1977-03-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to move a motion under this most useful of standing orders, Standing Order 43, which has to do with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the collusive arrangements, which can best be described as a mutual concealment pact, made between the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of the United States, dated March 15, 1977.


An hon. Member:: Beware the Ides of March.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House demands that the government explain fully the circumstances leading to this imprudent and dangerous agreement and, furthermore, on the basis that parliament has the primary responsibility to inquire into the proper expenditure of taxpayers' money for the purchase of aircraft and supplies from Boeing Aircraft, that the agreement of March 15 and related circumstances be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, under Standing Order 43, a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the serious human misery and economic waste associated with the high unemployment level in all regions of this country, the tremendous need for low-income housing evidenced by long waiting lists in the urban centres of Canada, and the fact that the most recently available official statistics show that over 155,000
construction workers are unemployed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House urges the government, in the joint interests of creating employment and assisting low-income Canadians in their housing difficulties, to reverse the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as announced yesterday, and increase, not decrease, financial housing support for low-income Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Canada has the highest unemployment rate of its history, as there are over a million unemployed; that in the long run such conditions will only worsen unless we reject the entire modern technology; that owing to that technology it is increasingly utopian to think about full employment without going 50 years back, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House urge the government to introduce immediately a bill to establish a guaranteed minimum annual income for all citizens from 18 to 65 years of age.


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.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

Labour Relations


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the incredible inability of this government to come to grips with matters of unemployment in this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House direct a reference of the methods and procedures of forecast and advice on matters of unemployment in Canada to the cabinet, and particularly the Minister of Finance, be made to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
Last March 7, along with 17 government members, I visited the authorities of the port of Montreal. We saw then that a serious problem threatened the economic future of that port and might cause the loss of hundreds of jobs not only in the constituency of Hochelaga, but also in the neighbouring constituencies. Given the answer made last Thursday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Dupont), to the effect that it was not appropriate to make any comments at this stage, and considering that several thousands of related workers in the port of Montreal as well as 1,200 longshoremen are involved, and that the company appears to have decided to leave the port of Montreal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the House unanimously request that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) set up a committee composed of four representatives of the government and one representative of all other parties who would meet the employers' association and the Cast Shipping Company Ltd. to examine that matter on which the economic future of the port of Montreal depends, without any prejudice to all the other ports of the Atlantic.
(Mr. Speaker.]
March 16, 1977


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of last night's excellent performance at the National Arts Centre by the National Ballet which marked their twenty-fifth anniversary, and in view of the Liberal government's inadequate support of the arts as witnessed by the necessity of IBM funding part of the cost of the performance, including paying for and giving to the cabinet a block of seats for the performance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request the government to re-examine its commitment to funding the arts in Canada, and in the future ministers pay their own way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Finance told the more than one million Canadians who are out of work today to just wait and see if their government cares enough about their predicament to try and create jobs. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, without revealing the details of his budget, whether he will give the House of Commons and
March 16, 1977

the people of Canada, including the more than one million unemployed, a firm commitment today that a primary target of the budget that will be brought in at the end of this month, and federal economic policy generally, will be to break the existing pattern of growing unemployment and get Canadians back to work.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had been observing and listening to the government's words and actions, he would know that his question is purely rhetorical. It is obvious that the budget is going to be showing very great concern for the unemployment situation. We do not need the Leader of the Opposition to ask that kind of question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have been watching the mainly words and ineffective action of the government during a decade of drift in national economic policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: So have more than one million Canadians, the highest total in the history of this country, who are now out of work because of the policies of this government. I ask the Prime Minister again, if not out of courtesy to this House then at least to demonstrate some care for the plight of the million Canadians, and millions more dependent on them, who are now out of work, to give us an unequivocal commitment right now that the major thrust of the budget which is shortly to be brought down and of government economic policy will be to break the pattern created by the government by its words and by its actions and create conditions as soon as possible which will find jobs for those who need work now in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The first intervention of the opposition was properly called a rhetorical question. And now, that is a rhetorical suggestion. Thank you very much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister plays word games while a million Canadians are out of work.


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague asks the Liberal question "What's a million?" It is now "What's a million unemployed?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask the Prime Minister now, since the budget measures, if there are any, to create employment in Canada will take at least six months to work through the economy, and since the job creation projections of the government have already fallen short by 100,000 of their target for last year, whether the government is planning to
Oral Questions
introduce any new job creation programs which will help to get Canadians back to work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the budget debate has not yet begun.


Charles Joseph Clark: I missed the Prime Minister's reply,. I presume, sir, I did not miss much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURES TO SIX PROVINCES WITH HIGHEST LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask the Prime Minister now whether the government is prepared to seriously consider changing some of its public spending policies to divert funds to those six provinces in Canada where the rate of unemployment today is above the national average.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is certainly something we are looking at and I would be interested to hear from which particular provinces the Leader of the Opposition would wish us to divert funds.


An hon. Member:: That is easy.


POSSIBILITY OF INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY TO AVOID FUTURE HIGH LEVELS OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: My question is also for the Prime Minister. As we now, unfortunately, live with an unemployment figure of one million, would the Prime Minister tell us whether any steps have been taken at least to evolve an industrial strategy for Canada to ensure that in the coming years this chronic type of unemployment will not continue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House has heard on different occasions statements on elements of our industrial strategy by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I think one of the reasons the country is in difficulty is that Canadians are living beyond their means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The government is living beyond its means.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can see that the opposition is prepared to start the budget debate now but not to hear the answers now.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has told us that people are living beyond their means, is he aware that according to 1976 figures it was increased government expenditures which led all increases of expenditures in Canada; they went up 13.5 per cent?


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question.

March 16, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At least adhering to the theory that a supplementary question must grow out ot the answer to the one asked previous to it, I can scarcely grant a supplementary question to an unanswered question. The hon. member for Broadview.


FINANCE
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that CMHC's budget, which was tabled yesterday, contains a massive swing away from the funding of rental housing for low and moderate income Canadians, and in view of high unemployment for construction workers and CMHC figures which show low vacancy rates in metropolitan areas across Canada, may I ask the minister to reserve the incredibly regressive and unfair policy announced yesterday and to increase financial housing support for low income Canadians?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult with my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in this regard. I would remind the hon. gentleman that in the year just completed we have constructed a record number of houses, particularly, as he knows, in the low income area.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that it has been decisively documented that the Canadian Council on Social Development has indicated that one third of all Canadians cannot afford decent housing, and that programs like assisted rental and AHOP do not help them because they are directed at families with higher incomes, and given our severe shortage of rental housing, how does the Minister of Finance plan to assist families with incomes below $10,000?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, both from his constituency and mine, the government of Canada has taken the lead in providing housing for low income families, for example in the Dundas-Sher-bourne project where we pay 95 per cent of the capital cost. It is a continuation of that kind of assistance which will, in addition to the AHOP program, be of most assistance on the government side.


John Gilbert: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would draw the minister's attention to this year's record number of unsold and over-priced housing completions. In view of the fact that last year's record number of housing starts are priced at levels well beyond the capacity of most Canadian families, will the minister reconsider the budget allocations for the non-profit and co-op programs, allocations which, as they presently stand, have not been increased to account for inflation factors?
{Mr. Stevens.]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just emphasize the fact that the great weight of the federal government's housing policy has been for those in low income groups.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
A book recently published by Mr. Pierre Vallieres clearly infers that, both before and during the October 1970 crisis, the Prime Minister played a part which had consequences, which cast very serious doubts on his integrity during the October 1970 crisis. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what steps he will take to disprove these allegations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vallieres was himself a member of the FLQ. The hon. member should therefore realize that his statements might not be quite objective.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since the Prime Minister has kindly offered to co-operate to a possible inquiry into the October 1970 crisis by the Quebec government, could he tell the House clearly and precisely why he limits his co-operation to a provincial jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Quebec justice minister would meddle with areas of federal jurisdiction. His inquiry cannot deal with matters under federal jurisdiction. I recently suggested to the hon. member that if there were ways whereby we could voluntarily provide the justice minister with information which could help him, we should be glad to co-operate.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPORT OF NOVEMBER 20, 1970 AND PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER, 1970 CRISIS
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a final supplementary.
The Prime Minister knows very well that all explanations required by the House and the public are under federal jurisdiction. In other words, will he agree to make public the committee report dated May 7 and submitted to the federal cabinet on November 20, 1970, as well as the proceedings of the numerous working sessions of that committee which were held before the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte and the promulgation of the War Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what the hon. member is referring when he gives those dates and references, but the question itself is misleading because he says it concerns essentially the federal
March 16, 1977

