1977-03-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the alarming revelation of Statistics Canada that 932,000 Canadians are unemployed, the highest number of unemployed ever, keeping in mind that the hidden jobless added thereto undoubtedly indicates that unemployment has definitely passed the million mark, an unacceptable and indefensible state of affairs given the productive capacity of this nation, and in view of the fact that it is now an undisputed fact that this country is in the midst of a national crisis of catastrophic and disastrous proportions requiring immediate government action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John s East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House condemns the government and in particular the Minister of Finance for not having introduced a budget by now, thus totally ignoring the advice and predictions of the Conference Board of Canada and others, all of whom have predicted for some time this crisis, failing government action; further; that this House demands that the Minister of Finance on motions tomorrow indicate what meaningful, concrete and immediate steps the government will take in order to deal with and reverse this trend of increasing unemployment; and further, because of the time lag of months involved before the proposed budget will have any effect, that this House directs the Minister of Finance to introduce a budget within one week involving tax cuts for middle and lower income Canadians, stimulus for growth and as well a definitive statement of intention regarding the decontrol and postcontrol periods.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the Standing Order the unanimous consent of the House is required for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR BUDGETARY PROVISIONS TO REDUCE LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of today's official unemployment statistics which show that 932,000 Canadians are unemployed, in view of the fact that an additional 557,000 Canadians are the hidden unemployed of this country, making a total of nearly 1.5 million Canadians now unemployed, and in view of the tremendous economic waste and human misery associated with this high level of unemployment I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House urges the government to bring in a budget providing substantial direct job creation measures as well as a personal income tax cut for low and middle income Canadians to provide the stimulus needed in the economy to lower the level of unemployment, and that if the Minister of Finance fails to provide such measures in the budget, he be requested to resign his position.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion repuires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
According to the latest statistics published this morning it seems that the unemployment rate has reached a record high since 1958, which is liable to alarm any Canadian concerned with the future of his country and more especially with the future of unemployed young people. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That Parliament urge the Department of Manpower and Immigration to review its policy of Canada Works and Youth Works programs and that higher votes be allotted to those programs to create more jobs at a time when private enterprise is no longer in position to take the available manpower in the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 15, 1977
Unemployment


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the alarming growth in the unemployment rate in Newfoundland as evidenced by figures released today by Statistics Canada showing a 1.5 per cent increase for the month of February, up sharply from the same time last year, giving the province a 15.1 per cent seasonally adjusted rate, which is twice the national average, or an actual rate of 17.4 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the government immediately enter into an agreement with the government of Newfoundland to provide additional federal funding for job creation ventures.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSALS TO STUDY MEASURES TO REDUCE LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my motion is along similar lines but I hope because of its reasonable nature it will find general acceptance on all sides of the House. It relates to the fact that there are 59,000 more people unemployed this month than last and that out of the projected job creation in last year's budget of 250,000 jobs we have only created less than half, something like 112,000. In light of the announced intention of the government to bring down the budget on March 31,1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
(1)	That there be an immediate consultation with the provinces by a ministerial team composed of the Minister of Finance, Minister of Manpower and Immigration, President of Treasury Board, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion prior to the final formulation of specific budget proposals.
(2)	That the government make an immediate review of spending proposals in the 1977-78 estimates, with a view to redirecting them to areas of continued and growing unemployment, and
(3)	That the government appoint immediately a special interdepartmental federal-provincial task force to work with the major sectors of the economy, particularly industry and labour, in order to achieve a sufficient set of measures to substantially reduce Canada's disastrous unemployment situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSION ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my motion relates to a different subject but one of equal seriousness and urgency. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House urges the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce the necessary amendments to the Pension Act so that the compensation for prisoners of war provided therein will apply to escapers and evaders, in accordance with representations made recently to the minister by the Canadian Branch of the Royal Air Forces Escaping Society, and also to the limited number of Canadian veterans still living who were prisoners of war during World War I, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in its report to the House on June 12, 1975.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED STUDY OF RECYCLING OLD OIL FROM VEHICLES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the alarming reports in regard to the possibility of an energy shortage and taking into consideration that oil is a non-renewable resource but can be a reusable resource, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to launch an immediate study in co-operation with the petroleum industry into methods of recovering, recycling and reusing old oil from all types of vehicles and that the results of this study be presented to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 15, 1977


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It being the case that there is presently a very high level of discontent and frustration felt by prairie grain producers as a result of the unexplainably low final payment for the crop year just completed, and in view of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board, which came into being in 1935, has never been ad audited by the Auditor General of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House recommends to the Auditor General that he do a complete and thorough audit of the Canadian Wheat Board in the next fiscal year.


Mr. Goodale:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be presented. Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and the architect of the economic policy which has created unemployment at the highest level in the history of Canada. Those statistics released today, if one includes total unemployment among status and non-status Indians and the 50,000 plus Canadians who have stopped looking for work because under this government they simply believe that there are no jobs for them to find, indicate that there are more than one million Canadians now out of work. I would ask the Minister of Finance, without revealing the details of this budget, whether he will give a firm commitment to those more than one million Canadians who are out of work that a primary target of that budget will be to break this pattern of growing unemployment and to let Canadians get to work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm that while the rate of employment in Canada increased substantially since December, the participation rate has also increased and it has to be a matter of concern-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Oh, come on.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -that so many Canadians are unemployed. As I have indicated, I would hope to present the budget on March 31.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has expressly declined the invitation to give a commitment to this House now that a primary target of the budget which he is bringing in too late on March 31 will be to break the pattern of unemployment which has marked his tenure as Minister of Finance.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame! Resign.


Charles Joseph Clark: Since the job creation programs of this government have created less than one-half of the quarter million jobs forecast in the budget of last May, I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he and his colleagues are going to undertake an immediate review of the adequacy of job creation programs now in place, and whether they are seriously considering as an emergency measure the possibility of changing the priority of government projects that are already in the works, to give priority to those regions of Canada which are most directly affected by the shocking figures released today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long-standing practice under our system that the government makes a presentation of its economic policy at the time of the budget. My response to this question of the hon. gentleman, as to the previous one, is that I would intend to make a statement on economic policy on March 31.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Back to the Primrose Club.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer of the Minister of Finance to the more than one million Canadians out of work is, wait a while longer; we will offer you no hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there has probably never been a government in the history of this country that has shown more contempt for the people and parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMERGENCY PROGRAMS TO CREATE JOBS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me direct a simple question to the Minister of Finance. Since those Figures released today indicate that there is a particular crisis for the young who are starting their work careers without jobs to go to, will the government introduce special emergency programs to create jobs for those young Canadians who are now forced to start their work careers without jobs to go to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, to repeat the answer for the third time to the hon. gentleman, it makes some sense to present the government's economic policy in the context of the budget.

March 15, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Hees:: That's what you have been saying all along, and look what it has done.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would intend to do so. I am interested in the various proposals which the Leader of the Opposition has to make.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Look at what the last budget did.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Do something, or resign.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be giving substantial attention to the particular groups within the work force who have been suffering from unemployment.


George Harris Hees: That's what you have been saying for years and years.


TIME LAG BETWEEN INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET AND EFFECT OF PROVISIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the same architect of economic disaster. I would ask the Minister of Finance this question: Considering the time lag between the announcement of fiscal policy changes, if any, and their effect-and I am thinking of the budget-does the minister concede that the federal government can do little to affect substantially the level of unemployment in 1977? I ask this in view of the certain time lag between the introduction of the budget and when the figures actually come into effect.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that very much depends upon the nature of the measures that are announced.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STATE OF THE ECONOMY PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF BUDGET
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Once again the minister has shown a callous disregard for the over one million out of work. In light of the fact that the people of Canada have been consistently kept in the dark with regard to forecasts and targets for job creation, unemployment and growth for 1977, is it the position of this government that a statement as to the state of the economy will not be made until the introduction of the budget? Why can we not have that statement in very short order in order that we can determine whether in fact the government has moved in a proper direction once the budget has been introduced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it has always been a fact that it makes some sense to make a presentation both with respect to the prospects for the year in relation to which the budget is given and the measures that are proposed. I intend to follow that very sensible practice.


UNEMPLOYMENT-ESTIMATE OF MONTH IN WHICH LEVEL REDUCED-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON JOB CREATION PROGRAMS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the total number of unemployed and the rate of unemployment have been steadily increasing for more than a year, has the department estimated in what month, if any, they can see a reduction in either the number or the rate of unemployment? If they made those kinds of estimates, is the minister now prepared to tell the House that or is he prepared to do that when he presents his budget at the end of the month?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the budget presentation will include an estimate as to the prospects for employment during the year.


David Orlikow: Considering the very serious nature of the unemployment problem in all parts of the country, is the government giving consideration to meeting with the provinces to discuss with them what programs, together or separately, the federal and provincial governments can implement to put people back into productive labour now or in the very near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as part of the pre-budget preparation, I did have such a meeting with the provincial finance ministers.


SUGGESTED RELEASE OF FUNDS TO CREATE JOBS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
David Orlikow: In view of the fact that statistics released today show that over 16 per cent of our young people are now unemployed and in view of the very small number of people, mainly young people, who will be unemployed as a result of the implementation of the first phase of both the Canada Works and Canada Youth Works programs because only $60 million of the $200 million is being released now, will the minister consider recommending to his cabinet colleagues the release of the $160 million which is to be made available in October at this time so that we can use that money to put young people, who want to work, to work now instead at the end of a long summer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the response to this is inherent in the response I gave to the hon. member for Hamilton West. Indeed, one of the aspects that would have to be considered is whether, as opposed to changes in the fiscal policy and the taxation policy, it might be appropriate to increase or redirect funds into certain areas such as assistance for this particular group of the unemployed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In recent weeks many workers at the CN office in Rimouski and the surrounding region have been laid off. Could the minister tell the House why there is a sudden reduction in manpower in that place where the level of unemployment is already high?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about this particular matter, but I will be glad to look into it.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House if he intends to examine the situation of those workers and recommend their reintegration into other services of the CN?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, for the time being I will content myself with trying to determine from CN what the facts are.
[DOT] * *


MANPOWER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on behalf of some of the unwilling non-participants in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Given the serious unemployment situation in those five provinces which has increased by 20 per cent in the last 12 months and given the forecast by the Conference Board that this region will see another increase during the present year of 17 per cent, can I ask the minister, also bearing in mind the fact that whatever budgetary measures are brought down by the minister in a few days time will have no immediate impact on the region, whether he is prepared to enter into discussions to provide for emergency programs now, programs which would expedite, for example, essential expenditures in the line of public works, transport and so on in a coordinated effort to provide jobs for this region?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Although the unemployment rate for Newfoundland did in fact increase there was also a sharp rise in employment in the province.
An bon. Member: Go on!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: An hon. member says "Go on!" but that is the case. Employment in Newfoundland did, in fact, increase; there was a larger increase in the size of the labour force,
Oral Questions
thereby increasing the size of the unemployment. It is not a question of reacting in panic at the last minute. It was indicated back in October that we foresaw high levels of unemployment in the area this winter and it was for that reason the government saw fit to put $158 million into job creation programs. It is not a question of reacting in panic at the last minute. I might say to the hon. member that his colleagues on this side of the House brought so much pressure to bear that Newfoundland will actually rate fourth in the sums of money which will be paid into the provinces.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is disheartening to learn that the minister draws any satisfaction from these disastrous figures in my own province showing an increase of 1.5 per cent over this time last year for a real rate of 17.4 per cent, not to mention the numbers who are unemployed-about 25,000-but who do not appear on official records. I ask the minister, notwithstanding any programs already in place, given the serious situation which exists now, at least to take into consideration the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the House to refunnel government programs in this region, especially in my own province and Quebec, to expedite public works projects to provide jobs now, not down the road when the minister's economic policies are in place.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I take no refuge whatsoever in the figures. I indicated that there was in fact concern. I thought there should be some measure of balance by indicating that employment did in fact increase in that particular province. I do not think it is any answer to react in panic to the situation. We recognized what the situation was going to be and for that reason we put this kind of money into Canada Works and Young Canada Works and a series of other projects and we indicated this would be done last October. We do not wait until the very last minute and then say I think in panic we should react and do something else.


CONSULTATION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR ON JOINT PROGRAMS TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the intention of the government, in the light of the fact that various job creation programs enacted by the government have not had the desired effect and have in some areas been counter productive, to enter into consultation with the private sector such as the Canadian Manufacturers Association or, in the case of British Columbia, the resource industries, to work out joint programs which would not only stimulate the economy but people to work?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated it is precisely for that reason that he met with his opposite numbers. I met with my opposite numbers in the provinces to indicate how, at the government level, we could do specific things. There will be other areas which will be announced in the budget, as the minister said, on March 31 and which will

March 15, 1977
Oral Questions
have the appropriate impact so far as private enterprise is concerned.


FINANCE
Frank Oberle: Could I ask the Minister of Finance in order to accommodate joint job creation programs, and I am talking about government and industry rather than government and government, whether he is prepared to accommodate such programs in his budget and adjust the fiscal program in the light of tax concessions to industry so that this kind of program could be implemented shortly after budget day?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will consider the hon. member's suggestion.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. In view of the fact that the intended 1977 summer student employment program budget is much less than last year, would the minister indicate while he has the opportunity whether he would increase that budget in order to provide jobs for students who will be coming out of school very soon; and would he indicate what his intentions are regarding increasing that budget?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his approbation of the program that we have put in place. Recognizing high youth unemployment we have some five or six programs now. We have the SSEAP program, the job experience training program and a series of others. So it is not just Canada Works but Young Canada Works which is in effect right now. I thank him for his support.


YOUNG CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS
Jack Marshall: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that under the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs the frustrations of the people and organizations involved are shown by the fact that this is the only way they can provide jobs, that the number of applications are reaching tremendous proportions and the amount allocated is going to discourage rather than encourage them from keeping on with
[Mr. Cullen.)
the program, I wonder whether the minister would take the suggestions which were made earlier by other members and bring forward the funds from the second phase of Young Canada Works to provide employment now?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have noted the representation, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the minister has just returned from the Atlantic provinces and I am sure has been made well aware of the very serious situation there respecting unemployment, I wonder whether he indicated to his provincial colleagues what initiatives he was planning to take under his department, particularly in the area of job creation, inasmuch as his estimates this year have substantially reduced by some 10 per cent the major job creation facility under the act, namely the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I had the pleasure to meet Premier Campbell yesterday. We discussed at length the situation in general and I took the opportunity, for such was the purpose of the visit, to sign the amendment concerning the agreement and provide $89 million, that is the funds required for the next three years of this agreement. In my opinion, this is a substantial contribution to give a new impetus to the economy of Prince Edward Island.
I might add that I also announced the granting of three subventions to industries which will be established in the West Royal Park which we contributed to develop. We are still considering other requests. We hope to be able to help in creating jobs which will meet the island's requirements.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to reading the minister's press releases, but I should like to address the particular issue as to whether or not, with respect particularly to the five eastern provinces, which have something like 371,000 people unemployed, his department is going to produce any new major initiatives, and whether he is making any particular recommendation to his colleague the President of the Treasury Board with regard to a reordering of federal expenditures in the next fiscal year. At the moment the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would appear to be almost irrelevant to the pressing issue of very serious unemployment in this country.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I do not think one can argue that the action taken by the department is not in line with the
March 15, 1977

objectives or with the situation in the Atlantic provinces. Of course we do not pretend to solve all problems, but I think that an investment of over $200 million for next year to support and develop the economy of the Atlantic provinces is certainly appropriate action. As concerns the recommendations I must make to my cabinet colleagues, the hon. member and the House can be sure that this is exactly what I do, what I did recently, and what I intend to do again at the next meeting of the cabinet and even later this afternoon.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the considerable and continuing interest in the subject on the part of city dwellers across Canada, will the minister indicate the state of the government's deliberations on the issue of its outstanding financial commitment to urban transit?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can only indicate that at this point there has been no change since a similar question was answered some 10 days ago, namely that while we have a significant program in the $100 million available for commuter assistance, a decision has not been taken as to whether or not that is all that we are able to see our way to do.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether or not his department has made arrangements for a government aircraft to fly MP's and Senators to Saint John, New Brunswick, to attend a St. Patrick's Day party and to hear the Minister of Agriculture address a banquet? If so, does this fall within government guidelines concerning use of government aircraft?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of that trip but I will inquire.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since his office confirmed this with my office this morning, and in view of doubts that are being raised by it, will he cancel the plane and let the minister, and MP's and Senators who want to hear him spread his fertilizer in New Brunswick, go commercial?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will follow something of a practice of not making a decision until I have the facts.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that obviously we have some very, very serious economic problems in unemployment, inflation, the balance of payments, in fact in everything, is the minister giving any consideration to changing the way in which advice is proffered, and when economic policy is made changing the players in this role, so that these disastrous conditions will not be perpetuated on the Canadian people any longer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly certain what the hon. member means when he speaks of changing the way in which advice is being proffered. If he has some structural changes to suggest I would be glad to talk to him privately.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Finance giving any thought to converting the Economic Council of Canada from the program it has followed in the past to a short-term economic forecasting unit that will proffer to the Department of Finance more accurate information about the way in which the economy is operating?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is a study ongoing into possible changes in the structure of the Economic Council of Canada but not specifically so as to divert its attention from the medium and long-term to the short-term.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Statistics Canada figures released today show unemployment among young people in February increased by 32,000, to the point where every second unemployed Canadian at the present time is between the ages of 15 and 24, and in view of the findings of the report released today
3978

March 15, 1977
Oral Questions
by the Canadian Council on Social Development which show that since 1953 the rate of unemployment among young people relative to total unemployment in Canada has been steadily increasing and describes the situation as "economically, politically and socially explosive", can the minister explain whether the government finds this trend acceptable and, if it does not find it acceptable, why has it so far failed to turn the situation around?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the critical element, of course, is that this particular group has been the fastest growing group among the Canadian work force. This is one of the reasons this particular group has been suffering from the highest level of unemployment. I agree that it has to be a matter of concern and indeed it is one of the reasons why over the years we have directed specific policy measures at those in the youth group as well as winter employment measures. Some of those, I noted, have been opposed by the hon. gentleman and his colleagues and I am glad to see an awakened concern in this regard.


MANPOWER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the minister's proposals have failed dismally. May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister read the report released today by the Canadian Council on Social Development and, if so, can he tell the House whether he accepts the findings in the report, or the recommendations, that occupational forecasts should become depoliticized and demystified, which recommendation states that the current forecasts of the Department of Manpower and Immigration are based on a labour scarcity by the 1980's assumption that may never materialize and recommends that Canadian occupational forecasting programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration be changed because it is incomprehensible, not just for teachers but also for young people. If he does agree, is he prepared to take some action to implement that recommendation ?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not had the opportunity today as yet to read the report on social development. I did, however, have the honour of addressing that particular group and I indicated to them where the problems were in so far as youth unemployment was concerned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You indicated to them?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I indicated to them the increase in the number of young people who have moved into the labour force, and I suggested to them some of the initiatives the government was

taking to do what is necessary in this field, namely, bridge the gap between the school and the work force where there seems to be tremendous difficulty.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At present, discussions are under way within the minister's own department to determine the future of ICNAF and the establishment of fishing quotas for next year. In view of the fact that fisheries resources have drastically declined, indicating that ICNAF's management quotas were not adequate to cope with the complexity of stocks and the intensity of effort that has been applied, would the minister indicate what initiative he plans to take to establish proper management of this valuable resource?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the ICNAF meetings to which the hon. member refers are concerned principally with the future of that organization in view of the changes resulting from the declaration of the 200 mile limit by a number of countries. To the best of my knowledge, the specific matters referred to by the hon. member are not being discussed at this meeting, but I know that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is now developing a regime or plan for the years beyond 1977. Undoubtedly he will be putting that forward in due course. I think he would be in a better position than I to indicate, in management terms, what is being planned.


POSSIBILITY OF ARBITRATION OF BOUNDARY OF 200-MILE FISHING ZONE BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that no permanent solution was found to the problem with regard to the ownership of Georges Bank before the 200 mile limit between Canada and the United States went into effect, will the minister indicate whether it is the government's intention to call in a third country to arbitrate this matter, or just what does he propose to do in this regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The situation with regard to negotiations with the U.S. on the boundary question is that, as I explained in part at least to the House some days ago, we entered into an interim agreement to the end of 1977 to give the negotiators time during this year to see if they can achieve a final solution. However, to ensure that the matter would not drag on interminably, we also agreed that if at the end of 1977 no agreement is reached, there would be a third party reference, and this is the basis now on which the negotiations are proceeding. Needless to say, I think both countries would prefer if we were able to reach agreement during the remaining months of 1977.
March 15, 1977


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. I should like to ask if the minister is prepared to respond to the request that there will be no further closures of CN-CP telecommunications offices until public hearings into the policy of eliminating telecommunications services can be held.


Howard Earl Johnston: J'essayerai encore. Is the minister prepared to respond to the request that there be no further closures of CN-CP telecommunications offices until public hearings into the policy of eliminating telecommunications services can be held?
[ Translation]


Mrs. Sauv6:: Mr. Speaker, I have received many requests concerning the possibility of closing down a number of telegraph offices. Even the representatives of the CN and CP have put their case before me. I was also visited by union representatives who are naturally highly concerned about the fate of the people working in those local telegraph offices.
The Department of Communications has looked into current trends in the use of telegraphic services, and it may be that the CRTC will hold public hearings, as requested by the hon. member, to give the public the opportunity of discussing the problem.


Howard Earl Johnston: I wonder if the minister could tell us why CN-CP telecommunications, which is a monopoly, should be able to phase itself out of business without opportunities being provided for private industry or, as a truly desperate last resort, the Post Office to take over the business of telecommunications? I fear that the public hearings, if not held soon, may come too late.
[ Translation]


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is anticipating the conclusions that may be arrived at as a result of the public hearings. Obviously, if public hearings are held we shall discuss that specific issue, namely whether it would be useful to open telegraph offices in all small cities across the country and whether the use people make of the telegraph service still justifies the maintenance of those offices. Should the CN and CP decide to close their offices, I believe it would be possible for the private sector to take the service over if it were interested in doing so.
Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Both the former NDP government led by Mr. Barrett and the present government under Premier Bennett promised a settlement of long standing land claims including cut-off lands. Can the minister advise the House that in his meeting later this week with his B. C. counterparts every effort will be made by the federal government to resolve these long standing differences, and can the minister advise the House whether it is the provincial or the federal government that is dragging its feet in this matter?


An hon. Member:: Author?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, since my appointment I have had three meetings with the Hon. Allan Williams, the British Columbia minister, and there have been many meetings between officials with respect to cut-off claims in British Columbia. I am having another meeting this Friday in Victoria, and I hope that we can proceed further on this matter. I might say that I will meet with the cut-off lands committee on Friday in Victoria as well. It is not for me to say who is dragging his feet. This is complicated issue and it takes a lot of negotiations.


POSSIBILITY OF BANNING CIGARETTE ADVERTISING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the minister expressed last week, as he has done on other occasions, his deep concern with respect to the hazard to health involved in cigarette smoking, is the minister considering the introduction of legislation along the lines proposed some years ago by his predecessor, now the Minister of Labour, to ban cigarette advertising?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the answer we have just
80010-45'/2

Oral Questions
received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he does not propose to bring in legislation to ban cigarette advertising, will the Minister of Finance consider, in the preparation of his budget, the introduction of a measure to cancel the tax deductibility that is granted to cigarette advertising, which means that Canadian taxpayers are paying for their own deaths?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will treat that as a representation.


