of British Columbia. But this is still under discussion and I hope within a few months, if not weeks, we will be able to conclude our discussions and propose something to help that region in particular.


Robert Hylton Brisco: In view of the fact that the federal government has already spent more on MAGI and the cruiseship than has been spent on the entire province of British Columbia, and in view of the fact that the minister now says it will be several months before a decision can be made, is he not prepared to take departmental initiatives under the agreement and spend some money and make some progress under the DREE agreement in British Columbia?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premises of the hon. member's question concerning MAGI, but as for the other part of his serious question, I am now considering the possibility of some intervention by my department, for lack of an agreement which I still hope to conclude with the British Columbia government. However should such an agreement fail to materialize, we will have to consider other means of giving a new impetus to the economic conditions in British Columbia.



SACCHARIN-REASON FOR BANNING RATHER THAN ISSUING HEALTH WARNING-GOVERNMENT PLANS TO OVERCOME DETRIMENTAL EFFECT OF BAN

Marcel Lessard: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having discussed the matter in such terms as mentioned by the hon. member. It is possible that the proposal was made to Quebec officials, more particularly to OPDQ officials, but for the time being at least I do not think that specific requests were made to my department or myself.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, perhaps I could direct my question to his parliamentary secretary who, I think, will be knowledgeable about a matter which his department has had under review for some three or four years. Can he tell us why the minister and his department chose to be inconsistent with respect to the policy of banning
March 11, 1977

saccharin as compared to its policy on tobacco under which he chose to have an appropriate warning placed on the consumer package?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am not so sure I see the connection between saccharin and tobacco on this point. The banning of saccharin, except for diabetics under certain conditions, is the result of one of the best studies that has been done by any group in this country. It has been accepted in the United States. I would like to say that some time during the next week we hope to have a briefing by department officials for all members of the House who would like to go into this in more depth and to understand its implications.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, acknowledging what the parliamentary secretary has said, acknowledging the concern and apprehension which people in general have about cancer and acknowledging also the concern expressed today by a New York cardiologist which, if translated into Canadian terms suggests that as a result of the ban on saccharin Canadians will gain an extra 60 million pounds of weight and as a result have an extra 2,500 heart attacks per year, could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what plans the minister has to combat both the psychological hazard and the cardiovascular hazard in addition to the unknown cancer hazard which Canadians will now face?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, the decision to ban saccharin was not arrived at lightly. There will be constant consultation with medical officials and people representing medical associations. Perhaps other sweeteners will come along, but we have to accept the fact that there has been consultation, and these concerns have been discussed. We will always be trying to develop alternatives.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has heard evidence that the Auditor General was dropped as auditor of Polysar because Polysar ceased to be a Crown corporation, in spite of the fact that the Auditor General presently audits some non-Crown corporations. Polysar still appears in the schedule of Crown corporations in the Financial Administration Act, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Justice stated that the government's position in 1973 was that Polysar was no longer a Crown corporation. I would like to ask whether the Minister of Justice can make such action official without the approval of parliament, and will the minister indicate when legislation will be introduced to clarify what are and what are not Crown
Privilege-Hon. Alvin Hamilton
corporations, how many there are and what the audit requirements of Crown corporations are.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to read the seven or eight questions which were just asked in Hansard. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that clarification of what a Crown corporation is, the number of Crown corporations and those which are to be brought under the Financial Administration Act will be made to the House in the very near future by way of some proposed amendments to the FAA and probably to the Crown Corporations Act.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the end of the question period the Minister of State for Urban Affairs offered to be forthcoming with respect to a question put to him earlier by the hon. member for St. John's East. Unfortunately that occurred after the question period. The minister and the hon. member for St. John's East are here, so I wonder if the minister is in a position to answer that question today.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the hon. member for St. John's East by saying that a loan guarantee has been granted under paragraph 6(1) of the National Housing Act. This paragraph gives the corporation authority to issue an insurance policy concerning a loan granted by a lender to promote the construction of a rental housing project.



PRIVILEGE


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Marchand)-whether deliberate or not, I do not know-was guilty of misinforming the House in answering questions I asked him this morning. I thought the questions were well put. Yesterday 1 showed the minister a letter from the secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. 1 showed him Saskatchewan Wheat Pool documents which proved that he was being misinformed. When I asked the minister a second question about whether he would inform the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that he and parliament did not take lightly the fact that they were being misinformed, instead of answering my question either by saying "yes" or "no" he went on to say that the matter of land measurement-
80010-40/4

March 11, 1977
Privilege-Hon. Alvin Hamilton
in other words, hectares-was a provincial and not a federal responsibility.
I maintain that this was either a deliberate or unwitting misleading of the House. 1 would like to quote from the third paragraph of a letter dated February 25 to the minister from the secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, as follows:
Canadian policy, unanimously adopted by the government of Canada in a white paper, 1970, calls for a planned conversion to the international system of standards known as the metric system.
That statement was made in the letter by the secretary of that organization placing upon the federal parliament the responsibility for passing a law which provides that conversion to the metric system is the law of the land. Mr. Speaker, you know, as well as 1 do, that no government white paper means anything until it is passed in this House by a vote of the parliamentarians present. It is a legislative proposal. In fact, before the metric system can become effective across Canada, 90 statutes of this parliament will have to be amended, and as yet not one has been amended.
The secretary of an organization wrote a letter to the minister and sent copies to members of parliament saying that this is an unanimously adopted federal law. The secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool went on in his letter to say:
At the annual meetings of the elected delegates who represent the shareholders of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, held in 1974, 1975 and 1976, reports on metric conversion and displays to assist elected leaders to understand the metric conversion process in agriculture, and particularly in the grain industry, were presented.
The secretary states the following in another paragraph:
During all this period, no resolutions were received from the 800 active Wheat Pool local committees or from annual meetings held, or from other membership meetings held throughout the province to discuss issues dealing with the operations or farm policies of this organization.
That paragraph was meant to tell the minister that the farmers were not objecting to the metric system. Yesterday, I sent six Saskatchewan Wheat Pool documents to the minister pointing out that local rank and file members at the district level and subdistrict level had submitted resolutions opposing the metric system. When I asked the minister this morning if he would defend parliament by writing to this secretary and telling him that there was misleading information in his letter and asking for an explanation, his answer to me was that the system of measurement of land in the prairies and all across Canada is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, which begs the question and in effect the minister is supporting that misrepresentation in this House.
Parliament has not passed any laws dealing with the metric system, yet officials of the minister went out to the provincial governments, to these grain companies to private businesses and to consumers' associations and said that this was the law and that they should get ready to put the law into effect by February 1, 1977. I simply point out that federal officials are misinforming the public through grain companies and private companies. The minister has the gall to tell me in this House that the federal government has nothing to do with land measurement in the provinces. I wonder who persuaded the governments of the provinces that this is the law of the land, if
(Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain).]
it was not the minister's officials. What I am trying to say is that not only are the minister's officials misinforming and imposing upon my privileges as a member of parliament and on the privileges of every other hon. member. The minister is not informing us truthfully because the federal government got this whole thing going without passing a law to make it legal.
I would like to conclude my question of privilege by asking the minister to reconsider his answers and defend this parliament. I would like him to point out to the secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that as parliamentarians we expect to be told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth-and not to be faced with this type of answer.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it will, of course, be up to Your Honour to determine whether there is a question of privilege, but I could answer the hon. member's question very quickly. I think he will find in the record that I said I would write to the secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and determine whether there had been some misrepresentation. It is my view, however, that there was not any deliberate misrepresentation by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or any kind of misrepresentation at all. It is important to note that in the answer I gave, I stated very clearly that if one read the letter in its context there was no misrepresentation in my view. There is no way I would want to see this parliament misrepresented by anyone. I am sure that Mr. Wright, secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, was not trying to misrepresent their position to this parliament or anyone else.
I should like to put on the record again the third paragraph of the letter, on page 2, which begins as follows:
During all this period, no resolutions were received from the 800 active Wheat Pool local committees-
The significant part of the letter refers back to the first paragraph on page 2, which reads:
At the annual meetings of the elected delegates who represent the shareholders of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, held in 1974, 1975 and 1976, reports on metric conversion and displays to assist elected leaders to understand the metric conversion process in agriculture, and particularly in the grain industry, were presented.
That is the reference back. But to satisfy hon. members and myself on the point I will write to the secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for further clarification and pass the information along to the members concerned. On the second part of the question, I must say I do not think anyone is trying to misrepresent anything in this House. Bill C-23 does not refer to land measurement. Land measurement does not lie in the hands of the federal government; it is clearly a provincial responsibility. Any bills to change that would have to be drawn by provincial governments. I repeat, Bill C-23 does not deal with land measurements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) does not have attached to it a motion which would ask direction of the Chair other than the request put through
March 11, 1977

the Chair to the minister who appears to me adequately to have responded to that request at least for the moment.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings]

Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, regulations respecting the acquisition of Canadian business enterprises and the establishment of new businesses in Canada, from the Foreign Investment Review Agency.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-406, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Kootenay East-Revelstoke).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when the redistribution of 1952 divided the Okanagan to form two new constituencies, it was thought the city of Revelstoke was sufficiently removed from the Okanagan to be designated in the name of the new riding-Okanagan-Revelstoke. The most recent redistribution in 1976 added Revelstoke to the Kootenay East part of Okanagan-Kootenay, but omitted adding the name of the city to the constituency name, even though Revelstoke is more removed from Kootenay East than it was from the Okanagan. This bill corrects that oversight.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,342 to 1,347 inclusive, 1,349 to 1,352 inclusive, 1,454, 1,504 and 1,563.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


AMENDMENTSTO RDIA-TRANSPORTATION
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Transport aware that Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland offer some form of transport concessions or subsidies to industry in designated development areas?
2.	Are the Departments aware that the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce in its Statement of Policy for 1975-76, repeated in 1976-77, calls for changes to RDIA to better reflect the transport charges paid by Atlantic firms and, if so, what action does the government propose to take in this regard?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Transport as follows: 1. (a) DREE, through liaison arrangements With the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and other contacts with individual nations, obtains information about programs in effect elsewhere which may have relevance for its activities, including measures such as those mentioned here. Any consideration of such measures for application in Canada would require an assessment of both their effectiveness in their own domestic environment and their potential applicability to the Canadian scene, (b) Yes.
2.	Yes. In fact, the basic intent of these recommendations is implemented by DREE in current RDIA practice. The present value of additional transportation costs over the estimated life of the project is taken into consideration in determining an equitable level of incentive for larger projects. In the case of smaller projects, where the level of incentive is normally determined by a guideline formula, the formula level was preset at a higher rate in the Atlantic Region, in part to offset the effect of higher transportation costs. While the RDIA is administered by DREE, the more general subject of freight transportation assistance programs is being reviewed by Transport Canada in full co-operation with the four provinces concerned.


COMPENSATION TO FIRMS EMPLOYING INEXPERIENCED WORKERS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Manpower and Immigration aware of measures in effect in Finland to compensate firms employing inexperienced workers in designated development areas?
2.	Are any such measures now in effect at the federal level in Canada and, if so, what are they?
3.	What success have such programmes had in Canada in terms of (a) the average length of time which workers remain at their assisted jobs once the

March 11, 1977
Order Paper Questions
assistance is terminated (b) the number of workers involved (c) the average cost per worker?
4.	Are any strengthenings or modifications to such programmes being considered and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. (a) DREE is aware of many of the measures in effect in Finland to assist firms in designated development areas, including measures such as those mentioned. (b) Yes.
2.	No such measures are in effect under DREE programs. Yes, in so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned. Under the recently announced Job Experience and Training Program (JET) it is the intent of the winter component to compensate firms when they employ inexperienced young workers. This compensation will be in the form of a partial wage subsidy to offset their low productivity. Three pilot projects are now in process in the Montreal, Oakville, and Vancouver areas. In addition, although the Department's Industrial Training Program does not have this specific objective, it does include this type of program within its framework.
3.	As far as the JET program is concerned it is too early to assess the success of the program as it has been operating for only a few weeks, (a) Not available, (b) 150, (c) not available. With regard to the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program: (a) The program is in its second year of operation and the first evaluation has not yet been completed, (b) Number of workers trained in the DREE designated development area; i.e., the designated development area is all of Canada including the Yukon and Northwest Territories but excluding British Columbia and Alberta since these two provinces are not in DREE's designated area: 50,272. Number of workers trained in all of Canada: 61,389. (c) $841.
4.	Yes. If the pilot phase of JET proves successful, it will be expanded to additional locations in October, 1977. Under the Employment Strategy announced on October 21, 1976 the total funding level of the Industrial Training Program will be expanded from $63,692 in 1976-77 to $70,146 in 1977-78.


SHAREHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT IN ENTERPRISES
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance (c) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware of measures in effect in Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom which permit shareholding or equity participation by government in enterprises in designated development areas?
2.	Are the Departments aware that recommendations for such measures in Canada have been made by the Atlantic Development Council in its report Regional Development Incentives Program-Atlantic Region, where it states that "consideration should be given to the establishment within the incentives program of arrangements which would enable the government to take an equity position in new ventures"?
3.	Are any such measures (a) now in effect in Canada (b) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. (a) DREE, through liaison arrangements with the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and other contacts with individual nations, obtains information about programs in effect elsewhere which may have relevance for its activities, including measures such as those mentioned here. Any consideration of such measures for application in Canada would require an assessment of both their effectiveness in their own domestic environment and their potential applicability to the Canadian scene, (b) Yes. (c) The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is aware of measures in effect in the countries mentioned which permit shareholding or equity participation by government in enterprises in designated development areas.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Department of Finance does not administer programs directed specifically towards regional development and does not offer, nor is it presently studying, this type of regional development instrument. As embodied in the programs of DREE, Canada has its own particular set of regional instruments, suited to the Canadian context, which are viewed and modified as appropriate in the light of experience. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce participates in equity financing under the General Adjustment Assistance Program and through the Federal Business Development Bank, (a) Although DREE does not operate programs in which it takes a direct equity position on behalf of the federal government, it does provide financial support to federal-provincial development corporations which have the authority, among other activities, to make such equity investments. An example is the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation which at December 31, 1976, had an equity position in 23 companies doing business in that province, (b) Although DREE has no immediate plans to introduce measures of this kind, it maintains an on-going review of possible program initiatives in an effort to assess their potential effectiveness in the Canadian context and to develop new measures which will contribute to the goal of more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions.


ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance aware of measures permitting accelerated depreciation for tax purposes on capital investment in designated development areas in 15 out of the 24 member nations of the OECD and, if so, are any such measures (i) now in effect in Canada (ii) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Finance as follows: (a) DREE, through liaison arrangements with the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and other contacts with individual nations obtains information about pro-
March 11, 1977

grams in effect elsewhere which may have relevance for its activities, including measures such as those mentioned here. Any consideration of such measures for application in Canada would require an assessment of both their effectiveness in their own domestic environment and their potential applicability to the Canadian scene, (i) No such measures are now in effect under DREE programs. The earlier Area Development Incentives Act did provide for accelerated capital cost allowances, but this provision was replaced by the more generous cash grants available under the Regional Development Incentives Act. (ii) Although DREE has no immediate plans to introduce measures of this kind, it maintains an on-going review of possible program initiatives in an effort to assess their potential effectiveness in the Canadian context and to develop new measures which will contribute to the goal of more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions, (b) Yes, the Department of Finance is aware of the accelerated depreciation measures for tax purposes in member OECD countries. Canada provides a two-year write-off for property included in Class 29. While this does not distinguish between various regions, it does provide incentives for new investment in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment in all regions of Canada. As a matter of policy, the capital grants program, authorized by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act, which has totalled $581 million since inception of the Act in 1969 has been considered as a more effective mechanism for stimulating regional capital investment.