jurisdiction. Moreover the hon. member should remember that his party supported the federal government at the time of the promulgation of the war measures. He should also remember that the federal government did nothing less than promulgate an act which allowed the province of Quebec, through provincial police forces, to take certain measures, to bring some people before the court, and that the province of Quebec also asked the federal government to send the Canadian army there. All the government did was to cooperate with the province of Quebec.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of the presentation of estimates, particularly supplementary estimates (D). Given the importance which the Auditor General has placed upon the need to provide more adequate and meaningful information in the estimates as well as the methods of examination as a prerequisite to restoring parliamentary control and accountability, 1 ask the minister if he does not consider the extensive use of $1 items as presented in supplementary estimates (D)-I might say there are some 52 of these in total-as effectively circumventing parliamentary control and running against the grain of the recommendations of the Auditor General. I ask if the minister intends to do anything about this particular abuse since it is clearly in violation of the accountability and responsibility of parliament.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: The hon. member's concern about the use of $1 votes in supplementary estimates for potential policy items is a matter on which we would all prefer change, but I think the response to that would require a more thorough change associated with the procedures of the House to make it possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure whether or not the minister agrees with the abuse of $1 items, but may I simply ask the minister if he can say to the House whether he concurs with the use of $1 items as a vehicule for establishing Crown corporations, for writing off debt, and for changing legislation, which is done in supplementary estimates (D) as they have been presented in the House? Does he not consider it to be an abuse, indeed a violation, of the rights of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In so far as the hon. member's question relates to matters of procedure, it might better be raised by way of a point of order rather than as a question to the minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference I should like to point out that my question was not a question on procedure but a question on policy and on what the minister's
Oral Questions
position is with regard to the use of $1 items in supplementary estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That should be explored by way of a point of order, with all due respect.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware of and investigating the following problem, namely, that throughout Ontario there is at present a massive consumer rip-off being perpetrated by segments of the butter industry? Specifically, I am speaking about disproportionate and large amounts of lard being used in the production of butter and the sale of margarine as butter by certain companies throughout the province of Ontario. Is the minister investigating this matter?
[DOT] (M30)


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I confess that until the hon. member brought this to my attention I had not heard of it, but I will make immediate inquiries.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Has it been brought to the attention of the Solicitor General that a fraud has been perpetrated throughout the province of Ontario by certain butter companies selling margarine as butter and selling butter containing lard? Is the minister investigating this problem? Has the government been aware of it for some time? Can the minister report anything to the House on this matter?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, no report to that effect has been brought to my attention.


INQUIRY WHETHER THE FORCE HAS BEEN ASKED TO PROTECT SEAL HUNTERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Could the minister tell the House whether Newfoundland provincial authorities or any Canadian individual or organiza-

March 16, 1977
Oral Questions
tion asked him to dispatch RCMP reinforcements to protect Mr. Brian Davies and his host of Brigitte-Bardot-type whiners who have been viciously applying themselves these last few years and particularly last year and this year to prevent the fishermen who participate in the seal hunt on the ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence at this time of the year from earning their living? These intruders act in violation of the security rules of the Department of Transport and of the rules of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. Could he tell who made representations or demands to him, if any?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has established very close communications with the provincial governments and with security agencies in the provinces concerned. The first effect has been to increase the number of RCMP officers, even in some rural areas in Newfoundland, and in particular in St. Anthony's where the number of RCMP officers has been boosted from 5 to about 90. The RCMP is on the spot to maintain public order and peace, which should enable the fishermen to go about their work undisturbed.


ACTION TO PROTECT SEAL HUNTERS FROM HARASSMENT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Solicitor General. What steps is the minister taking to direct the RCMP to protect Canadian sealers, who are involved in a legitimate, government supervised operation, from harassment from these people on the ice?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as far as harassment on the ice is concerned, the RCMP is acting in very close co-operation with the Department of Fisheries. The RCMP is there is to assist the fisheries officers on request.


HARASSMENT OF SEAL HUNTERS-POSSIBILITY OF CHARGES AND MODIFICATION OF LAW TO PROTECT SEAL HUNTERS
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary for the Solicitor General. In view of obvious illegalities which have been committed at the front and in view of this unwarranted interference, have any charges been laid by private people or by the RCMP?
Will the Solicitor General consider modifications to the law in time for the sealing season next year to give further protection to sealers at the front?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the hon. member's concern. I am not aware whether charges have been laid against any participants to date, but as I indicated before, the RCMP is there to ensure that lawful activities can be carried out.
As to the question of amendments to the law, I would be pleased to take up the matter with the Minister of Fisheries.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Brian Davies is now proceeding to the seal hunt, and there is still a case before the courts concerning his deliberate contravention of the Seal Protection Act. Can the minister indicate what progress has been made with regard to the appeal? If the appeal is delayed too long, other people will use that as a precedent to contravene the Act just as Brian Davies did.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the hon. member some time ago, the notice of appeal has been filed. I do not know at the moment where it stands on the court list, and obviously the question of when it is called for hearing is a matter for the Chief Justice of the court and not for the Minister of Justice.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the agreement between the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of the United States dated March 15, 1977, with which I am sure the Prime Minister is thoroughly familiar, places an extremely restricted use on information gathered with respect to the sales activities of the Boeing Aircraft Company in Canada, will the Prime Minister explain to this House why his government entered into such a silly and improper arrangement which has the effect of concealing information from parliament, which, after all, in the minds of some of us on this side is still the highest court in the land?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government itself wanted to make sure that in this agreement care was taken so that the extra-territorial application of United States laws in Canada or Canadian laws in the United States would not follow from this agreement, and that is the reason there was a great deal of care taken in the execution of this agreement.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. I take back
March 16, 1977

what I said about the Prime Minister being aware of' the contents of the agreement.
It being now known that Canadians may use the United States freedom of information law to obtain facts, knowledge and documents which this government is afraid or unwilling to produce, was a reason for the agreement in question being made between the minister and the Attorney General of the United States to prevent the operation of that law both in the United States and in Canada so far as obtaining data about the sales activities of Boeing in this country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is capable of the most perverse interpretations of the facts. The position taken by the hon. member is really rather an outlandish one. Only two weeks ago hon. members opposite were demanding to know what the government of Canada was doing about these allegations by the Security Exchange Commission.


Charles Joseph Clark: Now we will never know.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As a result of our desire to find out whether there was any information involving Canadians which would warrant a Canadian investigation, the hon. member is now objecting to our entering into the very agreement which would allow us to have the information we require in order to make a proper assessment of whether an investigation should be conducted. It is no wonder that the Canadian public is so confused about the position of the opposition, and that confusion is indicated in the Gallup Poll.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POSSIBILITY OF ALTERING AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES ON INFORMATION CONCERNING SALES ACTIVITIES OF BOEING AIRCRAFT

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, given the track record of this government of successfully stifling judicial and parliamentary inquiries-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: -into collateral improprieties and misdemeanors with regard to a number of incidents which have happened in this country and which hang like a necklace of garbage around the neck of this government,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -will the minister not consider securing alterations to this agreement so that information will be made available to this parliament so that we can exercise our responsibility with regard to finding out what happened to money belonging to the taxpayers of this country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, such an agreement would not be obtainable from the United States. The agreement entered into yesterday is similar to agreements which were entered into by the United States in somewhat
Oral Questions
similar circumstances with, for example, Belgium and Japan with regard to the Lockheed matter. The agreement is drawn in accordance with United States and Canadian law and practice, namely that matters under investigation by police authorities are confidential until charges are laid. That is a well established practice not only in the United States but also in Canada, and thank heaven that that is the practice in Canada.