MANPOWER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Following the announcement made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs-
An bon. Member: It does not work tremendously well!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Somebody is telling me that it does not work tremendously well, and it is the truth. Many people have submitted projects under these programs. However it seems that the funds allocated to these programs make it impossible to give a favourable answer to all the many serious projects which have been submitted. Therefore, could the Minister of Finance tell the House whether additional money would be allocated to these two programs to meet the demands of project sponsors so that they could go on taking an interest in them and that these programs be implemented within the next few weeks, meeting the expectations of Canadians and creating many jobs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has already made that suggestion and I am considering it in the context of the new budget.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very clever answer of the Minister of Finance, I would like to know whether what he intends to bring forward in his budget speech is already settled or whether the representations made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and some hon. members still have some value and would be seriously considered by the minister.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I consider the representations made by my colleague and the hon. member as very important.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. My question arises out of a recent cabinet award to Tilden Car Rentals of the sum of $5,000 to help defray certain legal expenses. Has the government approved and has payment been made or is it going to be made to Avis Rent-A-Car in the amount of $143,000? Can the minister indicate to us whether included in that payment was an amount covering legal expenses?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that a settlement of that order was made. I would have to check to see whether the legal expenses were identified as such as a separate item. The settlement was, of course, in total in relation to the claim and costs.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if the minister can confirm to us whether the government is facing any more legal settlements of this nature, and if so, can he indicate briefly what firms are involved? Would the minister now care to meet the commitment made last fall or in the early part of the winter that he would table a rationalization of the tendering procedure with respect to this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: There are some further discussions going on with other companies affected by the disputes which occurred between the government and Tilden in particular. The discussions are a little difficult to identify in a concrete way at this point, but I would be glad to make a report from time to time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance.
Since the unemployment rate in Quebec has gone up from 7 per cent to 9.7 per cent in February, 1977 and since the number of unemployed Canadians has increased from 19,000 to 268,000 in the same period, I ask the minister what immediate steps, apart from the budget that will be introduced in the House, we can expect from the present government, with the support of 60 members from the province of Quebec, to improve that unbearable situation and to convince our fellow citizens in the province of Quebec that federalism is still profitable?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I find it more sensible to present the
March 15, 1977

over-all economic policy of the government within the context of the budget.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSALS OF CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the alarming rate of unemployment of 16.1 per cent for those between 14 and 24 years of age. A study by the Canadian Council on Social Development entitled "Youth and Employment" advises the development by the federal government of long-term solutions rather than merely increasing short-term efforts, such as Canada Works and Young Canada Works, and advises the publication of more accurate job market forecasts, the establishment of a national youth agency to encourage joint consultation and future planning and increased assistance to vocational programs. Will the minister assure the House that a serious commitment will be made on the part of the federal government to solving the crisis of youth unemployment by following the advice and the proposals of the Canadian Council on Social Development?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, the position of this particular group in the work force is a matter of concern to the government, and we are giving it very careful attention.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but he has stepped out, so I will ask it at another time.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO CREATE NUMBER OF JOBS PREDICTED IN LAST BUDGET AND INCREASE IN IMPLICIT PRICE INDEX
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the minister feels reluctant to refer to subjects he may touch on in his budget, I wonder, referring to his May 25 budget in which he predicted that there would be 250,000 jobs created in Canada, whether he will indicate why that number of jobs was not created and why less than 50 per cent of that number of jobs were created?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the accuracy of the hon. gentleman's assessment I have to acknowledge, as I previously indicated to the House, that the rate of growth anticipated last year did not come about.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If we accept the minister's statement that the rate of growth was not what the minister initially anticipated, would he indicate why in his budget of May 25 he indicated that inflation on the implicit price index scale would be 9 per
Oral Questions
cent in 1976 when it actually turned out to be 9.4 per cent? Why did the figure go up if growth was slow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The rate of the consumer price index went down rather than up.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, the implicit price index.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I point out to the hon. gentleman that the rate of growth in Canada as well as the rate in all the OECD countries did not attain the levels anticipated.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In the last month in the city of Nelson there have been three separate and distinct cases of rape. In each instance the accused was released on bail. Where there is a clear risk that acts like this can be perpetrated again, is the minister prepared to make representations to the British Columbia attorney general or to make changes in his own legislation so that rapists will not be released on bail to do further injury to hapless and helpless victims?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the representations which were made to the court at the time of these bail applications would depend on provincial Crown counsel, and therefore I will be happy to make inquiries of the attorney general of British Columbia to determine the backgrounds of these three cases.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the Solicitor General. Has the minister received any representations from the commissioner or any other member or members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to setting up the selection committee to appoint the next commissioner of the force in September, and if so, what was the nature of those representations?
Second, has the minister received a request from the commissioner or a member or members of the RCMP that the next commissioner be drawn from within the ranks of the force, and if so, what is the minister's response to that request?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the hon. member's question, I have not received any representations as such on setting up the

March 15, 1977
Oral Questions
selection committee. I have, however, received representatives of the divisional staff of the RCMP who have brought forward a number of suggestions. One of those suggestions was that the new commissioner be drawn from the ranks of the RCMP.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates to the subsidy on beef. If a farmer makes a claim for the subsidy and submits both live and dressed weights to the minister's department, which weight will be used for payment?


An hon. Member:: The minister's weight.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I heard an hon. member say "the minister's weight". The other day I heard a farmer say that the minister is worth his weight in gold.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the stabilization support payment is calculated on the live weight basis. Dressed weight will be converted to live weight and calculated for payment in the following manner: Dressed weight of grade A steers will be considered to be 57 per cent of live weight; dressed weight of grade A heifers will be considered to be 56 per cent of live weight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the information sought might be obtained in some other way.


PUBLISHING
Mrs. Ursula AppoIIoni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind the sad lack of Canadian magazines devoted to the arts, and in response to thousands of Canadians who deplore the fate now facing the publication entitled The Performing Arts in Canada, would the minister use his good offices to prevent the demise, due to financial difficulties, of this magazine?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure my good offices extend that far. I will raise the matter for consideration. As the hon. member knows, the Canada Council has been concerned about this question, and decided that the magazine did not warrant the continuation of its subvention. I will intervene with the Canada Council to this
[Mr. Fox.)
extent, that I shall seek further information on the matter the hon. member has raised.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order on a matter which arises out of the question period. I directed a question to the minister. Although there was some preamble to it, I do not think it was longer than the preamble to five or six other questions asked this day or any other day. Your Honour denied me the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. Immediately afterwards another hon. member asked a question and was allowed to ask a supplementary. It seems to me that there was a discriminatory balance as between one member and another. I do not represent a third party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am not talking to the hon. member for St. Boniface. Perhaps he would be quiet, or explain how he earns his salary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I was trying to raise a matter concerning youth unemployment which is at its highest level since 1953, and I feel it is unfortunate that a supplementary question was not allowed. A list was tendered to Your Honour by the opposition party. It is only a guide, I realize, for use in the question period, but it indicates the thrust or direction of opposition questions on a certain day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is absolutely right. The discretion of the Chair always has to be used, regrettably, to discriminate every day between one hon. member and another. At the end of the question the hon. member had the floor. I think that if I had wanted to take a hard line I could have asked him to sit down before repeating a question which had been put in almost exactly the same language previously in the question period. However, I did not want to do that. I tried to recognize members from every region. There were many repetitious questions on unemployment, obviously, because today the unemployment figures were released.
I made an effort to get around to as many different regions and hon. members as I possibly could, to see at least if a new aspect or light could be shed on the matter from different regions. It seemed to me that the hon. member was not raising a new aspect but was repeating one which had already been discussed. In any case, I let that go. The questioner who followed him was the hon. member for York-Simcoe who, despite the lateness of the question period, raised at least, so it seemed to me, a sufficiently fresh aspect to warrant one supplementary question, and I recognized him before going to other hon. members who had been rising for some time. But that is a decision the Chair must make every day. Although the Chair may appear to discriminate as between one member and another, its decisions have nothing to do with anything of that nature.
March 15, 1977

Order Paper Questions ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can understand that Your Honour could not allow me to introduce a motion under Standing Order 43 at 2.15. However, there is a matter of great importance which should be corrected as soon as possible because the question is causing undue alarm across the country, particularly at the seal hunt. Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to misinformation emanating either intentionally or unintentionally from certain news media. This information indicated that only 40,000 seals were observed at the front, whereas information from the Department of the Environment, who are the experts, indicates that there were over 100,000 seals. I think the government should consider this proposal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret, as much as the hon. member does, that he was not able to put his motion during the time allotted for motions under Standing Order 43. I attempted to proceed on a regional basis. There had been one such motion from the region of Newfoundland, proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. I thought, in fairness, it was proper to let hon. members from other regions put their motions as well. On this particular day most of them concentrated on the same subject. However, since that time has now expired, I really cannot recognize the hon. member now or revert to that item of business. I regret that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second Report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Daudlin.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table references to the administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, with respect to National Grocers Company Limited, the town of Fergus and the city of Brantford.


TABLING OF AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH BOEING COMPANY OF UNITED STATES
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the text of an agreement and statements between the Department of Justice of Canada and the United States department of justice relating to procedures for mutual assistance in the administration of justice in connection with the Boeing Company matter, signed today in Washington on my behalf.


CANADA SHIPPING AMENDMENT ACT (NOISE POLLUTION) MEASURE TO PREVENT NOISE POLLUTION ON INLAND WATERS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-407, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Noise Pollution).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent noise pollution on inland waters by requiring that small pleasure craft be equipped with an underwater system to prevent unnecessary noise. At present, many small pleasure craft have unmuffled exhausts resulting in unbearable noise for people living on or close to inland waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, March 11, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 651, 785, 822, 1,137, 1,275, 1,311, 1,317, 1,401, 1,488, 1,498, 1,537, 1,552, 1,604, 1,650, 1,695, 1,710, 1,714, 1,724, 1,742, 1,744, 1,809, 1,828, 1,832 and 1,871.

March 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of the Solicitor General, National Parole Board, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Penitentiary Service hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Francis Fox: Canadian Penitentiary Service and the	
Ministry Secretariat		National Parole Service	
Hired	45	Hired	769Dismissed	0	Dismissed	17Transferred	19	Transferred	52Royal Canadian Mounted Police	National Parole Board	Hired	572	Hired	26Dismissed	0	Dismissed	0Transferred	40	Transferred	4
Note: The figures shown do not reflect a true accountability of the number of persons hired as opposed to the number of transfers and dismissals by reason of the fact that the question made no mention of resignations, retirements, discharges, deaths, etc., for example: (a) The figure of 769 persons hired by CPS/NPS is accounted for in part by 327 term employees hired for short term assignments replacing employees on annual leave, sick/maternity leave, language training, etc., 64 hired under student programs, and 265 in-department transfers and promotions (including acting appointments), (b) The figure of 572 shown for persons hired by the R.C.M.P. is partially offset by 97 persons pensioned, 292 resigned and 58 discharged.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the summer of 1976, did Mr. Henry Garbatz, a private pilot from Montreal, accompanied by his wife and two daughters, approach the airport at Quebec City and ask the control tower for landing instructions and, if so (a) on what date (b) at what time of day (c) what are the names of all controllers on duty in the tower at the time?
2.	Did Mr. Garbatz specifically ask in English, if he should approach from the left or the right side and did he receive the following reply from an air controller on duty: "You can use whatever way you want. I don't really give a ...." and, if so (a) what was the name of the controller (b) for what reason did he make such a reply insofar as (i) off-coloured language is concerned (ii) not properly instructing Mr. Garbatz (c) what connection, if any, was there between the fact that Mr. Garbatz asked his question in the English language?
3.	Was there an investigation made of the incident and, if so (a) by whom (b) on what dates (c) what were the results (d) did tapes of the conversation prove that Mr. Garbatz was correct in his allegations (e) was the matter hushed up and, if so, for what reason (f) was a recommendation made and a decision adopted by the Department of Transport to take no action to deal with the situation on the grounds that it was not propitious to do anything because of the controversy at the time over the use of two languages by air traffic controllers?

4.	Did Mr. Garbatz write the Minister of Transport outlining the situation and alleging that he had received no clear instructions and that improper language had been used and, if so (a) on what date (b) on what date was it received by the Minister (c) has the Minister answered the letter and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?
5.	Is it government policy to permit off-coloured language to be used by air traffic controllers for aircraft asking instructions and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, for what reason was such a situation permitted, in this case?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes. (a) July 7, 1976. (b) 10:01 a.m. (c) It is not consistent with the tradition of a non-political public service to disclose names of officials who perform tasks in the course of their public duty.
2.	Mr. Garbatz did ask in English if it would be permissible to make a left or right hand approach and as there was no other conflicting traffic the controller made an inappropriate remark, (a) Same reply as 1(c) above, (b) (i) There was no reason for such a reply, (ii) Mr. Garbatz was subsequently provided with proper instructions, (c) There was no connection.
3.	Yes. (a) By unit management and headquarters officials, (b) July 9, 1976. (c) The investigation revealed that the offensive remark was made, (d) Yes. (e) No. The controller involved was severely reprimanded on July 9, 1976 and warned that a further occurrence would not be tolerated, (f) No.
4.	Yes. (a) July 7, 1976. (b) July 12, 1976. (c) Yes (1) August 26, 1976.
5. (a) It is not the policy of the government to permit the use of offensive language in communications between air traffic controllers and pilots, (b) The use of such expletives is not permitted under any circumstances.


Mr. Muir: 1.	Did Canadian National charter the vessel, Princess of Tasmania for the North Sydney-Newfoundland Ferry service and, if so, for what period?
2.	What was the classification of the vessel as to ownership, charter, crew and cost per day?
3.	During the period that the Princess of Tasmania was under charter, how many days was the vessel not in service and for what reason?
4.	Was the Princess of Tasmania offered for sale to Canadian National and, if so, at what price?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The M.V. Princess of Tasmania now named the M.V. Marine Cruiser was chartered by the Department of Transport for a period of five years. It is operated by Canadian National Railways under the "Entrustment Order" for the Newfoundland ferry services.
2.	The vessel was owned by the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission and purchased by Bahamarine Limited. The charter party is a bareboat charter with Bahamarine Ltd., at a daily rate of $1,379 Canadian and is Canadian crewed.
3.	The vessel is used to provide additional capacity to meet summer tourist demand and is held in a laid-up state during the rest of the year unless required in freight service. It was acquired for the Gulf service in order that the M.V. Lucy
March 15, 1977

Maud Montgomery then operating in the Gulf could be returned to the PEI service where her capacity was required.
1974
1976	(to Nov. 30)
No. of days operated
186
75
No. of days not operated
179
260
On those days the vessel did not operate she was in lay-up status at Point Edwards or on refit at St. John's. The refits have been normal for the age of the vessel.
4.	The vessel was offered for sale on a general basis by the owners. The offering price was $2,250,000. The vessel was not purchased by the Department of Transport since it did not conform to the long-run policy of acquiring high capacity, relatively fast vessels to provide an improved standard of service at less daily cost.


Mr. Horner: 1.	Did the Minister of Public Works make an offer as stated in the Department's Bulletin No. 13, dated April 1, 1974, and, if so, did he make it with the consent and advice of the Department of Justice?
2.	How many cases were dealt with by the government on the extended period as set out in the Bulletin?
3.	Does the government take the position that the offer and the filings made pursuant to the offer should not have been made and, if so, does it propose to take any action to recover monies paid?
4.	Has the government the power to act in accordance with the Bulletin re Pickering and elsewhere and will it consider on the merits, requests that the Department of Justice file pursuant to Paragraph 29(1 )(b) of the Expropriation Act, claims that through oversight were not filed pursuant to the Minister's Bulletin No. 13 so as to permit persons to have proper compensation determined by the courts?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, with the consent and advice of the Department of Justice.
2.	Forty
3.	No.
4.	In reply to the first part of the question, the Minister of Public Works may at any time request the Attorney General to file a notice in the Federal Court pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 29 of the Expropriation Act, and as a consequence of that request, the Attorney General may file
Order Paper Questions
such notice; whether, in any particular case, the court would have jurisdiction to entertain the legal proceedings commenced by the Attorney General would depend on the facts of that case. Regarding the second part of the question, the Department of Justice is prepared to examine any case where it is alleged that through an oversight former owners have not commenced action within the statutory time period or otherwise complied with Bulletin No. 13 in order to determine whether, on the facts, the Federal Court has any jurisdiction to determine the compensation payable to such persons.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What are the per passenger costs of (a) Air Canada (b) CP Air at Vancouver International Airport?
2.	(a) What profit/loss did Vancouver International Airport show in 1974-75 (b) what profit/loss is projected for (i) 1975-76 (ii) 1976-77?
3.	How many (a) small private and corporate plane landings (b) commercial airlines' scheduled flights (c) commercial airlines' non-scheduled flights and for charters, were there at Vancouver International Airport in the last year for which figures are available and, in each case, what percentage of total landings does this represent?
4.	What are the cost estimates for the proposed third runway at Vancouver International Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) The per
passenger handling costs for Air Canada at Vancouver International Airport, based on January to November, 1976, were $3.52. This figure was computed for all boarding and deboarding passengers and covers reservations, ticketing and baggage handling services, (b) The per passenger handling costs for CP Air are not available within Transport Canada.
2.	(a) For the fiscal year 1974/75 Vancouver International Airport showed a net loss of $2,503,173. (b)(i) In the fiscal year 1975/76 Vancouver International Airport generated $15,750,287 in revenue and incurred expenses of $13,904,640 for a net profit of $1,845,647. It should be noted that the revenue of $15,750,287 includes $4,362,827 in Air Transportation Ticket Tax. These figures do not include costs for Air Navigational and Air Traffic Services, (b) (ii) Occasioned by the increase in the landing fee tariffs the first six months financial performance suggests a profit of approximately $4,000,000 for the fiscal year 1976/77.
3.	Aircraft movement statistics for Vancouver International Airport for the year 1975 were obtained from the 1975 Annual Report, issued by the Aviation Statistics Centre, Statistics Canada. The available statistics are not broken down in the exact grouping as requested, however the following is provided:
Total Aircraft Movements:
203,253
Itinerant	198,416 =	97.62 per cent	of totalLocal	4,837 = 203,253	2.38 per cent 100.00 per cent	of totalLocal aircraft movements are not broken down further into the various categories. The following stati itinerant movements only. Itinerant Aircraft Movements by Type of Operation:	Air Carriers-unit toll	66,615 =	33.57 per cent	of total itinerantAir Carriers-charter	3,534 =	1.79 per cent	of total itinerantOther commercial	67,558 =	34.05 per cent	of total itinerantPrivate	51,891 =	26.15 per cent	of total itinerantGovernment (civil and military)	8,818 =	4.44 per cent	of total itinerant198,416	100.00 per cent	of total itinerant
3986

Order Paper Questions
Itinerant Aircraft Movements by Gross Take-off Weight:
4,000 pounds and under	80,919 -	40.78 per cent	of total itinerant4,001 pounds-9,000 pounds	22,687 =	11.43 per cent	of total itinerant9,001 pounds-19,000 pounds	22,815 -	11.50 per cent	of total itinerant19,001 pounds-39,000 pounds	2,451 -	1.24 per cent	of total itinerant39,001 pounds-79,000 pounds	7,080 -	3.57 per cent	of total itinerant79,001 pounds-159,000 pounds	34,916 =	17.60 per cent	of total itinerant159,001 pounds-199,000 pounds	9,403 -	4.74 per cent	of total itinerant199,001 pounds-314,000 pounds	5,518 -	2.78 per cent	of total itinerant314,001 pounds and over	12,627 -	6.36 per cent	of total itinerant198,416	100.00 per cent	of total itinerant
Definition of Terms: "aircraft movement"-an aircraft landing, take-off, or simulated approach; "air carrier movement"-all unit toll movements plus those charter movements by aircraft over 18,000 pounds performed by Canadian and foreign operators with an official ICAO or Transport Canada designator; "itinerant movement"-one in which the aircraft enters or leaves tower control; "local movements"-(a) movements by aircraft which operate within the airport traffic pattern or local practice area; (b) simulated approaches or low passes; "other commercial"-commercial operations not included in 'Air Carrier'; "private movements"-movements by aircraft registered as "Private", owned by individuals or companies and not used for hire or compensation.
4.	The latest cost estimate which was prepared in February, 1976 for the proposed parallel runway at Vancouver International Airport is $26,271,800.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What amount was advanced by the government to ground fish operators during 1969 under the Inventory Loans Plan?
2.	What firms received the money, and in what amounts?
3.	What percentage has been repaid, of the total advanced, and by what firms?
4.	In Digby County, Nova Scotia, what repayments have been made?
5.	What steps have been authorized for the collection of those funds outstanding?
6.	If uneven amounts are collected from various operators, how will the government proceed to ensure equity among the various operators?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. $3,846,517.89.
Company	Principal
Fishery Products Ltd.	672,800.00
Earle Brothers Fisheries Ltd.	42,500.00
A. Norcott Limited	3,500.00
Newfoundland Quick Freeze	130,300.00
Bay Bulls Sea Products	18,700.00
Fort Amherst Sea Products	16,100.00
John Penny and Sons Ltd.	58,800.00
Cabot Seafoods	8,200.00
Burgeo Fish Industries	57,600.00
Gaultois Fisheries	60,700.00
Atlantic Fish Processors	174,100.00
Company	Principal
Harbour Grace Fisheries Coop	269,814.60
Booth Fisheries Canadian Co.	255,000.00
Bonavista Cold Storage Co.	405,000.00
Job Brothers Ltd.	79,500.00
P. Janes and Sons Ltd.	13,000.00
Ocean Harvestors Ltd.	180,000.00
Alfred C. LeBlanc	19,300.00
Beothic Fish Processors Ltd.	1,600.00
Swim Bros. Ltd.	14,000.00
H. B. Nickerson and Sons Ltd.	68,600.00
Riverport Seafoods Ltd.	66,500.00
Acadia Fisheries Ltd.	125,500.00
Arctic Fishery Products Ltd.	32,800.00
Bickerton Cooperative Ltd.	23,600.00
Comeau and Saulnier Ltd.	3,400.00
Mersey Seafoods Ltd.	24,000.00
Clare Fisheries Ltd.	900.00
Comeau Seafoods Ltd.	6,300.00
National Sea Products	424,953.29
Keith O. Raymond	2,900.00
Pierce Fisheries Ltd.	1,700.00
L. H. Comeau and Sons	3,100.00
O. D. Trask and Sons Ltd.	7,500.00
Marris and Thereault Ltd.	4,600.00
Swim Brothers Fisheries Ltd.	49,300.00
La Cooperative de Pecheurs de File Ltee	76,600.00
Grand Harbour Fishermen's Coop	6,150.00
Usen Fisheries Ltd.	44,100.00
Quebec United Fishermen	284,000.00
Pechprod Ltd.	48,400.00
St. Lawrence Sea Products	61,100.00
	$3,846,517.89
3. Fifty-three per cent of the total principal advanced has been repaid. The repayment of principal was made by: A. Norcott Limited; Newfoundland Quick Freeze Ltd. (in full); John Penny and Sons Ltd. (in full); Burgeo Fish Industries; Gaultois Fisheries (in full); Atlantic Fish Processors Ltd. (in full); Harbour Grace Fisheries Coop (in full); Booth Fisheries Canadian Co. Ltd.; Bonavista Cold Storage Co. Ltd. (in full); Beothic Fish Processors (in full); Ocean Harvesters Ltd.; H.B.

March 15, 1977

Nickerson and Sons Ltd.; Riverport Sea Foods Ltd.; Arctic Fishery Products Ltd.; Comeau and Saulnier (in full); Mersey Seafoods Ltd. (in full); Clare Fisheries Ltd. (in full); Comeau Sea Foods Ltd. (in full); National Sea Products Ltd. (in full); Keith O. Raymond; Pierce Fisheries Ltd. (in full); La Cooperative Des Pecheurs de File Ltee (in full); Usen Fisheries Ltd.; Quebec United Fishermen; Pechprod. Ltd.; St. Lawrence Sea Products Ltd.
4.	$11,760.
5.	Periodic letters and visits.
6.	All companies are required to repay their loans and interest on amounts owing will continue to be assessed.


Mr. Beatty;: 1.	Has there been any deterioration of the sealant between the concrete slabs on the runway at Mirabel Airport and, if so, have repairs been made or are they likely to be made within the next year?
2.	(a) How much sealant, if any, will have to be replaced (b) what was or is likely to be the total cost for repairs and how much of that cost will be borne by the taxpayers?
3.	(a) What has been the cause of the sealant's deterioration (b) was it anticipated, at the time the airport was built, that the sealant would deteriorate at its present rate?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. There has been deterioration of the sealants between the concrete slabs on the runway at Mirabel Airport. Some repairs have been made and it is anticipated that repairs will continue to be carried out each year along with preventative maintenance.
2.	(a) It was estimated that approximately 5 percent of the sealants may come out each year, (b) These will have to be replaced at an estimated annual cost of approximately $100,000. The proportion of this cost that is related to the ongoing maintenance will be budgeted in a normal manner. The allocation of the costs of replacing material due to other than normal causes will be established through legal consultation.
3.	(a) The cause of the sealants failure to perform is a lack of adhesion related to a number of factors. The proportion attributed to each factor is not resolved, (b) The present rate of deterioration was not anticipated. Since this condition is not unique there is considerable industry interest in improving the performance of these materials for the Canadian climate.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	For each of the past 12 months for which Figures are available, how many Air Canada flight attendants were hired on a full-time or regular basis, and on a part-time basis?
2.	How many in each classification were lost through resignation or other form of attrition per month?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: the only flight attendants hired by Air Canada in 1976 on a permanent basis were company employees who were already working in other posi-
Order Paper Questions
tions but who had submitted applications and asked to be considered for the position of flight attendant. Employees hired on a part time basis fall into two categories. Students registered in Canadian universities are hired for the duration of the summer university vacation period while Temporary Employees are hired for periods of between two and six months. Although initially hired as Temporary Employees, flight attendants in this classification are often later declared permanent when operational requirements demand.
1. Total hired-1976	March	April	May	June	July	OctoberPermanent basis	2	23	Temporary basis	35	38	70	70	52	Summer students Temporary employees made permanent	35	38	85	42	55
2.
January	February	March8 '	15 '	11April	May	June9	21	22July	August	September28	32	17October	November	December10	9	10


Mr. Rynard: 1.	Are there any government departments located in the Civic Square Tower Office Building in Barrie, Ontario and, if so, which ones?
2.	What is the rent per square foot for office space in the Building?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes; National Health and Welfare; National Revenue (Excise); Manpower and Immigration.
2.	First floor, $8.00 p.s.f.; fourth floor, $7.00 p.s.f.; sixth floor, $7.00 p.s.f. and $7.29 p.s.f.