INVESTMENT RESERVE FUNDS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance (c) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware of measures in effect in Sweden which allow corporations to set aside investment reserve funds from their pre-tax profits for investment in designated development areas and, if so, are any such measures (i) now in effect in Canada (ii) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's region and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: (a) DREE, through liaison arrangements with the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and other contacts with individual nations, obtains information about programs in effect elsewhere which may have relevance for its activities, including measures such as those mentioned here. Any consideration of such measures for application in Canada would require an assessment of both their effectiveness in their own domestic environment and their potential applicability to the Canadian scene, (i) No such measures are in effect under DREE programs. (ii) Although DREE has no immediate plans to propose measures of this kind, it maintains an on-going review of possible program initiatives in an effort to assess their potential effectiveness in the Canadian context and to develop new measures which will contribute to the goal of more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions, (b) Yes.
Order Paper Questions
Swedish companies, economic societies and savings banks may allocate a portion of their pre-tax profits to an investment reserve. However, between 40 per cent and 46 per cent of the allocated amount must be deposited at the Swedish National Bank. These reserves are controlled by the Swedish Government, which directs their use. There are no such measures in effect in Canada, nor are any currently contemplated. As a matter of policy, the capital grants program, authorized by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act, which has totalled $581 million since inception of the Act in 1969 has been considered as a more effective mechanism for stimulating regional capital investment, (c) Yes, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is aware of measures in effect in Sweden which allow corporations to set aside investment reserve funds from their pre-tax profits for investment in designated development areas, (i) No such measures are in effect under ITC programs, (ii) No such measures are contemplated at the present time.


EXPORTED GOODS, TAX EXEMPTION ON PROFITS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance aware of measures in effect in Ireland which exempt from taxation the profits on exported goods which are manufactured in designated development areas and, if so, are any such measures (i) now in effect in Canada (ii) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Finance as follows: (a) See question No. 1,346 answered this day. (b) Yes. There is an abatement of the income tax and corporation profits tax otherwise payable by companies who manufacture in and export from the Republic of Ireland. This relief applies only to the profits earned by an increase in export sales over corresponding export sales in a standard period. No such measures currently exist or are contemplated in Canada.


FAVOURED STATUS IN PROCUREMENT POLICIES
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Supply and Services aware of measures in effect in Greece, Switzerland and the United Kingdom which give favoured status in government procurement policies to firms in designated development regions?
2.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Supply and Services aware of measures in effect in Italy which require the government, public enterprises and enterprises with state participation to reserve 30 per cent of their supply contracts to enterprises in designated development areas?
3.	Are any such measures referred to in Parts 1 and 2 (a) now in effect in Canada (b) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Supply and Services as follows: 1 and 2. (a) DREE, through liaison arrangements with the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and De-

March 11, 1977
Order Paper Questions
velopment and other contacts with individual nations, obtains information about programs in effect elsewhere which may have relevance for its activities, including measures such as those mentioned here.
1.	(b) Greece, No. Switzerland, No. United Kingdom, Yes.
2.	(b) Yes.
3.	No such measures are in effect under DREE programs. The Department does, however, co-operate closely with the Department of Supply and Services in ensuring that slow-growth regions are able to benefit from government procurement activities.


LOANS AT SUBSIDIZED RATES TO INDUSTRIES
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance aware that 14 of the 24 member nations of the OECD have enacted measures allowing loans at subsidized rates to industry in designated development areas and, if so, are any such measures (i) now in effect in Canada (ii) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Finance as follows: (a) See question No. 1,346 answered this day. (b) The Department of Finance is aware of the existence of these measures in certain OECD member countries. The Department of Finance itself does not administer programs directed specifically towards regional development and does not offer, nor is it presently studying, this type of regional development instrument. As embodied in the programs of DREE, Canada has its own particular set of regional development instruments, suited to the Canadian context, which are reviewed and modified as appropriate in the light of experience.


RELIEF FROM STATE-GENERATED EMPLOYMENT COSTS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance aware that Greece and Italy offer relief to employers in designated development areas from state-generated employment costs such as social security contributions and, if so, are any such measures (i) now in effect in Canada (ii) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Finance as follows: (a) See question No. 1,346 answered this day. (b) The Department of Finance is aware of the existence in Greece and Italy of these measures. The Department of Finance does not administer programs directed specifically towards regional development and does not offer, nor is it presently studying, this type of regional development instrument. As embodied in the programs of DREE, Canada has its own particular set of regional development instruments, suited to the Canadian context, which are reviewed and modified as appropriate in the light of experience.


FISCAL CONCESSIONS ON CERTAIN PROFITS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance aware that Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey allow fiscal concessions on certain profits of enterprises in designated development areas?
2.	Are the Departments aware that the Minister of Development for Nova Scotia stated at the October 1976 APEC Conference that "it may well be time for the Federal Government to consider new incentives to new companies establishing in the Maritimes-perhaps continuing income tax benefits to improve the cash flow in early years"?
3.	Are any such measures (a) now in effect in Canada (b) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Finance as follows: 1. (a) DREE, through liaison arrangements with the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and other contacts with individual nations, obtains information about programs in effect elsewhere which may have relevance for its activities, including measures such as those mentioned here. Any consideration of such measures for application in Canada would require an assessment of both their effectiveness in their own domestic environment and their potential applicability to the Canadian scene, (b) Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	In so far as Finance is concerned Canada provides a two-year write-off for property included in Class 29. While this does not distinguish between various regions, it does provide incentives for new investment in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment in all regions of Canada, (a) No such measures are in effect under DREE programs, (b) Although DREE has no immediate plans to propose measures of this kind, it maintains an on-going review of possible program initiatives in an effort to assess their potential effectiveness in the Canadian context and to develop new measures which will contribute to the goal of more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions.


SHIPPING SUBSIDIES
Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	Has the Northland Navigation subsidy been discontinued and, if so, what measures does the government intend to take to improve ferry transportation on the west coast of British Columbia?
2.	Is the estimated expenditure for subsidized shipping on the west coast $2,450,601 and, if so, what criteria were used by the government to decide allocations of ferry subsidies for 1976-77 amounting to $107,820,698 to the east coast?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The subsidy previously paid by the Canadian Transport Commission to Northland Navigation for operating certain services on the B.C. coast ceased on 31 October 1976. Officials of the Department of Transport are working closely with provincial transportation authorities to ensure necessary services are provided, with federal contributions, if any, being made in accordance with the Water Transport Assistance Policy.
March 11, 1977

2. While the figures quoted are not exactly the amounts expected to be provided to subsidized shipping services on each coast, they do indicate the order of expenditure in each area. It should be noted, however, that the payments for east coast services arise primarily from the support by the Federal Government of services rendered under the Terms of Union and Terms of Confederation with Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island respectively. The difference between the amounts paid on each coast reflects the different priority placed on shipping services by British Columbia at the time of signing its Confederation agreement.


DISPUTE-TILDEN RENT-A-CAR
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Was the recent dispute between Tilden Rent-a-Car and the Department of Transport settled and, if so, on what terms and conditions?
2.	What is the total amount of money payable to Tilden, with respect to legal fees and other matters, with the settlement of this dispute?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes, the dispute with Tilden has been resolved. It was agreed that the company would be given 4th ranking for counter and car parking space and that all counters at Winnipeg International Airport would be grouped in the same general area. Tilden agreed to withdraw their suit and waive all legal action in this matter.
2. Substantiated legal costs attributable to this matter up to a maximum of $5,000 are to be allowed.


LAND SURROUNDING WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON, ONTARIO
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the land surrounding Westminster Hospital in London, Ontario, been declared surplus by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	What responsibility does the Treasury Board Advisory Committee on federal land management have in regard to the land surrounding the Hospital?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Treasury Board as follows: 1. No.
2. In the event that the Westminster Hospital property, in London, Ontario, would be declared surplus, the Treasury Board Advisory Committee on Federal Land Management would ensure that all relevant interests and factors are taken into account in making a recommendation to the Treasury Board on a new use for the property.


David Orlikow: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On October 12, the day parliament opened, I put a series of 60 questions, beginning with No. 216, on the order paper. These were very specific questions asking for very significant information on the number of classified positions existing in each department in certain categories and the number of occupied positions in the same category for the year 1975. These
Immigration Act
questions have been on the order paper for five months, and I hope the parliamentary secretary can promise some action.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the House and to the hon. member that 1 am aware of that series of questions. As the hon. member pointed out, he is seeking rather detailed and complicated information about job positions within the public service. We are making progress in collecting the information, and I anticipate it will not be much longer before it is available.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 10, 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. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, last night 1 explained in some detail why we thought this act was defective. One of the main reasons was that it permitted nearly all the questions to be dealt with by subordinate legislation or by regulation. I want to deal with the principle outlined in section 5 of the act which asserts that no person other than a Canadian citizen or resident has a right to come into or remain in Canada. This is linked with section 14 which provides that if the immigration officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the act or regulations to grant admission, he may grant admission after imposing terms. I would call the attention of the House to the permissive word "may" which, taken with section 5, may indeed be the means of depriving the would-be applicant of rights. In the previous act, section 27, which otherwise corresponded exactly with section 14, used the word "shall" and thereby said that an immigration officer, satisfied that all the rules had been complied with, "shall" grant admission. The new bill says that he "may" grant admission.
Couple that with the general statement that no person other than a Canadian citizen or resident has the right to enter Canada and I say it is clearly erroneous to assert that no immigrant has any rights, since he will have rights until this new legislation passes. It is true that Canada as a sovereign nation has the right to exclude or accept whatever immigrants

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
it chooses; but parliament has legislated, and where it has legislated it has conferred statutory rights, rights which indeed may be withdrawn but which are nonetheless real. The Supreme Court of Canada has frequently referred to these statutory rights. Therefore, clause 5 as presently set out in the bill is not only bad in principle but is erroneous in law. Nor is this merely an academic matter. Immigration officials and perhaps the courts may treat immigrants as if they had no rights. I find it strange that Canada, a country built on immigration, a country most of whose inhabitants came here as immigrants under unlimited right of entry, should seek to remove all such rights.
The repeal of provisions with regard to domicile is a backward step. A person living in Canada for five years acquired Canadian domicile and was, generally speaking, not subject to deportation. That is to be changed. It is true that the Citizenship Act has shortened the period of required residence before an application can be made for citizenship, and once one is a Canadian citizen one's status with respect to deportation changes entirely. But I remind the House that there is no absolute right to citizenship and there may be good and sufficient reason why some long-time residents of Canada do not wish to obtain citizenship. The effect of removing the concept of domicile from the act will be this: long-time residents of Canada who have established their homes, businesses and residence in Canada will have no assured protection against deportation on a wide number of grounds set out in the bill.
In the bill there are extremely broad and dangerous provisions with regard to admissibility and inadmissibility. For example, one is deemed to be inadmissible if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that one is likely to engage in criminal activities. How can one tell this? It is true that there is a note to the act which says that this provision will apply to those who, although never convicted, may perhaps be associated with organized crime. But the bill itself does not mention organized crime in this connection; there is no mention of it. It merely talks about people who are likely to engage in criminal activities. That is a matter of opinion. In whose mind will the opinion be? I presume it will be in the mind of immigration officials. Would-be immigrants may be suspected of such activities.
I say that a provision which penalizes a person because that person may be guilty of something, whereas he may be guilty of absolutely nothing, does not fit into our concepts of justice or into the rules of justice as we know them. Indeed, such language suggests guilt by association. If we are going to exclude people from entry, we should at least make sure they have committed some crime or offence which renders them not suitable for admission to Canada.
Clause 19(l)(f) provides that a person cannot enter Canada if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is likely such person will engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government while in Canada. The language of the law used to talk about subverting any democratic government. Now it talks about subverting any government: any govern-

ment now falls within the ban. Subparagraph (g) on page 14 of the bill extends the prohibition to those classes of persons likely to engage in acts of violence which may endanger the lives or safety of persons or who are associated with an organization that is likely to engage in such acts of violence. It is possible that a person might be a member of an organization but not be aware of all its activities; they may not know that in some parts of the world it is involved in acts of violence and therefore would be entirely free from any taint of violence or violent action. If we are introducing the principle of guilt by association and banning such people, or not allowing them to enter Canada, I say that we are introducing a novel and dangerous doctrine.
I come now to clause 39 which provides that a certificate signed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) is in itself proof of the matter stated in the certificate. Thus, the minister and the Solicitor General are given the ability, without trial, to determine if a person is to be in one of the prohibited classes. It is true that there is power to report to a special advisory board, but it is notable that this language seems to be permissive rather than obligatory. This sounds to me very much like the state of siege mentality which in many countries has resulted in the imposition of repression. I suggest that provision deprives people of their basic rights. No one, myself included, would pretend that Canada is on the verge of reaching the state of repression in respect of security matters which has deprived many peoples throughout the world of their fundamental human rights. I say that we should not start down that path by conferring on the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, however admirable we think they may be, such vast and ill-defined powers.
At this stage I should like to deal with some parts of the new legislation which I think deserve commendation and should be incorporated in the final version of the bill. I believe that the spelling out of objectives in clause 3 is a good idea. That clause refers to facilitating the reunion of Canadian citizens with close relatives from abroad. I think that ought to be one of our fundamental objectives. It is said in the bill that any person who seeks admission to Canada is subject to standards of admission which do not discriminate on grounds of race, ethnic origin, colour, religion or sex. It is true that much remains to be done to give greater meaning to those words. One could give illustrations; unfortunately I do not have time to do so at present. However, it is useful to have the policy of non-discrimination outlined in the bill.
It is also stated that one of the objectives of immigration is to fulfil Canada's obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and persecuted. With those excellent sentiments we heartily concur. Indeed, I want to be sure that the statute law which will give effect to those sentiments will enable people in that position to come to Canada. I wish some way could be found to link some of the new objectives with specific provisions to enable their enforcement. It is all very well to include excellent objectives in the bill, but unless those objectives are supported
March 11, 1977

with specific, clear legislation and machinery for enforcement they will not mean much.
Clause 109 of the new legislation is most important. It provides for consultation and agreement with the provinces on the settlement of immigrants in Canada. It seems to me that the final authority in matters of immigration, if we are to preserve the federal structure, should be the federal parliament. However, there is a very great need for far closer consultation with the provinces so that immigration policies may be in line with the planning and cultural needs of the provinces of Canada.
I believe an improvement to the act is that instead of having special inquiry officers decide on the making of deportation orders, a new class of adjudicator will be appointed. Therefore, we will not have in the future the strange spectacle of an immigration officer preparing and presenting the case against a would-be immigrant and then going around the table and deciding the case, sometimes against the immigrant. There is an old saying that no person should be a judge of his own case.
I hope every effort will be made to separate the function of the adjudicators from that of their immigration officials. They should be judicially removed from the departmental administration.
There have been improvements with regard to the definitions. The previous act contained antiquated and unworkable language with regard to health and mental illness as a ground for exclusion. This has been altered. Although, as I mentioned, we question leaving the judgment to a medical officer, this represents a very real, considerable and humane improvement in the law. Another improvement is that we have got rid of the term "commits a crime involving moral turpitude" as a ground for inadmissibility. No two persons I have ever met have agreed on what are crimes involving moral turpitude. One person's moral turpitude is another person's pleasant privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am glad that that phrase, which I think we borrowed from the United States, is to be eliminated from the act. I am not at all happy about the provisions in the act as they relate to appeals. At this stage, a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board should be granted in all cases for deportation where removal orders are made or people are refused admission. I am well aware, of course, that there was a time when we had a great backlog of cases, but the classes of those admitted have been restricted. Visitors cannot apply in Canada. There is no danger of a repetition of the bottlenecks and backlogs, and the right of appeal should be clear and simple instead of involving, as it does in the present act, a whole series of semi-intelligible phrases.
We welcome the reference to refugees. We think the provisions in the act leave much to be desired. We believe this process should be simplified and that there should be a refugee claims board to which cases of refugee status should be referred. I have not found the present methods of dealing with
Immigration Act
the matter by the immigration appeal board and the advisory board satisfactory in cases of refugees. Some members of the board seem to have very little concept of what is going on in other parts of the world. We suggest that the refugee appeal claims board should contain a senior representative of the Immigration Department, a senior representative of the Department of External Affairs and a representative of the ethnic groups and of the churches which have taken great interest not only in the admission of refugees but their cases after they have arrived here.
Let us state with absolute clarity that applicants with refugee status still have an open and full hearing. Refugees should be treated as ordinary immigrants and not be required to make their cases on economic grounds. If they are treated exactly the same as other applicants, they get no special recognition of their status as refugees. That means people fleeing from political persecution, and often very great danger, from the countries in which they live and the countries to which they belong. It may be reasonable to say there should be some plan to look after refugees in Canada, either by relatives or ethnic groups, but the normal points system and the fact they should have to establish themselves successfully in Canada should not be required.
Where there are a large number of refugees such as the Chileans and those in Argentina, Canada should be prepared to send special teams to deal quickly with those cases. This worked well in the case of the Hungarians, the Ugandans and other refugees to Canada and it is working well in other countries to get people from Chile. From the experience of some of us who travelled recently in the Argentine, it is badly needed now. I regret the fact that the minister preferred to accept the advice of certain officials-and I believe they were rather junior officials-handling the present flow of immigrants and ignored the pleas of his colleagues in three of the major parties who carefully studied the matter and reported their views to him.
In conclusion, the question of immigration is closely connected with economic problems in Canada. It is clear that if we are to maintain our present level of population-and this would indeed seem reasonable in a country of Canada's resources-we will have to provide for a regular flow of immigrants. We do not recommend an open door policy, nor do we recommend a closed door policy. We propose a moderate assessment with reasonable numbers to be admitted which would be true to Canada's past as a country built by immigrants.
We are well aware that where there are high levels of unemployment and serious economic stagnation, immigrants are often blamed and demands arise for their exclusion. The answer to that is not a rigid exclusion of immigrants but the building of an expanded economy in Canada. We are a nation in an interdependent world. Our reaction to the problems of immigration will be an important test of our acceptance of this fact.
I have made it clear that we are disappointed with this legislation, particularly because of its threat to the principles