EFFECT OF AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES ON INFORMATION CONCERNING SALES ACTIVITIES OF BOEING AIRCRAFT

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of Justice. Because this agreement is not a very subtle restriction of the free flow of information, and a confidential release of this information is restricted only, according to the agreement, to law enforcement agencies to be used exclusively in legal proceedings, where would this leave a valid, legal and justified examination, for instance, by the Auditor General with regard to the public accounts relating to this matter or by a parliamentary body such as the Public Accounts Committee if, for instance, we wanted to examine officials in the Department of Transport, Air Canada or particularly the Department of Supply and Services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By its very nature that question is hypothetical.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's request that the CRTC conduct an investigation into the alleged separatist bias of Radio-Canada, charges of bias which have been made primarily by his own cabinet ministers, has the Prime Minister instructed those ministers to forward to the CRTC specific examples of separatist bias so that the CRTC can conduct a meaningful investigation under the terms of reference set out by its chairman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that anyone in this country who has evidence of bias will be communicating with the CRTC. I hope they will do that.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the CRTC has received fewer than six complaints about alleged bias, and since obviously the Prime Minister, when giving his earlier assurance that the inquiry was not a witch hunt, must have been convinced of the weight of the evidence of his ministers concerning such alleged bias, surely, since the

March 16, 1977
Oral Questions
Prime Minister called the inquiry on the basis of evidence which his ministers possessed, it is incumbent on him to instruct his ministers to forward those examples of bias to the CRTC, or else call off the investigation; because the chairman says that without hard evidence he cannot proceed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just answered by saying that I hope people who have evidence about bias will be communicating with the CRTC; and this includes ministers, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question needs to be addressed either to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice. On February 25, 1977, the Saskatoon parole division wrote a letter to the Calgary parole division about a certain inmate who is now on mandatory parole by right of law, who has been charged and involved with indecently assaulting females aged seven, three and 18, and whose record goes back to 1971. The Saskatoon board has warned the Calgary board that this person is very dangerous and could in future dispose of his victims. My question is this: Will the minister review this case with parole authorities both in Saskatoon and Calgary and also review the law which permits, against the will of the board, this man to be free in society in these circumstances, even under mandatory supervision? The man in question is now at large in Calgary.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question? May I point out to the hon. member that the individual to whom he referred was released because he had completed that part of his sentence under which he could be held. In other words, the statutory remission which was introduced by the prior government in 1961 applied, and the parole board had no authority to keep him behind bars. On the other hand, under an amendment passed by this government in 1970, the individual in question was brought before the courts in 1975 and a plea of habitual criminal was accepted by the courts at that time. If the individual is free today it is because he has completed his sentence according to laws in force in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask this supplementary question? I know the law was changed in 1970; will the minister review that law which was passed in 1970, particularly section 15 which permits these people to be parolled; and neither the Parole Board of Canada whose head office is in Ottawa nor the regional boards have authority to prevent the release of such dangerous sex offenders before their term of imprisonment has expired? I ask this question because there have been two murders in Calgary in the last month. Two young girls were murdered and one accused is being charged with committing the murders while he was on such release.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of statutory remission and of dangerous offenders will be brought before parliament I hope in the near future in the successor to Bill C-83, which dealt with a number of these concerns.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the anxiety of people not only in Calgary but in other urban centres of this country, will the minister investigate this case, to see if some other legal procedure can be taken to safeguard the public?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, of course I am willing to examine the matter, to see if there are any other safeguards which can be invoked. I am informed at the moment, after having examined the case in full detail, that there is really no legal recourse at the moment which would permit the reincarceration of this individual, since he has now completed his sentence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the act concerning the mentally ill?



WHEAT-NATURE OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH UNITED STATES

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the minister who reports for the Wheat Board. It has to do particularly with negotiations which have been going on between himself and the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Bob Bergland, whereby, if press reports are correct, there has been an endeavour to establish a cartel or price fixing arrangement. Press reports on the subject have been meagre, but public opinion has been aroused among the farmers of western Canada and those of the United States because of the stockpiles of wheat which are mounting. In the United States there will be 1.1 billion bushels of wheat by June, and in Canada, 550 million bushels. I ask the minister this: Will he take the House into his confidence and let the farmers, particularly of western Canada, know what agreement he entered into, and say that farmers will not again have to submit to the control of acreage, or of quotas, such as prevailed under the LIFT program, whereby farmers lost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars? That is their concern at this time.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, they are bound to be concerned if they have listened to very much of the talk of the right hon. gentleman, who refers to press reports and then obviously reads only a few of them. There has been a pretty full explanation-


John George Diefenbaker: By whom?


Otto Emil Lang: -of what we are attempting to do. Secretary Bergland and myself-
March 16, 1977

Mr. Diefenbaker. In parliament?


Otto Emil Lang: In parliament. The hon. gentleman was not present earlier to hear answers directed to the hon. member for Mackenzie, to which he could have referred. Those discussions are designed to lead to some sensible pricing at the bottom level, to protect farmers against what happens when reserves which are essential for food security in the world exist and are not appreciated as reserves but treated as depressants on the market. Mr. Speaker, I can say to the right hon. gentleman that as a result of five meetings I had last weekend across the three prairie provinces, and many more contacts with farmers,
I know that they are delighted indeed that we are taking these steps, and look forward, unlike the right hon. gentleman, to the success of those negotiations and, once again, to firm guarantees against too low prices for grain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the gratuitous observation regarding western farmers being enthusiastic about the minister received an answer in two provincial by-elections in which he participated. Instead of making announcements outside parliament, to the detriment of the House of Commons, will he immediately explain something of the plans he has in mind, those ephemeral plans of his, which will result in the western farmer getting another "lift" in that part of his exterior to which no reference will be made by me.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, once again the right hon. gentleman sprinkled his question with complete untruth, even to the point of suggesting that I had participated in by-elections in which I had not participated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if, instead of the right hon. gentleman's making these false statements and silly insinuations, he would ask question of fact, of course I would answer them and he would have every answer to his questions. But of course, he chooses not to put any questions at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether words such as "untruth" and the like are parliamentary. All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that I will not depart from parliamentary practice when I say that his statements indicate the antithesis of what the truth actually is.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of his assertion that Canadians are living beyond their means.
Oral Questions
I would like a little more precision with regard to this. Does he mean that too many Canadians are having swimming pools built?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will move on to another matter. I would like to address my questions to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister had an opportunity to consider the whole matter of writs of assistance in view of the compelling arguments against those statutory provisions whereby judges have no discretion in the issuance of these writs and there is no time limit imposed upon the duration of these writs? Having regard to the fact that some limitation will not impede law enforcement, is the minister now in a position to make a categorical statement that there will be changes in the statutes to bring these provisions within reasonable bounds?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question indicates that he believes that the use of writs of assistance should be continued. I indicated to the House that I was conducting a fundamental review of whether, and to what extent, they should be continued in our law.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Will the minister now commit himself to this House that in the course of his investigation he will, in conjunction with the Solicitor General, review all of the outstanding writs and make a voluntary termination of those writs that are not needed now by individuals in the RCMP in connection with enforcement of the Customs Act or for whatever statute they were obtained?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously part of the review that is underway. In the meantime, I have indicated that neither myself nor the Minister of National Health and Welfare will apply to the court for any additional writs. Obviously part of the review of whether writs should be continued will be a review of those ultimately holding writs now.



MANPOWER


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has several times indicated that the offshore labour program would be operative for farmers in 1977, and further, I have firsthand information that large numbers of farmers in my area, in Burlington and in the

Oral Questions
Niagara district, have applied at their local CMC centres only to discover that their applications are not being processed, will the minister instruct his CMC officials to process these applications forthwith to permit these farmers to obtain the labour necessary to get on with food crop production on their farms?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in arriving at the terms and conditions on which offshore labour would be hired this year, I fulfilled an undertaking I made to the minister of labour for the province of Ontario to write to her and giver her the terms and conditions, as I saw them and proposed to implement them. I have not had a reply from that minister. I telexed yesterday indicating that I wanted a response immediately because the farmers were waiting for an announcement.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. On the weekend the minister announced the appointment of Dr. Andrew Thompson to conduct an inquiry into the seaward side of the Kitimat pipeline. In view of the fact that the Northern Association of Municipal Councils received some $25,000 for transportation assistance from the consortium that is seeking approval of that pipeline and those municipal councils could very well appear before Dr. Andrew Thompson during his inquiry into the pipeline, will the minister advise whether there are any restrictions presently under the law or under the Inquiries Act which would restrict this kind of lobbying of potential witnesses who may appear on such a sensitive matter as the Kitimat inquiry?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I made the announcement on behalf of my colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Environment and the Minister of Transport. Any questions as to the inquiry should be directed to those ministers. However, in so far as this question is concerned, without giving a legal opinion, the Inquiries Act is clear that it is up to the inquirer as to who he hears and under what circumstances he hears them.