Mr. Herbert: Does the government monitor and publish its findings of the insulation values of wool batt and loose wool insulation material used in residential buildings and, if so, is any comparison made between the relative insulation values and the price of (a) different types of material (b) different manufacturers (c) domestically manufactured and imported materials?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Building Research Division, of the National Research Council of Canada, and the Office of Energy Conservation, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, have both published tables of data comparing the insulating ability of different insulating materials. Two
80010-46'/2

March 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
such publications have been forwarded to the honourable member. These are: (a) "Adding insulation to house attics" published by NRC. (b) "100 ways to save energy and money in the home" published by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The NRC publication provides a sample of comparative data on the relative cost and effectiveness of several insulating materials, however, no agency is currently publishing such an economic comparison on an ongoing basis. The limitation of these comparisons is that they fail to consider other equally important parameters such as installation cost, resistance to fire, etc. No agency publishes comparative data identifying the product of a specific manufacturer. The evaluations carried out by NRC are performed under commercial contract with the manufacturer or his agent. The results of such specific evaluations are therefore confidential. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation requires that certain materials used in National Housing Act construction, including all of the insulation, be tested for compliance with certain standards, notably C.S.A. Standard No. A-101 in the case of mineral wool insulation. All suppliers who wish to serve this market i.e. those using imported or their own domestically manufactured goods, are obliged to have their products tested for acceptance.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Justice obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1.	(a) Yes.	1974-75	1975-76I	British Columbia	23	26II	Alberta	1	2III	Saskatchewan	4	2IV	Manitoba	Nil	NilV	Ontario	163	253VI	Quebec	1	NilVII	New Brunswick	Nil	NilVIII	Nova Scotia	Nil	NilIX	Prince Edward Island	Nil	NilX	Newfoundland	Nil	Nil(b) No.	2.	No, Main Estimates	1974-75	1975-763.	(a) British Columbia	5.80	6.00Alberta	5.60	5.60Saskatchewan	4.80	4.80Ontario	5.70	6.00Quebec	6.25	N/A
(Mr. Poulin.]
(b) Information not available. This information is known only to the private employment agency and its employee.
(c) I 1974-75 $191,827.66 II 1975-76 $209,008.23


Mr. McKenzie: 
Mr. Herbert: 1.	By province, in each of the past five years, how many persons received unemployment insurance benefits for the full period of their entitlement?
2.	Does the government monitor whether and how such persons find monies to survive after the termination of receipt of unemployment insurance benefits?
Hod. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): 1. In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: statistics are not available prior to 1973 and since then only by region.
Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific1973	71,716	115,209	125,346	44,623	50,6741974	53,816	92,547	81,599	20,166	39,0321975	69,422	118,551	115,390	17,184	45,7771976	70,282	139,927	105,746	17,125	42,288
Note: These statistics show the number of claimants who were active in the last week of their entitlement. However, it does not follow that these individuals have received UI benefits for every week of entitlement utilized: some, for example, had to serve weeks of disqualification and/or disentitlement, others had earnings.
2. The Unemployment Insurance Commission has surveyed UI exhaustees in an attempt to determine what happens to these individuals when they have exhausted their UI benefits. These surveys were carried out in 1973 and again in 1976. It
March 15, 1977

was found that the majority of exhaustees (63 per cent) were able to find work, on average, within six weeks while only a few 8 per cent, i.e. about 2 per cent of total claimload, resorted to welfare. Those who found a job worked, on average, four months out of the six month period investigated.
Order Paper Questions
(b) New Brunswick
Included in the above for the province of New Brunswick is the following: Puppet Program	1	$1,267.44	$2,085.30
*Cost is interpreted as travel expenses and other related costs.


Mr. Mazankowski: What is the cost of the Department of Transport publication At Home with Transport and how many issues were printed?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada spent $1,357.28 for its publication "At Home with Transport" and 5,000 copies were printed through the Printing Bureau of Supply and Services, Canada.


Mr. Howie: Have any proposals been made by (a) Air Canada (b) CP Air (c) Air Canada or CP Air in conjunction with Pacific Western Airlines, Transair, Nordair, Quebecair or Eastern Provincial Airways to consolidate routes or services and, if so, what do these proposals consist of?


Otto Emil Lang: No proposals by mainline or regional air carriers for consolidation of routes or services have been made to the Canadian Transport Commission. Many carriers have, however, been reviewing their route networks to find ways in which air services can be rationalized and made more economic. Transport Canada is also giving high priority to a review of the roles of the mainline, regional and local carriers to determine whether a redefinition of these roles could be in the public interest.


Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?
Hon. A. C. Abbott Affairs): Yes. (a) Canada	(Minister of Consumer and Corporate		
(i) Program (ii) Career Oriented Summer Employment Program	Numbers	Wages (iii)	Cost*(COSEP) Non-Career Oriented Summer Employment Program	31	$69,216.32	$26.18(NCOSEP)	29	$70,776.42	$146.34
Puppet Program
21	$23,284.79


Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of the Secretary of State have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?


John (Moody) Roberts: (a) Yes. (i) Student Community Services Programme and Hostel Programme.
(ii)	Student Community Service Programme-2,604 persons at $120./week. Hostel Programme, 371 persons at $120./ week, (iii) Student Community Service Programme-$5,308,000. Hostel Programme-$790,458. (b) Yes. (i) Student Community Service Programme and Hostel Programme, (ii) Student Community Service Programme-141 persons at $120./week. Hostel Programme-29 persons at $120./week.
(iii)	Student Community Service Programme $259,805. Hostel Programme-$46,389.60.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Does the National Harbours Board provide, on a regular basis, heavy lift facilities at the Port of Saint John, New Brunswick and, if not, are there any other major ports in Eastern Canada or on the Pacific Coast without such service?
2.	Was the Glenbuckie fulfilling such a service at Saint John?
3.	Was the Glenbuckie withdrawn from service and, if so, on what date?
4.	Will alternative facilities be provided and, if so, on what date?
5.	Have complaints been received by the National Harbours Board concerning the withdrawal of heavy lift capability from the Port of Saint John?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Heavy lift facilities have been provided by the Board at Saint John, New Brunswick, by means of the floating crane Glenbuckie from the mid-1940's until September 8, 1976. On that date the Glenbuckie, because of damage to her hull, was temporarily withdrawn from service pending the outcome of a study by the Port Authority in association with local stevedoring company managers regarding future heavy lift capability for the port. The National Harbours Board ports of St. John's, Halifax, Sept-Iles, Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Montreal, Churchill and Vancouver have heavy lift services provided either by the Board or the private sector.
2. Yes, although very few lifts were required to be made over the past four or five years because port operators have used land-based mobile cranes instead.

March 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	The Glenbuckie was temporarily withdrawn from service on September 8, 1976.
4.	Alternative facilities are available from private enterprise and have been used in lieu of the Glenbuckie.
5.	No.


Mr. Allard: Has the purchase of C. and G.T. Railway Company by Canadian National Railways been approved by the government and, if so, on what date?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes. It was approved by Order in Council P.C. 1975-2355 of October 2, 1975.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,742-Mr. Allard:
[Stage Direction]
1.	Was a job creation centre established in the Constituency of Rimouski and, if so, on what date?
2.	What (a) are the names of the persons employed by the Centre (b) is the duration of their employment (c) is the number of persons (i) employed by the Centre (ii) who occupied a position in the Public Service (iii) who were born in the Region?
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes. The office was established as a Job Creation Branch regional office when the Branch was organized in September, 1973.
2. (a)
Name of Employee
Georgette Desjardins
Claude Dube
Liliane Berthelot
Donald Gagne
Doris Boissonneault
Rene Dube
Gaston Lizotte
Louis Blanchette
Normand Morin
Michel Bolduc
Louise Bourdage
Gilles Morissette
Edgar Caron
Monique Cheron
Ronald Cyr
Jean-Claude Larocque
Claire Levesque
Louis Poulin
Guy Laroche
Gilles Dufresne
Jacinthe Desjardins
Joanne Ouellet
Pierre Lemieux
Marthe Boucher
Micheline Cote
Ginette Pelletier St. Laurent
(b)
When Hired
October 1976 December 1973 December 1976 August 1975 December 1976 August 1975 August 1975 November 1975 November 1975 December 1976 December 1976 August 1975 December 1976 December 1976 December 1976 December 1976 December 1976 December 1976 December 1976 February 1977 December 1974 September 1976 June 1975 January 1977 January 1977 January 1977
(c) (i) 26; (ii) 5; (iii) 19.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Has the agreement between Newfoundland and the government with respect to the services of the RCMP expired and, if so (a) on what date did it expire (b) is the contract continuing on a temporary basis until a new agreement is reached?
2.	(a) Are negotiations now underway between Newfoundland and the government for a new agreement covering RCMP services (b) has the government agreed to provide 50 per cent of the cost of RCMP operations in Newfoundland under a new agreement or is it insisting on Newfoundland assuming more of the cost?
3.	(a) What proposal has been advanced by the government in connection with cost-sharing for the new contract for RCMP services in Newfoundland (b) has the province agreed to any new cost-sharing arrangement and, if so, what is the agreement?


Francis Fox: 1. Yes. (a) March 31, 1976; (b) yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) see reply to part 3(a).
3.	(a) The proposed policing agreement offered to all provinces under contract and the territories is based on a direct costing approach. It provides for the provinces and territories to pay 52 per cent of the cost in the first year (1976/77) with an annual 1 per cent escalation until 56 per cent is reached in the last year of the agreement (1980/81). (b) Yes. As stated in (a) above.


Mr. Jones: Has the government taken any steps to promulgate or enact regulations to clarify and define certain aspects of the law on abortions and, in particular, with respect to clear guidelines and restrictions on the duties and responsibilities on therapeutic committees on abortions set up under the provisions of the Criminal Code and, if so, what are they?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The government has not taken any steps to enact regulations regarding the abortion law. On the basis of the findings of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law, tabled in the House on February 9, 1977, the government will discuss with the provinces ways of improving the application of the law.
March 15, 1977


Mr. Howie: 1.	Do any plans exist for the installation of electric meters in PMQ residences at CFB Gagetown and, if so, what is the estimated cost of such an operation?
2.	For the (a) year ending March 31, 1975 (b) year ending March 31, 1976 (c) the period April 1, 1976 to February 1, 1977, how much was paid and to whom, for (i) electric stoves (ii) refrigerators (iii) service and parts for electric stoves and refrigerators in PMQ residences at CFB Gagetown?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Yes. However, an estimate of costs cannot be given at this time due to factors such as; whether salvaged old equipment can be utilized; the policy of the New Brunswick Electric Power Corporation, and the type of metering technique required.
2. (a) Year ending March 31, 1975, (i) $9,472, Enterprise Foundry, Sackville, N.B.; (ii) Nil; (iii) $15,361, Kenny Refrigeration Services, Fredericton, N.B. (b) Year ending March 31, 1976, (i) $55,010, Roy and Gibson Ltd., Assumption, Que.; (ii) $6,737, Roy and Gibson Ltd., Assumption, Que.; (iii) $12,160, Oromocto Electric, Oromocto, N.B. (c) April 1, 1976 to February 1, 1977, (i) $40,820, Roy and Gibson Ltd., Assumption, Que.; (ii) $28,417, Roy and Gibson Ltd., Assumption, Que.; (iii) $13,457, Oromocto Electric, Oromocto, N.B.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Are bookstores on Canadian Forces Bases in the Federal Republic of Germany called "Stars and Stripes" and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Do they contain any Canadian books?
3.	Who is the distributor for the bookstores?
4.	Will arrangements be made to ensure a supply of Canadian books to Armed Forces Bases in Canada and abroad?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Yes. The bookstores at Lahr and Baden are operated under concession agreements with Stars and Stripes and have been operated under this agreement for the past nine years in Lahr and 25 years in Baden. Approximately a year ago a study was conducted on the feasibility of replacing the Stars and Stripes concession with a purely Canadian bookstore. However, the study showed conclusively that the operation would be too small and too distant from Canada to be financially viable. Stars and Stripes order in bulk and also act as the distributor to the numerous outlets in Europe and other parts of the world.
2.	Yes.
3.	See part 1 above.
4.	Canadian books and periodicals are available in both official languages and efforts are continually being made to improve the number of variety of Canadian books and magazines sold in these bookstores.
Order Paper Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would pay particular attention to starred question 1,187 which I placed on the order paper on November 26 last. It has serious nutritional import and could affect nutrition in Canada. My question reads:
What evidence has the nutrition branch of the Department of Agriculture produced to support the statement that "Beef makes people ferocious?"
The Minister of Agriculture alleged that beef-eating makes people ferocious. I am serious in asking this question and can hardly wait for the answer. Will the parliamentary secretary please provide it?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as is usual with all questions, we will seek to provide the information requested as soon as possible. I am sure the House will be interested in the response.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 1,229 which has been standing in my name on the order paper since December 1. Its subject matter has to do with the decentralization of one particular government department as opposed to an agency or branch. It contains certain questions as to protections for the public servants who are involved. I am particularly concerned about a representation set forth in part 6 of that question as the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated in a letter dated October 28, 1976, that employees are protected to the fullest. I want to know what the government means by this kind of blandishment. I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary looking into that question. It has been there for a considerable time.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions on the order paper relating to the general matter of the decentralization of government. I can assure the hon. member that the answers are being collected and will be provided to the House as quickly as possible. I will take special notice of the point the hon. member has just raised and see if I can quickly obtain an answer.

Labour Conditions


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the revelation this morning that the continuing chronic level of unemployment has reached a genuine emergency, with 932,000 persons officially unemployed-the highest level since the great depression and the highest level in the history of Statistics Canada. It is noted that these figures do not include over 500,000 persons who are the hidden unemployed, combining for a total of nearly 1 Vi million Canadians actually wanting work and employment. It is clear that the human misery and economic waste associated with this scandalous level of unemployment constitutes a crisis and an emergency situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) gave the Chair notice pursuant to Standing Order 26, of his intention to move the motion he has just proposed pursuant to the Standing Order. I would indicate, as I have on previous occasions when motions related to unemployment have been raised pursuant to Standing Order 26, that the matter, being one of continuing and chronic concern, it is not, in my opinion, a proper subject of special debate under Standing Order 26. That language was repeated by me as quoted at page 2296 of Hansard for January 24, 1977.1 again refer hon. members to it.
In this particular situation there is, of course, an additional consideration; that is, it is one, as indicated in Standing Order 26(5), regarding which the Chair ought to take into account opportunities which are likely to present themselves for a discussion of the particular problem that is raised in the notice of motion given pursuant to the Standing Order.
In this particular instance I can scarcely ignore the announcement that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) will put forward a budgetary statement on March 31 and that the motion accompanying it will be debated for some six days.
I understand there may not be specific agreement about the exact timing of those days, but nevertheless the debate will, I am sure, follow either immediately or very closely thereafter and unemployment, naturally, will be a very large feature of that debate. Accordingly, for those two reasons I regretfully decline the application for allowing a special debate on unemployment at this time pursuant to Standing Order 26.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last evening there was some question as to what the government would be proceeding with tomorrow. I understand from a conversation I had with the parliamentary secretary that it is the intention of the government to proceed tomorrow with the immigration bill. I would like confirmed, for the convenience of members of the House, that this in fact is the intention of the government.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, that would be our intention. Of course, it will depend on whether the debate on the immigration bill proceeds to conclusion today. If that is not the case, it will be our intention to proceed with it tomorrow, barring some unforeseen development about which we do not know at the moment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the House business question posed last Thursday the government House leader indicated that he was not quite sure in what order he would be calling the Unemployment Insurance Act and the transportation act. Almost a week having passed, can the government indicate what business will be following the completion of the immigration bill tomorrow?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can give the hon. member a firm indication at this stage. In a preliminary way, however, I suggest to him that the unemployment legislation will follow the immigration legislation.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 14, 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.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate you will recall that last night I tried to make the point in forceful terms regarding the contribution that has been made, can be made and will be made by immigrants who come to Canada, including the visible minorities. I tried to bring to the attention of this House that notwithstanding the great contribution they have made, people from all over the world, of all races, colour and creed, some of them because of very high visibility, have been meeting certain
March 15, 1977

problems the like of which have been explored and been brought to the attention of this nation. That is why, just before I concluded last night, I indicated that I was pleased with the activities of the Ontario human rights commission, the attitude and activities of the hon. Roy McMurtry and the introduction of the Canadian human rights legislation. At the same time I commended the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) for his role in that regard and indicated why I supported the "hate" bill.
These men and/or legislation are not actually talking about or legislating morality or love. That is not the point. What these men and these matters I have referred to in terms of legislation are doing, and will continue to do in my estimation, is spell out the type of conduct and/or attitudes which one finds unacceptable in this country at the present time. This is a type of unacceptable conduct that has been geared toward people who can be called progressive, intelligent, tough, proud, ambitious and law-abiding, many of whom are within the visible minorities.
In my travels throughout this country I have found that there are people from all backgrounds living, working and playing together, all dedicated to the advancement of a greater Canada. It is my view that Canadians as a whole will welcome this type of stuff, if you will, notwithstanding the irrational ravings of the bigots and racists. In my travels I found that the vast majority of Canadians realize that immigrants have built this country, are building it now and will continue to build it. Immigrants played a leading role in the mainstream of Canadian life. Success stories abound. At the same time, I found that there are many people, perhaps too many, who have conveniently forgotten that they are recent immigrants themselves and thus would deny the opportunities that they had as immigrants by saying, "Close the door. We do not need any more".
Frankly, that is not an attitude which permeates the immigrant society, but it appeared on these trips of ours across the country too often. I found that the immigrants who come to this country, regardless of race, colour, creed or sex, have integrated and become a meaningful part of the mainstream of Canadian life. I say without hesitation that Canada will need a continuous stream of immigrants. Although certain temporary difficulties arise, there is no denying that the benefits of immigration have proven to be permanent and meaningful.
On this fact-finding tour, if you will, that many of us had the honour of pursuing, I am pleased to say that the non-partisan committee was able to destroy many myths regarding immigrants. I think it is edifying for the Canadian public to know what this excellent committee was able to recommend. I would ask you, sir, to direct your attention to issue 53 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons. On page 7 we read the following:
Canada needs immigrants. The committee is of the opinion that Canada should continue to be a country of immigration. In reaching this central conclusion committee members were particularly impressed by demographic and
Immigration Act
economic arguments as well as by the need to take account of family and humanitarian considerations for reasons specified elsewhere.
That is clear enough, and I commend the committee for reaching such a conclusion. We have heard much about the demographic factors and the declining fertility rate. What did the special joint committee have to say about this? I quote again from the report at page 9:
The committee is well aware that in a time of high unemployment new immigrants may be seen by the unemployed in particular as competing for too few jobs... The committee accepted Dr. Harvey Lithwick's assertion that it is disastrous for the country to tie immigration policy to short-term economic developments. Immigration is a long-term investment in human resources. Its conclusion from this body of evidence was that for population reasons it is important to maintain a moderately steady flow of immigration.
I should like to bring yet another section of the same report to the attention of the House:
Contradictory testimony was received regarding the significance of the contribution an expansionist immigration policy could make to the economies of scale. In the main, members of the committee went along with Dr. Raynauld's comment that this argument that immigration should be continued because it contributes to economies of scale was a very weak one. The committee believes that the benefits of immigration are obvious providing there are reasonable employment opportunities. Of course, immigration causes some special direct costs, as the brief of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council pointed out, particularly in the fields of education, training and adjustment services. But these costs are balanced by the fact that immigrants arrive with training and experience acquired at no cost to Canada. All of this leads the committee to the conclusion that Canada would contribute to its own economic well-being by continuing to welcome immigrants in moderate numbers.
What about the fact of prejudice against immigrants? I want to quote from the report once again because this issue was dealt with very specifically and the committee did reach a conclusion in this regard. I read from page 10 of the report:
A persistent theme of submissions hostile to immigration was the view that immigrants crowd into cities, exacerbating housing shortages, increasing the crime rate, bringing in infectious diseases, taxing the welfare rolls and government services and taking jobs from Canadians. The Mayor of Vancouver made the point that immigration to Vancouver had exercised great pressure on land and therefore on housing prices; immigrants had brought talent, money and culture, but they had not brought land. This is primarily a spatial question, not a racial question.
The committee recognizes that all these are problems faced by rapidly growing cities, and concluded that they are caused by the economic, social and cultural dynamism of cities and their attractiveness to Canadians and immigrants alike. In fact, Canadians migrating within Canada from the country to the cities and from province to province are the main impulse for city growth.
In other words, when we talk of the harmful effects of immigration upon housing, social services, education, and so on, we are expressing a scapegoat philosophy. The committee destroyed that myth as it applies to employment, social services and the other services referred to. I again quote the report:
Similar misconceptions also abound regarding the impact of immigration on social services and benefits and health care. None of the testimony supported with facts the popular notion that newcomers are using these services more than the native-born. If anything, the committee has the impression that use of such services by immigrants falls below the national average for the obvious reason that many come from countries where such services are traditionally provided by the family. Indeed, it would appear that interprovincial and rural-to-urban migrants make greater use of government support than persons from abroad.

Immigration Act
Reading further from the report:
Nor do immigrants participate less actively in the work force than long-term residents. Selection criteria are designed to ensure that newcomers are well equipped to secure employment.
That is an extremely important point. Another aspect was dealt with later in the report. I read from page 11:
Some submissions contained allegations that immigrants, especially the nonwhite, contribute disproportionately to the crime rate. Expert testimony did not support this charge. Professor Frederick Zemans of Osgoode Hall said:
"Most immigrants who come to Canada have a strong fear of the legal system itself and they are very concerned that they should not get into any difficulties or any trouble while in this country."
And in a study prepared for the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada in 1974, statistics indicated that the crime rate for immigrants was approximately one-half that for native-born Canadians.
So I am saying, what a tremendous wealth of human resource we have when we open our arms and welcome immigrants, because they make a tremendous contribution to this country, and the myths associated with them are destroyed as far as this committee is concerned. I hope the people of Canada will read this report because it destroys myths and it brings about a proper conception of what this country is all about.
Having said that, I should like to state that this bill is silent on two important matters. I would say that one is the need for intensive training for immigration officials. Many submissions indicated to us, without exaggeration, the hardship which people suffer as a result of the insentivity of some immigration officers or because the officers lack understanding of their needs. It seems to me that because of the mosaic pattern of life we are experiencing at this time we need to concentrate on the public relations aspect of this work. I know that immigration officers have a difficult job, an onerous job, but it is a job where no insensitivity should be shown. People come to this country willing to take up the plow, willing to take up the shovel, and they expect to be treated with all the dignity possible. But some are unimpressed by the reception they get at our ports of entry.
Another point which I find a little strange, particularly in light of the fact that the immigration policy we are discussing is supposed to be non-discriminatory, is that there is no mention of the need for the relocation of Canadian immigration officers abroad. I state with all the sincerity I can muster that without this relocation of officers, the small number of Canadian officers in third world countries compared with the number in the United States and Europe indicates a de facto policy of discrimination; there can be no doubt about that. In view of the preamble to this legislation which calls for a non-discriminatiory approach, I hope the minister will review and reassess the point I have made. With so few coming from the third world and so many coming from the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States, the only conclusion that can be reached is that we are discriminating. I shall not dwell on that point because I think it is quite obvious.

Another point I have always registered my concern about is legislation by way of regulation. I want to dwell on this subject for a moment. The joint committee recommendations strongly favoured a stronger balance of the act; that is, the framework, the principles and the regulations. Under the present system, immigration law comprises mainly statutes enacted by parliament and regulations introduced by the government from time to time under the authority granted by the Immigration Act. The committee sees no alternative but to maintain the balance between the basic act, which establishes the framework and the principles, and the regulations which set out the procedures for putting the principles into effect. That statement is to be found in section 1976 of the joint committee report. Section 177 of the same report reads:
However, as the green paper admitted, the essential criteria governing admissions to Canada are dispersed through the (present) act and regulations (somewhat haphazardly). This makes it unnecessarily complicated for anyone who merely reads the act to grasp the fundamental principles and conditions that surround the admission of immigrants and non-immigrants.
Under this new legislation there is no effective balance between it and the regulations, and one cannot possibly grasp the fundamental principles and conditions surrounding the admission of immigrants and non-immigrants merely by reading Bill C-24. Our spokesman on this matter, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), in no uncertain terms registered his concern about this particular approach. One cannot evaluate the immigration procedures of the government because they have not exposed the essential criteria which govern admission to Canada. The regulations must be made available. In view of the regulatory process, which I will deal with shortly, we cannot possibly deal with this legislation unless there is a concerted effort on the part of all of us to impress upon the minister responsible for immigration that unless we see the regulations we are back to where we were before, namely, legislating by way of regulation. This I find completely unacceptable.
Instead of an effective balance between the act and the regulations, this new bill yields more power than ever into the hands of the minister, the governor in council and the bureaucrats. If anything, this bill is even more arbitrary than the act. Aside from the powers of the minister and the governor in council, which are extensive indeed, clause 123 provides:
The minister or deputy minister, as the case may be, may authorize such persons employed in the public service of Canada as he deems proper to exercise or perform any of the powers, duties and functions that may or are required to be exercised or performed by him under this act or the regulations .. . and any such duty, power or function performed or exercised by any person so authorized shall be deemed to have been performed or exercised by the minister or the deputy minister, as the case may be.
That is a complete abdication of powers to persons unknown, and that is wrong, particularly when one notes that the former act gave such delegation of powers only to the minister; and he could only delegate those powers to the deputy minister or to the director. This particular provision in the new legislation only intensifies the already arbitrary nature of the Immigration Act.
March 15, 1977

Let me give the House an idea of what we are talking about in terms of legislation by way of regulation. Here we have a bill some 75 pages in length which at the moment contains 129 clauses. There are two clauses in particular I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention. The first is 115, which provides:
(1) The governor in council may make regulations-
Then follow, as I count them, some 22 different subject matters with which the government can deal by way of regulation.