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
of civil liberties. Perhaps, even more so, because of the wholesale acceptance of regulations and subordinate legislation as the primary means of making the laws in this field, a means that I explained yesterday is totally unsatisfactory. We will do our best to get the act amended in committee in the way we think makes sense. We will have to consider, and are considering very carefully, whether it would be consistent for us to vote for a bill which conceals as much as it discloses.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of appreciation of the progress that Canada has made in the creation of a just and humanitarian immigration policy that I rise today to take part in this debate. I come from immigrant stock. With the exception of only two members of this Elouse, we are all the sons and daughters of immigrant forefathers, although some of us are aware that our ancestors had a more difficult time than others in gaining entry to Canada. It is because of that awareness of history that I wish to applaud the government for rejecting the recommendation of both the green paper and the special joint committee that the nominated category be eliminated. By that rejection, the principle of family reunification is maintained in this bill.
I noted with interest the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who spoke on behalf of his party. I have read his comments and have come to the unavoidable conclusion that he and his party do not give much importance to the principle of family reunification. He is against grandparents of any age sponsored by a Canadian citizen being included in the family class and the retention of the nominated category. His rationale for rejection of the nominated category is that they congregate in the urban areas but independents do not. I am at a loss to understand this reasoning. Immigrants and Canadians go where the jobs are, and that is why this government is placing much more emphasis on its stated policies of decentralization and regional economic expansion. As a Canadian of Chinese descent who is conscious of the story of Chinese immigration to this country, I know how important the principle of family reunification has been to so many families.
Before I address the specifics of this Bill I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, in allowing me to rehearse for this House some of the facts of that story which may be of interest particularly to those hon. members who are not fully conversant with the history of the west. Following confederation, Canada's immigration policy was that of the open door. Chinese workers were recruited in large numbers to work on the railroad that was to bind this nation together. My greatgrandfather was one of those nation builders. But by 1885, while a promotional campaign was being carried out in Britain, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, to lure settlers to Canada with 'subsidized transportation and cheap land, the government brought down an act to restrict and regulate Chinese immigration. The act imposed a head tax of $50 on each Chinese immigrant. Not very many Chinese peasants could afford that. A further restriction was that no vessel was

allowed to carry more than one Chinese immigrant for each 50 tons of its tonnage.
In the early years of this century, the immigration boom was on and promotion of immigration to Canada among farmers in Britain, France, and the United States was a major concern of the government. When not enough response was seen to be coming from northwestern Europe, the campaign to woo farmers from their own countries to ours moved into southern and eastern Europe. In 1900, however, a Chinese farmer wanting to emigrate to Canada would have found that the head tax had been doubled to $100: and to be sure of its effectiveness the tax was raised in 1903 to $500, at which level it remained, for the next 20 years. Similar restrictions were contemplated for the Japanese, but were prevented by diplomatic considerations.
It is now only 70 years-the span of one lifetime-since the 1907 anti-Asiatic race riots in Vancouver. Although the head tax on Chinese immigrants had drastically curbed the number of Chinese emigrating to Canada further action was deemed necessary to discourage the influx of other Asians. So an order in council disallowed the admission of any Asian immigrants who did not come to Canada "by direct and continuous journey" from their country of origin. A further regulation required that no Asian immigrant could land on Canadian soil without $200 in his pocket. This provision did not apply to Chinese or Japanese immigrants. The former were deemed to be sufficiently deterred by the $500 head tax, and the latter were to be limited in their numbers entering Canada by their own government. One could sum up the policy of this period and the ensuing 40 years as a closed door to any nationalities which it was felt would not be easily assimilated into the dominant culture.
The restrictions eased slightly in 1923, when regulations on Asian immigrants were changed to allow entry of farmers, domestic servants and the wives and minor children of residents of Canada provided they carried $250 in landing money. It was also provisional on there being no contrary legislation. This meant that Japanese immigration was still regulated by an agreement between the Canadian and Japanese governments. Chinese immigration was controlled by the Chinese immigration act passed that same year. This act, which remained in force until 1946, limited Chinese immigration into Canada to the following categories: diplomats and their families and staff; children born in Canada of Chinese parents who had left the country to receive their education; merchants, defined as those with $2,500 invested in a business in which they had been engaged for three years and who intended to invest the same amount in a Canadian business; and students.
Those who gained entry under these regulations could not change their status. They could be deported if they engaged in manual labour. They could not land at any other port than Vancouver or Victoria. Any transportation company which carried an immigrant subsequently denied entry had to re-transport that person and pay for his maintenance costs at immigration stations. A vessel could bring to Canada only one Chinese immigrant for every 250 tons of its tonnage.
March 11, 1977

When these new regulations were in place, the $500 head tax was dropped as no longer necessary. One student of the history of Chinese immigration to Canada, Dr. Wallace Chung, has estimated that if the government were to repay the $26,500,000 taken under the head tax law, the debt-having accrued at a modest interest rate of 4 per cent per annum, compounded-would now be in the neighbourhood of S159,-000,000. As a Canadian of Chinese ancestry, I think I can say that the sons and daughters of those who paid the tax would today count it a fair price for the benefits of being members of our society.
The Chinese immigration act was repealed in 1947 and Chinese became eligible for sponsored immigration in the same way as other Asians. The continuous journey regulation in effect since 1908 was also dropped. But through the 1950s, despite an economic boom that resulted in relaxation of many, laws, discriminatory regulations against Asians continued to be enforced. In 1951, Canada signed agreements with India, Pakistan and Ceylon to admit only a limited number of their citizens over and above those eligible under the regulations governing Asiatics. In 1957, when the economic boom died, the rules governing occupational criteria were tightened. At the same time, however, there was a loosening of some regulations governing Asian immigrants to permit citizens of Canada to sponsor their spouses, minor children and elderly parents.
It was not until 1962 that unsponsored immigrants from all over the world became admissible under the same criteria, so that finally Asians, Africans, Latin Americans, and Caribbean peoples could gain admittance as unsponsored immigrants. The effect of this opening of the door was not felt for some years since preference went to professionals, skilled and technical workers. But all residents could now sponsor spouses, parents, grandparents, fiances and unmarried children. Asian and African nationalities thus gained several categories under which their loved ones could be sponsored that had always been denied them before.
In 1967, the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of race or nationality was explicitly affirmed in immigration regulations for all classes of immigrants. That principle is reaffirmed in this bill, and the government's commitment to that principle and to the principle of reuniting separated families is illustrated by the agreement between Canada and the People's Republic of China on family reunification which was obtained by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). For that, the Prime Minister will have the gratitude of many Canadians of Chinese ancestry.
Mr. Speaker, I prefaced my remarks on this bill with a brief history of Chinese and Asian immigration to Canada because I wanted to illustrate how far we have come in Canada in buttressing and developing the rights of all peoples in a nation founded on respect for the diversity of the cultures of mankind. A lot of the credit must go to those Chinese and other Asian immigrants who were pioneers in more than one sense of the word. I know that many of my ancestors met hardships in making their lives in Canada, often because of a misunderstanding of their way of life. By perseverance and patience,
Immigration Act
and by the strength they could draw from their culture, they won their right to full participation in Canadian society.
The three doctors of Chinese origin practicing in Vancouver in 1940 had become 76 practitioners by 1974. The one lawyer and one dentist had become 29 lawyers and 32 dentists. In 1940 there were no Chinese accountants or architects in the city; but by 1974 there were 18 accountants and nine architects of Chinese origin. Let no one imagine that this growth was an easy process. At the same time as they were growing up with the country, the country was growing up with them. The days of the "yellow peril" are not only gone; they are now unthinkable within the enlightened Canadian context. Canada can now address itself to the consideration of an over-all immigration policy without calling up the spectre of racism or national chauvinism. I think we have all come a long way, and we have come that way together.
I had the honour to serve as a member of the special joint committee which took the debate on the government's green paper out to the country at large. I am pleased that the government has seen fit to accept the majority of the committee's recommendations. I remember at the time that the committee was formed that some cynics-and some of them were fellow members on the committee-decried the travelling hearings as a public relations circus. Our recommendations would count for nothing, these cynics said, because the government had already made up its mind what would be in this bill we are now considering. We were nothing but window dressing, they said. The majority of our recommendations are now proposed as law. That's some window dressing! I see that as a reaffirmation of the worth of the parliamentary committee system and as proof of the government's commitment to its employment as a means of making the processes of government both accessible and responsive to the people. I therefore congratulate the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and his predecessor, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), for the hard work and dedication they have demonstrated in responding to the committee's efforts with the formulation of this important piece of legislation.
As I said at the outset, almost all of us are of immigrant ancestry. We are all aware that this country owes its existence to the willingness of immigrants from all over the world to take a chance on Canada. It was the immigrants who opened the west, who pushed back the frontiers and who formed the agricultural basis for Canadian society after confederation. When the country developed into a modern industrial society, immigrant workers made the transition possible.
Today we have to consider the role of the immigrant in our new society. The first fact that we must acknowledge is that Canada is not facing a population problem. Nor are we facing an immigration problem, as some mini-demagogues might suggest. We are facing, instead, a problem of demographics as more and more of our people leave the rural areas for the large cities. This is perhaps one of the most important facts of modern Canadian life, and its future ramifications will be

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
immense. By the end of this century-only 23 years now-nine out of ten Canadians will live in the cities. We do not have a population policy to deal with the stresses and strains that this mass exodus from the farms will have upon society. 1 hope that this legislation may lay the groundwork for developing such a policy.
The determination of Canada's immigration policy must eventually intermix with the establishment of a comprehensive population policy which will address the country's demographic needs. We are now experiencing zero population growth, so that the role of immigration in our society takes on a new importance. I believe the economic considerations are not paramount in determining our optimum population, since the economy is self-regulating-we are all producers and consumers. With co-operation from all levels of government, particularly the federal government, the economy could be managed so that we could use immigration to offset a static or even a declining population figure. There is little evidence that immigration causes or exacerbates inflation or unemployment, or adversely affects our balance of payments situation or creates regional disparities; and there is no reason to believe that zero population growth is necessary to maintain our accustomed standard of living.
We can, in fact, manage our economy in order to ensure that we do not lose our equilibrium. We must have an appropriate savings rate, relevant capital output ratio, a sufficient rate of capital accumulation, and adequate technological enhancement.
One major area with which the green paper did not deal, and which should be of fundamental concern to a consideration of population policy on the large scale, is the effect of the present zero population growth on my generation when it grows old and grey. The post-war baby boom-of which I and a great many more Canadians are the result-has not produced a baby boom of its own. The base of the population pyramid is therefore no longer widening. That means a downturn in eventual capital investment, and no expanding work force to support me and my contemporaries when we reach pensionable age. A recent estimate predicted that whereas today about one person is on pension for every five in the work force, by 2020 that ratio will have changed to one person on pension for every three in the work force.
Immigration can have a determining effect on that prediction since the majority of newcomers to Canada are highly skilled and young. This was pointed out as one of the shortcomings of the green paper by Dr. Andre Raynauld, former director of the Economic Council of Canada, when he appeared before the special joint committee. I agree with Dr. Raynauld that the government should certainly take this consideration into account when determining the levels of immigration.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
[Mr. Lee.)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-228, a private member's bill which, as you know, I can no longer put forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that Bill C-228, in the name of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Guay), shall be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, before our noon adjournment I was discussing the importance of the relevance of immigration in today's context. There are significant non-economic factors to be considered, and the green paper places these issues squarely before us. Our immigration policy must be shaped by our over-all national aspirations, as well as by more narrow economic considerations. In the old days, immigration filled the west because this is where the land was for the taking. Today, immigrants go to the high-growth provinces-Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta-because that is where the jobs are. Some people say this undermines national unity and they want immigrants to be controlled in their movements within Canada.
The ramifications of that kind of control on freedom of movement fill me with a sense of foreboding. What we need, instead, is decentralization of our industry, which I believe would not only do a great deal to ease friction over immigration but would be of great value to the economic health of confederation and thus to all aspects of our national life.
There is the question of Canadian nationalism. Do we need a larger population to assert our independence from the influence of the United States? There may be some truth to this argument, but I believe that Canada is certainly large enough to pursue its national goals. Our economy has undergone a profound structural change, according to some authorities, so that we are no longer dependent on the American industrial economic core and all the markets, capital, technological and other factors which this implies. Certainly, we have recently demonstrated a sense of renewed national spirit in many cultural and social spheres even without a rapidly expanding population.
This bill would enhance the role of the provinces in national immigration policy and thus ensure that the needs of all parts of the country are properly met. Each year the minister will consult with the provinces over government forecasts of the number of immigrants to be admitted. I am disappointed, however, that the government will not submit its forecasts to the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I strongly urge the government to reconsider putting its forecasts under the committee's review. Too often
March 11, 1977