TRANSPORT


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, 1 will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, as suggested by the Minister of Justice. As far as I know, and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, the

present inquiry by Dr. Andrew Thompson does not provide any funding for adversary groups as was done in the case of the Berger inquiry. Why is there no provision that those persons interested in the environmental side can receive funding? Can the minister also advise concerning the first question I asked of the Minister of Justice about the lobbying activities of the consortium in terms of the Northern Council? Is there any restriction on that consortium in terms of lobbying witnesses who may appear before that inquiry?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be rather unusual to expect questions of assistance to various participants to appear in the actual order-in-council appointing the inquiry officer. That is a special and separate question which is being given some consideration, particularly by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. As far as the other question is concerned, I would certainly be glad to have a look at any more specific allegations the hon. member would like to make. I rather think the commissioner of inquiry will be able to take care of himself and his inquiry.



CRIMINAL CODE


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I will not talk about Fox, I mean phoques. I am sorry!
Given the current wave of sordid crimes, mainly in the province of Quebec, and given the fact that penitentiary guards are in direct contact with some dangerous prisoners and that they fear for their personal safety as well as for policemen who deal with such criminals who have no respect for the lives of others and, finally, since the people never know when they might come face to face with dangerous individuals, could the minister tell the House if in his knowledge and belief, he intends in the near future to introduce a bill to re-establish the death penalty in order to check the wave of crimes which has been increasing ever since capital punishment was abolished?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring specifically to a bill which was adopted by parliament in July last year. This bill on abolition was passed during a free vote taken by a majority of members of three parties including the three leaders of the four parties represented in this House and, of course, the leader of the party to which the hon. member belongs. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to go against the will of parliament. I only want to take my responsibilities and see to it that laws passed by the Parliament of Canada are applied.
March 16, 1977



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, if the love affair can be interrupted for a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mind you, I am envious. With regard to the high unemployment figures, particularly in Nova Scotia and throughout the Atlantic region, is the minister prepared to take the House into his confidence with regard to any intervention he will make to ensure that Canadian seamen, and hopefully Nova Scotians, will be given preference on board the cruise ship, Mercator One?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: My first comment is that jealousy will lead you nowhere, my friend. As to the main thrust of the hon. member's question about what we might be offering to the Atlantic region, as I mentioned to the hon. member for Egmont yesterday, we have indicated our support to the Atlantic area by signing an agreement with the province of Prince Edward Island. I look forward to going to Nova Scotia very soon where I will be having discussions with the authorities in an effort to escalate some of our discussions and conclude some of the agreements we have been considering for some time. As to the other part of the question, we are still looking into the matter and I hope we shall be able to achieve something.
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin



REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT OF STUDIES IN SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since the government and the public are concerned about the depletion of our nonrenewable energy resources, could the minister tell the House if research into the use of solar energy is going on quite actively and if progress has been made in the last two years? While on this subject, could he say whether he sees early possibilities of trying to use that energy in industry?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has been marked progress over the last couple of years in solar research in this country. There have been a number of demonstration projects supported by the federal government-I think there is at least one in every province across the country at the present time. A number of industrial applications are being considered, and I would be very pleased to provide the hon. member with details. We are considering a government demonstration project for Ottawa itself.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
*
* *

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. It arises from a statement made by the premier of Quebec in a weekend speech that by political sovereignty of Quebec he never said this meant the breakup of Canada. Does the Prime Minister consider that further concessions by the federal government to regional aspirations will meet the premier's objectives for sovereignty without the dissolution of confederation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 think it would be refreshing if the government of Quebec would say clearly that it was not looking for independence but merely for some form of interdependence. I indicated last week that if this were the case we would certainly be anxious to sit down and hear what better constitution they have in mind. But as a prerequisite to that, we would have to know that they are renouncing their objective of independence. I hope the hon. member will support me.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has examined Bill C-9 to approve certain agreements concerning the inhabitants of the James Bay territory, and I therefore have the honour to introduce the first report of the committee, in both official languages.
 *
*


PRIVILEGE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I believe affects the rights of all members of this House. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) does well to put down his documents, because this also affects him.
My question of privilege arises out of an agreement between the Minister of Justice of Canada and his counterpart in the United States. It has already been the subject of exchanges

March 16, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
between myself and the minister. The right of members of this House to inquire about the expenditure of public funds is as old and as cherished as the institution itself. Our rights today are so limited that any attempt sensibly to diminish them further must be regarded with alarm and form the subject of such a question of privilege as I am now raising. I shall be very brief because the issue is plain.
The agreement in question provides that with respect to information gathered covering the potential illegal sales arrangements or considerations or activities of Boeing aircraft and all its subsidiaries in Canada there is an understanding reached between the ministers, between the two attorneys general, which covers this particular activity of the Boeing company. Part IV provides that except as provided in paragraph 5, which deals with taking criminal and other legal proceedings, all such information made available by the parties pursuant to these procedures, that is, the procedures for gathering information, and all correspondence between the parties relating to such information and to the implementation of these procedures shall be kept confidential by both parties and shall not be disclosed to third parties, including government agencies having no law enforcement responsibilities- which, of course, covers this parliament, the House of Commons and all its members.
This agreement is a solemn convenant between two high officials of two governments to operate as a gag rule to prevent knowledge of certain facts being brought to the attention of members of parliament. It is not enough just to have criminal proceedings taken. The Minister of Justice may have in his possession a large number of documents and a great deal of material and information. All he has to do is make a conscious decision not to go ahead with criminal proceedings or, if he does, to limit the information to very specific cases. Everything else can go into the shredder, and there is no way under those conditions in which members of this House can discharge their constitutional responsibility to make an inquiry as to what are the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: As my hon. friend from Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has said, if the Public Accounts Committee or the Auditor General in the discharge of their parliamentary duties saw fit to call before them government officials, they would be prevented by the terms of this agreement from gathering the facts which would be essential to making a parliamentary inquiry. I am not talking about criminal proceedings. That is outside our jurisdiction at this moment. But there are collateral inquiries governing issues of potential impropriety and misdemeanours which from time to time need to be the subject of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, by this House or by a committee of parliament.
For these reasons, I say the agreement to which I have referred is an invidious and improper one, curtailing as it does the rights of members of this House, and if Your Honour holds that there is a prima facie case of privilege I would move,

seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr.-Baker):
That this House demand that the government explain fully the circumstances leading to this imprudent and dangerous agreement and, furthermore, on the basis that parliament has the primary responsibility to inquire into the proper expenditure of the taxpayers' money for the purchase of aircraft and supplies from Boeing Aircraft, that the agreement of March 15 and related circumstances be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I do not have a copy of the agreement in front of me, so I am unable to cite chapter and verse. But there is no question of privilege involved here, and to suggest otherwise is specious. It is clear from the terms of the agreement that it is drawn up in accordance with the domestic laws of the requesting and the requested states. Nowhere in the agreement are the laws of Canada in any way displaced by the terms of the undertaking or by any action taken thereon.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am joined in the motion and I want to say I question strongly the position which has been taken so blandly by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) that the right of parliament to know about matters which may be under investigation and in respect of which criminal charges have not been laid, and therefore our right to discuss and question these matters, has not been infringed.
The Minister of Justice said he felt the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was advancing a specious argument. I must say, if it is the position of the Minister of Justice that information will be denied parliament, and that is what the agreement says, that information will be denied to members of parliament or to the public accounts committee, that certain information will be denied to the servant of parliament, the Auditor General, I cannot see how, with respect to any matter that is being investigated and with respect to which a charge has not been laid, the minister can stand up and hide behind an agreement made outside this place. If ever there was a specious argument, it is the one advanced by the minister.
One more thing, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the level of secrecy involved, which may be normal, the first paragraph of the agreement recites that all requests for assistance shall be communicated between the parties through diplomatic channels. I can just hear how the minister of external affairs, the parliamentary facsimile of Ivan Head, would deal with the matter if someone ever had the temerity to ask a question. What this agreement does is effectively bypass parliament's right to question, parliament's right to information, and the servant of parliament's right to information. I do not suspect that the Minister of Justice has taken leave of his senses, but I do think that his observations with respect to what is right and what is wrong, in terms of disclosure to parliament, indicate that his attitude to parliament is all wrong. Surely this place, as much as the Minister of Justice, has the right to know.
March 16, 1977