Walter David Baker: Major areas.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, major areas, matters of concern, matters which have the immigrant community exercised, frustrated and fearful. In light of this fear, which I suggest is extremely legitimate, we have another reason for wanting to see what the regulations will be so we can make sufficient input to the legislation in terms of possible amendments. In light of another provision in this same clause I can understand why the visible minorities in particular are, to say the least, fearful. Subsection (2) provides:
A regulation made under subsection (1)-
In other words, under any of the 22 paragraphs of the previous subsection.
-may be conditional or unconditional, qualified or unqualified, and may be general or restricted to a person or class of persons.
The possible impact of those words, Mr. Speaker, make even me fearful. We are receiving letters from immigrants, regardless who they may be, asking what this provision means and how it is going to affect them. I suggest we will have to examine this particular provision with a great deal of care. To carry the matter further, Mr. Speaker, clause 116 provides:
The minister may make regulations
(a) establishing the procedures to be followed-
And so on. Under this particular clause we have 12 very important matters which are to be dealt with by regulation. In other words, the bill itself is meaningless; it does not mean a thing because the actual meat of the bill will be contained within regulations. I have no doubt of this whatsoever. We are moving in the wrong direction because we are legislating immigration law by way of regulation outside of parliament. We have a hidden immigration policy with no opportunity for debate. Is that fair, Mr. Speaker? We indicated to the minister during committee hearings and when we reported back that we would find unacceptable any bill that dealt with immigration policy through regulation.
I should like to refer to a couple of matters in the bill that have even me frightened. First, let me turn to clause 115(l)(o). I understand the need for this, but I do not like it. Paragraph (o) provides:
-setting out the circumstances in which persons who seek admission or persons in Canada, other than Canadian citizens, may be required to be fingerprinted or photographed or otherwise identified.
Immigration Act
What is this country coming to? What are we doing? The minister was careful to say "other than Canadian citizens", but does the minister not understand that countless thousands of people have been resident in this country for upward of 50 years? Are they included? Under this legislation they certainly are. That is the other frightening aspect that disturbs me. I want to know why the minister picks on residents who have been here upward of 50 years. What are we doing?
Another matter which surprises me, and I do not understand it, is that the minister seems to abrogate his functions to the public trustees in the provinces. As is known, upon the death of a person who does not have an immediate family, his assets, depending on his domicile or residence at the time of his death, go to the public trustee of the province. Everyone knows that; this knowledge is not restricted. But the minister, with all his expertise, seems to want to get involved with provincial jurisdictions. Have there been discussions with respect to that? Paragraph (1) reads;
-providing for the disposition of property carried by persons who die in Canada while at an immigrant station or other place in the custody or under the supervision of an immigration officer.
"Custody" and "supervision" can mean a number of things. It can mean that an immigrant could be under custody and supervision living in my home. I know the law, and I could refuse admission to an immigration officer wishing to dispose of the assets of the deceased. That is how far this thing can go.
I have a few more points to make. The government has made a pretty big deal out of its dedication to a demographic policy. This point was brought home by my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, who was concerned about dealing with an immigration bill when we do not have a demographic policy before us. The government has taken great pains to stress the fact that demographic considerations are extremely important. The bill states, in clause 3, that demographic studies are one of its objectives, and it also stresses in clause 7 the importance of provincial consultation over demography. Yet when the minister is asked to table the report on demographic studies so that members of parliament can make an educated assessment of the bill, the minister's response is, "I will consider it". If, in fact, the demographic and population policy is to be one of the major factors affecting the determination of immigration levels, and perhaps even the points system, it too must be evaluated as an integral part of the new Immigration Act.
What I am trying to say is that when we bring in a bill of such consequence and importance, it must not only be fair and just but it must appear to be fair and just. In my humble estimation, with regard to the points I have made regarding legislating by way of regulations alone, I am led to have second thoughts as to whether I am prepared to vote for this bill on second reading. Our party's critic has indicated that we agree with the principle, but there is so much lacking in the bill because at present it is neither fair nor appears to be fair- I am sure hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me in that regard-that a great amount of work will have

Immigration Act
to be done by members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order to bring about meaningful amendments to this immigration bill which will determine the immigration policy of this country for years to come.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill, as we did a year ago when we debated Bill C-20 on citizenship, it is quite inevitable, because of the nature of the subject matter, that we approach it with strong emotions and that we inject our own personal experiences, as was the case last night in particular in the interventions of hon. members who spoke about their past when they first came to Canada an their experiences in subsequent years as well as their feelings for this country.
I thought these were very valuable contributions because they brought into the heart of this House a series of personal experiences which, even though they may be limited to the personal past of a particular member, allow the House and those interested in this topic to understand, at least in part, what immigration is all about in human terms, not only in legislative terms. Within that context I should like to compliment, also, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who is now leaving the chamber. Since I always compliment him when he is out of the chamber, I rush to do so now so that at least he can hear a positive comment on my part while he is still here. His interventions last night and today were thoughtful and to the point and certainly contributed to the quality of this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: For these reasons, and having heard his personal experiences, I will refrain from speaking about my own. That should be the subject matter of an intervention at another time. Instead, I would like, first of all, to express some words of congratulations to the government for having brought out a bill at this point after having made it possible for a committee to travel throughout the country and to consult communities from coast to coast on this matter.
Therefore, we are now engaged in one of the final stages of a process which was initiated several years ago. I do not know of any government in the world that has approached such a sensitive area of policy-making in the way the government of Canada has. In that respect this Liberal government deserves congratulations for having brought this bill step by step to this point after having heard witnesses and having heard criticism from interested members on all sides of the House. This fact should not be forgotten. There has been a process, and the process is as important as is the objective, and so far the process has been sound and constructive.
Immigration has been described in many ways. I do not think I can improve on the way it has been put by a number of hon. members who have spoken before me. I will say that in my own experience from observations over the past 25 or more years I have consistently come to the conclusion that the average immigrant who comes to Canada from any part of the world as an adult is, in economic and cultural terms, an asset.

I will explain that. He or she arrives in this country as a person who has been been brought up and educated as a healthy individual at the expense of another jurisdiction. That immigrant has been taken care of for the first 20 or 30 years of his or her life in another country. He or she arrives here immediately able to enter the labour market and immediately in a position to earn a living and to contribute to the general economy of this notion.
When this is not so it is because of manpower dislocations and delays which are mainly the fault of our system. It cannot be attributed to the intense desire of the immigrant to find a job upon arrival, to become productive, to earn a living, to spend and to contribute to the general economic cycle.
This country has benefited from landed immigrants who have come to this country during the productive part of their lives. This country has acquired a human asset without having spent a penny for the education, the upbringing or for the healthy condition of individuals who have come here. If we look back over the decades to the year zero of immigration, we find that there have been immigrants working on the railways, the farms, the mines, the construction sites and the factories of Canada. There is not one sector of Canada's industrial and economic life in which we do not find, at a certain time in our history, the presence of immigrants. It is a well known fact that as a country we have looked upon immigration as a source of manpower to fill our needs. In this respect Canada has done very well. Canada has, in fact, done extremely well because it has been able to import productive manpower at no expense without having to invest in the education, health or upbringing of that manpower. As far as the labour market objective is concerned, which is one of the three objectives of our immigration policy, our nation has done extremely well.
As the years have gone by a trend has developed in immigration flow which has been described as the reunification of families. Immigrants coming to this country sooner or later have expressed the natural desire to bring over family members. This trend has become stronger as the number of immigrants has increased and accumulated over the decades. This is a very important and highly desirable component of our immigration policy and it is recognized in clause 3 of this bill. As we all know, the strength of a nation depends on the strength of families and on the network of their composition, and by recognizing the importance of family reunification the government of Canada recognizes a very important social and natural force which has to find expression in legislation. I commend the minister and the government for setting this out in clause 3 of the bill.
However, I have to add that while our intentions have been set out in these positive terms, for which we are all very glad and grateful, our performance in family reunification has not been as good as we have claimed it to be. There are still cases on file of brothers sponsoring brothers, brothers sponsoring sisters, sisters sponsoring brothers, and sisters and immigrants who after a few years have expressed a natural desire to
March 15, 1977

sponsor their parents to come to this country. These cases are on file in a number of offices around the world and they have been turned down or not considered favourably.
These are typical cases of family reunification which are of great importance in the sense that they are cases of people wanting to bring members of their families closer to them. I urge the minister and the government to translate into reality a concept which has been expressed time and again, if it is really the desire of this country and of this government to bring about family reunification. Just for the sake of argument, if I were minister of manpower and immigration in these times of economic difficulty I would make family reunification a matter of top priority.
My second priority would be refugees, and my third priority would be to help fill the vacancies in our labour market. I do not know how I could stress more strongly the importance of family reunification. There is not a week that goes by for any hon. member who comes from an urban area in which he does not become acquainted with a case of this nature. If we accept the proposition I made a few moments ago, that for each productive immigrant we acquire at no expense a human asset which is immediately productive, depending on labour market conditions, surely we owe something to this person who has a natural desire to reunite with members of his family who are still in his country of origin. I think that is an elementary consideration which deserves the expression it receives in clause 3, but it also deserves practical application which goes beyond the words we hear outlined in speeches in this House in connection with this bill, and under other circumstances.
Some hon. members have made reference to clause 115. It is my opinion, as well as theirs, that this clause is the real heart of this bill. This bill can perhaps be compared to a fine-looking ship ready to be launched. The direction the bill will take once it is launched is embodied in clause 115. In that clause are outlined all kinds of powers which must be brought to the attention of the committee: they must be discussed, they must be made the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. Nothing less than that is adequate.
Let me explain why. In recent times we have had the benefit of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. In the investigations that committee has carried out it has become evident that the spirit, the letter and the general trend of legislation on many occasions has not been respected by the content of subsequently drafted regulations. Having had the benefit of that experience, it seems reasonable that this House and the government should make absolutely certain that the regulations follow the spirit of the objectives stated in clause 3 of the bill. I would like to commend the minister for already having taken a stand on this matter. On March 10 the minister spoke in this House and he said:
The new act... establishes through the statement of objectives an explicit policy framework to which everything done under the authority of the legislation must conform; and it spells out precisely and circumscribes specifically the ground to be covered by regulations.
Immigration Act
Those are positive words on the part of the minister and we all congratulate him for having spoken them. However, we are not eternal in general terms, even less eternal in political terms-excepting, perhaps, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is, therefore, necessary to spell out these regulations in order to allow them to become the object of parliamentary scrutiny so that it is clear and established to all interested persons that they extend to the direction and objectives set out in clause 3. I would not want, years or decades from now, to have perhaps the deputy minister of the department given the responsibility of drafting or modifying regulations flowing from this bill. I would not want in the course of time to see regulations or decisions inconsistent with the spirit of this bill.
I was stunned by clause 115(1 )(f) which provides that the governor in council may make regulations-
-prescribing a system of priorities for the processing of applications made by immigrants.
What does that mean? Does it mean that at a certain time years from now a certain directive may go out from the office of the deputy minister to the office in Hong Kong saying that certain applications at the bottom of the pile will go to the top, or vice versa? Or could the same be done in Rome, Lisbon, Athens or South America? What does it mean? That clause has sweeping implications. Other clauses, too, have potential significance in this regard. I suppose we shall have an opportunity to examine them in committee. I am thinking particularly of paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 115(1), the clause which has to do with the setting out of points.
We feel that the real purport of the bill, the real sense of direction, the method of dealing with applications, is contained in clause 115. That clause must be given full scrutiny at committee stage, and I suppose at subsequent stages, when regulations must be changed in future once the bill is pronounced an act of parliament.
In the fairly large number of briefs we have received from communities and interested parties in the country-some briefs have been helpful and excellent; others somewhat confused, even weakening their own case-attention has mainly been focused on four or five major areas which I wish to put on record for the sake of our collective memory when we deal with the bill in committee. A number of briefs have expressed the desirability of limiting the government's power to compel prospective immigrants to Canada to be fingerprinted or photographed. That provision is contained in subclause (o), clause 115(1). It will require an explanation.
Other briefs have recommended the desirability of specifying the amount of security deposited which immigration officers may require of visitors in order that such officers will not set prohibitively large sums to keep visitors out. Provision for such security is contained in clause 8. Other briefs have expressed the desirability of clarifying and restricting the powers and use of arrest without warrant. People want to know when arrests will be permitted, and under what circumstances, without use of a warrant. I believe some of these points were

Immigration Act
raised in the excellent presentation of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I believe he also referred to the provisions of clause 5(2), which reads:
An immigrant may be granted landing if he is not a member of an inadmissible class and otherwise meets the requirements of this act and the regulations.
The question is, should an applicant who has proven to be admissible and has met all the requirements of the act and regulations be admitted, period, or should we leave discretionary powers in the hands of the officials, something we would be doing if we left the word "may" in the act. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that "may" should be replaced by "shall".
We received a number of submissions to do with refugees. Such recommendations boil down to whether it will be desirable to establish a refugee claims board and whether there should be in the act some recognition of the special needs of refugees. Probably the minister will in committee address himself to these major questions. I imagine that if they are dealt with clearly and adequately it would remove much of the uncertainty and hesitancy which has been expressed by members who have spoken so far in this debate and by organizations-particularly in Montreal and Toronto-which have taken the trouble to send us briefs and express their views on this legislation.
Moving on, I wish briefly to deal with aspects of the bill which I hope the government will reconsider. I am thinking of clauses 14 and 15 which give power to immigration officers to grant a visa to an applicant provided the applicant is willing to go to certain designated areas in the country. For example, the applicant will be required to remain-that is, reside-in such area for a minimum of six months. I do not approve of this approach, for we can achieve much more with incentives than with coercion.
Let me give an example. Suppose an immigrant is told that he can enter this country provided he goes to a remote area and stays there for six months. He or she will go to that remote area and, finding the experience so filled with hardship, on the 181st day after landing in Canada, or six months and one day later, will pop up in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or any other of our major centres. I ask: if that happens, what have you achieved? You will still have an immigrant in a large urban centre where you hoped he would not go. He will not have remained where you wanted him to remain. In other words, you will have provided manpower in one place on a short-term basis and denied the worker the right to move for six months. What will you have achieved in the end? It seems to me that this clause ought to be removed.
I would rather see a policy whereby we provided incentives to go to a certain place in Canada and settle there. These incentives would have to be such things as good housing, adequate pay, cultural recreation, community amenities, and the like. The people would not stay for just six months but would possibly settle there. In addition, they may bring in their relatives to help expand the very community we want to have
(Mr. Caccia.]
developed. It is through these kinds of approaches, via the route of incentives, that we may be able to find a satisfactory answer to the particular concern of providing immigrant manpower in those areas of Canada were there is a shortage and where development is needed. The approach of six months' compulsory work in designated areas does not convince me. For the reasons I have just outlined, it falls far short of its objective.
The second area I would like to deal with, because it disturbs me, is clause 115 (a) and (b). If an immigrant becomes a Canadian citizen, he will have the opportunity of sponsoring parents and grandparents at any age, at an age lower than the one permitted under the present act, namely 60. We are, in essence, saying to these people that if they want to sponsor their parents they had better become Canadian citizens. We are confusing two concepts, the concept of citizenship and the concept of sponsoring parents. We are mixing up two very important concepts that ought not to be mixed. If you want to become a Canadian citizen, it ought to be that you want to be a Canadian citizen, and for no other reason. It must be your choice, desire, ambition, emotional wish that this is what you are going to do. You should become a Canadian citizen because of the love you have for this country, not because you want to sponsor your parents. Those two concepts must be kept separate. Who would deny anyone the desire, wish and initiative of sponsoring his or her parents? If you can prove that you can take care of your parents, let that be done regardless of whether the applicant is a Canadian citizen.
We have perhaps the most outstanding record in the world whereby we do not deny to any resident of Canada, whether he is an immigrant or a Canadian citizen, any right except that of voting. We treat landed immigrants the same as residents and native Canadians. In this area we have done extremely well. We should continue this fine approach by not mixing the two concepts. Canadian citizenship is too fine and pure a concept to be mixed up with any other goals, no matter how understandable or desirable. We must continue to have the aim of Canadian citizenship for its own sake. Someone who wishes to bring in his parents and can prove he can do so satisfactorily ought to be allowed to do so without having imposed upon him the necessity of acquiring Canadian citizenship. In committee I would like the benefit of an explanation of the thinking of the minister and his officials when they arrived at this conclusion.
I fail to understand the rationale of these two parts of the bill.
I wish to say a few words about farm labourers and migrants in connection with the very fine speech made last evening by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). Toward the end of his speech he put forward some very interesting observations on the question of the requirement of farmers for migrant labour. One can understand the necessity, but we must recognize that when we encourage temporary migration to Canada for some weeks or months every year we bring in a labour force that has to contribute to our social security system without being in the position of being able to draw benefits from it.
March 15, 1977

People who work here for a few months during the summer have to contribute to our unemployment insurance, old age security and other social security systems. They may do this year after year throughout their lives. However, when the need arises either at the time of retirement or unemployment they do not benefit from our social security programs as we know them and as they protect landed immigrants and resident Canadians. We should have a system in Canada whereby the farmer pays decent wages, provides decent housing and decent working hours. In this way we could draw from our own labour market rather than attract migrant workers. If this trend, however, is to continue, we must come to some form of international agreement with the countries from which we receive migrant workers. We must have bilateral agreements which give some protection to these workers. If we do not do that, we should over the years shift the emphasis in a way that would permit us to draw from the labour pool that we have in Canada. We cannot have it both ways.
I wish to deal briefly with immigration settlement and adjustment, the role of the volunteer sector and of the department. The vast majority of our immigrants settle in our large urban-centres, although they have arrived from rural areas. On arrival, people encounter difficult situations. These problems may continue for some time after their settlement in the respective cities. If the department is not able to assist immigrants in their orientation to local services, employers and the rights and duties in this country, it should help the volunteer agencies that are active in the day to day operations, in our major centres in particular. In Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, there are a number of volunteer agencies involved in this kind of work. Every year they desperately seek financial assurance that they will be able to survive the next year and continue to operate under the kind of budget with which the federal government may or may not provide them. This kind of uncertainty and insecurity prompts me to appeal to the minister to look into the question of immigrant settlement and adjustment services. This matter has been discussed over the years with the minister and his predecessor. This element of uncertainty should be brought to an end once and for all. The volunteer sector in Canada is performing a valuable role. In terms of the taxpayers it is the least costly of any service that can be provided.
These volunteer agencies consist of people who are knowledgeable, who know how to make the contacts, who know how to assist immigrants upon their arrival and in subsequent years, who have accumulated experience over the years which is invaluable. It seems to me to be proper, as we debate this bill, to emphasize the importance of developing closer understanding and empathy with the volunteer sector. The volunteer sector is looking to us for leadership and assistance. It is willing to do this job, and all it asks is to be given more reassurance than in the past.
I cannot sit down without making reference to the role played by the Official Opposition on second reading debate on March 10. After a magnificent start, the official spokesman
Immigration Act
for the Conservative party expressed the necessity to outline the position of his party on demographic policy. Having listened on that occasion to a speech of 55 minutes which included statements such as, "Canada is a land of immigrants" and, "Canada is better because of the immigrants we welcome to our shores"-statements of that nature-we hear, as the contribution of the Official Opposition to this debate on immigration, that the position taken by this party is that it stands for moderate growth.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what does moderate growth mean, and what does the Progressive Conservative Party stand for? We do not know. It is clear that, having made a presentation which covers-on the surface at least-all aspects related to immigration policy, the Conservative Party has failed to take a real position. They say they stand for moderate growth-but what does that mean?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on Bill C-24, particularly because I have heard in the House-as have other members over the years-promises by respective immigration ministers that a new Immigration Act was forthcoming. I heard these promises as far back as 1956. We now have a minister committed to a new act. I am not at this moment prepared to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I can support all or part of it. I intend to deal with some of my concerns this afternoon.
For too many years we have operated under an outdated and outmoded act governed by secret regulations, these regulations being changed by order in council at the whim of the government whenever it suited them. This afternoon, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) expressed concern over some of the regulatory provisions of the bill, particularly section 115 A and B, subsections (f), (n) and (o). All these have been mentioned. Hopefully, we shall be able to deal with them in more detail when the bill goes to committee. Section 115(2) was referred to by my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). In this bill we have a letter from the predecessor of the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). In this letter he outlines the issues raised or proposed in the new bill. It is on the basis of this letter to us, dated July 12, 1976, and on the basis of the information contained in the bill, that I wish to deal with some of these aspects.
First, I should like to deal with the objectives contained in the bill. I think they are reasonably good objectives. What are they? The conduct of the Canadian immigration program; non-discrimination on grounds of race, colour, religion, and so on; family reunification; acceptance of refugees; relationship between policy and regional social and economic goals; immigration in relation to demographic policy.
Then the minister says he will be announcing periodically, after consultation with representatives of the provinces, targets

March 15, 1977
Immigration Act
for levels of independent and refugee immigration to be admitted over a given period. The minister said five years, I believe. I want to deal with that matter later in my remarks. He wants to set up a system of processing priorities to ensure that ceilings are respected. I presume this will be done by regulation at intervals. Where population growth is regarded as desirable, there will be designation of communities. There is legislation covering the admission of refugees and other groups on humanitarian grounds.
The part of the bill which concerns me is the selection criteria and the tremendous power vested in the bureaucracy by regulation. What does section 115 deal with? Emphasis is to be placed on vocational or occupational skills as opposed to professional or academic qualifications, and on designation to manpower need areas. I must say at this point that I doubt the designation will be workable; I doubt the effectiveness of this aspect. On the surface, dealing with demographic policy, it appears to encompass all the answers to the questions of admission, quantity, the flow to overcrowded cities, eliminating the ghettoes, and direction to areas where people are needed, fulfilling manpower needs and accomplishing other things in terms of quantitative immigration. The legislation has an aura of respectability and practicality. However, its practicality, and particularly its flexibility, needs some scrutiny.
I am somewhat skeptical about the degree of co-operation that the minister will receive from his provincial counterparts responsible for manpower in their provinces. How will Ottawa's first level of immigration be determined? Will it be by consultation with provincial ministers to assess projected needs for the ensuing year, and how far in advance can manpower requirements be projected and still be realistic? The minister says that the levels will be set for a five-year period. Is that a realistic time-frame, particularly when one examines the unpredictable Canadian economy?
The last five years is a typical period because it has been consistent. Since 1960 Canada's economy has been as volatile, unpredictable and challenging as any economy in the world. Less than four years ago, in 1972-73, we were in a period of the highest inflation level in our history. Unemployment was reasonably low, prices were rising, interest rates were rising, there was business expansion at record levels, and manpower requirements were unprecedented, particularly in the trades. In 1976-77 we find ourselves in a stagnant economy situation. The growth rate has slowed, interest rates have dropped, production is dropping, or at least lagging behind anticipated growth.
If the Canadian economy can experience that amount of turn-around, how can we project manpower needs or immigration requirements for a five-year period and be certain that those projections will serve the best interests of this country? On the basis of our experience it is reasonable to assume a more realistic posture. It is hard enough to predict requirements a year ahead, let alone five, and the minister is wise to

assess immigration needs on an annual basis and to alter them annually to meet those needs. Even then the predictions will result in shortfalls or surpluses.
The minister-wisely, I think-avoided numbers which could be both misleading and unfair. What is a desirable goal in terms of population for Canada by the year 2000? That, I believe, is what our immigration policy should be geared to. The Science Council of Canada suggested net immigration of
50,000	annually. There are those in this House, I am sure, who will say that that figure is much too low, others who will say it is reasonable, and yet others might say that it is much too high. I like to think that locking oneself into a minimum-maximum quota would not serve the country's best interests. Surely, meeting our country's manpower needs can best be served by meeting them as they are required.
I have pointed out the dangers of quotas which could be too large or too small in light of Canada's unpredictable economic fluctuations. Many factors support the principle of determining manpower requirements which do not go beyond one year. As an example, Mr. Speaker, energy shortages, if they prevail, will substantially reduce production capacity, or at least competitive capacity, thus reducing manpower needs. Housing shortages, particularly in areas where manpower is needed, is another example. Of course there is surplus housing in Canada, but this surplus is not in areas where jobs are located. You do not designate a prospective immigrant to go to an area with surplus housing; rather, you direct him to centres where jobs are to be found.
The minister says that the new law will direct prospective immigrants to smaller towns, to the more remote regions. If the applicant agrees to immigrate on that condition, it will be easier for him to come forward. On the surface that seems like a splendid idea, and it is if it were meaningful. But how long does a new arrival have to stay and live in a remote area? Does he have to stay for two years, six months, six weeks, or six days? If the minister was serious about filling manpower needs in remote areas, why did he take the approach he took in clause 15, which provides:
(1) When a permanent resident who has been granted landing subject to terms and conditions has complied with those terms and conditions, they shall be deemed to have been cancelled six months after the day on which that permanent resident was granted landing.
That section implies that if an immigrant makes application to come to Canada and agrees to live in a remote area, he or she will be required to live and work there for six months. In the strictest sense, if that condition were in fact a contract to perform, a breach of that contract could result in deportation. One may judge that law as being fair since the government's view is that immigration to Canada is a privilege, not a right. Those who argue against a policy of immigration geared to manpower needs of a given country are in fact arguing that severe limits should be placed on immigration-and that philosophy I cannot buy.
Let me go a little further and see what the second part of that clause provides. In light of what I have said about clause 15(1), it does not seem to be an entirely bad break for a
March 15, 1977