the special joint committee heard the voicing of mistrust of the Department of Manpower and Immigration because of allegations that officials abused their powers by setting internal levels of immigration based on race. That mistrust could be countered by the government's willingness to open itself to scrutiny by the standing committee so as to demonstrate to Canadians and prospective immigrants that our immigration policy is non-discriminatory, just and equitable.
Of equal concern to me is the overdependence upon regulation in this legislation. Decisions which are not subject to full public debate will always be subject to suspicion and mistrust. Immigration policy inherently demands openness, and that is why I strongly urge the government to lessen its dependence on legislation by regulation.
There is also some mistrust over the proposed setting of levels of immigration. To some, that means quotas. I can assure those people that that is not the intention of the government in controlling and managing immigration. In establishing annual or periodic forecasts, the commitment of the legislation to non-discrimination-to "first come, first served"-must be observed. Once established, a level of immigration-which is an order of magnitude or target figure- may be overshot or undershot. It will have no reference to specific countries or races. However, I urge the government to establish a more equal distribution of immigration posts abroad.
Some people seem to feel that by setting levels of immigration the government is lending credence to those who want to pin the blame on immigrants for all our social problems. I am sure that most hon. members of this House have heard the erroneous view that immigrants crowd our cities, cause housing shortages, steal jobs from Canadian citizens and abuse welfare provisions. There is no evidence for this kind of racist error. Immigrants are only a small part of the tremendous influx into the cities which is straining some aspects of our social fabric, a fabric which we know developed out of a Canadian society which no longer exists as the Canada of the 1970s. Of course immigrants are part of the problem, but we are all a part of the problem. As the special joint committee said:
-immigrants should not be blamed for problems they have done little to cause, although they may have compounded them. Canadians worried about the quality of life in the cities should look elsewhere than to sharply reduced immigration for a solution to the problems of city living.
With regard to the false idea that immigrants have a disproportionate impact on social services such as welfare and health care, the committee heard no evidence to back up this popular fallacy. In fact, the impression was that immigrant use of such services is less than the national average since they come from cultures where these functions are traditionally within the realm of family responsibility. In addition, many immigrants come from cultures which have taught them to be too proud and independent to accept aid which they see as charity. Nor is there any evidence to support the notion that immigrants do not participate as actively as long-time residents in the work force. I am at a loss to square this idea with
Immigration Act
the equally prevalent and equally false assertion that immigrants take jobs from Canadians.
Some submissions to the committee alleged that immigrants, especially non-whites, contribute disproportionately to the crime rate. This in fact turns out to be true, but not in the way intended. A report prepared for the Department of the Solicitor General in 1974 showed that the crime rate for immigrants was approximately one half that for native-born Canadians. The inference one is tempted to draw from that statistic is that more immigrants could mean less crime, but I leave that to the "pop" sociologists. Moreover, it seems to me that those who argue that by setting levels of immigration the government is lending credence to those who want to pin the blame on immigrants for all our social problems, are playing with numbers. How is it a level of 150,000 immigrants is discriminatory, but a level of 400,000 is not?
The bill provides for three admissible categories: the family class, refugees and other applicants. The family class corresponds to the current sponsored category, but it will be expanded to include parents and grandparents of any age sponsored by a Canadian citizen. Under previous legislation parents and grandparents had to be over 60 or, if under 60, incapable of employment. The refugee class is, for the first time in Canadian law, defined according to the UN convention and specific provision is made for the admission of refugees. The bill also provides authority to establish when necessary, for humanitarian reasons, special admissible classes for people who are not refugees within the convention definition. The third category, "other applicants", is made up of immigrants who are selected on the basis of a points system which takes into account factors such as occupation, education, etc. "Other applicants" shall be independent and nominated applicants.
One category of the 1952 act which is now outmoded is the "inadmissible" category. The definition of those whose entry is prohibited has therefore been revised. Provisions such as the absolute bar against epileptics are removed. Instead of retaining a long list of health conditions governing admission, the new provisions allow for individuals to be judged on their total health profile. We have added provisions to meet the threat posed by terrorists and those associated with organized crime. Changes in the inquiry system to provide adjudicators, coupled with the new concepts of exclusion orders and departure notices, will ensure fair hearings.
In conclusion, as a Canadian whose immigrant ancestors experienced hardship because of an immigration policy based on discrimination, I am pleased that the government has brought before this House a bill which enshrines the principle of non-discrimination as a basic objective of Canadian immigration policy. As a member of the special joint committee which conducted hearings from coast to coast on the issues raised in the government's green paper, I am gratified to see the majority of the committee's recommendations accepted by the government.
I urge the government to give greater consideration to the formulation of an over-all population policy for Canada, and specifically I ask the government to consider a greater involve-

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
ment of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in the setting of forecasts under this legislation.
I urge all hon. members of this House and all englightened Canadians to continue their efforts to dispel the erroneous notions which some Canadians still retain about those who have chosen Canada as the place in which to fulfil their dreams of a better life.
As I said at the beginning, we are all newcomers to this country, but if immigrants can produce a nation like Canada, and if immigrants can become a great people like the Canadian people, we have little to fear for the future.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to open my remarks by saying that it is difficult for me to believe that what we find in Bill C-24 is the best this government can come up with in the way of immigration policy. Our immigration policies have been under study for a number of years. The joint committee on immigration received scores of briefs on the subject, and it also received tens of thousands of words of testimony on immigration problems and policy from a wide range of interested parties. Many members provided excellent input on what we feel should be the direction of Canada's immigration policy. Therefore, I am disappointed and disheartened to find that we are no closer to a solution to our immigration problems than we were before those lengthy studies and hearings. In fact, if Bill C-24 passes and becomes our new immigration policy, we will be more confused about this issue than ever before. The bill before us does not lend itself to reasonable and rational debate. In fact, there are so many imponderables and unanswered questions that it defies debate. But we must try.
We were led to believe that Bill C-24 would indicate the direction that an immigration policy in Canada should follow. Instead, we are more in the dark than we have ever been. We were promised guidelines so that everyone would be able to understand it and follow it. Instead, we have a mish-mash, a patchwork quilt of confusing and conflicting policies.
The main problem with Bill C-24 is that it contains too many gaps, too many unanswered questions. Like most legislation tabled by this government, we are asked to approve the skeleton of a bill and allow ministers and bureaucrats to fill in the blanks later. For instance, just to name a few examples, we find that clause 115 begins with the words, "The governor in council may make regulations", followed by 24 subclauses for which regulations await the pleasure of the governor in council. Clause 116 begins with the words, "The minister may make regulations", followed by 12 subsections in which, in this case, we assume the minister will make the regulations at his pleasure. Clause 117 follows along the same lines, allowing the minister to establish the pertinent forms for purposes of administering this act.
Mr. Speaker, the regulations alluded to in those clauses are just the things that we should be debating. We in the official opposition have been protesting against these tactics for sever-

al years. We have been pointing out to this government that this is not the way parliament is supposed to operate. No government should expect this House to approve the principle of a legislative package and leave the government free to fill in the blanks later. It is not the principle of immigration policy that we are here to debate and approve; it is the specifics of immigration policy itself that we are expected to debate. The specifics are lacking, and I strongly resent being put into this position.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition want to know, now, how the points system of assessing immigrants is going to work. We do not want this in general terms; we want to know exactly how it is going to work. It is obvious that we cannot approve or disapprove a policy when neither the government nor the opposition knows how the policy will work. We want to know exactly what powers will be delegated by the minister under the new policy, and we want to know exactly the level of public servants to whom the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) will be allowed to delegate that authority and power. This is a potentially dangerous situation and we do not want that degree of authority vested in public servants below the level of deputy minister.
In a federal system, immigration must be a federal matter. While repudiating the view that each province should have its own immigration policy, it is imperative that the provinces be consulted. Immigration to Canada affects all Canadians and no one province should have special status in respect to admitting immigrants. Once immigrants reach Canada they are free to travel and settle in any area, and thus the province or provinces which receive most immigrants should have more input into policy. At present, Ontario receives the greatest number of immigrants and the large urban centres such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver become the eventual points of settlement. Consultation with the large urban areas is also advisable as they have to contend with the problems that result.
Traditionally, the spread of population in Canada has been a natural development. As our frontier has crept westward, jumping over the Canadian shield, it has taken with it the traditions and social customs of our eastern settlements. Thus, the traditional way of life and respect for law and order tempered the Canadian frontier and produced a less volatile civilization than in the American west, for example. This traditional and systematic development has continued. Instilled in all Canadians is an admiration for our traditions and law centred society. Today, however, there is an increasing concern that we are losing, to some extent, the way of life that made our country great in the past.
Perhaps one of many reasons for this change in outlook has been the influence of some immigrants whose lifestyle is often foreign to that which has been traditionally Canadian. Mul-ticulturalism is all right in its place, but individuals who come to settle in our great country must become Canadians. The American experience has often been called a melting pot. We in this country, with our often garbled approach, might prop-
March 11, 1977

erly be termed a tossed salad. The contributions of various ethnic groups have enriched the Canadian heritage.
In the past, the Liberal government seems to have used immigration policy as a political tool. Canada is greater than the sum of its diverse parts, and in our efforts to formulate a coherent immigration policy we must bear this in mind. There is the myth that has to be exploded with regard to Canada's capacity for accepting an unlimited number of immigrants. Canada has an area of 3'/2 million square miles, and a population of 23 million people. The Northwest Territories alone is an area of 1.3 million square miles and has a population of less than 50,000 people. Some countries assume that we are able to accommodate a few million immigrants comfortably, but there is more to this than appears on the surface. There are aspects to this that are not covered in the guidebooks.
At least two-thirds of the land mass of Canada is taken up with ice and snow, mountains, tundra, rivers and lakes and other natural restrictions on human habitation. It is true that more people can be accommodated in the far north than are at present living there, but there are few people who could survive in the north, and fewer still who would want to try it. In Canada, as in other countries, immigrants tend to settle in the larger urban areas, most of them in the cities that at the same time offer the best climate.
In light of the present energy crisis, not only in Canada but around the world, we must be more aware now than ever before of the problems and expense of living in the colder parts of our country. The plain fact is that the energy crisis has changed our whole outlook as far as concerns moving large numbers of people into our Canadian northland. No longer is this possibility a simple solution for relieving the congestion of our cities. One-third of the people in Canada at present live in the three cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. In every case those cities are experiencing serious growth problems, but the growth continues. We have problems with unemployment, pollution, crime and all the other problems that come from overcrowding of cities. In addition, we are experiencing the same after-effects of overcrowding which affect urban centres all over the world.
Cities are established generally where they can grow, and that means they should have access to water, jobs, transportation and good agricultural areas. If a city is close to sources of good it will be able to provide easily for its own needs; it will be able to generate jobs in the fields of food distribution, processing and marketing. Unfortunately, as the city grows the agricultural lands around it disappear. People have to go further afield to find their food, and therefore it gets more expensive. In the meantime, the demand for the same food from other areas places demands on available supplies, and we have found that this can result in undesirable situations. Assured of a ready market for their goods, suppliers will put up their prices. We have also found that some suppliers will hold back supplies, create artificial shortages and put their prices up still higher.
Immigration Act
Major airports account for more land lost to agricultural production and industrial use. Large airports take up thousands of acres of land, and expansion programs take up still more. I think we can see, Mr. Speaker, that the relatively small percentage of the livable land space in Canada dwindles almost by the minute. This is not really new to us: we have known for many years that available land in the part of Canada considered generally as livable is fast disappearing. These things I have mentioned must be considered when we are formulating immigration policy. Plain common sense tells us that we have an obligation to consider the welfare and happiness of the people already living here.
We must take a close look at our own resources and measure them against the needs of our people. At present we have about one million people in Canada looking for jobs. Many of them have given up any hope of finding meaningful employment. If we cannot do better than that for our own people, we are holding out false hopes to untrained and undertrained people in other countries by representing Canada as the land of golden opportunity. Mainly for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are doing both ourselves and prospective immigrants a disservice if we lower the standards we expect people who want to live permanently in Canada to meet. If opportunities do not exist in Canada for people who cannot make it in their own countries, we have the responsibility to be frank and honest not only with them but with ourselves.
I do not know of another country which has an open door policy today. I do not know of another country which allows the wholesale immigration of unskilled people. That policy belonged to the past century, when North America was sparsely populated, when we had room for people and needed new skills and pools of unskilled labour. These conditions no longer apply either to Canada or the United States.
We must consider the aspect of foreign aid and our obligation to assist developing nations to look after their own people. In past years, before we tightened our immigration policy with regard to applications for landed immigrant status from within the country, we were training people from developing nations to go back home and assist their own people. Instead of sending them home, we allowed many of them to stay here as landed immigrants. Even today we are accepting people as immigrants who have been trained in their own countries with foreign aid funds, and this works against both the letter and the spirit of our foreign aid program.
We have an obligation to avoid draining the trained and skilled people from developing nations. Part of our foreign aid program should be directed toward enhancing the attractiveness of one's own country, instead of holding up Canada as a more desirable country than one's own native land. We are not doing anyone any favour by continuing that kind of immigration policy. The plain fact is that we do not need those people, and their own countries do need them. In the past we followed a policy of attracting skilled people to immigrate. Because of this policy, many of those left behind in their countries were uneducated, unskilled, often living in abject poverty, whereas

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
those who could and should have helped to improve the lot of their fellow countrymen left, looking for greener pastures.
Canada cannot attempt to solve all the world's population problems by accepting an unlimited number of immigrants. During March, April and May of 1975 the Canadian Association of Independent Businessmen polled their members for their views on immigration policy for Canada. Of those, 62 per cent who cast votes in the poll opposed a policy of high growth for Canada, while only 34 per cent opted for high growth. Those opposed cited congestion in metropolitan centres, housing shortages, lack of job opportunities and the further destruction of arable farm lands.
Surprisingly, there was a lot of support for the policy of telling new immigrants where they would be allowed to settle. Seventy per cent of those polled stated that there should be some degree of control over where immigrants could live, while 27 per cent expressed the view that there should not be any restrictions. The vast majority of those polled expressed the resounding view that Canadian citizenship is a privilege to be earned. It is a strange phenomenon that the federal government alone appears to take Canadian citizenship lightly.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am concerned about the way we are being compelled to debate immigration policy for Canada. Unless the government is willing to fill in a lot of gaps in this bill, and unless they are willing to accept amendments, we are going to end up with a real nightmare immigration policy. We are being asked to debate and approve a bill that indicates how the policy might work. We need a bill with specifics, a bill that indicates how it is going to work. No other approach can resolve this important matter.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, like most pieces of legislation the bill now before us includes ramifications that gave rise to a number of comments. I submit that when discussing a bill of this kind bringing improvements in the area of immigrant "accommodation", we should never lose sight of a basic fact, which is that economic conditions in this country must dictate the possibility of accepting immigrants. We must first ensure that Canadians themselves are certain of a decent living in each and every of our provinces. I have heard it said that by increasing population through immigration, taxes could be levied on a greater number of citizens and tax revenues could rise. This in my view is a preposterous assumption.
It might be better to improve the standard of living for all Canadians and then we could think of increasing the population through immigration. I think this must be the determining factor for immigration purposes.
Earlier I heard someone speaking of unemployment rates. We now have an unemployment rate ranging in some areas between 25 per cent, 30 per cent and even 40 per cent. We must then study the procedure used to accept immigrants. There are two aspects to take into account: first, those who

would not be happy in Canada because they would not be able to earn a decent living; it could be prejudicial to some residents looking for nonexisting jobs, particularly in this critical period of the year. We can say that it has lasted too long already.
I recognize that since the beginning of our history French Canadians and later English Canadians have always been the two major cultures. But we should not forget that citizens from several countries have been settled in Canada for many years. It is quite difficult to say how many Indians were living in the territory forming today's Canada when Jacques Cartier was exploring the south coast. Today there are Indians in every trade and profession and they still have their traditional occupations like hunting, fishing and farming. Many are doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers, nurses, clergymen, industrial workers or practicing any other profession.
History reports that the first Jews came to Canada around 1759 with the army of General Amherst commanding British troops in North America. We also know that Canada is home to a large number of citizens from all nationalities who, for the most part, made various contributions to the development of our country.
I understand that all those factors must be taken into account when we consider the possibility of amending an immigration policy generally, because many citizens of other countries who are in contact with relatives and friends here, of course, want to come and settle in Canada, and those are quite normal aspirations.
But, as I said earlier, the main point is that it is up to us as leaders and representatives of the Canadian people to orient the policy as a whole so as to make the economic situation for Canadians better, more livable. We may then view immigration in quite a different form from what it is now.
There are also people rightly referred to as refugees. In all countries of the world there are groups who suffer a great deal, and it would be most generous of Canada, with its vast territory, and if its economic situation were sound, I always add, to help those people.
I received late in 1976 a letter from a lay missionary who worked in Viet Nam and Cambodia for several years. I even rose in the House to allow well-intentioned families to adopt young Cambodians who were facing all sorts of hardships in their countries. I remember quite well the kind of representations that had to be made, the time it took before decisions were made. Yet every guarantee was given on both sides. 1 know three of them. I have here some photographs of young Cambodians who are living right now in the riding of Kamouraska and, to give an idea, I will read an excerpt from the letter I received from this lay missionary of my region who is completely devoted to the cause of disadvantaged people in other countries constantly threatened by all kinds of evils, mainly war. Let me read this paragraph which states:
Thousands of families were scattered in this way, and wandering children and teenagers managed to get to Thailand on their own, starving to death or ill, after walking sometimes several hundred kilometers and facing the worst dangers. All the evidence given by those refugees is consistent. Only 2 per cent of the Cambodian refugees managed to stay alive and reach Thailand, others were shot
March 11, 1977