This agreement with the Boeing company, its subsidiaries or affiliates, does not strangle parliament, but it does close a door on parliament. In that sense my rights and the rights of all members to question are affected and I hope Your Honour will so find.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise a general question of privilege relating to some documents in the possession of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) but was not any more specific than that in his notice. Certainly, no more specific notice was required by the Standing Orders. This question touches on the interpretation of an agreement. The Minister of Justice does not have the agreement here and, as he said in his brief intervention, he was not yet prepared to cite it.
I wonder whether it would be advisable, under the circumstances, to put the matter over for further argument for 24 hours to enable a better argument to be made. I would expect to reserve and to examine that argument carefully, and to pronounce judgment on it at some later time. If that benediction is understood, at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon I will call for argument. I would not expect it to be lengthy, but at least it would be in more detail by making sure that the parties had an opportunity to make reference to the agreement specifically. The argument might then be of more assistance to the Chair in coming to a conclusion on this very important question.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order having to do with an observation that Your Honour made in the course of the question period which concerned me and some of my colleagues. I do not think it was a ruling and I know I should not question your ruling, but when the hon. member for York-Simcoe was attempting to be heard on a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, a question supplementary to one which the Prime Minister had not answered-in fact, he remained in his seat-Your Honour used the words, and I think I got them down, "a supplementary cannot flow from a question that is not answered".
I rise only to ensure that Your Honour did not mean that no question at all could flow from a question that was not answered. I put it to Your Honour, with the greatest respect, that quite often failure to answer might raise a question. If that ruling was allowed to stand, it could apply to any question following a question that was not answered, and it could leave us in the position where, if a minister did not wish to answer a question with respect to any matter and he anticipated a supplementary or a series of questions, he could refuse to answer the one question. If that was the ruling which Your Honour made, though I do not think it was, then no other question could flow. I raise this matter so that if Your Honour does wish to clarify the matter, I would certainly like to hear such clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: I can put at ease the mind of the hon. member and other hon. members. I have no difficulty in saying that there could be situations where an unanswered question might
Message from the Senate
give rise to a supplementary. 1 must confess some difficulty in allowing supplementaries where a question is not answered, because in fact supplementaries ought to flow out of an answer that is given to a question. While that may be the norm, I would not want to make it a general pronouncement that under no circumstances would 1 permit another question if the one which had been put had not been answered. That would not be the general case.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND BANK ACT
Anthony Chisholm Abbott: for leave to introduce Bill C-42, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and to amend the Bank Act and other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof.


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

Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-408, to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which I am asking the House to pass on first reading today, is essentially the same as that introduced by the hon. member for Temiscamingue, the late Real Caouette.
The bill provides specific measures to deal with the problem of inflation. At a time when the government speaks of putting an end to the anti-inflation controls, this bill becomes even more timely. It is therefore with pride that I take over from the late Real Caouette and recommend this bill to the approval of the House of Commons.


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

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform this House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

March 16, 1977
Immigration Act


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 15, 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.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, last night before the adjournment of the debate I was canvassing the situation with regard to the present Immigration Act. I had a number of very serious criticisms to make with regard to the application of the act, the introduction of regulations and the postulate that these regulations have expressed the will of parliament, and a number of other points. I do not retract any of the statements I made last night.
Now I should like to turn to the bill before us. I want to make it very clear that while I have some pertinent questions to raise with regard to some of the clauses as they now appear, I think the present legislation, in some respects, is an improvement on the previous act and its application, and therefore it should receive the approval of the House to at least send it to committee where representations will be made. I have heard

the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and others on the government side say that representations will be made on behalf of various interested persons and that the minister and his officials will be questioned much more closely as to the intent in the administration of the act and its interpretation, and also that the minister and his officials will have an opportunity to introduce the regulations. That point should be almost non-negotiable for the further passage of this legislation beyond the report stage. The regulations should be there to be seen, because they are the heart and core of this act. I hope the House will agree, either later this day or at a very early opportunity, with the sending of this bill to the committee for further consideration. It is not acceptance in principle.
There are a number of points that I want to raise with regard to the bill. Under clause 12 it is proposed, quite rightly so, that every applicant for landed immigrant status in Canada shall appear before an immigration officer. That is understandable. But what concerns me is that now, in many ports of entry, the immigration officer in the first line is a customs officer. It is not every Tom, Dick and Harry who is trained and qualified to be a customs officer who should be an immigration officer. An immigration officer is a man of particular skill who has important decisions to make. True enough, if the first-line immigration officer has any question about the application of the applicant, then it passes on to a second-line examination carried out, I understand, by an immigration officer, not a customs officer.
I have a particular interest in the Department of National Revenue, and 1 know the problems they are having with the customs officers. I understand that adequate steps will be taken-and this is a point I will make on another occasion-to provide adequate facilities for the better training of our customs officers so they can cope with both customs problems and immigration problems. It may be a training college or some other facility, but it would be more than just passing an examination of the public service. The requirement would be attendance at a familiarization course of indeterminate duration and then being placed at a port of entry where that individual would perform both as a customs and an immigration officer. If this first-line immigration officer is merely a reader of stamps and visas to see whether the page conforms with what has been laid down in some manual, then I question the value of that requirement. But if that person is going to be a functioning immigration officer, then let us be sure that he is adequately trained and has the adequate background knowledge of the Immigration Act and the regulations, that his decision shall be reviewable and that there shall be a second-line decision. This is one point to which I take grave exception.
Applicants for immigration to Canada, under the present act, who are in the field arrive at a decision with regard to the assessment of points or other factors. If the total does not add up, the decision is not reviewable. That is totally wrong. It is an injustice to the individual concerned or any individual representing that person. As a man who has had a great deal to do with immigration, I do not want to see this practice continue under the act. There must be a procedure developed
March 16, 1977