newcomer to Canada having to work for six months in such an area, if that is a condition on his coming to Canada and he thought so much of Canada that he would spend six months in any given area. Clause 15(2) provides:
Where a permanent resident has been granted landing subject to terms and conditions, he may at any time make an application to an immigration officer to vary or cancel any such terms and conditions.
The six months' stipulation in clause 15(1) is now out the window. What is the difference between the old law under which you applied for landed status from within, and new clause 15(2) which provides that at any time an application to an immigration officer can be made to vary or cancel the terms and conditions of admission? The only difference, I suggest, is that under the old act you applied for landed immigrant status from within and you underwent security checks, health checks and the morality checks while you were in Canada, whereas under the new rules these are completed outside this country. That appears to be the only difference.
It seems to be the minister's intention to direct immigration away from the three main centres in Canada which are most appealing to prospective Canadians, namely, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. By inserting subsection (2) in clause 15 the minister is in fact saying, "Go to the boondocks, firstly for six months, but if you or your wife are unhappy at the end of six days or six weeks, then file an application and the terms and conditions under which you were admitted will be cancelled and you are free to go to the same cities I was trying to keep you away from in the first place".
If one gets the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the immigration appeal board was worked too hard as the result of an ill-conceived policy some years ago, imagine the numbers game that will be played when the new act comes into force. A businessman in a major centre to which immigration is limited wants a particular friend in Canada. He arranges for him to apply for a job in an area acceptable to immigration officials abroad as a designated area. Permission is granted. Within a few weeks of arrival an application is filed with an immigration officer to vary the terms and conditions. This is granted, and a new immigrant destined to fill a job vacancy in northern Alberta winds up living in Vancouver. So the process repeats itself over and over, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Davenport made reference to this clause. He thought it should be scrapped, for a different reason. I suggest that it is contradictory and should be taken out of the act.
Let us pursue the subject of the demographic policy a little further. Anxiety exists in major centres in Canada regarding the number of Canadians flocking to major urban centres. Family farms are getting scarcer, bigger, more efficient. Vertical-type operations are now in vogue. The result is that displaced family farm people, whether retired or not, wind up in the cities where the best opportunities are, thus creating- on top of the existing housing shortage such as is the case in Edmonton-a still more acute problem.
Immigration Act
Having dealt with the inadequacies of the law in relation to clause 15(2) of the proposed Immigration Act, I foresee discussions with the provincial ministers responsible for manpower and labour as being long and tedious in search of assurances and remedies. There are, and will be, ministers who will be very much concerned with this act fulfilling projected needs. If the needs are met, the ability of the department to sustain the needs will be questioned.
What about refugees, their status within the proposed act, their particular circumstance related to the intent of the act? Are refugees to be detained pending interrogation to determine to where a refugee should be destined? Or will refugees be dropped off in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver to add to the frustrations of civil and provincial administrations? If they are to be directed to manpower-need areas, how do you enforce such a directive unless the conditions for admission as a refugee had been spelled out earlier? Does failure to comply constitute a breach of faith? If so, what is the penalty- deportation? If so, where to? Or does clause 15(2) come into play at once?
I realize that Canada has an important role to play in international politics. It must live up to a commitment in terms of refugee acceptance. What we do with them upon arrival is equally important. Admitting thousands upon thousands of refugees is doing our part in terms of refugee commitment. As a Christian nation, we have done, and will-hopefully-continue to do our part in providing for as many people as possible new hope and a new way of life in a new land. On the other hand, no matter how accommodating Canadians want to be, orderly assimilation of refugees into the Canadian mainstream is important to them and to us. Dropping off new arrivals at the refugee centres in any one of the major Canadian centres and not directing them into the manpower-need areas would be inhuman. Unless they are given guidance and direction they will inevitably end up in the refugee ghettoes as did some of their predecessors.
I ask the minister, if the number of refugees anticipated by the government is treated as a group other than those falling within immigration levels-I know the minister does not like to use the word "quotas"-predetermined by consultation with provincial ministers, what will the government do with the surplus? In light of international instability, any number of refugees could be available for absorption by Canada. In the negotiations with provincial ministers, is the number of applicants duly processed plus the number of refugees? Is it going to be a continuing policy of this government, in spite of clause 4(2)(b) on which the minister may or may not act, to welcome refugees without regard for their political beliefs? Since security seems to be occupying the government's attention as of late, does the government intend to exercise some caution in the acceptance of refugees?
I bring to the attention of the minister an example of some recent refugees who have, and are still, showing sympathy- indeed, dedication-to a political purpose, that of overthrowing democratic principles and democratically elected governments. I ask this government to review its double-standard of

March 15, 1977
Immigration Act
opening the door to one group fleeing after the removal of a Marxist government while the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has closed the door well in advance of the inevitable to another group which may well be required to flee from a Marxist regime.
Many people have contributed substantially to this debate. It has been a good one. In conclusion I want to say that I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I look forward to its conclusion and to the bill being brought before committee for further examination. It is a sincere attempt by the minister to bring an outdated act up to date. Generally, the bill has some attractive provisions, but it also has weaknesses and they will not emerge until the law is put into practice.
Much has been said by a number of members about unfair restrictions imposed by the designation of areas of manpower needs. I simply say that if that is the kind of policy which allows more people to come into Canada and which will be beneficial both to them and to us, then I support that measure because I, too, am privileged. My great grandfather, who was married in Canada also considered admission to this country as a privilege, not a right. He acquired a piece of land many years ago and carved out a living. He raised eight children. He was grateful for the opportunities he had until he died. Designation did not bother him. He wanted to work and he wanted to build, and Canada gave him that opportunity.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a subject of great importance to the people of Canada. In rising to say a few words about the subject I am conscious of the fact that with the exception of the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) and my colleague the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), all the rest of the members of parliament-all 262 of us-are either immigrants or the decendants of immigrants. My father came to Canada some 70 years ago. The parents or grandparents of other members came even earlier. But we are all immigrants. My colleague, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, has said to me on occasion-I have never been sure whether he said it in gest or seriously-that had his forefathers had the views of many of the present members of parliament about immigrants, and had they been able to enforce their views, none of us would be here at present.
I believe the record of this country in respect of immigration, certainly since the end of World War II, is one which on the whole we and the people of Canada can be proud of. Our population has almost doubled since 1945. In each year since the end of World War II we have permitted anywhere from approximately 100,000 to 250,000 people to come to this country. The United States has a population ten times that of ours, and if they permitted proportionately the same number of people to come to their country as we have permitted to come into Canada, they would be permitting anywhere from 1.5 million to 2.5 million people to come into their country. Instead, they are permitting something in the neighbourhood of 300,000 people per year.

Compared with any country in the world, we have nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, we have a great deal to be proud of. We have encouraged or permitted-depending upon how people might look on what we have done-people from all parts of the world, of all races, colour and religion, to come to Canada. The population mix in this country has completely changed since the end of World War II. If hon. members visited Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver they could not help but notice that change in the first half hour of walking around any one of those cities, and the same has happened to a smaller degree in many other cities of Canada. I, for one, welcome the change that has taken place. It has made this country a much more interesting and exciting place in which to live. The people of Canada, past governments and parliaments are to be congratulated for the very warmhearted and tolerant view they have taken in this regard.
I can only speak personally about what I have seen in the 15 years I have been in this chamber, but I cannot help but feel that in the past 30 years or so this matter has not been discussed sufficiently in parliament or outside parliament. I cannot help but feel that we did not often enough get the formal approval of the people of Canada. For example, in 1966 the government made the decision, which had the approval of members of parliament from all parties, that any vestiges in the regulations or the policies of the department which tended to discriminate against any prospective immigrant on the basis of race, colour or religion should be removed. I think all members of parliament, and particularly members from cities such as Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, know what a change that has meant in terms of the entry into Canada of people of Chinese origin.
However, to a large extent these decisions were made outside parliament and without public discussion. They were made by the government, and I suppose more particularly within the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I have no inside information and I do not think it is necessary that I do, but I presume that this kind of decision was reached between the minister and his senior officials.
To the extent that we believe this legislation spells out clearly our immigration policy, I commend the government. Let me put on the record what this bill respecting immigration to Canada provides. On page 5, under part I, "Canadian Immigration Policy", the objectives of the bill are stated. I quote from clause 3(f) as follows:
-to ensure that any person who seeks admission to Canada on either a permanent or temporary basis is subject to standards of admission that do not discriminate on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion or
sex-
I know I speak for every member of my party when I commend the government and the people of Canada for taking what I consider to be a humanitarian and democratic approach. I will come back to how successful we are in implementing that objective a little later in my speech. I would like now to deal with another subclause dealing with objectives and I quote clause 3(d) as follows:
March 15, 1977

-to encourage and facilitate the adaptation of persons who have been granted admission as permanent residents to Canadian society by promoting co-operation between the government of Canada and other levels of government and non-governmental agencies in Canada with respect thereto-
I say to the minister that we have failed miserably in attaining that objective. This is a subject which has interested me, for obvious reasons, since the day I came to parliament. Winnipeg is an ethnic city, and if there is an ethnic constituency in that city it is mine. However, despite the general knowledge which I have of the subject, I could not help being astounded by a submission which was made to the special joint committee on immigration. That committee dealt with immigration and the green paper on immigration. The Toronto board of education came before the committee and told the committee about its problems. I am now talking about the old, inner city of Toronto for which the Toronto board of education has responsibility.
I was surprised and astonished when that board told us that more than 50 per cent of the students in its school system come from immigrant families the parents of which do not speak English in the home, or come from areas like the West Indies, Pakistan, India or Hong Kong where the English spoken is, to say the least, substantially different from ours. The Toronto board of education outlined and documented the problems with which it was faced in trying to integrate these students and indicated what was required. I realized then how far we have to go before we will meet the objectives set out in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook)-Finance- Accuracy of statistics on payments to Quebec-Request for statistics on payments to other provinces; the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)-Agriculture-Pesticides-Government position on importation-Suggested strict adherence to labelling regulations; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Veterans Affairs-Status of plan for new hospital system in Nova Scotia.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.
Criminal Code


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 12, in the name of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). Shall the motion stand?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I think it is agreed that the House should deal with motion No. 21 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).
[DOT] (UOO)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that orders 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 shall stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House will now proceed to consider order No. 21 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock) moved: that Bill C-221, to amend the Criminal Code (abduction of child) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for the past few days the leading international news stories have dealt with hijacking tours covering Spain, northwest Africa, Switzerland and Italy. But the central theme of the bill has nothing to do with any European tour: it has to do with extortion and the kidnapping by a parent of his child. Last October 22 I tabled Bill C-221, a bill to amend the Criminal Code. The operative part of the bill reads:
Every parent of a child who, with intent to deprive of the possession of that child the other parent or a guardian or any other person who has been granted by a court custody of such child, unlawfully
(a)	takes or entices away or detains the child, or
(b)	receives or harbours the child,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
The bill was important to me last October 22. Because of recent events of the last few days it has become even more important to me, as I am sure hon. members recognize. As I speak on Bill C-221, an amendment to the Criminal Code, I am conscious that private members' hour is not noted for the degree to which it captures public attention since private members' bills often focus upon narrow aspects of public or private business. But what I thought was a bill dealing with an infrequent, though serious problem, has turned out to be one dealing with a national problem and has created national interest. There are people in the gallery today representing not only themselves and their interest in this bill but thousands of

March 15, 1977
Criminal Code
people across Canada who have experienced the terror of civil kidnapping or the constant threat of being victims of it.
I have received support for this legislation from all parts of Canada, from the maritimes to northern Alberta, from Halifax to Vancouver. Child welfare agencies from across Canada have written in support of the principle of this bill. I have received letters from both sides of this House, including at least one cabinet minister, supporting the bill. Other ministers have expressed favourable interest. I have received letters from the victims of this distress, from single parents whose trust in custody arrangements and the security of a court declaration has been raped by the callous vindictiveness of an ex-husband or ex-wife.
Most of all, I am convinced I have the support of the real victims of parental kidnapping, the pawns in the vicious game of post-separation or divorce retaliation. It is the children who suffer the most. It is they who suffer lifetime emotional wounds which may never heal. It is they who are asking the unanswered questions, "Where are you taking me?" "When will I see my mother, or father, again?" "When can I go home?" It is the children who suffer the constant mental anguish of torn loyalties, of fragmentary home attachments, of destroyed human relationships. It is the children who are exposed to the terrors of emotional as well as physical torment.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are cases where the court has granted custody to an uncaring and irresponsible parent. I know that any feeling and caring, loving parent, seeing his or her child neglected under the protection of a court order must want to right that wrong by forcibly taking such a child from those abject and destructive surroundings. That impulse stems only from a sense of humanity and decency. But our society can never condone any practice of breaking the law to correct a wrong. That is the road to anarchy. What we must do is immediately find ways to ensure that custody arrangements are made equitably, with easy access to redress.
In the meantime we are left with the stark reality that by far the most parental abductions stem from a heinous desire to continue to hurt the ex-spouse, from vengeance, vindictiveness, an attempt to barter a child for a better divorce settlement. In the United States the estimates run from 25,000 to 100,000 a year. For Canada that would mean 2,500 to 10,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give just a few examples of what I am talking about. Other members speaking in support of this bill can add endlessly to the list. I know the honourable member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) is interested in this legislation, supports its principle and has worked hard for parents who have suffered the anguish of the circumstances to which I am alluding.
There is the case of Stephen Preston whose mother is a constituent of mine. Stephen was kidnapped by his father when he was seven years old. Through a very bizarre circumstance he was returned by the court to his mother three years later. The boy was taken from the courtroom kicking and screaming. Why? Because that fine lady had been painted by her ex-husband as a prostitute, as an alcoholic and any number of other vicious lies. During those three years Stephen Preston

has lived under 12 aliases. He had less than a first grade education and could barely write his name. Two months later he was kidnapped again. We do not know where he is today. I ask hon. members, what kind of a young man do you think he will be when he is 18 if nothing is done?
Several weeks ago I received a letter from a lady in New Brunswick pleading with me to try to help her find her two children. Her husband took them one day six years ago and disappeared. She has pleaded with school authorities and with the police, but they cannot help her. Then there is the couple in Grande Prairie, Alberta: the ex-wife left for several years and has now come back to town, remarried. The grapevine around town has it that they have come back to take the children. What must it be like to send your children to school in the morning and then wonder all day, every day, whether that is the last time you will see them? Another lady in Alberta is in permanent hiding-only her parents know where she is-all because of the constant threat that her children would be forcibly taken.
There is the young mother whose son is in Coquitlam, British Columbia, snatched from a day-care centre here in Ottawa. She has neither the emotional strength nor the financial resources to find ways to bring him back. There is the tragic story of Vicki Starr, from Ottawa and Burlington, whose Iranian father took her to Iran eight months ago. Can you imagine the anguish of dealing with a government that does not recognize women's or children's rights even as much as we do? What must it be like for a 12 year-old to be virtually alone in a strange country, unable to speak the language and knowing she may never see her mother again?
Several weeks ago I was interviewed on this subject by a reporter. After we were through she said quietly to me, "You know, that's what happened to me when I was a little girl. My mother kidnapped me and wouldn't let my father know where I was till he promised her a different divorce arrangement." Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that young lady is interested in seeing this bill pass.
I know this bill is not perfect. I think several changes ought to be made at committee stage, for that is what parliamentary debate and committee discussion is all about-to perfect proposed legislation. I offer the following suggestions to members for discussion at committee stage. First, I think the age mentioned in the bill ought to be uniform with other legislation and should be changed to 14. Second, I think custody arrangements ought to include those in addition to court appointed ones, such as legal agreements arrived at in a law office. Third, and most important, there are some who feel the penalty provision of Bill C-221 as it now stands is too severe for some cases. I agree. Therefore, I would commend to the justice and legal affairs committee, or to the health and welfare committee, an amendment which would bring greater accommodation for the varying exigencies under which the kidnapping took place. I am not adamant about seeing this bill pass in its present form. I am interested in the co-operation of the minister in seeing the principle of this legislation go on to committee stage for discussion.
March 15, 1977

The most formative and enduring relationships we will ever have are those we build with our parents. It is from our parents that we first learn about our sense of identity, who we are. It is from our parents that we get our first feelings of worth and being wanted. It is with them that our need to be loved and wanted is first satisfied. However, what if these relationships are shattered, first by divorce and custody proceedings, and then by parental kidnapping? What is the harvest of emotional problems we are going to reap in the coming generation because we have not dealt with this problem?
We have spent a great deal of time and energy protecting the material rights of children. We look after their property rights, their inheritance rights, their rights of succession. We have health and immunization programs to protect their bodies. We have laws to protect them from all forms of physical contamination. We have laws which prohibit the transport of diseased cattle across provincial boundaries-all to protect the body. But if an estranged parent, father or mother, forcibly wrenches a child from the home that has given him security, takes him away from the parent with whom he or she is most firmly attached, and moves him into another province, into alien surroundings, and force-feeds his mind and emotions with the venom of a destroyed marriage relationship, and we offer that child no help, no warmth, no healing, no security, then surely that child must cry out that ancient pitiable cry, "Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?"
This is not a government problem, or an opposition problem, or a provincial problem; it is a human problem. All it requires is the will to make a few simple but fundamental changes.
The present law is based on the premise that parents cannot kidnap their children. The increasing number of marriage breakups, the increased mobility of our people, the increased expressions of hostility and violence in our land, make that premise obsolete. Bill C-221 recognizes the reality of that basic change.
At present, the provisions of the divorce act are portable across Canada and around the world, but the custody arrangements issuing from those divorce settlements enjoy only provincial recognition. So it is that a parent can kidnap his child, take him into another province and have almost total immunity from arrest. Ever since the 1957 ruling in Regina vs. Austin, this kind of criminal activity has escaped prosecution because of the loophole that exists in paragraph two of section 250 of the Criminal Code.
Even when all the provinces recognize each other's custody arrangements, as necessary as that is, it will not eliminate the furtive running and hiding by the parental kidnapper, nor will it take care of international implications.
Our Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees to each the right "to life, liberty, security of person". At this very moment there are countless children born with that right who have it denied them by the unconscionable action of a vindictive parent. Bill
Criminal Code
C-221 would go some distance in ensuring that right to those things for our children.
I trust hon. members will permit this measure to go to committee for examination, amendment, and approval.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). I thank him on behalf of the people I have been working for and for myself. It seems we are perpetually confronted with at least one of these problems. I have not just been faced with province to province parent kidnappings, but also with international kidnappings. Just one case has kept me and many other people occupied for more than two years, and it is still not resolved. I will outline that in a few moments. If this bill goes through, we will then treat children born in Canada as though they were citizens and have the rights and protections of citizens.
When I first became involved in this the whole country was up in arms about the kidnapping of the heir to the Seagram's estate. There was a great outcry. However, when five small children were kidnapped from a Mission, B.C. mother no one cared if she got her children back. All the resources of legal aid were used to pay for some Hong Kong drug traffickers in Vancouver, but there was not a cent for this mother of five children to find her children, and virtually save their lives from the putative father in the Philippines, whose reputation and character were less than safe for these youngsters.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock questions what they will be at age 18. I ask that too. Perhaps they will grow up in another country. Did they, as Canadian citizens, not have the right and the protection of our nation under the law?
On July 30, 1975, because of the case of Mildred Watson Clarke of Mission, B.C., I rose in this House and asked for help from the then Minister of Justice. At that time I said, and I quote:
Children are citizens and should receive all the rights and protection of a person, a citizen, within the law. However, throughout Canada children are being kidnapped by a parent in defiance of court orders on custody.
I asked then for criminal law to deter would-be parent kidnappers.
Although there were several cases many people were working on at that time, this was the most appalling case. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, the leader in the Senate, Ray Perrault and his staff, Mr. Kenneth Burke of the Legal Department of External Affairs, the Superintendent of Child Welfare of B.C., Victor Belknap were all working on the case. We even tried to break the law and kidnap the children back because we felt those children had a right to be home with their mother.
The law did not give them help, so we had to do everything, including trying to hire policemen and criminals to get them back. I asked in this House July 30, 1975, that we create laws so that extradition treaties could help youngsters such as these.
The children of Mildred Clarke of Surrey were kidnapped on Mother's Day, a very nice token. We talk of Mother's Day and motherhood with great warmth, but we do not do a darn

March 15, 1977
Criminal Code
thing to help a mother and her five children who need her love and tender care.
I support this bill completely. With a bill of this sort, I hope that we can get some extradition treaties implemented, identical to those we have for other kidnappings, hijackings, and theft of children.
In the case of Mildred Clarke, I want to tell the House what I went through to try to get help for this woman in 1975 when she first approached me. There was a petition with hundreds of names. I went to the legal operations staff of External Affairs, to a Mr. Burke. He has handled dozens of cases, and succeeded in reuniting some mothers and children.
I wrote to Mrs. Marcos, the wife of the president of the Philippines. I went to the British Columbia attorney general, a member of that great humane NDP government at that time, to see if he would intervene. He did nothing. However, he went to the United Nations international conference on crime in Geneva and got miles of world-wide publicity on his supposed concern over parent kidnapping children. He did nothing for Mrs. Clarke or the other women who were mentioned in this House.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was approached directly. He tried to intervene. We were told that only the head of this state could get to the heads of these different states and obtain any help.
Today I have a new case, a child named Lucienne Dulong. The mother, Loredana Dulong, and the baby's grandfather, Peter Weichel, raised over $10,000 to get the child back from France. The provincial court of B.C. (family division) issued an order awarding custody of Lucienne to the mother, granting the father visiting rights and ordering him not to take the child out of the court's area of jurisdiction. The father agreed to that, and three days later he took the child across the border to Seattle, and flew from there back to France.
The French consulate in Vancouver was wrong and perhaps acted illegally by aiding Andre Mathew Dulong, the kidnapper, giving him the necessary documents to take the child out of the country. The consulate knew of the court order, and what they did once, they can do again.
The Vancouver police issued a warrant for Andre's arrest which, under pressure now from the French government to the federal government and the B.C. attorney-general's department, they want to set aside. This means that after kidnapping the child and having her brought back at tremendous cost to the mother and maternal grandfather, that man can again slip into Canada and kidnap the child. Hopefully this bill will be a deterrent to any such action and perhaps there will be protection for children and the rights of children.
It is fundamental that a child born in Canada should have the rights of a citizen and that court orders should not be defied. But it seems that where children are concerned they can be put to barter in our country, and that the destruction of a child is irrevelant when it comes to the law.
(Mrs. Holt.]
Yes, we will chase all over the country and use all the resources of international law to rescue the adult heir to a wealthy estate, but there is no protection in the courts, not even interprovincially, there is no unification in law, to protect children from these parents. We are using children in barter and retribution. The day is here when we must do everything to end this obviously criminal type behavior. In the meantime, I am personally fighting the so-called "reasonable access" to children. "Reasonable access" can become the right to kidnap a child if a parent has money, has mobility, or has a foreign connection.
I went to court recently with a girl who had been divorced from her Dutch husband. She had a nine-month-old baby. We fought in the court and we even got legal aid at the last moment so he had no access at all; the only possible access would be by court order and under tight supervision. This man would find it difficult to abduct the child and take her to Holland.
In most cases it is men. They do seem to have the resources, the mobility and just do not seem to be tied as much to the child as the woman.
The child, in school is also threatened. There must be protection within the school system for these children.
Today there are probably more children than ever before in history who are victims of broken homes. They have the right of Canadian citizens; they have the right to be protected; and they have the right of every resource of the law even more than any other kidnap victims in our society. I hope this bill is not talked out and that it does go to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I trust I shall not be getting out of line if I say that it has been indicated to us that the chances are good that the government side will agree to the subject matter of this bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. This being the case, I echo the sentiment just expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) that none of us will prevent that happening by contributing to any talking out of this bill. Therefore, my remarks will be very brief.
I commend the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for bringing this legislation before us. I commend him on the speech he made today and I hope that the suggested course of action will be followed. As a matter of fact, I may say that I am just as pleased that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is so busy that this matter will be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs instead. I have in mind the fact that last session this committee spent quite a while studying a motion which came from a colleague of my friend having to do with the abuse of children. So the committee I have just mentioned is disposed to do what it can for Canadian children.
I recognize that the legislation may have to be looked at closely in terms of its legal provisions but I gather that what
March 15, 1977

the hon. member seeks to do is not only make the kidnapping of children in these circumstances an illegal act but to write it in such terms that it would come under the extradition rules so that foreign kidnapping could be dealt with as well as offences between provinces in Canada. I think we are all in agreement with what the hon. member is proposing. I hope that others will be as brief as I have been and that we shall reach the point at which the promise can be kept and that at least the subject matter of the bill will be referred to the committee where I know it will be considered with concern and with compassion.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased when I learned early today that it was the intention of the government to accept the principle of the bill and not to follow what is, lamentably, the usual practice of talking out good private members' bills.
I want to commend the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for the work he has done and the compassion he has exhibited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The bill which has arisen from his work shows his intense feeling for the people involved and I, too, would like to make a very short contribution to the debate because, like other hon. members, I would like to see the measure go to the committee.
Unlike those who have spoken so far, I have had an opportunity to see this not only as a member of parliament where I have had cases brought to my attention, but one of them, at least, occurred in my constituency. The abduction took place in my constituency. I am referring to the case of Vicki Starr, whose mother was formerly a constituent of mine-but also I have had occasion to deal with it as a lawyer.
I know of no more hopeless feeling than when advising a client of modest means that her only recourse is to move under the existing law on the civil side, in a province of Canada if she is fortunate, or in a state of the United States, or in a foreign country if she is unfortunate, to claim the rights which were given to her by the courts of the jurisdiction in which she lives. The cost is horrendous and, as the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) says, it leads people to flaunt the law. If that is the state of the law, we have to look at the state of the law because the law does not suit our needs.
I am always concerned about jurisdiction as between provincial governments and the federal government. We could, of course, wait for provincial jurisdiction, ten of them in Canada, to enact laws. That kind of thing is in fact going on. But the problem is here with us today and this is one opportunity where, using the jurisdiction within the federal sphere of legal affairs, we can on a national basis attack a problem which does not respect provincial boundaries.
Some will talk about the severity of the penalty. Some would say that life imprisonment is too severe a penalty for an offence like this. I believe there are crimes involving property under the Criminal Code to which a penalty of life imprisonment is attached. But if that is the case the committee will
Criminal Code
look at it and make recommendations. The main thing is that this is an opportunity to take up the initiative of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to deal with a human condition which is given prominence in the press when it relates to foreign abduction-that is where the prominence is. But a part of the human condition affects people whose cases are not spectacular. A child's right to the custody and care of a parent, however you want to look at it, is just as important in the human field as anywhere else, whether or not those cases or other cases are followed.
I join with all my colleagues in commending the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on his bill. I should also like to commend the government-and it is not very often I do that-for seeing the worth of this private member's bill. I would not want to set a precedent so that the procedure of turning these bills back was upset, but I hope the government will look carefully at all of these bills that are brought forward, particularly the kind which deal with the human condition and the consequences that flow from what is really a breach of the law on the part of someone. Perhaps the only way to settle the matter is to look at it as a criminal offence, because that is the only way that we can attack it quickly on a national basis.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words, not to kill the bill but rather to say that I approve the legislation put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), in which it is stated:
The purpose of this bill is to make the abduction of a child by a parent who does not have legal custody of that child from the other parent or any other person who has such custody an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life as in the case of kidnapping or hijacking.
I am very much pleased that such a bill has been introduced in this House. We have been witnessing for years all types of abductions and I feel that our current statutes are not hard enough to deter such an unforgivable act. Children abducted years ago, maybe ten or even fifteen years ago, were never found again. It is also my feeling that although our laws may not be as stringent as they should be, there should be international agreement between all nations to ensure easier tracing of abducted children. At a time when most every thief is caught, I see no reason why international cooperation could not trace child abductors. I feel that tougher sentences should be provided, at least 25 years' imprisonment. The bill should also invite nations to sign agreements to prevent future abductions of this kind.
I know that another member would like to speak on this, so I conclude with the hope that the bill now before us will be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and later enacted, so there may be protection against such an unforgivable type of abduction.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton, as a