like dogs by the red Khmer troops who still have a kind of shadow government in Phnom Penh. Those refugees have lost everything, their property, their land, often their family and their country. Those who fled wanted at least to stay alive.
Therefore, it is on behalf of these young people that we brought pressure to bear. A young man of 27 met with immigration officials. I was even contacted afterwards to learn whether he was satisfied with his interview because he had discussed all these problems. What is Canada doing in certain circumstances through its embassies? Let me tell you what is happening in our embassies in various countries. Only recently, we had another striking example with a young French-Canadi-an woman from Levis who is facing tremendous problems in India. The attempts of the Canadian government have not been successful so far. It would seem this situation is not taken too seriously by our high commissions abroad, and too often, the money sent by the Canadian government through its embassies is not always directed to the poor who might need it, but it benefits others who could manage by themselves, because they are better off than those who are suffering in concentration camps.
I continue this quotation:
We do not understand why this country does not react in the face of such crimes against humanity. And why has Canadian immigration such selective regulations? Why do we not admit to Canada a simple citizen as easily as we admit a political or military personality? People with influence and those with financial means are always the first to be accepted as it can be proved in several cases. The destitute and the orphans stand practically no chance of being accepted as refugees even though they may have a worthy Canadian sponsor.
This young man knows the situation very well as he has worked several years in various sectors of European countries, in Thailand, Cambodia and elsewhere, as I mentioned earlier. He added the following and 1 quote:
We know that our country cannot welcome all refugees from Thailand or elsewhere, but why not practice fairer and more humane policies? Why does the government fail to denounce such abuses before the United Nations? Those who say nothing are just as criminal as those who perpetrate the crime. Killing innocent people is an odious crime but our country says nothing to denounce it.
Perhaps you will find that I have drifted away from the subject being dealt with in Bill C-24 but nevertheless these facts are indeed related to our immigration problems since it raises the question of the adoption of totally deprived children. For example, we have the case of a man from Ottawa who has been after the manpower and immigration department for the last six months trying to adopt a young child from Cambodia. Although he can give all possible guarantees, being a well known doctor, everything is blocked at the immigration department.
To come back to the bill, I should like to deal with some of the most repressive aspects of the legislation. Several new aspects of the law have provisions ensuring better controls at all stages over the immigration procedure, so as to protect Canada against terrorism and organized crime.
I am wholeheartedly in favour of that. We must also bar entry into Canada to all sorts of people who could create many problems. That is to say we must fight unlawful or unauthorized immigration. Basically, the Canadian government wishes
Immigration Act
to take advantage of the passing of this new law to introduce all the measures necessary to make immigration one of the most important socio-economic programs. This infers the possibility of controlling as best as possible the political and economic instruments pertaining to immigration. To do so, the bill introduces a series of repressive measures but we shall only mention the most important or dangerous.
I will therefore deal with the extent of discretionary powers. All the repressive measures are made even more dangerous by the fact that they are enforced by the minister but not necessarily because the minister himself will have complete control since, in practice, a great number of his officials will wield powers with a very wide margin of discretion and authority. Almost everything pertaining to immigration depends on the decisions of the immigration officer. The margin of personal evaluation and, therefore, of possible error is enormous. And, far from correcting the situation, the new law tends in fact to make it worse. For example, the most sensitive clauses, dangerous because of their consequences, clauses pertaining to national security, clause 19(1) subclauses (e), (f), (g) can be enforced when there is only suspicion of intent. These discretionary powers, whether used under the act itself or under the various regulations derived from it, have indeed presented problems and were the subject of specific recommendations by the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, set forth in its second report to the House presented February 3, 1977, pages 979, 981 and 987.
Let us now deal with the extent of regulatory powers. A great many clauses come into real focus only when they are completed by the regulations provided for in clauses 115 and 116. However, the present aspect and direction of the bill leads us to fear that the regulations will only add to the restrictive and forbidding character of Bill C-24. This business of regulations always create problems. There are several acts that we often come across when trying to solve problems. We find that such a section means such and such a thing. However, there are regulations, and often, they are longer than the act itself. This has disastrous results, makes the legislation difficult to apply, and is most inconvenient, especially as the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has just called the attention of parliament to the aims of regulatory powers in many a'reas, including immigration.
There are indeed many unpublished regulatory instruments, instructions or guidelines which affect the rights and freedoms of individuals without their being aware of their existences or their contents. Moreover, the joint committee itself, even though it was instructed by parliament to examine all regulatory instruments, has been refused access to the guide and guidelines of the department for the use of immigration officials. It should be noted in this regard that section 19(2)(d) maintains the present situation by forcing immigrants and visitors who try to enter Canada to meet the requirements included not only in the act and the regulations, but also in the orders or directions made or set out under the act or the

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
regulations, even though these orders or directions are not made available to the public.
Finally, we must point out that the regulations can be amended or replaced as often as necessary without being submitted for discussion to parliament. Now that is something. Should anything happen which might create difficulties, a group of officials taking the responsibility in such a field will amend the regulations. Quite often the public is unaware of the fact but suddenly a clause of the regulation is amended-to prevent, delay or stop something in the relations between immigrants and the Canadian people. This occurs in other legislation as well. I know more about unemployment insurance with its regulations which are lengthier than the legislation itself.
The way things are now the Department of Manpower and Immigration will not even allow the joint standing committee to control and check all the related bills, a task entrusted by parliament. All this, needless to say, leaves a great measure of freedom to the department and the government.
I shall now deal with the admission requirements. Clause 19(1) contains the main reasons for inadmissibility of those arriving in Canada. The categories established in clause 19 are considered the most important and normally cannot be disregarded. They apply to all persons seeking entry into Canada, with the exception of course of Canadians. Let us point out however that the terms of clauses dealing with national security, particularly paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g) of clause 19 and clause 27(1 )(c), are quite vague and general. So much so that the government will not be able to enforce them on anybody without that person having very good means of defence, especially since the implementation of those provisions will be left to the discretion of a great many officials, immigration officers, senior immigration officers and adjudicators, and will be based most of the time on mere suspicion, the consideration of which will be left to the discretion of the official.
That leaves too much freedom to officials. They are apparently invested with the necessary authority to render decisions which may prove detrimental to whomever may be in trouble, decisions based very often, as I have indicated, on regulations which were amended when it was deemed necessary.
With this in mind, we can understand the concern of all those groups fighting for civil liberties and basic human rights.
I shall deal now with the conditions for removal. Clause 27(1) provides that various categories of people who have been granted admission to Canada may be the object of a report. What is provided for under clause 27 is followed by an inquiry, as indicated in subclauses (3) and (4), clause 29 and the following. Most times this leads to expulsion. I read subclauses (2) and (5) of clause 32. One of the main new features of this bill aims at making the condition of the permanent resident a lot more vulnerable than in the past, for a permanent resident could almost never be removed, once he had acquired landed immigrant status. The new bill creates six main general grounds for removal, including the most dangerous one mentioned in clause 19 and clause 27(1 )(a). As for the grounds for

inquiries and necessary removals of non Canadians, non residents, refugees, visitors, etc., their number is a lot greater. There are 12 types of more or less serious reasons provided for under clause 27(2)(h), according to the minister's own admission.
The comments on clause 27 on page 19-I am referring to the news release-are to the effect that this will not prevent either removal or local banishment.
The new legislation does away with the concept of domicile. In this respect, the minister himself cannot help but note that the new legislation affords a lot less protection than the current one-I refer to clause 127-which states that the people who have obtained Canadian domicile in Canada under the current legislation have a vested interest in the protection previously granted.
Clause 127 states however that this protection applies only in respect of an activity carried out before the coming into force of the new act. Therefore, Bill C-24 sanctions the loss of the vested interests of all permanent residents now residing here, since they are no longer protected against any action taken after the new legislation comes into effect. It seems that the suppression of the requirements regarding residence is a kind of incentive designed to encourage permanent residents to apply for citizenship as soon as possible, since citizenship would be their only protection against deportation. Now, since the coming into force, on February 15, 1977, of the new citizenship act, one may apply for citizenship after three years of residence in Canada instead of five. That is why the minister states that the domicile concept is now obsolete, as he said in committee as regards clause 127, on page 69. However, we forget to say ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must refer him to Beau-chesne's citation 381, and I quote:
The second reading of a Bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure. On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the Bill.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to refrain from discussing the clauses of the bill.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, thank you for having quoted the Beauchesne's citation. Naturally, I have little opportunity to read Beauchesne's citations, and I have noticed there are many of them. Still 1 can readily speak in general. In any event, that is what I discussed at the start of my remarks, namely the difficulties stemming from the restrictions included in the Immigration Act, and that is what we are trying to amend here. I agree with the restrictions intended to prevent undesirables from entering into Canada or to deport those who after years in Canada have failed to adapt to our living conditions; and here I am not talking about economic conditions, which I mentioned earlier in my speech, but of normal life in our society. What I do want to point out is this: in all regulations on immigration, there must be clauses intended to prevent all sorts of things, to give the advantage to those who do offer sufficient guarantees. I mean the adoption
March 11, 1977

of children in a demoralizing situation, whatever their country of origin, when here in Canada we have Canadian guarantees which, while respecting the rules, can protect those young ones. In such cases the rules should be flexible enough to help those little ones, who are without parents, to have a chance of resuming a normal life in an environment where they would be protected from the problems they knew over there. In a way, that is a good Immigration Act.
Now, to come back to the underlying unemployment problem. I fail to understand why at certain times of the year we must send for a lot of workers from various countries for harvesting in western Canada, in Ontario or elsewhere. As I said before, I am convinced that the Department of Immigration or other labour agencies do not provide adequate information to Canadian workers, young or middle-aged, who would willingly go there. I intervened personally at the manpower and immigration centre to try to obtain accommodation for workers who wanted to do the harvesting in Ontario, but nothing was available. There was even a young man aged 17 who left Kamouraska with $227 he had earned working on a farm at the end of his studies. He got no protection, no direction, no help from the manpower and immigration centre. He found a job, but he had to work very hard and take many risks.
Citizens from Belgium or from the West Indies are hired for harvesting in Canada whereas we have thousands of unemployed here. I am in no way opposed to those Belgians or West Indians who come and work here; they are apparently hard workers. But why not try first to inform all Canadians. I am convinced that a very high percentage would be prepared to travel. They would even appreciate it. Many young people come to me to say that they would like to go and work in the English-speaking provinces to learn English if only they could find some accommodation. This is not a matter of being paid more than foreigners for the job. This is an immigration policy I would qualify as being considerate. First of all, we should organize normal living conditions here so that all Canadians can live decently in a country which is wealthy, tremendously wealthy, as some politicians say. We know that Canada is a very large country, a vast and wealthy country. We just have to organize economic conditions in such a way that everyone can live decently, then if we have immigrants pass legislation to welcome them.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that this is a debate which I personnally feel I have an obligation not only to myself but to my constituents to participate in, for the simple reason that, in my opinion, this is the most important legislation to come before this second session of the Thirtieth Parliament. As surely members on both sides of this Chamber must be aware, since October 12 last when the session commenced there have been a number of bills which were somewhat less than of all-important national concern. Let me quickly add that this is not one of those; this
Immigration Act
is a very important bill to all Canadians, if only because it will likely provide the policy guidelines for immigration for our nation for perhaps the next 25 years. At least that is the impression I get from the various responses that have been made so far.
If it is possible to launch an important debate in an ideal or near perfect atmosphere, then 1 suggest that this was the situation in this House last night. We had received well in advance ample background material from the Department of Manpower and Immigration, from the many private sources who were interested enough to provide it, and also from the very extensive work of the special joint committees. Opposition parties, especially my own, have been very active in a widespread study of the entire subject and, of course, specifically of this bill.
I want to commend the minister for making perhaps his best and most important speech in his relatively new capacity as Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I particularly liked the comment made by the minister, not last night but last month, to the Osgoode Hall law school of York University. I want to quote him briefly. He said:
The anomaly between the important role that immigrants play in our society, and the archaic, obsolete nature of the present Immigration Act, has worried successive holders of my portfolio. This has been particularly true in the last decade or so.
The minister went on to say in that same speech that the bill-
-is designed to protect Canadian society against danger, and to protect it against illegality. But it does so with full regard for due process and for the rights of individuals in a way that the present act does not.
I can only add that I sincerely hope and trust that the minister can indeed fulfil this very commendable concept in his new legislation. As he pointed out last night, Canada is indeed a country of immigration. I want to relate this general but very true statement to my own constituency of Medicine Hat. Indeed I want to relate it to a much wider area which would include all of southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. All of the development of this area, which is very similar to me because, after all, it is home, is today the end result of immigration.
I am reminded of those early settlers from northwest Europe, many of whom built and lived in prairie sod houses, and from the United Kingdom, many of them professionals who somehow learned to survive and live with the land under rather extremely trying climatic and physical conditions. I think also of many of my neighbours who came from the United States, particularly the Dakotas. Then there were the Mormons who came from Utah and who brought with them their great skills in irrigation and land use. There is no question that they showed us the way to a very extensive irrigation system in Alberta, almost all of which is in my constituency across southern Alberta.

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
I recall very specifically one particular immigrant, a tremendous man by the name of Peter Alkberg. This gentleman was driven out of his native Latvia after the 1917 revolution. As a youngster at home I remember his worn out photographs of his family farm which had been ravaged by war.
All of these immigrants in a sense were the product of adversity and necessity. They could turn their hand to anything, they could fix anything, and it was this background and their tenacity in our new country that enabled them to survive not only their tough beginning but the ten years of drought and depression of the thirties.
I spoke in the House not too long ago of the very real possibility of another drought right now in all of western Canada and the northwestern part of the United States. I suggested we would all benefit if we read again the history of that era and the considerable part played by those earlier immigrants. We might also remind ourselves of the words of Harry Truman, in my favourite quotation. I think it is appropriate. He said, "The only thing new is history we haven't read yet". Think about it. We should read and re-read the history of that drought. The climatic conditions that brought on that ten year dry period can be repeated. I hope not, but the possibility is there and the signs are there right now. So much for a little background history which I trust is both relevant and interesting.
I want to turn now to this debate and begin by commending my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), for a very thorough and complete analysis, not only of this bill but of the entire broad subject of immigration. It is quite obvious to me that this presentation was indeed a labour of love for my colleague, and all of us in the House are richer for his interest and his speech here last night.
There was one short sentence in my colleague's presentation which I consider to be the key to my personal approach to this issue, and I want to read it. It is as follows:
Today we are faced with the fact that despite tremendous gains in agricultural production, the world's population is again growing faster than the increase in food production.
That is a very succinct statement, and I think it is the key to what our forward planning should be, not only in immigration but in the broad agricultural sense. I suggest that this very basic situation must be uppermost in the mind of everyone who is concerned with the population growth, and with who will feed the people, and where. After all, as my colleague pointed out, world population is now increasing at the rate of some 200,000 people a day.
It seems to me that in spite of ample publicity and advance warning of this debate, and particularly in spite of the green paper and the work of the joint committee as it travelled across Canada, very little public input is available at this time. In my constituency, I had to search for it. My constituency office conducted a survey in the representative areas in the city of Medicine Hat, which numbers about 33,000 people, and in the various parts of our rather large rural area. Once contacted,

my constituents responded readily, and I must say forthrightly. Most of the comments were very specific and almost brutally frank. By some people's standards they might even be considered bigoted. I should like to quote some of these remarks that I obtained in the survey. The comment of a city housewife was:
Immigrants should not be allowed in, if once they get here, they have to go on welfare.
She followed up by saying that:
All immigrants should be screened to make sure they believe and support the democratic process.
A city businessman had this to say:
I do not favour a wide open policy. If we have a labour problem today, it is with menial labour, dishwashers, ditch diggers, etc. Therefore we cannot restrict immigration to skilled labour.
Another comment was:
If we allow immigrants into the country, we must be able to supply them with jobs.
A professional man said, rather bluntly:
No coloured people at all.
A lawyer had this to say:
Our policy must be far stricter, with stronger screening, and no draft evaders or political activists from South America or political refugees in general.
That was the bluntest of the statements that I received.
A highly proficient farmer feels there is a danger in making our policy too restrictive because we would deny ourselves a source of new ideas. He feels that new immigrants have a greater appreciation of our country than those native born. He feels our policy should allow for a small percentage of unskilled labour.
There was the repeated comment that existing regulations are too generous in that many more than close relatives, often complete small villages, have somehow managed to arrive here. Others pointed out that we should look at the problems in the United Kingdom's immigration policy and the situation there at present. A provincial civil servant pointed out the difficulty of a broadly based immigration policy without being quite selective. He feels there should be a carefully controlled policy with emphasis on skills. There was some critical comment from several farmers concerning new immigrants with access to much cheaper capital financing from foreign countries, and examples of this were given. Of course this would be a major advantage in acquiring farm land.
I want to emphasize that this constituency survey did not pose specific questions but asked for any comments that might be offered. No leading questions were put. With the single exception already noted, the general response called for stricter controls with more attention given to current abuses. I must say that I agree in general with the response.
Another unanimous response, especially from the farming sector of my constituency, was that Canada should help starving peoples in their own countries by providing suitable, practical help designed to promote an agricultural self-help policy. Again I fully support this approach.
March 11, 1977