within the department. It is not a question of going to the Immigration Appeal Board, but there again I am uncertain because I have also serious doubts as to civil rights and natural justice in the denial of access to the Immigration Appeal Board. Frankly, between what was passed two or three years ago with the limitation on the Immigration Appeal Board Act and the changes embodied in this act, I could almost say that the Immigration Appeal Board is a superfluous luxury.
The jurisdiction and the administration of that board which have been introduced into the immigration process on account of rights and justice have been cut away, frittered, although not entirely, but I think also the board has become too much like a court. Members of the board have imposed upon themselves certain rules which I think were not intended. So I think the whole question of the Immigration Appeal Board should be reviewed. It is not exactly relevant to discuss it here, but I have the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada with regard to the Immigration Appeal Board.
I suggest that the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada with regard to the Immigration Appeal Board be referred to a House committee for examination, because it makes some strong recommendations with regard to the workings of that board. I think that there should be some changes to the Immigration Appeal Board Act, but not those brought forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), who himself is subject to the jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Board. In other words, the minister makes himself the prosecutor and the judge by bringing forward legislation which controls the Immigration Appeal Board, to which he later must submit. .How do we load the dice? There will have to be some answers to that question.
There is another point to which I would like to refer. As I recall it, this bill says that there shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, colour-practically everything except age. For years I have been fighting the Department of Manpower and Immigration over its points system and with regard to penalties against people over age 35. I have been saying that this has been a practical denial of the government's stated intention that there should be no discrimination as to age. The public is not supposed to discriminate against people with regard to employment or any other thing on the ground of age, but the regulations under the Immigration Act say that that is allowable. I say that is wrong. I suggest that Bill C-24 is in contravention of clause 8 of Bill C-25. Clause 8 of Bill C-25 reads as follows:
It is a discriminatory practice
(a)	to use or circulate any form of application for employment, or
(b)	in connection with employment or prospective employment,
(i)	to publish any advertisement, or
(ii)	to make any written or oral inquiry that expresses or implies any limitation, specification or preference based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Discrimination on the ground of age is prohibited, and under the Immigration Act as it is presently applied-under Manpower form 1234-in any inquiry with regard to employment
Immigration Act
there can be an inquiry as to age. That is now to be prohibited under Bill C-25 but not under Bill C-24. Since this immigration legislation is to be geared to manpower requirements- and that is the prime purpose of Bill C-24-an inquiry as to the age of a prospective immigrant and the allocation of points based upon age is, I suggest, in flagrant contravention of clause 8 of Bill C-25. 1 am glad to see, for instance, that with respect to reunification of families, parents under the age of 60 will be admitted regardless of Manpower form 1234. That is a big step forward, because there has been great heartbreak and difficulty because parents aged 45, 50 or 55 have been "totally unemployable" in this country.
These people have been considered to be totally unemployable in areas where the officials have said there should not be any admission of unskilled labour. They are talking about the service industries where people can act as assistant managers in local restaurants. To the officials, that is an unskilled occupation. They think that working in a kitchen as an assistant cook is an unskilled occupation; but these immigrants know the language required, they have the necessary family connections and, 1 suppose, the ability to make a particular operation work. However, do not try to explain that to a bureaucrat. When you try to explain that to departmental officials, you get the blanket assertion, signed by the minister or any number of officials, that it is the policy not to admit any unskilled labour.
Who says they are unskilled? Is it Manpower? Do these people have to fall under the headings of bricklayer, carpenter, electrician, certified by a union or certified by a provincial labour board? I would like to see those who make that assertion try to operate those establishments and find out whether they are skilled or unskilled. Some of them could not operate a corner peanut stand, yet they call others unskilled. There has to be a complete change of thinking in this area.
Let me assure this House that all of Canada is not to be painted with the same bland brush. There are high demands today in certain areas of the country for so called unskilled labour. There is a crying need for people in some regions, and yet suitable prospective immigrants are turned down. We are told we can put Greeks into Chinese restaurants, or Italians into Hindu restaurants. This is the same throughout the service industries. I am told this in letter after letter. This nonsense is compounded by Manpower officials in the Department of Manpower and Immigration and sometimes by the human rights legislation of some provinces. This is just not practical.
I am hopeful that under clause 19 one of the carryovers of the old act will be eliminated. I refer to epileptics. The wording is not as clear as I would like it to be, because to me there are some weasel words of discretion which will make it very difficult in appropriate cases to get at the reason a medical officer who has different views from others will be more restrictive. I suppose I am getting back to the question whether the prospective immigrant or his or her representative can gain access to the information they need. In the past I have had experiences where people have been ruled not admis-
4042

March 16, 1977
Immigration Act
sible on medical grounds because of active tuberculosis. All that was required was a set of X-ray films examined by a radiologist and confirmed by a non-departmental official to determine that the original diagnosis was wrong. Over the years I have had many cases on simply that point. It is a question of being able to get at that information and question it. That is what I ask.
I raise another point which will have to come out in committee. The Immigration Appeal Board Act, which I do not have before me, provides that any person had a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board if the appeal is made within Canada. Somewhere along the line an innocuous-looking order in council was passed which said that "any person'' shall be defined as a "Canadian citizen." Therefore, we have the case of a landed immigrant, say a woman who has been here four years, marrying a person and not knowing that that person was not admissible to Canada. Perhaps he was here illegally. There could be extenuating circumstances which, for a number of reasons, one could argue before the Immigration Appeal Board. But, Mr. Speaker, unless that wife is a Canadian citizen there are no grounds for appeal and deportation must follow, even though the spouse in this country could then apply to bring the other spouse in from the other country, subject to ministerial approval. Mr. Speaker, how cruel; how wrong! What right is there, when the statute speaks of "any person", to abuse the right to pass regulations by saying that "any person" shall be limited to "Canadian citizen"?
To me, that is one of the orders in council that before the statutory instruments committee should be struck down because it is an abuse. That order in council, limiting the definition in that way, is entirely contrary to the spirit of the statute. But it made things very much simpler for the Department of Immigration. It applied a restriction on the Immigration Appeal Board, or the rights of persons to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board which might rule against the decisions of immigration officers. That order in council, to me, is a denial of justice and a denial-indeed, an abuse-of the parliamentary process.
I hope that in the regulations we shall see some clarification of that much abused term "moral turpitude" which has been used, like some of the general orders, in the Queen's regulations. If you cannot find anything else with which to charge a person, you allege that he or she was guilty of moral turpitude. Even the signing of a statutory declaration, which the person did not understand, signing under pressure from the spouse, was deemed to be moral turpitude and an excuse to exclude the wife of a man already in Canada as a landed immigrant. I hope that we shall get some explanation of section 10, and that students will not be limited to university and other institutions over and above high school. There are so many young people who must clear up one or two subjects.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unani-

mous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and hon. members of the House. I shall take only three or four minutes to make some positive suggestions which I want to see included in the regulations and in the statute. I think we have accomplished a great deal in our program of immigration by admitting students who have come into this country to finish their high school education so they can be eligible for university entrance. The trouble is that the requirements for university entrance are not uniform across Canada. Why say, then, that they shall all be qualified for university entrance only? Why cannot we bring them in, perhaps to improve their English? There are institutions, colleges and high schools which would do this. I have no difficulty introducing high school students to high schools in Edmonton on a selective basis. The classes are half empty in some places, and they are happy to do it. I am thinking of Mount Royal College, Calgary, and Concordia College in Edmonton, which can prepare students for university according to the standards of the university they have chosen. But section 10, unless amended by regulation, prohibits that. I think that is wrong. There should be more flexibility in that section.
Also, I want to see something done about the regulations and the application of those regulations with regard to special inquiries. I have read transcripts of special inquiries which to me, as a lawyer, cry out as an abuse of justice. They were filled with hearsay evidence, unexplained requirements, and so on. Individuals were intimidated by the very nature of the formal process. Frankly, they did not have a nickel's chance of beating the rap, to use that term, unless accompanied by counsel well versed in what goes on at special inquiries. Over the years I have read transcripts of some special inquiries and if those proceedings had been taken against the criminal it would have taken a court of appeal less than ten seconds to throw them out.
Also, why should the criminal have a higher right than the poor individual coming in as an immigrant? This process must be looked at, Mr. Speaker. If a special inquiry officer makes a decision, that should be reviewable on the spot by a senior officer, not somebody far removed, as now, at regional headquarters or headquarters. Why do I say this? A special inquiry officer may order the detention of a person, just like that, and it is not appealable. I also say this-and let me say here that I exchanged correspondence with the minister and I know the problems he is facing-that in Edmonton if detention is ordered by a special inquiry officer, it will be at the Fort Saskatchewan jail.
Mr. Speaker, there can be no more inhuman decision taken than that taken by special inquiry officers to place men or women into that common tank, that jail of hardened criminals. There is no requirement at the present time for separate facilities which would have to be maintained full-time. I would invite the minister, the deputy minister or anybody else to
March 16, 1977

accompany me into the tank at Fort Saskatchewan jail and see the conditions to which they submit persons who have not been guilty of a criminal act but for some reason or another have run afoul of the Immigration Act. They would not force that upon the meanest cur, but they would do it to a fellow human being. I protest that. Hopefully, negotiations are under way with the appropriate provincial authorities so that there will be adequate detention facilities for persons charged under the Immigration Act-but not the criminal tank. That is not their place.
I have had a lot to say about this act. I hope my colleagues in this House will allow me to appear at the committee when we have hearings because I am firmly dedicated to getting a most workable and humane Immigration Act. I have had 20 years' experience as a member of parliament and have fought many cases before the Immigration Appeal Board. Incidentally, I have not lost one of those I have taken to the Immigration Appeal Board. I can assure the minister that when it comes to the interpretation of the law in so far as those two acts are concerned, his officials have not been quite up to the mark in those cases where I have appeared. At least, the board has always ruled in favour of some poor individual.
We have to get a workable Immigration Act that responds to the needs of the country and the people. They shall not be mere chattels or cattle that we will be importing. We shall not handle them in this country any different than we handle Canadian citizens. They are human beings and they have the dignity of human beings. To direct an immigrant to go to such and such a place under penalty, or possible penalty of expulsion if that person should move, is not right. We would not do it to one of our fellow citizens. We have a great job to do with this act. I hope that parliament, in its wisdom, will accomplish it. I hope I have the opportunity of contributing in that respect.
I commend to my colleagues the passage of this bill to go to the committee so that we can introduce the necessary amendments and have the necessary explanations. Since many of us who could not attend the public hearings have a great deal of experience on all facets of immigration, perhaps we could make a contribution. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for these additional moments.