March 15, 1977
Criminal Code
lawyer I have great concern about this kind of problem and I realize the difficulties many spouses have had over a number of years. I am hoping that this bill, or the substance of it, will be referred to a standing committee so that it can be considered in depth. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated that last year we had the whole question of child abuse before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, which at that time came up with a very comprehensive report. It happens to be my committee so I am very happy that this matter may be referred to it. We will carry out our investigation in due course and hopefully see that this matter is remedied in the not too distant future.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for his untiring efforts on behalf of the children who have been the unfortunate victims of vindictive parents. Children should not be the pawns of their parents for any reason. Neither should parents be allowed to violate flagrantly the orders of a court regarding custody.
The hon. member by this bill would make the removal of a child from his legal guardian by a parent an indictable offence liable to the same penalties as kidnapping or hijacking. He argues that the circumstances are no different than a situation where the intention is to extort funds or concessions. In this the hon. member is correct. Surely it is apparent that there is little difference between kidnapping and the removal of a child from his legal guardian. They are both theft in its most malicious forms.
The main reason for this bill seems to be the virtual impossibility of enforcing custody decisions. While divorce is a federal matter, child custody is a provincial concern. Each province is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the physical and emotional well-being of a child. This, of course, presents obvious difficulties in the enforcement of parental rights.
It appears that, in most cases, parents who take their children from legal guardians also leave the province in which the custody order was issued. Sometimes they leave the country. Because custody is not only provincially assigned but is also a civil matter, there is no agency besides the court which will enforce custody decisions. The police, who have often suffered physically as a result of intervening in domestic disputes, are understandably reluctant to involve themselves in what is technically a civil problem. Consequently the deprived parent is prevented from taking any immediate action. This parent is helpless in preventing the abduction of his or her child by his or her ex-spouse.
By having to take the matter to court two serious problems arise: time and location. Time is of the essence in a situation such as this. It is very simple to whisk a child on to a plane to another jurisdiction, a jurisdiction that has no control over, or right to interfere in the battle for custody. If the offending party manages to keep the child away for a considerable length of time, and some court decision can be made, in the best interests of the child the court will usually grant custody to the

parent with whom the child is currently residing. This is done to prevent any further upheaval in the child's life and routine, which is reasonable.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is just the tip of the iceberg. There are reasons why some parents feel compelled to take this outrageous step. I submit that it often comes as a direct result of the inequitable way in which custody is awarded in the first place, and frequent denial of reasonable access. At present it is customary for a mother to receive custody of the children. It had traditionally been assumed that, except in the most extraordinary circumstances such as mental illness, alcoholism, or active indifference to the children, the mother is best able to care for the children, even if she is a prostitute. It is thought that she can fulfil the child's needs and that less strain is placed on a child if he or she is placed with his or her mother.
There was, and still is, a strong social stigma attached to a mother who decides she cannot manage her children by herself. Many mothers who love their children, but realize they are unable to take care of their offspring were, and are, forced into a position where they must accept the responsibility, which can be detrimental to both the mother and the children. Lest some hon. members think that I am exaggerating, let me illustrate more fully.
Statistics Canada reports that irrespective of who initiates the court action, the wife most frequently obtains custody of the children. In 1971, of the men who initiated court action, 40.20 per cent obtained custody. This compares to the 89.17 per cent in favour of women. In 1972 it was 37.55 per cent to 88.22 per cent; in 1973, 37.24 per cent to 88.38 per cent; and in 1974, 35.34 per cent to 87.70 per cent. This represents an average, 1971-1974, of 37.32 per cent in favour of the father, and 88.28 per cent in favour of the mother. Obviously this is discriminatory.
According to the Toronto Star of August 25, 1976:
Fathers who Filed for divorce won custody in 32 per cent of the cases but in only 3.7 per cent of the cases when the mother started the action.
In the same vein the Ottawa Citizen stated on June 12, 1976:
To a father anxious to retain custody of his children it is obviously wiser to be the one suing for divorce.
In the majority of cases that have come to public attention it has been the father who has resorted to kidnapping to gain access to his children. This indicates to me that there is another problem here than outright kidnapping, and that is how custody is awarded.
Concerning the Law Reform Commission, the Globe and Mail reported on June 12, 1976:
The court would decide which spouse should have custody of the children on the basis of which parent can better care for them and without reference to which spouse was guilty of an extra-marital offence.
The Law Reform Commission suggests an extensive examination of the pre-divorce relationship between a child and its
March 15, 1977

parents, including: the kind of relationship the child has with the persons to whom custody will be entrusted; the emotional and physical need of the child; the capacity of the potential guardian to provide for the child; and the preference of the child who is at an appropriate age to make such a decision.
In working paper No. 13, under the heading of Divorce, the Law Reform Commission stated:
The courts would treat fathers and mothers on an equal basis and no sexual discrimination would be made in determining who is the more appropriate parent to assume the responsibility for the children.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is the crux of the issue we are discussing. Custody is a right with responsibilities, one of which is providing reasonable access to the other parent. It should be granted on a non-discriminatory basis, after a thorough pre-trial examination has taken place, and should not be a rubber stamp decision by the court. This, I believe, is fundamental to the solution of parental kidnapping.
A comprehensive re-evaluation of all aspects of custody granting access to children must be completed. Interprovincial custody enforcement must be legislated, and then such incidents should decrease. By attaching this kind of kidnapping to the Criminal Code, we could then negotiate the return of children who have one non-Canadian parent and have been taken out of the country.
The hon. member's bill is a good solution to part of the problem. It should be incorporated into a series of changes and reforms concerning the granting and enforcement of custody so that the number of these tragic kidnappings will be reduced and eventually eliminated.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, as usual my remarks will be most brief. Everything has been said that should be said on this subject, and in fact some of it has been said a second time.
I commend the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for putting forward this bill and for the statements he made on it, and I also commend all other hon. members who have spoken on the bill.
Some hon. members who have spoken are lawyers. I do not hold that against them because I myself am a practising lawyer. I too have practised some family law. Any lawyer who has practised or is practising has a great deal of experience in these matters and suffers some of the problems that the parents and the youngster suffer. What happens in child abduction creates heart rending experiences. Often the child becomes the pawn, he becomes a chattel instead of a human being. This is what this amendment purports to stop. It is often the hatred for the other parent that the abductor inflicts upon the child. It is not enough that the innocent child must suffer the mental trauma created as a result of the separation of the two parents, a crime for which often the child is blamed. Why must we condone child abduction also? We, as members of parliament, cannot in all consciousness allow this injustice to continue.
I will conclude briefly by saying that we should permit this bill to go immediately to the appropriate committee for study
Criminal Code
and any necessary technical changes. We must do it, I was going to say tout de suite, but since I do not speak French too well, I will say, immediately.


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for providing the House an opportunity to discuss child-napping, a matter of most serious concern to Canadians. This question has concerned the federal government for some time. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) discussed the matter with the attorneys general of the provinces at the federal-provincial conference of attorneys general in October of 1975. At the end of their discussions at that 1975 conference the minister called on the provincial attorneys general to come forward with suggestions on how section 250 of the Criminal Code of Canada might be improved in order to deal with the problem of child-napping. As yet, not one of them has put forward a proposal.
There may be a temptation on the part of some to ask why the federal government does not go ahead on its own and change the Criminal Code. However, I am sure that most of us are aware that the Minister of Justice has an undertaking with provincial attorneys general that there will not be any amendments to the Criminal Code without consultation with them. This, of course, is quite proper since it is the provincial attorneys general who are responsible under the BN A Act for the administration of justice within the provinces.
In the meantime, five provinces have passed legislation to facilitate the interprovincial enforcement of custody orders, and three more provinces have such legislation at various stages in the legislative process. I must say that I welcome this because I think that to a very great extent this is a problem that is best dealt with by provincial legislation.
The criminal law is too blunt an instrument to deal with the problem-a problem which exists entirely within the context of the breaking up of the family. It would be nice if the proposals contained in Bill C-221 would do the job and bring an end to child-napping. But they would not. Indeed I would say on the basis of the experience I have had as a lawyer that no jury in the country would, with the potential of a life prison sentence, convict a parent for having taken his or her own child to another jurisdiction.
I suspect that one reason why the Minister of Justice has received no response from the provinces to his request of 18 months ago for proposals for a change in section 250 may very well be that the provincial governments, having studied the problem, have decided that the Criminal Code of Canada is a totally inappropriate instrument for dealing with this very disturbing problem. That would perhaps be why so many of them have chosen to go with the legislation I mentioned a moment ago.
However, I do not wish to minimize the problem of childnapping. I think we are all aware of the heart rending cases of parents who have been deprived of the custody of their children in violation of valid custody orders. As legislators we
4010

March 15, 1977
Criminal Code
cannot help but be touched by the sense of loss and the helplessness that they must feel, and which has been articulated so well by Mrs. Lois Preston of Surrey and her Association of Parents of Kidnapped Children.
For the record I would like to refer to a press release which followed the federal-provincial conference of attorneys general in October, 1975. At the conclusion of that conference the press release pointed out that in relation to child-napping by parents:
... the Ministers were all of the view that this was a serious social and legal problem in Canada and agreed that both levels of government would take early action to develop a more effective legal framework whereby children abducted by a parent will be returned to lawful custody. The federal minister, commenting on the present provisions of the Criminal Code respecting kidnapping and abduction, invited provincial ministers to respond to his suggestions for possible amendments which might make these provisions more readily applicable to this situation. The provinces all agreed to consider following the lead of Manitoba in enacting legislation to give extra provincial effect to the enforcement of custody orders. It was hoped that such action by the provinces might facilitate progress in the international area as well.
There has been some comment with regard to Section 250 of the Criminal Code and amendments thereto, and I would like to put that section on the record. It states:
Every one who, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian or any other person who has lawful care or charge of a child under the age of fourteen years of the possession of that child, or with intent to steal anything on or about the person of such a child, unlawfully
(a)	takes or entices away or detains the child, or
(b)	receives or harbours the child,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
Subsection (2) states:
This section does not apply to a person who, claiming in good faith a right to possession of a child, obtains possession of the child.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abduction of child), be not
now read a second time but that the order be discharged and the Bill
withdrawn and that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the Standing
Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my interpretation that the passage of this amendment disposes of the main motion as it includes the content of the motion.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if there is any problem with that, we certainly give our consent.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be read the second time and referred to the the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I was discussing the immigration bill with which we are dealing, and was referring to the submission made by the Toronto Board of Education to the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate dealing with the green paper on immigration. The board pointed out that a large percentage of children attending Toronto schools were immigrant children whose parents either do not speak English at home or come from countries in which the English spoken is different from ours. They pointed out that between 1950 and the 1960's the majority of people who came to Toronto came from non-industrialized rural communities, or countries like Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal.
In most cases the parents and children had not had the necessary experience and educational opportunities to enable them to adjust successfully to the Ontario school system. Further, not only was their language different, but the gulf between the culture of their old country and their new home in Toronto was so great that in many cases severe adjustment problems were created both for parents and children.
The board went on to talk about the situation in the 1970's, pointing out that the school system in Toronto in the 1970's faced an additional challenge. Large numbers of immigrants from the West Indies, for example Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana, whose first language was English but whose need for special consideration was as great as for Mediterranean immigrants because of dialect, lack of educational opportunity, and cultural differences, entered a school system already struggling to find adequate financial resources to maintain its new Canadian programs. The fact that these immigrants could be recognized by the colour of their skin posed a new and unfamiliar problem as well.
We know from recent news stories that prejudice continues, and that there are unfortunate incidents in schools and in the community at large involving people of different races. The Toronto Board of Education impressed the joint committee, because that committee in its report to parliament made several noteworthy recommendations. I now quote from page 166 of the joint committee's report, as follows:
March 15, 1977

As the Toronto School Board, the board with the largest number of immigrant children, observed, 40 per cent of all immigrants are children, many of them accustomed to different cultures and languages than those found in Canada. There are already some shared-cost language programs for adults. In view of the special needs of many immigrant children, the committee supports the principle of a federal contribution to the extra cost of educating immigrant children who require special training in English or French or other catch-up programs, providing these funds are clearly earmarked for the school systems.
When they appeared before the joint committee the board estimated that it would cost an extra $2 million per year to provide services they thought were necessary and advisable if immigrant children were to be integrated properly into our society. I have had similar reports from the core area of Winnipeg which is largely represented by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and myself. In up to a dozen of the core area schools, the majority of the students are from immigrant non-English speaking families or native families which have recently moved into the city of Winnipeg. The problems are tremendous. The city and the province are finding it impossible to deal with those problems as they believe they should be dealt with.
The joint special committee made another noteworthy comment when it reported:
Attention was also directed to the particular plight of immigrant women, and especially wives and mothers. When they are not in the work force they have little opportunity to learn the language and make personal contacts, advantages enjoyed by their husbands and school-aged and working children. ... It was pointed out that language training is the single most important need of these women.
As the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) pointed out this afternoon, there are a number of volunteer organizations which have begun this work. Some very excellent work has been done, work which has given us the kind of direction in which we should go to help meet the needs and solve the problems of the new immigrants.
All of these volunteer programs are relatively small. All of them have difficulty in meeting the costs. In no city are we providing the kind of services we should.
I have stated on a number of occasions in this House that the number of people who come to this country, the areas from which they come, and the languages which they speak, are almost exclusively decided by decisions of the federal government. It is wrong to hide behind the constitutional division of powers, to say that education is the responsibility of the provinces, the provinces give the responsibility to the local school divisions, and therefore the federal government has no responsibility for that. That is completely wrong.
The steps which have been taken are too few and too small. We need a major expansion of this kind of program. As I indicated earlier, merely spelling out in the act that this country does not discriminate against race, nationality, colour or religion is not good enough. We have to ask ourselves how well our policies have worked and how close we have come to meeting the objectives in the principles enunciated in this bill and earlier by ministers. All told, we have done a pretty good job.
Immigration
I do not have experience in the day to day dealings with problems of immigration as do members from Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. However, compared with other areas, I certainly do have extensive experience. My relationship with all ministers who have been in charge of immigration since I have been here, and with all the deputy ministers, has been good. I am glad to say I cannot remember one case in which I was asked to intervene where, when I was finished, whether the decision was favourable or unfavourable, I could say to myself or anybody else, "I know the department was wrong."
I am sure there is not a member of parliament, present or past, who can say he has had success with every case. I, personally, am not aggrieved. I do not say that the whole department or large numbers of the officials in the department are prejudiced, racist, or anything else. However, I do say that we have to think not only of how the system is working now, but how the system will work in the future with other ministers, other officials, and with the law which we are debating at the present time.
To assess how we have done, we have to decide on a number of questions that relate to the whole problem of immigration. As I said earlier, how many people have come to this country from year to year, from where do they come, and how are they chosen are questions we have to examine.
As I indicated earlier, there have been wide fluctuations. We have gone from as many as 250,000 in one year to less than 100,000 in other years in the past 15 or so years. How did that happen? Obviously a decision was made because of social and economic conditions in a particular year. At a specific time we may have had large scale unemployment and it was not a good period to be very easy with immigration. What happened last year and is likely to happen this year proves my point. Last year we had the heaviest unemployment since the late fifties. Unemployment was down in 1976 over 1975.
We are now in the month of March. For the first time in many years, maybe the first time in the history of Canada, and certainly the first time since Statistics Canada has kept records, we have over 900,000 people officially unemployed. Given that situation, no government, regardless of its political complexion, could have wide open immigration. The people of Canada, both the employed and the unemployed, would not permit it. That is quite understandable.
Up until this time we have never had a statement, either once a year or at any time, by a minister in charge of immigration saying, "This is what we are going to do in the coming year and these are the reasons why." In introducing this bill the minister said it is the intention to make a statement every year. We commend him for that. However, I am skeptical about the minister's suggestion in his speech that the target, goal, or whatever you want to call it, for one year is not a long enough period of time, and possibly it should be for a five year period. I find it difficult to believe that is possible.
Imagine if in 1972 the minister had announced that we would permit, encourage, and arrange for a target of 200,000 per year over the next five years. In 1975, 1976 and 1977 we have had over three quarters of a million people unemployed at
80010-47^2

March 15, 1977
Immigration
some time during each year. In my view the minister's suggestion just is not possible.
It is not just the act which decides how many people are to be permitted into the country. After all, how did we get these wide fluctuations about which I talked? The act has not been amended in at least ten years, so how did that occur? In my view, it is done in two ways. First, it is done by the staffing.
If the government or the department were to decide we were getting too many immigrants from, say, Hong Kong, all the government has to do, and I am not saying it is wrong for the government to do this, without changing the act or the regulations at all, is to cut the staff in Hong Kong or in any other country in half, and the number of people who come in for any one year from that area will be cut by half. If we want to increase the number of immigrants, increase the staff. I would not say the government has acted wrongly, or done a poor job. I am saying that if we think about this realistically, this is all that needs to be done-it is one way in which it can be done.
The other way is by tightening or loosening the regulations. I looked today at the copy of the regulations which I have. There are 45 pages of regulations. It is under these regulations that decisions about individual cases are made. These regulations never come before parliament. They are made within the department, and presumably passed by the cabinet through orders in council. Changes are made without consultation with outside opinion, whenever thought desirable. Very few people know what is in the regulations. It is extremely difficult to keep up with them. My hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has had more experience in this field, to my knowledge, than any other member of parliament regardless of party, but even he finds difficulty keeping up with them. By changing these regulations it is possible to change the whole system. Let me illustrate this by outlining the changes in just one regulation which I think I understand. It is the regulation dealing with employment.
At one time if a person wanted to come to Canada and had all the necessary qualifications-the right age, the right sex, the appropriate education, and prior job training-he could get the points required under the points system and be allowed in. But at the same point-I am not sure precisely when this change was made-it was decided that no person could come to Canada unless he had a job offer. This worked for a while until a couple of years ago when it was felt-and quite frankly, I believe, it was necessary-that the regulations should be tightened up again. And suddenly the regulation about employment was changed. Not only did a prospective immigrant have to have a job offer but he had to have a job offer which the National Employment Service could certify that no person living in Canada wanted to take. Just think of the changes which have taken place-from no requirement for employment to the requirement that you have a job offer, to a requirement that you have a job offer that no person living in Canada wants to take. I am not saying those decisions were necessarily wrong.

Mine is an ethnic constituency. I suppose 90 per cent of them are working people, and they are worried even though they themselves are the children or grandchildren of immigrants or, in some cases, immigrants themselves. Although few of their families have been here longer than three generations they are concerned about employment and they tell you "We have to cut down on immigration." I sympathize with them and, in fact, I agree with them. I do not fault the government for cutting back on immigration, given the economic plight of Canada at the present time. My point is that all this was done by civil servants, by bureaucratic decision. I do not think this is a good way in which to operate. The people of Canada have a right to know why governments are doing things and they have to have a right to express themselves, as they can under a democratic system, in favour of, or in opposition to, the way things are done. So much for the way the system works.
I want to draw attention now to a couple of clauses in the bill which make it very uneasy, uncertain whether we should vote for the bill or not. Let me refer to clause 111(2) which says:
An immigration officer may require persons who seek admission to Canada and persons in Canada other than Canadian citizens to comply with such regulations as are prescribed providing for the identification of such persons by means of fingerprints or photographs-
Even with the shortening of the qualifying period it still takes three years before a person can apply for citizenship. I believe that when a person is admitted to Canada and is given landed immigrant status he is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a citizen. If we are placing certain restrictions on people who are not citizens, there have to be very good reasons. What is the necessity for requiring not only persons who seek admission but persons who are already in Canada as landed immigrants but who are not yet citizens, to be subject to this provision? Remember, there are people who come to Canada and who, for what they consider to be good reasons, do not become citizens.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Some have been here for 50 years.