I should like to speak now about a related manpower issue within the intensive irrigation districts of southern Alberta, and particularly the area which produces sugar beets. There was solid support for the existing provision to bring in temporary workers. In this case they were referring to the Mexican workers who are available in the summer for thinning the sugar beet crop in its early growth stage. This source of temporary help has replaced our own native people who at one time provided most of this type of labour. There is a clear indication that this foreign source of labour is more dependable and more productive. This is a serious statement to make, but it is the truth. It should be pointed out here that this kind of farm labour is superior to our Canadian born labour force which just will not do this kind of work. This temporary work policy should be continued.
There has already been ample comment on the matter of the regulations to be put forward with this new bill. I share the sentiments of my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), that we should have the regulations before us now for a proper second reading debate. After all it will be the regulations that will determine the degree of an open door or repressive policy for the immigration guidelines until the year 2000. It is the policy which is now under debate.
There is an interesting comparison here that 1 cannot fail to point out respecting regulations under another bill. This time I am referring to the bill amending Canada's Animal Contagious Diseases Act. That act was amended for the first time in over 100 years about two or more years ago in this House, and those of us in the Standing Committee on Agriculture had a lot to do with that. However, the regulations which spelled out much of the policy were not released until last January, some two years after the act was amended. Surely this is legislation by regulation at its worst, with the bureaucracy doing the regulating. I know the minister did indicate with a nod of his head last night that these regulations would be available shortly. Since that indication is obviously not part of Hansard, I must mention it again, but let us not try to beat that two-year record.
I also ask the minister that there be more positive provisions for provincial and even municipal input to take care ofTegion-al problems relating to the total demographic challenge. The provinces must surely have the final say in the matter of foreign students attending provincial universities and colleges, such as those in Alberta. Foreign students do enrich our universities, but the time has come, certainly in Alberta, when foreign enrollments in certain faculties such as engineering, medicine, and science, must be curtailed to allow reasonable access to our Canadian students.
I want to conclude these remarks with just a few further comments in summary. In an issue like this which is so important to our nation it is regrettable that we cannot all be members of the immigration committee or that we could not all have served on that special joint committee. However, it seems to me that the work of that special committee deserves
Immigration Act
our praise, and merits much use in the development of our Canadian immigration policy. I am sure my party endorses most of the recommendations of that committee.
It is obvious that at this stage in Canada's history we cannot allow unlimited immigration, and this means our policy must be of a selective type. The minister indicated last night that the right figure for our total annual level will emerge with experience and that this experience could very well be tempered somewhat with available housing. I hope due consideration will also be given to provincial situations and that a balance, if possible, will be determined between immigrants headed for Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, and other regions across Canada.
It is worth repeating that immigration is a privilege and not a right, and Canada is much the richer for its immigrants. Is it not possible that our new immigrants, arriving as a result of a new and enlightened policy, might help to show Canadians the way back to a new work ethic and a new level of national productivity, which we need so much today, just as that first wave of immigrants responded during the first third of this century?
I and, I think, most of my constituents can support a renewed emphasis on immigration policy which recognizes standards which are not discriminatory as to race, nationality, colour, religion or sex. The method of selection must ensure that the right mix is obtained to be absorbed properly by our Canadian society.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on introducing the government's immigration bill the minister said that the bill explicitly affirms for the first time the fundamental objectives of Canadian immigration law: family reunification, non-discrimination, concern for refugees, and the promotion of Canadian economic, social, demographic and cultural goals.
I totally agree with the sentiments expressed by the minister in his opening remarks and I support them 100 per cent.
I would like also to congratulate the committee, as did the previous speaker, on the very excellent job it did travelling across the country, in listening to briefs from people from all walks of life and for putting forward a report of the highest calibre, which obviously met with the minister's approval since most of the major recommendations were accepted by him. I had the opportunity to travel with that committee only on the west coast, but I can assure the House and those hon. members who were not in attendance that the committee and its chairmen did an excellent job. It listened with a great deal of attention to the people who appeared before it and, as I said, it prepared a very excellent report which will probably shape the course of our immigration policy for many years to come. I congratulate the minister for accepting its recommendations, for putting them into legislative form, and for introducing them at an early date, which indicates to the House that he feels this legislation is important.
I would like to comment briefly on one or two parts of the legislation. One is that part of the legislation regarding the

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
immigration levels which will be set after advice from the provinces as to where immigrants should go, as to what levels we can absorb at any given time, and as to what projects of a capital nature might be going on in Canada which might require specialized skills. In other words, this is a fluid type of policy. It is not engraved in stone; it is one which can be changed on a year by year basis if necessary, to reflect what is occurring in the Canadian economy. If there is one thing of which we are all aware, it is that we have a rapidly moving society in which factors change almost on a daily basis, let alone on a yearly basis. I think it is important that an immigration policy reflect that fluidity in our society so that it can cope with changing circumstances on a regular basis.
The second point is one upon which we all agree, and that is the importance of facilitating family reunions. It has been the policy of the Department of External Affairs to assist in the reunification of families with relatives from places like eastern Europe or perhaps Communist China. I must congratulate the Department of External Affairs, as well as the immigration people who have assisted me personally, in reuniting families which have been split because of political differences. These barriers are not made by God; they are man-made political barriers, and I think Canada has had a very good record for not carrying a big stick, yelling and screaming on issues of reunification. Over a period of time, through diplomacy, Canada has achieved not all the goals we desired, but certainly those which were possible at given times and under given sets of circumstances.
I solidly support the position of facilitating family reunion, and I suppose what focuses my attention on this bill is the fact that for the first time we have legislated the principle that immigration should be based upon non-discrimination.
When I lived in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, I recall that many of the people who ran cafes were, the Chinese who had come to this country when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being built. They were not allowed to bring their wives and sweethearts with them, and I recall that six or seven men used to live together in a boarding house. I thought it was a sad indictment of our society that they could not bring their womenfolk over because at that time our laws forbade such people of oriental origin coming here. It is with some pride that I see we have progresed beyond this. I am sure many hon. members would agree that, although we are not proud of that part of our history, we can be proud that we now have non-discrimination written into the legislation so that people may not be barred on grounds of race, religion, or sex. For my part, I wish it had come sooner.
We have had many discussions in this House about unemployment and the effect on the social fabric of our lines when people do not have work. I have travelled in Germany, Switzerland, and other European countries that have a lower unemployment rate than we do and have noticed that they bring people from Spain and less developed countries to join their work force. But during times of recession or when there is a
[Mr. Anderson.)
slowdown in the economy, these people are sent home because they were never allowed to become citizens. While the government may be accused of having contributed in some measure, to a recession, I take pride in the fact that people who wish to live in our country are not sent home in times of recession. I think we have reason to be proud of our humane attitude.
The Swiss set a limit on immigration and it may take an applicant ten or 15 years to come within that limit, so that is a less desirable situation. I know there is a group of people in Canada who have very strong feelings about immigration and feel that we should close the gate and only take care of those people already here.
I would state unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, that this House has an obligation to fight against discrimination by including a non-discrimination clause in the legislation such as that which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) introduced in his bill.
I was born and raised in Saskatchewan and I recall that in the early forties it was the accepted custom to bait people of Ukranian birth who painted Easter eggs and who spoke a different language on occasion. Many of them were born in the Ukraine and came to this country in the 1920's and the 1930's. Sometimes it was their mode of dress that gave rise to mirth. I would not say the treatment of them was harsh, but we felt there was something to laugh at. We could laugh at their customs, their clothing, their language but, Mr. Speaker, they were white.
I must admit that even today in my province of British Columbia there is subtle and not so subtle discrimination. I think it would be fair to say that the Chinese communities in British Columbia have experienced this, and the East Indian people. Perhaps they have run into the same sort of thing in other provinces as well as British Columbia as existed on the prairies in the 1930's and 1940's with that one difference-the difference in colour.
I think it would also be fair to say that up to November 15 in the province of British Columbia there was subtle and not too subtle discrimination against people of French Canadian origin, and certainly against the province of Quebec.
I see it as part of our job to do all we can whether by legislation, speaking in the House or throughout the country, to let the people of Canada know that we are totally opposed to any form of discrimination against any member of our society. I trust that with social and political maturity these forms of discrimination will become less and less evident as time goes on. I believe it is up to every member of this House to combat a very insidious decay in the country by letting our fellow citizens know that this House does not in any way condone intolerance and will not abide discrimination. Where we have the chance, such as in the legislation before us, we must point out strongly and clearly to the people of Canada that in our immigration policy we are opposed to discrimination, as well as in our day to day lives.
I trust that in British Columbia those very hard-working, law-abiding people who may be of a different colour from the majority of residents, will be recognized as the Canadians they
March 11, 1977

are. The fact that they work hard, that they believe in family unity and the importance of good housing, should not be used against them as though these things were wrong. Sometimes from the comments I hear I think these qualities are viewed as flaws rather than virtues. It would be better if more people followed their example rather than complaining that their industry takes jobs away from other members of the community.
It has been well documented that a reasonable inflow of people has not detracted from the quality of our economic, social or cultural life. The reverse is true. Immigrants have made contributions in the form of music, literature, and other cultural activities, so it is fair to say that these people, be they Hungarians, Ukrainians, Chinese, East Indians or what have you, have enriched our lives. It is a poor society that cannot look beyond its borders to other cultures. We have not reached the apex of our cultural development. We cannot afford to look down our noses at cultures which have been in existence for thousands of years and which antedate by many, many years, Canada's existence.
As I said, the non-discriminatory aspect of the bill is the most important part of the legislation. It is parliament's affirmation that discrimination has no place in this country and that we, as parliamentarians, recognize this.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any legislation which will come before parliament in the present session will be as important as this bill. Whatever else we may say about our immigration policy we must, as a fundamental principle, refrain from being racist or discriminatory.
In the short time I shall talk on this bill I intend to emphasize that racism and discrimination really ought not to be the issue before Canadians. In other words, one begins by assuming that we are not going to be racist or bigoted with respect to sex, religion, colour or anything else.
Surely in the presentation of this matter to the Canadian people it is important to question some myths about the numbers of people we can bring into Canada. Therefore I intend to put forward two propositions, both of which are based on the assumption that Canada should have a restrictive immigration policy, that is, should restrict the numbers of people allowed to enter Canada. My first proposition is this: there is a myth in this country that we have all kinds of potential for absorbing new people. My second proposition, which I intend to demonstrate with researched data, is that we can best help the Third World by operating from a position of strength. With those two propositions firmly in mind, I wish to set forth my case.
One must underscore how desperate is the world's food shortage. The United Nations Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology has this to say on the subject:
Immigration Act
Today there are over 300 million children who, for lack of sufficient protein and calories, suffer grossly retarded physical growth and development, and for many of these mental development, learning and behaviour may be impaired as well. Protein-calorie deficiencies also directly affect the health and economic productivity of adult populations. Such nutritional deficits, damaging both present and future generations, are built-in handicaps which must be corrected.
Obviously the situation is serious world-wide. We know that four fifths of the world's population suffers from malnutrition and more than 300 million children now suffer from permanent brain damage owing to lack of protein. In addition, the world's population is increasing at the rate of 77 million mouths per year.
In the face of these facts we should not react with a sort of knee-jerk reaction and say that, because the world is starving, Canada must have an open immigration policy. As I say, world population grows by 77 million mouths a year. If we were to accept in Canada every one of those 77 million people born in one year, we should make this into a country no longer able to export its research and technology. Furthermore, after one year the world would be no better off, Canada would be in the same position as the southern hemisphere, and the rest of the world would go on as usual.
The fundamental question must be, how can we best proceed so that by the year 2010 we can feed the human family of eight billion souls?
There are only two sources of food, soil and water. Canada is a big country, of 3.8 million square miles. It is the second largest nation in the world. In our land space we have some 5 billion, 312 million acres. Since we possess all this land, some Canadian people think that, somehow, we have the potential to feed vastly greater numbers of people than are already living here. In truth, only 24 million of those more than five billion acres are arable land in climatically favoured areas. Of those 24 million acres, only two million are class one soil, and only ten million class two soil. Even more significant is the fact that those 24 million acres will be reduced to nine million by the year 2000 if the rate of destruction of arable farm land continues at present levels. Today Canada is a net importer of food. Therefore two questions arise for consideration. First, we must ask how many people we can absorb in this country. Second, and more important, we must consider to what extent the "have" countries of the world, by exporting science and technology, have been able to help the "have-not" countries.
At present, Mr. Speaker, for every 100 Canadians we add to our population we destroy, on average, 1,000 acres of top grade arable farm land. At present Canada has three acres of agricultural land for every person in Canada. The world's average now is one acre of arable land for every person in the world. According to predictions, by the year 2000 Canada will have less than one acre of arable land for each of her citizens if present rates of farm land destruction should continue. Therefore if we have an open immigration policy Canada will be worse off by the year 2000 than the rest of the world is at present. We shall be worse off unless we redirect our immigrants to those areas where there is not high quality agricultural land.
3914