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, the bill under study contains statements of principle which, at first glance, invite our support. However, for a country like ours immigration is becoming a vital question, considering that through immigration we can or could control in a way the very nature of our country. Otherwise we would be ignoring the fact that different nations exist in this country. And since November 15, that fact has no doubt become more obvious.
Indeed, we saw last week the Quebec minister of immigration object to at least some provisions of this bill. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with some of the factors which make immigration a sensitive question in Canada. Of course, we
Immigration Act
ought not to fall into generalizations and charges such as those the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) indulged in last night when she said that the Quebec minister of immigration was being racist in his statements on immigration.
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not the question. We all know that every man should at the outset be considered as perfectly equal, no matter his colour, race, religion; this is obvious and of course I agree with that as does every one else in the House. But one would be blind not to find that to this day immigration in Canada has been a self-destructing factor for the province of Quebec, since immigration in Quebec has always been contrary to the national interests of French Canadians of Quebec. I would much rather it were not so, Mr. Speaker. But the strongest evidence of that lies in famous Bill 22. For some years now, the successive Quebec governments have all tried to deal with the language problem in Quebec, and up till now they have all failed and all met with disastrous consequences.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 22 would never have been introduced if immigration in Quebec had been dealt with normally but, as it was always dealt with abnormally, it follows that when the people demand that things be set straight which were always upside down, some think that they are revolutionaries who want to destroy everything. But, Mr. Speaker, nothing is to be destroyed at all when one says that it would be normal for anyone, regardless of where he comes from in the world, who decides to come and live in Quebec, for that person to integrate into the spirit of the majority of the people in Quebec. Is there anything more normal than that?
But for years and years the opposite happened, with the result that in the province of Quebec, where only about 4 per cent of the population are of Anglo-Saxon origin-yes, only 4 per cent in the whole of Quebec-16 per cent are still Anglophones in a Francophone province. Why? Because immigrants continually joined the minority instead of the majority, so much so that they had better schools than the majority.
They had more English-speaking universities in Quebec than there were French-speaking universities. The minority had more universities than the majority. And yet we Quebec taxpayers paid more from our own pocket to allow such a situation. This is ridiculous, as much as all Canada is ridiculous, and this is why we will have to reconsider the whole thing some day. In the meantime, when the minister introduces legislation concerning such a vital matter as immigration, it is very important to establish priorities. One of them already exists, and the minister admits it, for his bill refers to consultations with the provinces. It would have been shocking to leave out this priority.
But I think this legislation is deficient because it provides for consultations but not for a government priority as regards immigration. Although the Canadian constitution allows both the federal government and the provinces to deal with immigration, we should be wise enough in this parliament to decide
80010-49%

Immigration Act
that the priority should go to the provinces. In my opinion, there is nothing to argue about it.
Obviously the problem is not as acute in the provinces with an overwhelming English-speaking majority. Of course I understand that this matter is of secondary importance for most Canadian provinces but its essential and vital importance to Quebec should be recognized. Therefore I can only agree when the minister responsible for immigration in Quebec says categorically and clearly that an agreement is required in this area.
I understand that we could trust the honesty of the federal government but, Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec know what that means. We have trusted it for years and where are we now? The effect has been that more often than not we are second-class citizens, who are full of complexes and who ask themselves to what extent they can consider Canada as their own country. This is where we are now. Therefore others seem to be aware of this now. It is strange that this awareness comes at a time when Quebec is on the verge of independence and that we have been waiting so long, but these are the facts.
So I think that the government should display a more efficient flexibility and when it legislates on matters such as immigration it should at least realize that in that field the province of Quebec must have priority. That is why I feel consultations are not sufficient. Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that we almost have dictatorship with the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We know very well that consultations can sometimes amount to precious little and if we go back to November 14, 1976, we all recall that the Prime Minister was still taking the liberty of saying to the provinces: whether or not you accept it, that is what is going to be done. So he said.
He did it again. Even in the evening of November 15, his first reaction was not a wise one but rather he said: we are going to organize Levesque and his government. His first reaction was one of disillusion, like somebody who wants to kick over the traces. Mr. Speaker, since that time he has become almost bland and he wants to change everything. He is ready to do anything. We do not know what, however, but he said he would go as far as amending the constitution. If he is ready to do all that, he should begin by making changes in his bills so as to prove his good will, because people have had enough talk. Quebec has had enough. We want action, we want proof that federalism is worthwhile, that it will not continue to be a burden for us. So, to prove it, things must be made clear when such a bill is introduced. That is what I find unfortunate, and I think that it is so important that failing to think of solving that problem would prove there is no intent on his part to solve all other problems.
But that problem, Mr. Speaker, is so important, so essential that I wonder if, before introducing his bill, the minister should not have met the authorities of other provinces, especially the province of Quebec. Then he could have introduced the bill and said that he had the agreement of all provincial ministers responsible; we would have been able then to discuss the subject matter, its form, and reach a worthwhile and efficient conclusion.

But since that was not done, we are faced once more with a dilemma. I gave a concrete example of this a minute ago while discussing Bill 22. Some members seemed surprised at my making a connection over this but, Mr. Speaker, I could come back to it for a few seconds to show that it is a fact. Who created problems with regards to Bill 22? It is common knowledge that it was the Italian community of Montreal. It was not the Anglo-Saxons since there are none in Quebec. The vast majority of English-speaking Quebecers are of Italian origin, plus many other nationalities; they did it. I understand them and do not blame them.
But the successive administrations in Quebec have always tolerated these abnormalities, that is why it seems revolutionary to talk of correcting them, as I said earlier. Nevertheless, truth always prevails and we must see things in their true perspective. And if there is a problem in Quebec today and that terrible mess about Bill 22, it is because we have not been diligent enough to give the responsibility with regards to immigration to those who are best able to judge in this respect and, this being so, the provincial authorities should have had such a responsibility. That is why I still hope that the consultations indicated in the bill will have some effect and bring about an understanding to define precisely the powers of the various levels of government in this area.
But fundamentally, I believe that these things had to be said in the House. We will have to consider more and more the possibility of amending this bill to establish clearly certain priorities for the control of immigration at the level of the Quebec administration. Once we have control over immigration at that level, we will have nothing else to criticize, to find fault with in the federal administration in this area. Indeed there are those who will jump to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, when considering the facts I have enumerated a while ago, that we are trying to drown systematically the French-speaking element in Quebec. I am not saying they are right, but considering the way things are going on, we are inclined to think so. This is why I think the minister has very well pointed out the advantages of this bill, putting particular emphasis on the consulting process with the provinces. He took pride in the fact that he had introduced this provision in the bill. I can only congratulate him for having done this. But, Mr. Speaker, consultation is not enough nowadays, in 1977. Terms of agreement have to be determined and this is nothing less than giving control over immigration to those who are able to give it a direction likely to favour emancipation and openness.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much of the time of the House, but there are some specific aspects of the bill with which I want to deal since I think that the ramifications of particular provisions for Canada's international relations are very serious indeed. Why I relate specific provisions to Canada's international relations is because of the Helsinki accord and our capacity as a nation to persuade countries that refuse to allow their citizens to leave,
March 16, 1977