David Orlikow: Yes. Some have been here for a long time. I myself wish they would become citizens but I respect their right to make their own decision, and I cannot imagine why this provision should be here. If the minister and his officials were not going to use that clause, why put it in? Was it simply to give some future minister or civil servant use of that provision? I cannot accept that.
Let me turn to another provision, clause 104(2). It provides:
Every peace officer in Canada ... may, without the issue of a warrant, an order or a direction for arrest or detention, arrest and detain or arrest and make an order to detain
(a)	for an inquiry, any person who on reasonable grounds is suspected of being
a person referred to in-
Then follow some subparagraphs.
-or
(b)	for removal from Canada, any person against whom a removal order has
been made that is to be executed-
March 15, 1977

I expect every person living in Canada, whether citizen or not, to observe the laws of Canada. Surely we have not come to the point where it is necessary to arrest or detain persons without issuing a warrant or an order for arrest or detention. This, to me, Mr. Speaker, smacks of the kind of police state that we do not need in Canada.
I could quote other clauses in the bill but I want to deal with two illustrations to show why I, among other members, am perturbed about some of the things that the government has done. Let me refer to the case that was dealt with by my colleague yesterday of Professor Andre Frank. Professor Frank was to come here from East Germany to participate in a seminar at Queen's University. I am not going to put on the record again the letter received from Queen's University professors by the minister and other members of parliament. But having read that letter I am almost certain that I would pretty strenuously disagree with the views of Professor Frank about the Third World and how it can be developed. I also find it rather strange that the government was so worried about security that it would not permit the professor, who had views which were different from those of the majority of the people of Canada, to come to Canada for three days.
Surely the Canadian democratic system is not so weak that one person can subvert it, or come close to subverting it, in three days. Surely there is enough strength in our system not to have to worry about the views of one or two or even ten professors who want to visit Canada for two or three days. I think the government made a very serious error in that decision.
Before closing, let me say that while along with my colleagues I commend the government for the provisions of the act dealing with refugees and support the words of the minister in regard to refugees, I find it difficult to equate the very generous and open treatment of refugees who came to this country in large numbers from Uganda, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary with the way in which we dithered and worried regarding refugees who wanted to get out of Chile when the government of Chile was overthrown by that country's military. I am sure I would disagree very strenuously with many people who supported the former government of Chile-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. He may continue if he has unanimous consent. Has he unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying that I am certain I would continue to disagree with many people who escaped from Chile and whose views are contrary to those that I hold. I am sure there are many people who escaped from other countries, who came to this country easily and freely with encouragement from the people and Government of Canada, with whose views I would also disagree. But these people fitted in and, given some time, I think the people who wanted to get out of Chile would also have fitted in and made
Immigration
their contribution to Canada. If we believe in encouraging refugees to come to Canada, we should not pick and choose. We should have treated the potential refugees from Chile as generously as we treated refugees from other countries, but I do not believe that we did so.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House constitutes a major landmark in the social evolution, in keeping not only with the demographic and economic needs of a modern and dynamic country but also the world wide framework in which Canadian society operates, a society whose hospitality and generosity towards foreigners can compare with that of any other country in the world under any political regime.
Indeed are we not all ourselves, as has often been suggested, immigrants or descendants of immigrants? Since my time is limited, I would like to discuss immediately an important aspect of this bill dealing with increased consultations with the provinces. In that respect, it should be remembered that we are far from innovating entirely in this area, particularly with regard to the province of Quebec, which has already successively signed the Lang-Cloutier and Andras-Bienvenue agreements providing for special federal cooperation to attract more French-speaking immigrants into that province.
In fact, the formula which was adopted for Quebec is to a certain extent a pattern that might one day be followed for other provinces according to their particular needs. Let us remember also that this cooperation that proved so efficient between Ottawa and Quebec in recent years is based on one of the intangible basic principles set out in the Canadian immigration policy, that existed for that matter before the publication of the green paper, that an effort should be made to preserve Canada's percentage of French-speaking citizens, a goal our immigration policy can help reach. That principle was indeed formerly recognized in the report of the joint committee of Parliament on immigration policy of which I was a member. The committee suggested in its recommendations which were almost totally enacted into laws that the French fact is an essential element in the cultural and political life of Canada. That is in section 175 of the report.
The same point was made again in a recent statement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) on the program Question Period when he emphasized the importance of preserving the bilingual nature of our country and pointed out that the only advertising which was allowed by his department abroad was in French-speaking countries.
However, such efforts cannot do miracles as it is clear that there will not be more French immigrants than those who will decide to come to our country. Besides the same selection criteria apply to French-speaking applicants as others, as otherwise it would be unfair for those from other countries as well as for French-speaking applicants as it is not in the interest of a potential immigrant to let him come here if he

March 15, 1977
Immigration
does not qualify and does not have much chance of being happy among us.
Consultation and cooperation with the provinces will now be statutory with the new bill, for instance to set the annual immigration level throughout the country in order to reduce the present trend whereby more than half of the newcomers settle in the metropolitan areas of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. When the immigrant settles down and becomes integrated in Canadian society he needs services often offered by provinces, which gives the latter a participating role recognized by the constitution.
Also, the federal government subsidizes several provincial activities particularly those of COFI. Some people have asked, probably without much thought, that provinces be given final control over the movements of immigrants. Several constitutional and practical reasons are against such a policy particularly the fact that we could not forbid the movement from a province to another. We might say that the new legislation wrongfully stipulates that some immigrants will have to agree to live for six months in some remote areas. But, as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration pointed out, we forget that otherwise those people would not be able to come to Canada because of an insufficient number of points. So it is for them a marvellous opportunity, to quote the minister, and once here they will have to live in such or such place for a short period of six months at most. But this does not mean thay they will not be allowed to move, to travel as do thousands of Canadians who, for instance, go to work for the season at James Bay, in the Arctic or some other remote areas.
Mr. Speaker, the new legislation also mentions annual immigration levels. Once more, to those who wanted to speak of quotas, the minister explained that this last term had an American connotation that could make some people think that we practice discrimination by setting quotas for various countries. The levels will have an international connotation and will not impose a ceiling for one country or another and the annual goal mentioned by the minister, after consultation with the provinces, I repeat, will not prevent the coming of an additional number of unexpected immigrants of the family class or refugees in special circumstances. The new legislation is then more modern, more flexible, more humanitarian especially as it eliminates some restrictions that have become obsolete and unfair, such as the provisions concerning epileptics.
Unlike in the past, Canadians will now know in advance how many immigrants will be admitted during the following year. Some have claimed that this would prevent the entry of some
250,000	immigrants, maybe more, in the course of a year. On the contrary, if certain expert predictions materialize in a few years and Canada has a labour shortage justifying the entry of such a great number of foreigners, this new law will make it possible.
But in the meantime the government and all Canadians, who as citizens of this country have first and foremost the right to be considered and protected, agree that it is now desirable to limit immigration to our country, particularly for economic reasons. We do not wish to blame immigrants for

our unemployment problem, for they become an integral part of our economy and investigations show that they are an asset for our country. On the other hand, if a numerous population is all it takes to make a country very prosperous, countries like India, Pakistan and a great many others would have proven it long ago.
Canada must therefore accept as many immigrants as possible for economic and demographic reasons. Even if we were to accept as many as two million immigrants at a time from some of the most heavily populated countries in the world, we would not relieve in the least, not even for an instant, the problems of that country. But contrast this with all the problems pertaining to work, education, housing and language that would arise from the entry into Canada of these two million immigrants. Nonetheless that is what the few but vociferous protagonists of a control free immigration clamor for inconsiderately, saying that immigration is a universal right whereas it is in effect a privilege extended to a stranger. Indeed no country in the world authorizes strangers to cross its borders under conditions which are often as strict going in or coming out.
In fact Canada's policy is more generous than that of any other country in the world with regards to ordinary immigrants as well as refugees especially nowadays when the rare so-called immigration countries become more and more particular in the choice of their new citizens. With the passing of this new bill, assistance to refugees, under the terms of the Geneva convention, becomes statutory in Canada. Indeed Canada has a well established tradition in this area with its admission of post-war refugees. Then, there were Hungarians, Czechs, Tibetans, and Ugandans. More recently, there were the Vietnamese. In passing, I would like to note that of the 6,531 Vietnamese refugees admitted to Canada before September 30 last year, 5,107 or more than 78 per cent settled in Quebec, mostly because many of them speak French.
Canada also has an assistance program for Chilean refugees for which the target has recently been increased from 5,000 to
6,000	and under which more than 5,200 Chileans have been admitted to Canada, including the members of 100 families of political refugees freed from Chilean prisons under a special pilot program. Canada has already received more Chilean refugees than all Eastern European countries together. Besides these refugee programs, Canada has decided in the last few years to help the population of certain countries in which there have been civil wars, like Cyprus and Lebanon. In this last case, especially through the establishment of a special reception centre in Limassol, on the island of Cyprus, Canada has already admitted in 1976 alone through a special program of assistance and family reunification some 6,000 Lebanese most of whom will settle down or have already settled down in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this generous action was taken not only by the Canadian government, but also by the Canadian people who have received these suffering people with sympathy as well as generosity. This has helped demonstrate the importance and the various aspects of a humane and realistic immigration, such as the new legislation will enable us to ensure.
March 15, 1977

Had I enough time I could still refer to three formulas which are to be substituted for the removal, formerly called the deportation of the undesirable, but with some differences so as not to stigmatize some minor cases, namely the deportation order, the exclusion order and the departure. The bill under consideration is also aimed at improving control over foreign workers, including their protection, especially when they become illegal immigrants and run the risk of being exploited by unscrupulous employers who will henceforth have to account for their abuses. I could refer to a more humane formula for the reunification of families since the matter of age is no longer taken in consideration or still to some improved mechanisms of appeal, especially the appointment of an adjudicator.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill is so logical, simple and reasonable that it has received a wide support in the country, except from a few extremists for whom there would be no acceptable solution but their own. It is a legislation worthy of a country such as ours, open to the modern world by its liberality and its realism.


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak in this debate tonight, particularly after the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Portelance). I am all the more happy since he is present.
I shall try in my speech, as I usually do, to be at the same time objective and constructive. However, I shall obviously have some criticisms to direct, perhaps to the government, perhaps to the department, with regard to some items dealing with immigration. But before I come to that I want to mention that I favour a healthy immigration. Canada has space and resources and we need people to develop those, without taking the place of Canadians. On the contrary, we must develop those resources for the profit of Canadians and increase the population of our country. Let us not forget that future immigrants as well as their children will become new Canadians. That makes no problem.
We must also include in that regard, that is the development of our country, the emphasis on certain trades. There is nothing in this legislation to amend the present situation. Let me give you an example: a foreign physician who wants to practice in Canada and come as an immigrant must of course undergo a series of tests, which is perfectly normal, but I believe that after coming to Canada, he has to spend at least a full year in a hospital. But we all know that, since health insurance is in force in the province of Quebec, among other provinces-but since I represent a Quebec constituency, it is normal that I should give that province as an example-most of the doctors available for house calls are precisely, immigrants. I think the department should at least consider that kind of thing. It should not necessarily be in the act, but the regulations might make provision for such cases.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration referred to humanitarian cases. I fully agree
Immigration
with him, because I had some experience of such cases in my constituency. Before discussing a number of points, I should like to suggest to the government that it might be a good idea to revive a former program known as "My Country" and implement it every two years. It might prove useful to immigrants who came to Canada as visitors or temporary workers and who decided suddenly, since they were misinformed in their country of origin, that they would like to remain in Canada, because it is an open and democratic country where people can freely express themselves, say what they think without being necessarily put in jail.
I think that under these circumstances we should take this into account and not feel compelled to remove these people, especially when they are as respectable as some of those we have met. Officials are invested with a great many discretionary powers. I am not saying all these officials are not doing a good job, far from it, but I feel it is dangerous to give to much power to the officials responsible for the administration of the act, for they may be tempted to take advantage of their position, as has happened in a number of cases. I can say that the Immigration Act unfortunately discriminates between the legitimate child and the natural child, and that is why, when we dealt with the Interpretation Act last December, I moved that the word "child" be substituted, so that all children might be considered equal.
If I go over all these things, it is because there was at the immigration office a woman from Haiti who had submitted an application in her native country to come and live in Canada with her parents as a landed immigrant. Leter on, I discovered that she had been granted only a student permit because she was an illegitimate child. So this is a defect which has to be corrected, because when her visa will expire this young woman will have to go back to her home country according to the law and then come back here, and our country will have to pay to get her over there while she will have to pay to come back here. I think there should be a little more flexibility when dealing with people in a humanitarian way.
In my opinion, the department should offer more protection to immigrants here in Canada. I have seen evidence, which I still have in my possession, of abuses with regard to new immigrants coming in our country; they went to some lawyers in Montreal and were charged more than $300 only to have some immigration forms filled. That is exploitation! I think there might be some relevant legislation to punish those people who are exploiting immigrants. It seems to me that the department itself should initiate proceedings against those people who prey upon immigrants freshly arrived in our country and who, because they do not have yet any knowledge of our laws, trust nearly anyone and are pitifully swindled.
I am also thinking about a Portuguese woman who married a Canadian citizen. She was deported all the same. I understand that she may have got married soon before her deportation, but in any event, I think the young lady acted in good faith. She spoke French fluently and was living in the province of Quebec. In my opinion, such expenses should be avoided when prospective citizens are desirable. Why not keep them

March 15, 1977
Immigration
here, why treat them as if they were objects or animals? What nonsense!
There is another case that I should like to report, a humanitarian case to which I already referred in the House by the way, namely that of the Valdez family. Mr. Speaker, I will not be nasty towards the parliamentary secretary, but I might be towards the department itself. As regards the Valdez family, after making numerous representations to the department and to the parliamentary secretary, I understand that the government said: Listen, our official has decided such and such a thing and the matter went before the appeal court.
But when I read, for instance, a letter from the departmental assistant who in closing says, and here I quote: I am sorry that I have to send you such sad news-speaking of deportation-but it seems to me it would be cowardly to let that family believe there is a happy solution when none has ever existed. If it never existed, why then did the department let them appeal the decision? That is the question I ask myself. There again I feel there is a contradiction. Today, whether you want to believe it or not, because of the department the Valdez family lives in utter poverty in London. That woman is now sick. Naturally we are trying to get the children over here whose studies have already been paid for, but the fact remains that the mother will stay in London with the baby and the rest of the family, while the father has flown the coop. This is what we have done. We have put a family, a woman and her children in such a situation. Why? Not because the act was completely inadequate, but because we forgot to consider the humanitarian side of the problem, in spite of my representations. We simply bowed to the decision of the official who had the future of these people in his hands and we left it at that. Of course, I hope that the new act will be more flexible in such cases in the future.
I also hope that the department will finally become more responsible in immigration matters. I have another suggestion to make to the parliamentary secretary, which he might convey to the minister: Why not abolish this type of appeal procedure which is quite ineffective and replace it, for example, by something more worthwhile, such as a kind of ombudsman, a type of mechanism which may be much more equitable and less expensive for the State.
I could keep on for a long time, Mr. Speaker, but since I have to attend an important committee which will sit in camera, I shall only deal with a few more points. I am goin to discuss the matter of provincial responsibility. The provinces are to be more fully consulted, so they say. This is not good enough, in my opinion. In any case, I will have the opportunity to move an amendment to the legislation so that the provinces will be given more decision-making powers with regard to the acceptance of immigrants on their territory.
When I consider the province of Quebec, its culture and its language, I think it should have more say in the matter. The same applies to the other provinces, of course, but since the Francophone majority is in Quebec, I feel it is normal that we should be asking for a greater participation on the part of that province.

In the departmental statistics for 1976, I believe, I find the list of countries from which immigrants come to Canada, the percentage of Francophones compared to other ethnic groups which speak more English than French. Mind you, I do not want to discriminate in any way, but I wish nevertheless to deal with the preservation of the Quebec culture. I think that if we examine the whole matter we realize that there are many more people speaking foreign languages than French-speaking people who come to Canada. Of course I believe that the immigrant selection is also determined by demographic, economic and social criteria. But as I indicated, for Quebec there is also the question of language and culture.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one last suggestion to the government. Many times, we say: What does the federal government do for an immigrant? When coming here he does get a few things but it seems that when leaving his country of origin, all he is given is an ice cream cone with a nice cherry on top of it. On his way to Canada he eats the cherry and when he lands here there is no more ice cream. Why? Because he is not provided with the right information.
I think the government should print booklets in the various languages of countries where we seek immigrants; then the immigrant would know that in Quebec, for instance, French is spoken but that English is spoken as well. One works in French, but one can also work in English. In Quebec, he would get some social, economic and cultural benefits. In another province too. It seems to me that if all those details were given for each province and if the immigrant had the opportunity to read them before leaving his country he could choose between Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, and so on. It would then be possible, it seems, to prevent all those language problems we have in Quebec, what with legislation such as Bills 63, 22 and what next, I do not know.
It seems to me that if the individual who wants to settle in Quebec has previous knowledge of this, he will learn French because he will want to integrate into the French culture, he will want to live with Francophones. So it seems to me this would be the best. Anyway, this would at least provide adequate information, and whenever someone came to apply at an embassy or immigration office abroad, he would be given that booklet and when he came here he would know where he stands, he would know his rights. This might indeed avoid cases where immigrants are being exploited, a real agony for which there is not much help forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker, I still have a lot to say, but I will have an opportunity to speak on this in committee or at the third reading stage. To conclude, I hope that these suggestions will be considered.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to indicate that I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Portelance), and also the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie). The parliamentary secretary suggested that certainly work could be found for some immigrants in James

Bay or other remote locations. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that before bringing immigrants in James Bay, the parliamentary secretary should try and find jobs for people in northwest Quebec who have been-


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that we should bring in immigrants to work on the James Bay project. When I say that some Canadians are sent over to work on the James Bay, and when we criticize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This is strictly a matter of debate. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


Armand Caouette: I apologize to the parliamentary secretary if I have misinterpreted his words, and I would indeed like that these people be able to work in frontier areas like the James Bay. But first we should find employment for our people who for many years have been seeking jobs on the James Bay project but to no avail. But at least, Mr. Speaker, like all members of the House, I am aware of the importance, of the immigration issue for the future of our country.
Depending on whether our immigration policy will be restrictive or liberal-and I smile because I do not want to talk about the Liberal Party-Canada in the year 2000 will probably be completely different from what we know today. We might find ourselves in an over-populated country in which people of different ethnic and cultural origins will continuously be tearing one another to pieces. On the other hand, we could succeed in creating a country in which everybody can live a decent life without being piled up on one another and in the mutual respect of various cultural groups.
All this will depend, Mr. Speaker, upon the immigration policy which Canada is developing right now. Without trying to dramatize the situation, Mr. Speaker, I believe that of all the bills which are presently before the House, Bill C-24 is by far the most important and most dangerous for our country's future. I for one do not feel out of line when I make these statements.
The many briefs which were submitted to us from every area of this country and from all organized groups which are concerned by this issue clearly show that Canadians, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, know that the future of this country depends upon the policy which we will follow regarding immigration.
Uiio)
Mr. Speaker, among the papers I received at my office on Bill C-24, one was taken up and endorsed by more than 25 organizations which even held press conferences to denounce this bill which they said was misleading, restrictive, repressive, discriminatory and unworthy of our society that claims to be developed, liberal and humanitarian.
Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the least that can be said is that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) failed to sell those organizations his bill. That situation is even funnier if one bothers to compare what the minister said of his bill before law students with the statement I quoted earlier, and I quote:
For the first time, the bill clearly sets out the basic objectives of immigration, and for the first time it entrenches in legislation the principles of non-discrimination, of respect for the family and concern for refugees on humanitarian grounds.
As one can see, Mr. Speaker, there is somewhat of a disagreement between the minister and the signers of the statement I mentioned earlier. The minister says that the legislation entrenches the principle of non-discrimination; the organizations, for their part, were suggesting that the legislation was discriminatory. The minister says that the legislation includes the government's humanitarian concern; those same organizations to which I referred earlier say that the legislation is unworthy of a society that claims to be humanitarian.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that gap between those two interpretations to show how it is possible to come to contradictory conclusions on the same bill; it all depends, of course, on the point of view from which that same bill is examined. So the minister says he is very proud of eliminating certain provisions of the old act forbidding entry in this country to certain groups of individuals such as homosexuals and alcoholics. The minister is pleased with the fact that the legislation eliminates mentions of what was termed to be "moral turpitude" and resulted in the deportation of certain people.
Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that the conduct of people who apply for admission to Canada should not be considered any more? Does that mean that as far as this government is concerned, the most vicious persons should be welcome as much as those who show respect for the rights of others as well as their own and abide by the basic rules of decency and good manners?
That is why I think moral turpitude is a criterion we should use to turn down, after investigation, undesirable applicants who could not make any worthwhile contribution to the development of this country.
Maybe it is because this government's moral standards are not high enough that it expects so much from prospective immigrants, but I cannot help wondering. As for the document I mentioned earlier, which is sponsored by more than 25 agencies, I had to admit after reading it, that it would be possible to have a government worse than the one we have at present.
Mr. Speaker, if the principles and suggestions proposed by such organizations as the Labour Council of Montreal, the Service de la Pastorale et d'echanges spiritains, the Office for Chilean political prisoners and several other organizations which support this bill, if the principles advocated by those groups were followed Canada would have no more control over its immigration and I think it would be a real mess.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to avoid any misunderstanding. I am not enthusiastic about the bill proposed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I have the opportunity for a few moments to make specific comments on some provisions of
4018

March 15, 1977
Immigration
that bill. However, I should like to underline the responsibility shown by some organizations that I mentioned earlier. A logical and rational immigration policy should, of course, be in the interest of the public, this is in the interest of all Canadians. If that priority is not respected and if our immigration policy is contrary to the needs of the majority of Canadians, it is anti-democratic, as obviously, Canadians want legislation to protect them and their social and economic interests.
The organizations that I mentioned earlier-including CUSO, an agency largely financed by Canadian taxpayers- suggest that anybody be accepted as an immigrant at any time. In their brief they say that the government's bill is and I quote:
Restrictive because its purpose at every level is to limit very strictly the number and type of immigrants according to our economic needs.
What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, in restricting the number of immigrants according to our economic needs? No country, no nation can survive if it deliberately bungles its economic stability by opening its door to everyone. It is absolutely essential to take into account the economic potential of a country to determine an immigration policy. We must know if we can offer to those immigrants suitable jobs and a decent living. If it is not possible because of lack of employment or because the country has trouble giving its own citizens a decent way of living, it would be irresponsible and criminal to open our doors to immigrants and make the problem even worse.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the signers of this document are demanding. I feel it would be cruel to open our doors to people who could not be hired and to whom we could not guarantee an acceptable standard of living. We would be showing contempt if we let them come in Canada but could not assure them a decent life.
Further, the same document states that the bill is discriminatory as follows:
It is discriminatory both in its point system which systematically favours immigrants from developed countries over those from the Third World, the educated people over those who are less educated, etc., and in the introduction of the notion of conditional immigrants (who can immigrate provided they accept to live in remote areas or fill second-rate jobs unwanted by Canadians).
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over the irresponsibility of these people and groups. They criticize the bill for taking the vocational training of immigrants into account. But is that not the most basic rationale? We live in an industrialized country where jobs require increasingly greater skills. It is only normal that Canada should seek immigrants who can adjust to our society and play an active role in it. There are more than one million unemployed in our country. I believe that is more than enough. If we allow unskilled or uneducated people to settle in Canada, we doom them to unemployment and poverty. It would be cruel to allow them to settle in Canada and to cast them aside later on because of a shortage of job opportunities or their lack of training. Just as it would be logical to accept certain immigrants on the condition that they settle in frontier areas where certain jobs are easier to find. This would prevent a concentration in the major urban centres of welfare recipients and unemployed.