March 11, 1977
Immigration Act
As an aside I might mention that many cities in this country have sprung up on our best land. For example on the prairies, the cities of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Edmonton and Grande Prairie-in fact all major cities except Medicine Hat and Calgary-are built on lake beds where the soil is silted over. That is a natural phenomenom since the pioneers found they could grow the best crops on that land. But it also means that we are using up the best land in Canada and rapidly destroying the base for our own food supplies. In the five years between 1966 and 1971, Canada lost 4.5 million acres of top quality farm land to urban growth. At the present rate of farm land destruction, 100 per cent of Ontario's farm land will be destroyed by AD 2030. Canada can best meet her humanitarian obligations not by importing people, but rather by exporting technology and research, and to that theme I wish to devote the remainder of my speech.
Let us consider how "have" countries in the world have made available research and technology to "have not" countries and enabled people of the Third World to become selfsufficient. I shall quote what Peter Jennings wrote in the September, 1976, edition of the Scientific American. He said:
In the 1940's Mexico had been importing half of the wheat it consumed in order to make up a deficit in production; yields averaged 750 kilograms per hectare. By 1956 the nation was self-sufficient in wheat in spite of a large increase in population. By 1970 yields had reached 3,200 kilograms per hectare.
That was a tremendous increase for that country.
I further quote from the same article by Peter Jennings:
By the mid-1960's the success of this program had been demonstrated, largely because of the broad environmental adaptation of the varieties. Beginning in 1966 seed was exported in quantity, mostly to India, Pakistan and Turkey. Record harvests were achieved almost immediately.
That is important to note. The fundamental question has to be who will help when the whole world becomes overcrowded? If we import people into technologically advanced nations today to such an extent that we all become Third World nations, the real question has to be who will be the saviour of mankind then?
I wish to quote further from the article in Scientific American which states, and I quote:
The first improved dwarf varieties of rice were released by 1RRI in 1966; they immediately transformed rice culture in the Philippines and were soon widely adopted in the lowland regions of Asia. One variety in particular, designated IR8, gained widespread celebrity. It has the potential for high yield when properly fertilized and cultivated, it is insensitive to photoperiod and it is adapted to a broad range of growing conditions. Moreover, it matures in 120 days instead of the 160 days required for many unimproved types. Because of the earlier maturity two crops a year can be grown in some regions.
I would further like to quote:
Genes that confer resistance to disease and insects have been bred into some of the better populations. As a result of these changes it has been possible to increase the crop density from 50,000 plants per hectare to more than 100,000.
I might just pause to point out that all of this data I am giving is to demonstrate that the gap in the narrowing of the food needs that exist in the Third World today is largely a gap that has come about because the "have" nations have been
able to export their science and technology to those poorer countries.
The point I intend to make today is simply this. As long as we have a policy that somehow will allow a flood of people to come into Canada, we have the two positions. First, we destroy our own position of strength. This in turn means there is no one to export that very much needed science and technology to the developing Third World. Canada has a lot more to contribute to assist in meeting the increasing world food need. I again quote:
Ralph W. Cummings of the Rockefeller Foundation recently published a survey of the state of food-crop technology in the low-income countries. He compared the average annual gain in production for 15 basic commodities during two periods, 1961 through 1965 and 1971 through 1973. His findings give a rough indication of the contribution of research to food production since World War II. Two conclusions emerge from the study. First an evaluation of the status of research on the major food crops indicates that in almost all cases research is "seriously inadequate" or "critically inadequate". Only the specialized areas of irrigated rice and irrigated spring wheat were considered to have received adequate research attention. Second, annual gains in production of seven crops (Cassava, white potato, soybeans, cowpeas, broad beans, maize and wheat) were greater than 2.5 per cent, and thus equaled or exceeded the rate of population growth.
In other words, if Canada is truly to become a humanitarian country, and without trying to think we are going to do something significant by an open immigration policy, we have to recognize our fundamental obligation, and that is to remain in a position of strength, and export science and technology to help the Third World people look after themselves.
The value of research and exported technology is easily demonstrated. This is a very important point. I again quote from the article in Scientific American:
The impact of the new technology is readily measured. Yield has risen from less than three metric tons per hectare to 5.4 metric tons, so that each hectare planted to the new varieties produces 2.5 metric tons of additional grain. Total production increased from 680,000 metric tons in 1966, the year before the program began, to 1,632,000 metric tons in 1975. Almost all the increase was accounted for by improved yield. The value of the additional crops harvested through 1974 was about $450 million. Varieties derived from the Colombian project were also successful in Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and in Central America. Throughout the region the 1974 harvest was increased by 1.5 million metric tons of grain.
What is being pointed out is that the gains we have made in the Third World, in levelling off the rate of starvation through increasing food production, have not happened because of increases in the amount of arable land but because of new research, science, and technology.
I go back to the fundamental question. If we are to have an open immigration policy and if the United States are to have a similar policy, somewhere down the road someone has to ask who is going to stop the starvation when all the countries of the world are in the same position?
There is no argument at all with the question of whether we ought to have a racist or non-racist policy. I hope it will be the assumption of all Canadians that we would not go along the lines of a racist policy. I see it will soon be four o'clock. I would simply say at this time that I think we can demonstrate categorically that Canada's strongest position in helping the Third World will be by the export of research and technology.

March 11, 1977

I hope to demonstrate that when I come back to this debate at the next opportunity. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall all notices of motions prior to motion No. 27 stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved:: Thai, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation which would establish a National Mining Act for the purpose of increasing occupational health standards for miners under federal jurisdiction, for establishing a federal presence in this particular area and to give leadership to provincial governments which do have responsibility for mine safety and occupational health.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one thing has struck me consistently since having been elected to this place. It is the consistency with which Canadians are being exposed to the propaganda of the mining corporations in Canada with regard to the major role of those companies in the Canadian economy. I am continuously being told that mining plays a major role in the Canadian economy.
In the year 1975 the total value of minerals extracted from the earth across Canada was $12 billion. This propaganda is delivered through all forms of the media; television, radio, newspapers, and magazines. It is delivered not only by individual mining companies but by their associations and clubs. These companies make one major argument, that if they are to stay healthy and competitive, the government must stay out of their business but give them more tax breaks, allowances, grants and so on. Well, Mr. Speaker, apart from the morality of this kind of advocacy advertising, the cost of which, incidentally, they can write off their taxes, there is the whole question of the workers who toil in the mining industry.
How safe is the mining industry in Canada? Who has responsibility for setting national mining safety standards across the country? Where does the responsibility of the
Mine Workers' Health
federal government begin and end, and where does the local responsibility begin and end? How strictly enforced are any standards of mining safety in areas for which the federal government has a direct responsibility? What is the cost of health care to the nation in respect of those who have become disabled or lost their lives in mining, and how much of this cost could have been prevented?
1 know the technique used by government members on the opposite side of the House in dealing with bills and motions put forward by private members. They get up, engage in much breast-beating, say they agree with the principles therein, and finally talk them out. I want to tell them that this motion does not threaten them in any way. All it says is that the House calls upon the government to consider a mining act of the kind proposed so that improved safety standards might come into effect. It is a motion which would have the effect of nudging the government to move in the direction I have outlined. The miners of this country demand no less from members on the government side than that they should allow the motion to come to a vote.
I ask members opposite, when they speak, to bear in mind that we have only an hour and that in all fairness to the workers they ought to let the matter come to a vote. I do not want to threaten them, but if they talk it out I will bring this debate to the attention of every union in this country, and to workers right across the country so that they will know who it is that bears the onus of standing against progress in this direction.


Hugh Alan Anderson: That will get you nowhere.


Mr. Pearsall:: Blackmail!


John R. Rodriguez: It may not get me anywhere, but I know what you will do.
It is because of the questions I have just raised that I see a need for a national mining act. Apart from the fact that it would allow the central government and the provincial governments to sit down together and, with input from the trade union movement and the mining industry, devise an act which would clearly set out the federal and provincial areas of responsibility with respect to the mining industry, it would also provide a degree of protection for the Canadian miner which is urgently needed.
As I look across the country 1 see grave differences in working conditions in different areas. The miner in the Yukon has as much right to safety in his working place as does the miner in Ontario. At the present time workers are denied uniform levels of safety because of differing standards imposed by the provinces and even by federal departments. The federal government has responsibility for mines on Indian reservations, on military bases, and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Regulation of these different mines is handled in part by Energy, Mines and Resources, in part by Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and in part by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
80010-41%

March 11, 1977
Mine Workers' Health
In the north, in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, safety in mines is governed by mining safety ordinances. These can be set down by the Commissioner of the Territories but must be approved in Ottawa by the governor in council. These ordinances fall under the authority of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the federal government exercises control over mining comparable to the powers exercised by provinces within their own boundaries.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources also exercises broad powers, controlling such acts as the Explosives Act, the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Dominion Coal Board Act, and several other measures related to mining.
Mines in provinces are generally controlled by provincial governments, and within the various jurisdictions there are many different acts and regulations. Some provinces have enacted very advanced mining regulations and occupational health regulations, while others lag far behind.
A subject of great concern lately, and justifiably so, is the mining of uranium. Here the Atomic Energy Control Board has authority. The Board controls the production, manufacture, sale and use of radioactive material. But while theoretically controlling all this, the Board in fact does not. Instead, it has chosen to turn the exercise of these powers over to the provinces, thus washing its hands of the problem.
Recently in Ontario a commission was established to inquire into the health and safety of workers in mines-the Hamm Commission. AECB officials told that royal commission they had never asked the Ontario government for reports on levels of radiation in the mines or for the status of health of the miners. Commissioner James Hamm went so far as to charge that the Board was ignoring the miners, whose daily exposure to harmful radiation was, "larger than that received by workers around reactors." The AECB has not even declared uranium miners to be "workers" for the purpose of regulation by the federal government. The Commissioner raised many other questions in this area but I shall content myself with quoting one statement of his: "At times it has not been clear whether initiative was considered to rest with the industry or with the responsible ministry." To that, he might have added "and to precisely which responsible ministry."
The guidelines concerning safety differ in the different provinces and they also differ from the federal rules. For example, federal regulations state there shall be no more than 10 picocuries per litre of drinking water. In Ontario, provincial regulations state that the acceptable level is three. Let us not forget that in the Elliot Lake area leachings from radioactive mine tailings are threatening Indian bands and the town of Elliot Lake itself.
These safety regulations involve more than just plain numbers. Human lives are at stake. The AECB follows the guidelines set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. This is the group which said 10 picocuries per litre of drinking water was an acceptable figure. People within the Board say the only reason the provincial figure is lower is because the province has not gotten around to raising them to

"more realistic levels". I wonder about that, Mr. Speaker. I wonder about it very much as reports continue to come in about lung cancer and silicosis among uranium miners.
Ontario is not the only province which has experienced problems in this regard. Saskatchewan was concerned about safety levels in uranium mines in that province. On January 29, 1975, the department concerned wrote to the Atomic Energy Control Board and asked that three inspectors be appointed by that board to launch a system of safety inspection. Saskatchewan acted in this way out of disgust with the federal government's failure to set standards and inspect mines at Uranium City. The letter had not even been answered by November of 1976. When steel workers asked the Board why the letter had not been answered they were told it was because the Board had not had the time. I wonder how many more people will die before we can find the time to do something about health and safety in these mines.
The leader of my party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent), has moved three private members' bills in this House which would do much to cut down on the problem of occupational health for workers under federal jurisdiction. His bills would provide health and safety committees in all work places with ten or more employees; they would provide for mandatory work inspectors, and would allow workers the right to refuse work they considered dangerous. Those bills would help a great deal in cutting down the carnage in our work places. They might even reduce the number of injured workers in the post office. But in the case of mining I think we must go even further.
Mining is a dangerous and thankless occupation. I recall that we argued for months in this House over the merits of capital punishment and concern as to whether or not guards or policemen would be killed. We heard about the great risks that guards and policemen face as they try to carry out their duties. We should remember that, when it comes to hazardous occupations, a miner still has a greater chance of being killed than either a prison guard or a policeman.
Perhaps it is time, Mr. Speaker, we took some steps to do something about the problem. A national mining act would bring the issue before the public. We could examine in depth the measures needed to protect our miners from Newfoundland to British Columbia. Not only would such an act simplify the acts and regulations of different departments, but it would also provide for more adequate standards and inspections. It would also put pressure on the provinces to accept more adequate measures in areas where their legislation falls below federal standards.
We owe it to our miners, and their families to legislate the highest possible standards for their health and protection. Anything less is a travesty in view of and genuine concern for the Canadian working class.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear from the earlier words of the hon. member for Nickel
March 11, 1977

Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) whether he is really anxious to have members on this side support the substance, at least, of the point he is trying to make. Ele seemed rather ready to criticize us for what we were about to say before he had even taken the time to listen.


John R. Rodriguez: You are going to talk it out.


Alan Gray Martin: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, he might indeed find that the degree of support in this House might be greater than from his own party at the present time, based on the numbers that are present today.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We are unanimous.


Alan Gray Martin: The other member of that party present this afternoon indicates they are unanimous. As 1 interpret the motion of the hon. member, he wishes the government, if I may read part of it, to consider the advisability of introducing legislation for the purpose of increasing occupational health standards for miners under federal jurisdiction, for establishing a federal presence in this particular area, and to give leadership to provincial governments which do have responsibility for mine safety and occupational health.
I purposely omitted in reading those words the actual term "National Mining Act", and I did so for a very good reason. It seems to me that in order to achieve the very creditable aim the hon. member for Nickel Belt has in mind, which is to focus increasing government attention at the federal level on the problems of safety related to people in industry generally, he has focused solely upon one area. My own feeling is that this whole area of occupational health and safety is something that needs to be addressed on a much grander scale than simply dealing with one particular industry. So while I agree with the substance of the hon. member's objective, and indeed have no problem supporting him-1 hope he will continue to push his point of view-in my opinion the idea of trying to establish a mining act as such to deal with only one very narrow area of the problem is not the most appropriate way to proceed.
Again in my view, Mr. Speaker, it is great to see something like this being discussed without seeing a headline in the paper the previous day. In other words, my concern is that governments have tended to react in this area of occupational health and safety only after major tragedies, or more recently where we have seen more insidious types of tragedies where one or two miners are known to be afflicted by diseases which seem to have emanated from their terms of service in the mines. For this reason 1 feel privileged to participate in a debate which is going to tackle this problem in a sensible and, I hope, coordinated way.
I should like to review a little bit of background to show what has happened in this whole area of occupational health hazards on this continent. It seems to me that, whether we like it or not, we are very often inclined to look to others who perhaps have been in business longer than we have in terms of some of our national industries and have had more resources at hand, and consequently started to deal with some of these problems earlier than we have. I refer to the United States.
Mine Workers' Health
As I understand it, the oldest act in the United States is the Walsh-Healey Act, which was established to create standards of occupational health in those areas where companies were dealing in contracts with the federal government. As I understand it, various types of individual standards existed throughout the various states, and in some states standards were non-existent. I do not know when this act was passed, but it was a good while ago and it was a very important first step.
I put this information on the record, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that we in Canada have a long way to go. We are starting from ground zero almost, as it were, so I think it is important that we do review what has happened in this major country to the south of us.
Two additional acts have been passed in the United States, and one of these was the coal mining safety and health act which reacted to public concern over what is known as "black lung" in the Pennsylvania and Kentucky coal mining areas. This particular piece of legislation was designed to provide equitable compensation for people who were afflicted with this condition as a result of their work environment. I understand that through this act a very important body was created known as the national institute for occupational safety and health in the health, education and welfare department of that country. Again I am not sure of the timing of the introduction of this particular act, but it was another very important cornerstone in the over-all effort made in the country to the south of us to attempt to come to grips with occupational health standards and their establishment.
Then we have an act known as the mining environment safety administration act, which was administered by mines people and was passed, I believe, in 1972. Whereas they had focused primarily on the area the hon. member for Nickel Belt is dealing with, one specific narrow area, they were now obliged to go outside the coal mining area and to move into more general mining fields, which I gather included hardrock and mines other than coal generally. Standards were established under this act for silica and explosive gases.
1 myself had some very brief but interesting inter-action as a member of a parliamentary committee which went to Washington a year and a half ago in another area related to occupational safety and health, and this was through my discussions with senior officials in the occupational safety and health administration under their department of labour. Again I put this information on the record because it seems to me we are seeing a rather large mix of various areas of responsibility trying to get at the same problem. I am relating how the situation has developed in the United States, and I am not sure that they are entirely happy with it. Nevertheless, this particular focus under the U.S. Department of Labour, which is the most recent of all that have been established, covers up to 60 million workers in that country in five million work places. They employ a staff of 2,000, which gives you some indication of the type of bureaucracy involved. In talking with the senior people involved in this administration we found that in their view this was perhaps the biggest single piece of social legislation that had been introduced in the United States in recent

March 11, 1977
Mine Workers' Health
times. It is very controversial, it has some tough regulations, and it is only five years old.


Walter David Baker: Which one was that?