It is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, that our immigration policy take into account the social and economical facts of our country. Those who claim the opposite are either irresponsible or foreigners afraid that they will not meet the standards set by the government.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that of the various organizations which have signed the document in question, more than half represent foreigners, Chileans, Argentines, Haitians, Iranians and so forth. It is easy to understand that these people would like to settle in Canada and become Canadian citizens. We live in a remarkable and tremendously rich country, with one of the highest living standards in the world. It is therefore understandable why so many people would like to share in this prosperity and in the promising future of Canada.
But, it must be kept in mind, Mr. Speaker, that our country could not maintain such a high standard of living if it threw its doors wide open to welfare recipients the world over. Our million unemployed represent a heavy enough burden for the Canadian taxpayers. Our duty and responsibility as legislators is above all to solve this problem. Having done so, we could welcome the immigrants who wish to settle in Canada and are able to provide the Canadian people with the required services and skills.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the foreigners who signed the document I mentioned a while ago are meddling with the internal affairs of Canada. We certainly can do without foreigners dictating to us what our immigration policy should be. On the other hand, we must realize that Canada would do potential immigrants a great disservice if it welcomed them with open arms, and then condemned them to poverty and unemployment, for lack of proper jobs for them to do.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the only way to set up immigration policies which take into account the interests of all parties concerned is simply to base them on the social and economic circumstances of the country, and to choose among prospective immigrants on the basis of these social and economic circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I am not referring here to the special cases where Canada has accepted political refugees. In some specific cases, the conditions must include humanitarian grounds.
With respect to the charges of discrimination laid by the groups I mentioned earlier, I find that kind of verbal exaggeration another sign of irresponsibility on the part of their authors. To choose among prospective immigrants those with the best occupational training is no more discriminatory than to put heavier taxes on the rich, or to hire the most qualified candidate for a job. Is the employer who hires the best man among the applicants being discriminatory? I, for one, do not believe that.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I want to invite the minister not to take into consideration those who, like the groups I talked about a moment ago, bring forward policies which are against the most fundamental interests of Canadians. It is clear that the bill introduced by the minister is not perfect. More specifically, I see two possible changes that could be made. First, it
March 15, 1977

would be desirable that the text of the legislation establish different sets of criteria for refugees and ordinary immigrants.
Clearly, as I said a while ago, the case of political refugees should be studied with more broadmindedness than ordinary applications. It therefore seems logical and desirable to me that the bill should set up a list of criteria for the eligibility for refugees that is different from that which applies to ordinary requests.
Still with regard to refugees, Mr. Speaker, I feel it might be well to set up a special committee to hear the people who request political refugee status. A committee could perhaps be set up along the lines of the arbitration boards in the field of unemployment insurance. It might be more equitable, at least with regard to natural rights, for people who want to be recognized as refugees to be heard by a body that is independent of the department, a bit as I said a minute ago comparable to the boards of arbitration and the umpires who are independent of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Those then, Mr. Speaker, are the few suggestions I want to make to the minister with a view to improving Bill C-24.
I trust I shall have the opportunity of coming back to this matter at the next stage in the debate. In closing, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the minister not to allow himself be influenced too much by the minority which is trying, by shouting louder than everyone else, to get an immigration policy that is contrary to the fundamental interests of the vast majority of Canadians.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of speaking on the second reading of this debate on Bill C-24, the new Immigration Act for Canada. I do this not only because of the great interest displayed in immigration policy by hon. members on both sides of the House but by many Canadians, especially Canadians in the constituency of Parkdale which I represent in the House of Commons.
Canada today has a population of some 23 million, and I believe it is very pertinent in debate on this bill to recall that more than ten million immigrants have come to Canada since Confederation. This is why we often hear hon. members and others, along with ministers in charge of immigration, state that Canada is a land of immigrants and that at least 50 per cent of Canadians are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants who have come to Canada since 1867. Many of these immigrants have achieved prominent positions and rendered great service to the development of this country over the last 109 years. In fact one of the members who sat in the House of Commons in 1867 was an immigrant from Poland. He represented the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe in the province of Quebec and his name was Edward Kierzkowski. He came here after the defeat of the uprising of the Poles in 1830.
I welcome, as all hon. members did in speeches before me, the provisions in the bill which mainly have to do with removing iniquities in the present law and those which estab-
Immigration
lish a modern and flexible framework for the future development of immigration policy, along with other items which will help the government to achieve its economic, social and demographic goals.
My intervention this evening has to do with the treatment of refugees. I should like especially to deal with the question of refugees from eastern European countries. This is a subject of great importance to constituencies where there are citizens who wish to bring to Canada relatives and friends who have difficulty in emigrating from their countries of origin, in particular from the countries of eastern Europe. I think to set this problem in perspective we should recall that after the second world war Canada accepted almost 100,000 refugees from all over the world, mostly between the years 1949 to 1953.
A great amount of interest was generated in 1951 when the United Nations Convention on Refugees was passed. It is of interest to note that Canada became a signatory to that convention only in 1969, and from then on complied in practice with both the exact letter and spirit of the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Since that time Canada has had an enviable record of helping people who have come to this country seeking the status of refugee, or seeking political asylum because of the threat of persecution or other forms of oppression which existed in their homelands.
When I speak of the enviable record of Canada in the matter of refugees, it must also be put on record that in 1957 Canada accepted 38,000 Hungarian refugees after the uprising in that country, followed by 12,000 Czech and Slovak refugees when the U.S.S.R. invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. Since that time there was also the arrival of 228 Tibetan refugees in 1970, 4,420 Asians from Uganda in 1972, approximately
4,000	refugees from Chile in 1973, 1,000 refugees from Viet Nam in 1975, and 1,000 Lebanese refugees in 1976.
However, there are people who, as I mentioned, come from the countries of eastern Europe seeking the status of refugee after having arrived on Canadian soil. Up to the year 1969 the treatment of these people was what I would call very fair. However, since that time, and especially since the year 1974, the policy on refugees from eastern Europe has been tightened, and in 1974, of 345 east European applicants to Canada, only 30 were accepted, which means a rejection rate of over 90 per cent. In 1975, of 550 refugee applicants about 80 were accepted, which is a rejection rate of 85 per cent approximately. In 1976 we estimate that the rejection rate in this category will come to about 90 per cent. It is very frustrating, not only for these people, but also for their sponsors and for members of parliament who try to act as ombudsmen to help these people remain in Canada, when the interdepartmental advisory committee on the status of refugees in Canada is rejecting between 80 and 90 per cent of the applicants from east European countries.
In view of this evident hardship, Mr. Speaker, I hope the provision in the bill as well as the regulations, to which we are
80010-48'/2
4020	COMMONS DEBATES	March 15. 1977
Immigration
looking forward with great expectation, in fact with a lot of impatience, will help ease the situation in which these people find themselves. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we do not have many immigration consular staff in the countries of eastern Europe and the only way for them to emigrate to Canada, in many cases, is to come here, see the country, and try to make their decision to remain in Canada while on Canadian soil. As all hon. members know since November, 1972, it has been almost impossible to make application for landed immigrant status in Canada while here on a visitor's visa. So I hope that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) will take into consideration this category of refugee consisting of people seeking a better life in Canada who have close relatives in Canada, relatives who very often are disappointed at the way their sponsored applicants are being treated under the present strict regulations.
I appeal to the minister on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to review these cases now, with the objective of showing that Canada really does care about these people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a web of various difficulties. These people and their relatives fought against Nazi tyranny and alongside the Allied armies during World War II, and it is none of their fault that they find themselves today on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
Another point I want to raise during this debate has to do with the report of Judge Claire L'Heureux-Dube, who was appointed special commissioner to conduct an inquiry into certain problems in the Department of Manpower and Immigration. In January, 1976, the commissioner submitted a report outlining just a few flagrant shortcomings and recommending ways in which the minister should, on an urgent basis, put some order into the application of regulations and practices current in the department. The commissioner, among other recommendations, urged improvements in the legal representation available to visitors in Canada and recommended the expansion of legal aid plans, as well as the establishment of a system of control over those who are representing persons dealing with the immigration department in order to ensure a standard of competence and ethics.
Unfortunately, many of these visitors are directed to high-price lawyers and to so-called immigration counsellors who charge exorbitant fees and promise to help, but very often fail to help these poor immigrants or these poor visitors seeking landed immigrant status in Canada. I do not know what the minister is doing to curb the unethical practices that are still being conducted in Canada, especially in the large urban centres. No wonder there are so many complaints about the department, and so many people in this category of visitors in Canada who seem to go into hiding because of the fear of what can happen to them, not to mention the amount of money they have lost in trying to obtain landed immigrant status.
I want to conclude these remarks by saying that I welcome the provisions of the bill, and I congratulate the minister and the previous minister for making such a tremendous effort in

coming up with Bill C-24, a modern immigration act which, I hope, will serve the best interests of Canada. I hope that the members of the commitee on immigration which will study this bill will take into consideration the remarks that were made by hon. members, as well as the briefs, that were presented to them during the study by the committee on immigration which travelled across Canada and heard representations on the so called green paper. I also invite the various ethnic groups which have a deep interest and concern about Canada's immigration policy to come forward with briefs and representations to the committee so that in the end we will have the best possible immigration act for Canada.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak at this stage of this bill. The subject of immigration has been one with which I have had a great deal to do as an individual member, and I am sure that my letters, some of them somewhat caustic, some of them downright rude, and some of them written on fine grades of asbestos because they were so hostile, are well known to various departmental officials in the Department of Immigration.
I have not been at all reluctant to express my ideas and disapproval of the way in which some of the regulations have been interpreted, and of the existence of other regulations. What I feel now is a sort of manic fascination in that department with the requirements of manpower. People have become ciphers, they are pushed about as so many statistics, and they can be brought to this country in much the same way as we import live cattle, in numbers set by quotas year by year. I do not like that. I do not like the philosophy that immigration, which affects human beings, family relationships, and the aspirations of individuals, should be treated as though it were just an importation of another skill.
I have had a great deal to say about what I consider the wrong philosophy with the points system, that it was a cream skimming operation of populations in other countries. No wonder our immigration offices in many instances were not welcome in these countries because our points system was a clear indication to other countries-particularly in latter years to Third World countries-that "we will take your skilled and most intelligent people", but those others from all walks of life, even though their chief asset was a desire to work and an ability to work, were not wanted because somebody said, "Oh yes, but they had only grade four or they had only four or six years of education" so that did not qualify them to come to Canada. It seems that our standards should be somewhere around nine to 11 years of education.
Let it be said that in many European countries six years of education is fully equal to nine years of education at some schools in this country, and this applies to preparation in trades also. The application of the points system, as it has been applied until now and is likely to continue, is a negative reflection on every immigrant who has come to this country since World War II until 1967, because those immigrants did not come under a points system but were admitted for many other different reasons. They were not graded. They were
March 15, 1977

given what I felt was an arbitrary assessment by an immigration officer whose decision could not be appealed.
I remember looking at the files and questioning the ratings, but after we managed to upset some of the ratings, the files were closed off. Why? Because decisions were being questioned. That is something that must stop in the Department of Immigration. There has been far too much refusal to disclose proper information, even to the individual concerned. I realize that there are limitations with regard to security, but it used to be carried out. How? To ridiculous lengths. My colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has been strongly advocating open government. Those are things that must come out if an individual is to be refused admission. If he suffers from some malady or some infirmity and we do not want to include him among the people coming to this country, we must tell him so. But merely to say that this individual does not meet our standards is an insult to that person. That is why I say that this bill cannot be accepted in principle because it is only the tip of the iceberg.
Clause 3 is merely for cosmetic purposes. The real guts or workings of an immigration program are the regulations, but the regulations will not be published until the bill has been passed carte blanche at third reading, and then we will be told afterwards, as we are already told all too often, that parliament approved these regulations and that the administration of this immigration legislation is merely carrying out the will of parliament. That is eyewash; it is false and misleading to say that, because the regulations will have never been the subject of study and approval by parliament. The interpretation of the regulations will not be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. From time to time, as certain types of decisions are called into question, there is a shift to close the door.
I am being very critical tonight, but in saying what I have said I do not mean to attack immigration officers personally because over the years I have received great co-operation from, I would say, all of them. Granted, my views have differed very strongly with theirs, but that is not unknown. I have been known to differ very loudly and emphatically, but I think not more than I have with the concept of our regulations and with the administration of our immigration.
There are many things we want to talk about, but all too often we hear that immigration should be tightened up. From time to time we hear the cry: "Tighten up on immigration; send them back." People who say that are despicable economic rednecks. One sometimes might wish that abortion could be made retroactive, and that deportation or non-admission could also be made retroactive. Some people who came to this country as immigrants only a few years ago tell me that we should tighten up on immigration, and that reminds me of what I call the lifeboat society. That is a polite term. The philosophy is, "Shove off, boys, I am all right, I am aboard". That in itself should not motivate immigration restrictions.
There are some immigrants who are members of this House, and some who are sons and daughters of immigrants. These
Adjournment Debate
people possessed a degree of desire, a desire which most immigrants have, because it takes a great deal of gumption- and I am not talking about refugees now-and motivation, to leave one's homeland and family to strike out for a land which is much different, to form new friendships, to struggle, but to get there.
I am sure hon. members have all known families which came to this country in years past. All they had was what they could carry, and beyond that it was what I call that most admirable quality which we should have in Canada, the willingness and the ability to spit on our hands, to find a job and to get on with it. The job need not necessarily be the one a person is cut out for. Immigrants do not displace anybody. In most cases they fill a void.
I do not care a whit for the cluck-clucking which goes on about these people having to take jobs at lower levels. Floors have to be swept and vegetables have to be cleaned. These are all jobs which have to be done, and why should we look down on a man who is prepared to do these jobs? Do we look down on university students who are prepared to take those same jobs on a part-time basis? No, we admire them because their objective is to earn money to help them get to where they are going, and to improve themselves.
There are thousands upon thousands of families in Edmonton and in many other parts of the country which have been prepared to work hard in order to improve themselves, and their children succeed at university.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: These people become our leading citizens. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock, without the assistance of others?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, in a country like Canada, which is characterized by regionalism geographically and a federal system politically, we seem to have evolved the relationship of have and have-not provinces, or to put it more bluntly, who is getting what out of Confederation. This issue tends to become emotional sometimes, but certainly events like the Quebec election focus on the issue of federalism vs. separatism more acutely and included in this problem is the business of federal-provincial balance of payments.

March 15, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Maclean's magazine, which I personally consider a Canadian asset, recently published an article which made the statement that Quebec made $3 billion in profit out of Confederation in 1976.
On March 3 I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) regarding this article. The question is reported at page 3606 of Hansard. I specifically questioned the accuracy of this figure, whether any government statistics were available on the subject and whether such statistics were available from other provinces, out of fairness to our sister province of Quebec. The minister's answer was essentially that there were serious statistical problems in this area, especially when trying to compare ont province with another. The minister was personally against the balance sheet approach to national unity. I agree wholeheartedly with that.
There are two issues then: first, the feasibility of statistics; second, the relevance of the balance sheet approach, in other words, who is getting what from Confederation? For weeks in my office we worked on the matter of feasibility, without much success. It is a difficult subject. For example, if one talks about total transfers, not net flow, one notes the following discrepancies: Maclean's quotes the figure of $4.7 billion; the tri-level task force on public finance, $1.9 billion; and Treasury Board, in its annual blue book "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent", $2.2 billion.
A basic difficulty is this: where there is statistical doubt, the result is very different analyses. I am thinking, for example, of the value of federal employee pay rolls and, second, of the division of national debt as among the provinces. An examination of these figures leads, obviously, to some disagreement of the meaning and relevance of this entire question and begs for thorough study. Since others have already raised this question and broken the ice, the possibility of misunderstanding exists.
Referring to the matter of relevance and comparability, no matter whether comparisons are difficult or easy, it is important to make them once the subject has been raised. We should consider the special aspect of trade and investment in the private sector. This, even if not precise now, becomes even more important with the prospect of separation. There are presumptions in all economic analyses. As I mentioned before, this is similar to the question of public sector practice with regard to pay rolls and national debt.
The issue on the one hand is separatism versus the economic well-being of all Canadians and, on the other, conflict between the provinces. There is also the situation of the Maritime provinces to consider, not just of Quebec.
I think we are all against the balance sheet approach, the approach which says don't rock the boat with the "have"-provinces, for example Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Some suggest that these provinces might be upset when they know how much money they pay to poorer provinces. But others will learn of this, the media, bigots and so on. We know this now. The important thing is to clear the air, to understand our country better, and to expose narrow regionalism for what it is.
(Mr. Philbrook.]


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the excellent, commendable statement made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), I say there is not much of a question to answer. But I want to use the three minutes which are traditionally available to agree with him enthusiastically, to agree with his statement about the relevance of the balance sheet approach to Confederation. I remind the House of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau's) statement on the subject.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What is this, an election speech?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He said as long ago as October 6, 1970:
I do not believe that anyone can accurately measure in dollars and cents the benefits involved in belonging to a United Canada.
There are great difficulties in any attempt to unravel the complicated financial transactions in the public and private sectors which, together, make up the fabric of the Canadian economy. Mr. Ian Urquhart is the author of the article to which my colleague referred. He must have obtained much of his data on federal expenditures and revenues in the province of Quebec from the Department of Finance. The information he was given is generally available to all Canadians who ask for it. There are many other figures on federal expenditures and revenues available, by province, from published sources, information on such topics as intergovernmental transfers and payments to persons, such as family allowances and old age pensions for example.
For most other items Mr. Urquhart must have used his own assumptions in order to allocate federal revenues and expenditures to the province of Quebec. This is a most difficult exercise and many people will try it, but the problems involved cannot be overemphasized. For example, how would one distribute defence expenditures among provinces? Should it be on the basis of where the Department of National Defence spends its money, or on the basis of who benefits from national defence? Money goes to communities in which there are defence establishments or defence production plants, but all Canadians benefit from this activity, although not necessarily equally.
Similar problems arise on the revenue side, problems of what are called the incidence of taxation. Who actually bears the taxes collected from a particular business? Are the taxes borne by the shareholders where they are, by the wage earners where they are, by consumers where they are, or by other levels of government? Therefore, it would be very difficult to comment on the accuracy of the study published by Mac Lean's magazine.
As I said earlier, some of his data are publicly available, but since he has not specified his methodology it would be difficult to comment on them. We can only note, as the author himself indicated, that the province of Quebec has produced its own studies with very different results regarding federal expenditures and revenues in Quebec. The fact that the, province of Quebec produced different results only shows that the results of such studies depend very much on the methods and assumptions that are used.
March 15, 1977

I had to note also that similar difficulties would be encountered by making parallel analyses and observations about any of the provinces of our Confederation.


AGRICULTURE-PESTICIDES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON IMPORTATION-SUGGESTED STRICT ADHERENCE TO LABELLING REGULATIONS
George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, on March 7 I questioned the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with respect to his policy regarding the importation of pesticides and herbicides from the U.S.A. by Canadian farmers for their own use.
This capitulation to the multi-national companies at the expense of the Canadian farmer was disguised as an environmental safety precaution. Moreover, the monitoring system which would ostensibly protect the farmer and ultimately the consumer will be headed by a toothless, bureaucratic body. Under the past system, some farmers were effecting real savings by banding together and going south of the border for their purchases of agricultural chemicals. This in turn forced Canadian distributors of the American products to cut their prices.
Suddenly we find that regulations under the Pest Control Products Act have been amended to revoke an exemption previously given to the farmers. This is supposedly the result of an in-depth study that concluded that the "own use" exemption was inconsistent with the intent of the act to ensure safe and effective pesticides use in Canada, apparently safeguards on imports by a producer for his own use were weaker than those on Canadian registered products.
The minister claims that protection of a domestic industry was only a secondary consideration. The move gives every appearance though of being a canny manoeuvre to impose an embargo on pesticides in favour of multi-nationals distributing their products in Canada through dealers.
Of Canada's 300,000 farmers, the minister claims that 2,000 will benefit from the monitoring system. From past experiences, I am skeptical. Studies, reports to the minister, negotiations with the companies, procrastination, will frustrate the farmer and increase his production costs, which can only be reflected in higher food costs to the consumer.
The minister admits that 99.6 per cent of prairie farmers already buy a Canadian produced and distributed product. Was the embargo called for by the remaining .4 per cent or by Ontario corn farmers? Not highly likely! The pesticide companies became acutely aware of the benefits accruing to farmers who imported their own chemicals. They were forced to lower their prices to offset inventory surpluses and to attract their customers back. They asked for action, and were of course satisfied. The minister cannot honestly believe, and expect us to believe, that the embargo will foster a truly domestic pesticide industry, one where the decisions will be made by Canadians, in the interests of Canada.
In a speech to the Ohio Pesticide Education Association, the minister admitted that almost all pesticides used in Canada
Adjournment Debate
originate outside the country. The Canadian industry then is mostly a distribution business, almost completely dependent on active ingredients produced in the U.S.
Does the minister have any evidence he would like to share that, under the present circumstances, new industries are going to proliferate in Canada? My suspicions are that this is just another way the govermment has allowed multi-national companies to gain more control over our country.
The farmers' practice of importing their chemical directly, at a lower cost, was deemed an inequity partly because farmers living farther from the border could not profit in the same way. I maintain that the real price inequity was created by the middlemen, the distributors of the chemicals in Canada. This embargo will leave pricing totally in their hands. The farmers will be at their mercy. The watchdog committee does not impress me as an instrument to protect us from the gouging I foresee.
If the minister were truly concerned about protecting domestic agriculture, why did he not select one segment already established, one which is clearly in need of help-the food processing industry, for example? This industry has long suffered at the hands of the government's agricultural policies. This has had widespread effects on the survival of many segments of agribusiness. But the minister insists on promoting a domestic pesticide industry.
The fruit and vegetable processing industry has no guarantee of assistance beyond the arrangements provided for under the Customs Tariff Act and the Anti-Dumping Act. Overproduction in other countries frequently results in prices below cost of production, which can seriously affect industries here. Take, for example, the tomato industry in southern Ontario. Once a healthy canning interest, this segment has been continually jeopardized by cheap imports from Taiwan and Mexico. Now only a ghost of the former industry remains. Farmers, labourers, and the canneries have suffered.
Another example is the importation of "stripper potatoes" into Canada last fall. In the U.S. these substandard potatoes, culls from the regular harvest, are treated as secondary produce. But they were not so treated by the government here. Subsequently these imports enjoyed a favourable price position vis-a-vis domestic harvest. Why was there no embargo on these?
Low cost imports from the United States and Australia have cut into domestic peach and pear production as well. Processors have been forced out of business. Once the domestic industry is deposed there are no guarantees that foreign distributors will not raise their prices to whatever the market will bear.
The Horticultural Council has been calling for change for some time. I quote from its submission to the Tariff Board in 1973:
The inequities which currently exist in the exceptionally benign entry terms for concentrated processed fruits and vegetables, especially those used for further manufacture, have inhibited the development of major processing sectors


VETERANS AFFAIRS-STATUS OF PLAN FOR NEW HOSPITAL SYSTEM IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the veterans of Canada did me a very great service a number of years back, and I hope to do the veterans of Nova Scotia some small service by taking part in the late show this evening. I can put the case for the development of a new veterans complex on the Camp Hill site in Halifax no better than it was presented on February 24, 1970, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by Mr. D. A. Hartlen, secretary-manager of the Scotia branch No. 25 of the Royal Canadian Legion. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said, in part, that his members-
-do strongly oppose the phasing out of DVA hospitals across Canada and the reducing of staff at such hospitals.
Veterans stand apart in that they gave their all to their country, even through death.
For those who paid the supreme sacrifice there is little the government can do but to see their dependents are not in need.
I do not think that any words of mine could ever really add to the message which Mr. Hartlen so well presented to the Prime Minister at that time. The question was the future of veterans hospitals.
Perhaps the message did get through to the Prime Minister because the government started to develop the concept of a new veterans complex on the Camp Hill site in the centre of older Halifax. Looking at my file on this matter, which has mellowed through age but has not really achieved the results I would have liked to see, I notice that in 1971 I was engaged in brisk correspondence with the then minister of veterans affairs, Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube, over the future of the Red Cross Lodge at the Camp Hill hospital and I was assured by Mr. Dube that in the negotiation of any future agreements of transfer Red Cross Lodges would be fully protected for as long as the Canadian Red Cross continued their operations for the welfare of hospital patients, meaning veteran hospital patients.
Then I move on to the time when the veterans affairs committee met on April 25, 1972, when Dr. K. S. Ritchie, assistant deputy minister of hospitals of the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the situation so far as Camp Hill hospital was concerned was quite fluid at the time. He went on to say:
There was a task force established some two years ago-
That would be in 1970.
-to study the possibility of a joint-use hospital on the Camp Hill site which will involve the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of National Defence, the university-
That would be Dalhousie University.
-and the community in a community hospital, and also for rehabilitation.
March 15, 1977

Then let me march on briskly without further comment to October 22, 1974, when again the veterans affairs committee is meeting. At that time I raised certain questions, and Dr. A. F. Jones, director general of treatment services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, was answering. He said:
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the consultants, there are four local Halifax firms under consideration by the Department of Public Works, which is charged with the responsibility for designating them with the concurrence of our minister, and this designation is to be made hopefully in the very near future. The target dates for the planning are one year from September, and hopefully the tenders will be let a year from September. This was the target frame proposed at the time the announcement was made.
MR. McCleave: A year from last September.
Dr. Jones: That is right.
That was the exchange which took place almost three years ago. Perhaps even before that time-I am not quite sure, memory tends to fade over the years-there was a very beautiful brochure presented showing what Camp Hill hospital should be like. There were negotiations, discussions, and a great beating of drums between the federal and provincial governements; there were visitations back and forth, statements by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), and statements by the provincial minister of health in Nova Scotia, and still nothing concrete has been realized.
I suspect-I do not know-that the hospital perhaps has become a victim of a retrenchment program of the present government practised both here and on occasion by the provincial government of Nova Scotia, but I do not know, and that is the purpose of my speaking here this evening. I want to find out when we might expect either some meaningful activity, or a statement that it will not take place and that the veterans of Nova Scotia will not get what has been promised to them over the years.
It seems shameful in a way that these people should be treated in such a fashion. It has been a long, long time, and I could make the situation seem much worse by an outpouring of hot, heavy abuse. One might call it a dereliction of duty toward people who, after all, when they served us did not spare their efforts. But I am not going to do that. I simply want to know: is it going to be or is it not going to be?


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to answer some of the important questions that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has raised with regard to the transfer of Camp Hill hospital. I think we should first realize that the principles under which the Department of Veterans Affairs has entered into this transfer business have been thrashed out in parliament over many years. It seems fairly obvious to many of us that the worry about not giving veterans proper care is not really supported by the facts that have taken place. It is our duty to care for veterans properly and creditably. Acute care is better carried out in acute hospitals which are under provincial jurisdiction, as the hon. member knows.
Adjournment Debate
The care of veterans who have been disabled in the service of their country is assured. Veterans who have reached the age of infirmity, or have some handicap for reasons other than service, have some priority in access to beds. These are the principles under which we are working. Of course the hon. member will realize that these are the principles, plus the fact that it is important that the people who have looked after the veterans for many years as employees of these hospitals be not turfed out. The rights of these people should also be protected.
There is a certain amount of criticism. I do not want the hon. member to think that I am criticizing him for the sake of criticism. I think it is his duty to inquire and to make sure that veterans have proper care, but I assure him that we are giving proper care.
In the case of Camp Hill hospital, in 1974 a plan was developed to build a new active treatment hospital on the Camp Hill site, which would have involved the participation of both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence. I think the hon. member realizes that.
In 1975, the very next year, the Department of National Defence was unable to participate in the development of the planned 250-bed active treatment hospital, leaving only a 150-bed requirement for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and this is not a viable unit for active treatment from the point of view of size.
There have been very recent discussions with officials of the department of health of the province of Nova Scotia with a view to the transfer of Camp Hill Hospital to their jurisdiction, and I expect a final decision on the matter will be made quite soon. In the event of such a transfer materializing, the amount of money which previously would have been the department's share of the new hospital development will form the capital grant on transfer, to be spent in developing facilities for the benefit of veterans. I think that should be reassuring.
In the event of a transfer occurring in Halifax, the terms and conditions required by the federal government will be in full effect-this is what I have talked about-as they have been in all previous transfers.
There will be a guarantee of priority access beds for active treatment of all veterans for their service incurred disabilities. That is the first category. In addition, it will be established that regional health facilities can fully respond to the requirement of other than pensioned veterans as far as active care is concerned. In other words, we have to be absolutely persuaded that this will be properly taken care of.
Full arrangements will be made for satisfactory transfer of all federal employees of the hospital so that they will have, under the new jurisdiction, globally equivalent rights and benefits to those which are now enjoyed in the federal Public Service. I might add that both veterans' organizations and staff associations have been kept informed of developments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.


Wednesday, March 16, 1977