Alan Gray Martin: The occupational and safety health act. Initially it was aimed at safety, but now-when I say "now" I am saying so on the basis of my notes made in the autumn of 1975-they are moving to develop international standards in the area of health in work places in general. They are very actively co-operating with the state authorities. This was the question we put to them, knowing that in this country the jurisdiction is mainly provincial. To some degree the same applies in the United States, and they are having to work closely with individual state authorities. This is an agency within the department of labour.
Moving closer to home and to the heart of the problem pointed out by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, let me draw attention to the throne speech of October 12 in which the following was indicated. This is an extract which reads:
An industrial safety and health centre will be established to assist companies and workers in their efforts to identify any remove hazards.
The government will work closely with its own employees in various departments and Crown corporations to implement innovative, co-operative methods of improving health and safety conditions.
I have attempted to bring myself up to date on what may have developed in that area since that indication of prospective legislation was given to us in the throne speech, and I understand from talking to people in the industrial area that something called the Canada Centre for Occupational Safety and Health is being seriously considered, and already government people are circulating around the country talking to people from industry, labour and provincial governments in an effort to come up with some basic co-ordination in the area of health. The idea is to combine not just the problems related to mining but all the problems relating to safety and health standards, such as problems found in the agricultural sector, the mining sector, atomic energy, and the industrial sector generally. The idea is to establish national leadership in this area, and there is a good deal of sympathy among the provinces for this type of leadership to take place.
I understand that there are four basic problems that should be studied initially. One is the problem of silicosis, or exposure to dust, which is primarily a mining problem but which can be encountered in many other industries as well. The second one is a matter of noise, and the problem associated particularly in the mining field with underground drilling and other types of mining operations. There is also the problem of lung cancer from radioactive elements. We have heard much more about this as some of the problems have surfaced and are being discussed and studied in great depth. Fourth, there is the matter of underground diesels and the fumes created by them. I gather that these are the four areas which are being considered initially by this team travelling across the country, and I have this from people with whom that team has interacted rather than from government sources. There is a general

feeling among these people that something is finally going to be done and that some leadership will be shown at the federal level.
There is a tradition in this country similar to what the Americans faced when they tried to move in this area, that safety and health are a responsibility of the provinces. The indication to date is that everyone is anxious to respond to federal leadership in this area.
I have a little more to say on this centre, Mr. Speaker, the idea is to establish a place where a scientific background can be developed for establishing valid standards for the use of hazardous substances and chemicals such as, for instance, asbestos. Nobody really knew anything about the threshold limits in this area. It is an open area. We hope the centre will come to grips with this problem and will establish threshold figures acceptable to all parties concerned. Incidentally the agency will be directed by representatives from labour, management, and the provincial and federal governments. It is to be a kind of clearing house. Universities may be involved in the studies. It will not necessarily employ a large bureaucracy, but might farm out studies to various centres in the country where they could more appropriately be undertaken. It will act as a focal point for encouraging research and for setting standards.
As I understand it, ultimately there will be legislation in this area once the team has been able to pool together its various reports from the current studies it is undertaking and the consultations it is having across the country. It is my hope that this legislation will incorporate the very points the hon. member for Nickel Belt mentioned today. This is why I say that I think in the long run hon. members will be better served by a more encompassing piece of legislation which will cover all aspects of industrial hazards, rather than spending a great deal of time on one narrow area. I hope the hon. member for Nickel Belt will continue his interest in that area and will take an interest in larger and more encompassing legislation when it comes forward.
In conclusion I would like to make some reference to the Hamm report of which many of us are aware. It is a provincial study which was undertaken through the auspices of the Ontario government. It is a critical report. It criticizes both labour and industry for failing to live up to their responsibilities and insure safety in mines at that time. I think federal legislation will surely draw on that report and incorporate the points from that report which should be included in a more encompassing piece of legislation.
I am also conscious of the fact mentioned by the hon. member for Nickel Belt that, as he put it, those of us who rose to speak on this issue should be chastized. I want to point out to him that basically I am in support of the substance of his bill, but I do not support the means by which he is attempting to achieve his objective.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a motion, not a bill.


Alan Gray Martin: It is important for us to realize that there are many people in our society today, representatives of labour, United Steel Workers, and people in industry, who are con-
March 11, 1977

cerned with this whole issue. But the government must become involved, and we have indicated in the throne speech that we will be involved. It is one area in our commitments that we will surely follow through without question. As I said, things are being done now in this direction.
I would like to conclude my comments by once again congratulating the hon. member for bringing forward this problem at a time when we are not reacting to a major tragedy that happened yesterday or today. We realize that after 100 years or more the problem of occupational hazards and of safety measures in industry is extremely important, and has been overlooked for far too long in our social legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the beginning of the speech of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), and I heard those magic words we hear in private members' hour from hon. members on the government side to the effect that they basically support certain matters. If that is the case, especially when we are dealing with a motion and not a bill, and if hon. members opposite generally support this resolution, which deals specifically with the occupational health standards and problems of miners working under the jurisdiction of the federal government, a government which is supported and propped up by hon. members opposite, one of whom just spoke, they will allow this motion to pass. If that is the case, I am pleased. 1 am prepared to support this motion, and I commend the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for bringing it forward.
Some may ask why a member from the national capital area should support a motion regarding mining. It goes without saying that there are very few mines in the national capital area. I dare say there are very few mines in the borough of Scarborough either.
I have some credentials-albeit somewhat distant-with respect to the operation of mines in Canada. Technology has changed, but my experience is still vivid in my memory. When I was a student at law school I worked for a portion of a year underground in a gold mine in the Schumacher area of Ontario. I worked in Stopes. I was a raise man. I ran a mucking machine. I even drove a train until I wrecked it one day, and I was not allowed to operate the train underground after that. I am glad I caused some of my colleagues to smile this afternoon, but that is the truth. I saw at first hand the working of a mine.
Working in a mine is by its nature dangerous. It differs from other occupations in which there is some aspect of danger, but working in a mine is dangerous in itself. A person can be physically injured if he is tired or if he allows himself to be unaware of what is happening around him for just a moment. The atmosphere in which mine workers carry out their duties is dangerous. There are fumes, dust and other things in mines which are injurious.
If the hon. member for Scarborough West was speaking for the majority in this Elouse when he said he basically supports
Mine Workers' Health
this measure-and I am sure he must have been-I hope the matter will proceed so that study of this matter can take place in the appropriate committee. I hope today through this motion the House will express support for taking steps to raise occupational health standards for miners.
We tend to think of mining as being under provincial jurisdiction, and it is. There are some very sophisticated standards in the various provinces of Canada. They vary from one province to another, but in Ontario there is some considerable sophistication which has been viewed critically in the Hamm report. Perhaps that is a good thing. Out of that there may be some action taken in terms of mining in Ontario.
However, there is a considerable amount of mining taking place in the Yukon Territory and in the Northwest Territories. That industry is likely to grow as we look more and more to those areas for resources to be used for national purposes. I do not believe it will be possible for any responsible federal government which has jurisdiction over those territories to leave the question of mine safety to ordinances of the territorial councils, as well intentioned as they may be.
I gather that is the thrust of the hon. member's motion. There will be a day when those territories will be provinces, and then we hope they will have the resources to develop criteria with respect to mining and a host of other things, but they do not have those resources now. Therefore they depend on the federal government-their mother and father, so to speak-for that kind of guidance. That being so, there is a case to be made for a national mining act.
With respect to the argument that this kind of thing was dealt with in the throne speech, of course it was dealt with in the throne speech, but these things are a long time coming, for one reason or another. There may be a good administrative reason for this, although it is unknown to me. I do not want this to be a partisan day, but I think we have a responsibility in this House today in a non-partisan way to urge the government, by agreeing to this motion, to speed things up. We are not dealing with statistics, we are dealing with men and women who are involved directly or indirectly in the mining industry, and I hope hon. members on the government side will recognize the important human problem which is involved.
The last argument made by the hon. member opposite, who said at the same time he basically supports this motion, was that the focus of the motion is too narrow. The motion focuses on an immediate problem. In the federal territories there is no particular industrial safety problem compared with the magnitude of the problems there are in the mining industry. If the hon. member needs a reason for the narrow focus of the motion, that is a good reason, and if he wants to look to precedent, he can look to the precedents in all the provinces of Canada where mining is dealt with separately and other industries are dealt with separately because there are unique problems in each. However, that is not a reason to wait, and I hope hon. members opposite will consider this matter.
It really is a tragedy that we tend to wait for some major upheaval before we look at the mining industry or any other industry in which tragedies occur. There is no immediate

March 11, 1977
Mine Workers' Health
problem at the moment in the federal territories, but this is a good opportunity for this House to express its concern about possible problems.
We tend to think of mining only in the traditional sense of mining from the surface of the earth upon which man can walk, and machines move down into the ground to extract minerals. According to information given to us yesterday at an interparliamentary union luncheon, we are now in the process of considering technology for mining the seabed in more or less the traditional sense of the word. We are speaking in terms of removing nodules from the seabed. That is a whole new technology, and I think there is an opportunity for us to keep safety legislation parallel with and up to the technology we are developing.
I commend the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I do not often do that, but he has touched a problem with which I have some experience. I commend him for bringing this motion forward and I hope the House will support it.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that we are going to talk this motion out because we do have something to say about it. We support the notion but not necessarily the motion. We think there are better ways of dealing with the same problem. It would be almost impossible to get a national mining act through this House because of the constitutional aspect of the question. We believe there are other approaches, and we have taken steps which make rather more sense than this motion, certainly until constitutional changes are brought about.
I have some concern that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has virtually threatened members if we talk this motion out. I consider that a kind of blackmail and it disturbs me a great deal. It is an unparliamentary approach to this matter.
The hon. member has more experience in a mining community than I, although I have worked and lived near mining communities. I understand his concern because there is no more depressed community in this country than a depressed mining community. The hon. member lives near one of the wealthiest, but many of the smaller ones are one industry towns and local tax revenues are poor, as are amenities for the miners. There is a good deal of movement back and forth as people take jobs for only a short period of time. It is an industry which is not itself depressed, but an industry where the people are depressed. I accept this and I am concerned about it. One of the reasons for this is that mining and natural resources are provincial concerns, and it may be easier for a large corporation to manipulate the provinces than the federal government. This is something that members of his party have said on many occasions.
The motion deals with health and safety in the main, but it also deals with a federal presence in the area of mining. I am concerned about some of the things that have happened or are

happening in northern Ontario, such as the closing of the asbestos mine in Matachewan in the past ten days. A good deal of work was done regarding this particular mine by the hon. member's party. I understand that the Ontario leader of the party now says that mine is in good shape but it has been closed because it has no money. According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen on March 9, the chairman of the company said:
We had $35 million in hand from U.S. financial institutions to refund our outstanding loans until the lead company-an insurance firm-met the premier the morning before the speech.
He added:
They pulled out of the arrangement with us right afterwards.
This seems to be one of the problems, although part of the difficulty is that this mine is related to ownership of a mine in Quebec. As a result of the closing, 300 jobs were lost. This is a golden opportunity for the federal government to become involved, because through the Canada Development Corporation and ownership of the Texas Gulf Company we have properties near by. It would seem to be a natural area where the CDC could move in because of these valuable assets. In addition to the 300 people out of work, suppliers and subsuppliers etc. are also suffering.
This is a national problem and it needs a national solution, yet there are constitutional barriers which prevent action. I can suggest one way, through the CDC, in which the federal government can become involved.
In northwestern Ontario there are a number of small mines and many of us think they should be worked if there are valuable resources in them, especially when prices are better than they were when they closed. However, there is a need for things like portable mills and money for the small operator in order that these mines can be reworked. There are capable people available, and yet there does not seem to be support, national or otherwise, for any but major operations.
Transportation is another problem. At one INCO mine, a major line of the CNR passes within a mile or so and yet the ore is being hauled out by truck on a road that was especially built.
I would suggest that the federal government should play a larger role in the mining industry, but I know we have a very difficult problem. Both opposition parties have said that the provinces must be supreme and that we must not take these industries away from the provinces. With the oil industry, which is akin to mining, we are reminded that it is a provincial resource and that the federal government has no business interfering. On the other hand, both oppostion parties now tell us that the federal government ought to get into the mining area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Edmund McRae: There is a section in this act which deals with the whole area of mines-


John R. Rodriguez: What act?


Paul Edmund McRae: I am sorry, this resolution.

[DOT] p

March 11, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


John R. Rodriguez: Why are you not better prepared before you speak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps the Eiouse will show equal courtesy to all hon. members, and allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae) to make his remarks.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I tried to deal with this industry from a national standpoint, since I think there are national implications to the question. I do not doubt that.
For a few minutes I should like to deal with the area of health. As the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) indicated, we believe there is a serious problem to be considered, but that the proposed mining act does not provide the answer. Action would take too long and we could run into constitutional difficulties. We think our approach is probably best, given the present situation with respect to the constitution and the federal government's present difficulty in dealing with the provinces. Therefore, like the hon. member for Scarborough West, I wish to deal with this matter from the standpoint of occupational safety.


John R. Rodriguez: We are talking about the territories. Why do you not talk about them?


Paul Edmund McRae: Matters related to the occupational safety and health of miners and workers engaged in associated surface operations are subject to existing legislation and regulations, federal, provincial, and territorial. The content and administration of these statutory requirements are reviewed from time to time by the regulatory authorities concerned, and are revised as required. Federal jurisdiction for these purposes in the mining industry is, by acts of parliament, confined to the mining and processing of uranium, coal mining carried out by the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and the mining of base metals in the Flin Flon mineral area by the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company.
Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, safety of employees, and the safety and health regulations made pursuant to it, apply to all aspects of occupational safety and health in federal works, undertakings and businesses except where such application is preempted, as for example by the Atomic Energy Control Act. Workers under federal jurisdiction in occupations directly involved in the mining of coal, uranium, and base metals are under the general regulations of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, regulations made under the Atomic Energy Control Act and, by arrangement, the mining regulations of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
To take a portion of workers and work places under federal jurisdiction, for example, miners and mines, and make them subject to a new act of parliament and regulations resulting therefrom would in effect duplicate the existing provisions of
Mine Workers' Health
Part IV of the Canada Labour Code and of the Atomic Energy Control Act and might result in delaying the development and implementation of higher standards through revision of existing enactments and mandatory standards.
A federal presence in the field of occupational safety and health of miners already exists through the implementation of the regulations made under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code in coal mines and regulations made under the Atomic Energy Control Act in uranium mining operations.
Assistance to and co-operation with provincial departments and agencies that have a responsibility for mine safety and occupational health is considered to be an important and ongoing function of the federal government, and there are established means for consultation and sharing of information among the several interests and authorities. As the hon. member for Scarborough West indicated, active consideration is being given to the creation of a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health which, as its name implies, would be a technically competent and authoritative body for the identification and evaluation of hazards to the safety and health of workers, and to develop standards and other means for their control. Such a centre would be governed by a board representing federal and provincial authorities, labour, management, scientific and other professional interests. Through the work and efforts of an institute of this kind it is confidently expected that higher standards of occupational safety and health would be developed and implemented for all places of work-I emphasize all places of work-including mining which has its own special problems in this field.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose they will be developed by the year 2000.


Paul Edmund McRae: Since the purposes or objects of the motion we are considering are capable of being achieved through existing enactments, and in fact are already being dealt with to some extent, supplementary means of accomplishing these desirable ends are being planned. Therefore motion No. 27 is not supportable. Further, because of the limited extent of direct federal concern in this industry the provinces are very likely to view-


James McPhail Gillies: This has nothing to do with the provinces.


Paul Edmund McRae: -an initiative of this kind, especially at this time, as an unwelcome intrusion into a field clearly and almost entirely in provincial jurisdiction.


John R. Rodriguez: What about the provisions of Bills C-16, C-2, and other similar bills?


Paul Edmund McRae: Actually, both opposition parties have many times said that the government has no business being involved in the resource field. For these reasons it would make most sense if we were to develop an institute, and work with the provinces in developing standards. And we could do this under existing legislation.
3922

March 11, 1977
Mine Workers' Health


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Edmund McRae: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member read the motion?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, not only have I read the motion on three different occasions; I included part of the motion in my speech.


Walter David Baker: Did you understand the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you understand it?


Paul Edmund McRae: The motion is of broad import, but is not likely to be accepted by the provinces.


James McPhail Gillies: It has nothing to do with the provinces.


Paul Edmund McRae: I suggest that we could act in this area quickly and effectively by creating the kind of institute which has been mentioned, and working with the provinces on health matters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock and the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. next Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 14, 1977