such as the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and a good many of the eastern European countries, to observe that accord. If we are going to be successful in terms of persuading such countries that their citizens have the right of freedom of movement from one country to another, then why, in God's name, have we included in this bill clause 115( 1 )(n)? Let me read this provision, since I fear the significance of it has been lost to some extent on the general public and it should be brought to their attention:
The governor in council may make regulations ...
(n) requiring any person or class of persons to report to an immigration officer before leaving Canada and prescribing the information to be provided and the manner in which such report shall be made to the immigration officer by any such person-
Any plain reading of that provision leads me to the conclusion that this is the beginning of exit visas for Canadians. I am glad to see the minister is flipping through the bill, because I should like to hear his response. Surely it is hypocritical of this government to condemn the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland and all the other countries who wrongfully refuse to allow their citizens to rejoin their families and who have violated the Helsinki accord, when the government inserts into this law the capacity to require exit visas for its own citizens before they leave this country.
The minister will probably say that this is a catch-all section, that the government is trying to catch some of the bad boys. Or he may say that this does not really apply to any particular person but refers only to illegal immigrants who are leaving the country. But the clause does not say that, Mr. Speaker. I have read what it says and I do not accept explanatory notes.
Clearly, there is authority under this provision to require exit visas for Canadians before they leave the country. If we are going to embark upon that route, I will feel awfully funny when I write to the local Czech charge d'affaires, as I have been doing to try to unify a family in my community, and as I am sure other members have who have similar cases, and ask why this oppressive regime does not allow the unification of families and why they continue to violate the Helsinki accord. The answer of the charge d'affaires at the Czechoslovakian embassy to me will be, "Look at clause 115(l)(n) of your own Immigration Act". He will say that all countries do this and we are no different from any other.
I urge the minister to withdraw this provision from the bill. The Helsinki accord cuts both ways, not just one way. We love to jump up and complain about other regimes, but let us look to home first and make sure that our act is clean. Then when the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) goes to the United Nations he will not have to hide clause 115(l)(n) when talking to his counterparts about their consistent violation of the Helsinki accord. I urge the government seriously to reconsider that particular provision. Although I have reservations about photographing and fingerprinting, to me this particular provision is the most iniquitous because it clearly gives the government power to restrict the movement of Canadian citizens from this country.
Immigration Act
I remember a long time ago we condemned the United States for refusing to allow a man called Paul Robeson to leave that country. The reason was that he was saying some very anti-American things abroad. He was complaining that society was racist and he was embarrassing his government. If a Canadian citizen wishes to leave this country and to criticize Canada, that is his right and I do not think we should restrict this kind of freedom of ideas under the provisions of this law.
I submit to the minister that what was done to Paul Robeson can clearly be done to any person in Canada no matter what are his political views. If this government did not want him to travel, they could clearly apply clause 115(1 )(n). This is one of the reasons out of many why we in this party will oppose this bill. We think this provision is so serious in terms of our international relations and the reunification of families in Canada that it strikes at the heart of the principle of what to some extent this country stands for, namely, the freedom to travel and to go abroad.
I am concerned, as many Canadians are, that we are dealing with the immigration bill at a time when we have officially one million people unemployed in Canada. At a time when we have high unemployment we face a very high risk in Canada of increasing racist tensions among people, particularly working people who feel far less secure about their employment and about the competition which may come from immigrant groups for their employment, and because of that increasing tension we have to be cautious about the approach we take to immigration. Some of the evidence that racism is growing in Canada need not be repeated. There are many examples of it. I am getting a little tired of going back to my riding and hearing someone in a men's club telling racist jokes. We should all look into ourselves and say that is not a respectable thing to do in this country; it is too dangerous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am tired of people who cloak racism under articles about immigration. The idea that we have to maintain a certain ethnic character in this country is an idea I reject. I think we can bring in people of whatever origin so long as they are needed in Canada. The problem up to now has been that we have not properly assessed our needs in terms of immigration. I do not see immigration as anybody's right to come to this country; I still say it is a privilege.
I know my friend, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), does not agree, but that is what makes our party so healthy. We have healthy disagreements on a number of questions. I say that those who see it as an excuse to apply racism in terms of their chance to deal with the unemployment situation should not be allowed to do so. I reject that out of hand. But we must consider immigration in terms of Canadian need.
The B.C. schools trustees association in my province recently made a decision that a film that had been made about the history of British Columbia which dealt with our own attitudes

March 16, 1977
Immigration Act
to various racial groups, particularly the Chinese, the Japanese and the East Indian communities, should not be shown in those schools. The argument they used was that that kind of film would be inflammatory. I say that their refusal to allow the history of B.C. to be told in the school system is itself inflammatory, is itself wrong.
We have to expose the history of Canadians in terms of the racial tensions that have developed. I am including, of course, the problems with regard to the Japanese and the rotten record of the Liberal government of that time in dealing with the right of the native Japanese Canadians. We have a poor race record in Canada, and let us admit it. We have a bad record with regard to the toleration of other groups, and the sooner we get it out of the way, the faster we can move on to tolerating people of various ethnic backgrounds.
Let me say how this is related to this bill. I am delighted the bill clearly does not discriminate on the basis of national origin, and I must say that that is a feature in the bill which could almost persuade me to change my mind about voting against it on second reading, except for this fantastic power that is given in terms of the discretion under the regulations. That in itself is too bitter a pill to swallow, even in the face of what seems to be some improvement in other sections of the bill.
I want to deal now with another principle which this bill does not protect. There are visitors to this country and there are immigrants to this country. Once in a while we have a visitor to this country who has very radical ideas, ideas with which probably very few people would agree. I am referring to people whose ideas may be unpopular in this country. But we should not be afraid of ideas. Surely we should be able to explore ideas. I am referring to the recent case of Andre Frank and the refusal to allow him to come to this country. Mr. Frank had something to contribute to the academic life of this country, but he was denied access to Canada. We have done it before. We still seem to have trouble distinguishing between revolutionary ideas and people who might commit terrorist acts. I say that the record is a bad one in Canada. We err continually on the side of excluding those people with unpopular ideas who are no danger whatsoever to Canada. I think we are strong enough and big enough as a country to explore a whole range of ideas. A few of them might rub off, and this would not hurt us at all.
I do not want to take a long time on this bill. There are provisions in it which require fingerprinting and photographing. I should like to ask hon. members how they would feel if they were fingerprinted and photographed each time they entered another country. I realize that this again is under a regulation that can be narrowly interpreted. We would like to see it limited. We do not want to wait and hope that discretion will be exercised in a proper way, because there have been instances in the past when that discretion has not been exercised in a fair way.
I want to say that I stand this afternoon in opposition to the immigration bill. I accept the principle that we have to limit the population in Canada in accordance with our needs. I also

happen to think that this country does not need 50 million people.
I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is here. I remember his famous remark about that subject some years ago. I liked the population of Canada in 1939. It was a nice place at that time. We had a lot of room and our ecology was well protected. I do not think we need to have all this growthmanship of developing another giant on the north American continent. We can be cautious about population growth. We can set an example to the world in terms of the way we relate our environment and our geography to the number of people who are in Canada, and we can keep this country one of the most desirable countries in the world by having a reasonable program of family planning and a reasonable program-


Mr. Epp:: A program for abortion?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -in terms of the country as a viable combination of population. I hear my friend saying, "Abortion from my point of view". I want to tell him that I do not favour abortion. I do not think he does. I suppose we could relate that to the bill. 1 do not favour abortion, but I do favour family planning. I do favour the right of the family to have a certain number of children for which they can plan, and I must say that the question of abortion is related to population, no matter how much we want to avoid that question, and we had better get to work on family planning or we will continue to have too many abortions in Canada. I can deal in another context with the civil liberties question. But we must continue to oppose provisions which embarrass us abroad, as clause 115(1 )(n) does, and which have the capacity for giving to this government far too draconian a power in terms of regulation.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, the first reading of Bill C-24 took place on November 24 of last year. Since then I have been concerned about the approach of the government to this most important subject. When we brush aside the sweeping generalities and the gloss in the bill, the proposed legislation simply asks parliament to give the government and its advisers a free hand in establishing immigration programs of unknown and unspecified characteristics. This raises an important question: does this government's past performance justify the kind of trust it is now asking for?
I will not dwell on the weaknesses or the purpose contained in this badly written and questionable bill; spokesmen for our party have already covered this ground pretty thoroughly. But I would like to give one or two illustrations of the defects of the bill before questioning the minister about the relationship between the bill and the government's immigration record. The minister's first objective is to establish and obtain demographic goals with respect to the size, rate of growth, structure and geographic distribution of the Canadian population. What does this mean? The government does not tell us how it will establish its demographic goals. It does not even define the term "demographic". We can only guess at the intention of the
March 16, 1977

government. Does the government mean that it will decide how many people will live here and there, and what their origins must be? If this, or anything like it, is so, I want to know what right a democratic government has to determine the composition and nature of a nation. There is a reminiscence of George Orwell here, and I do not like it. I am sure most Canadians will be equally concerned. The minister should tell us what he really has in mind.
The bill also states that the government will enrich and strengthen the cultural and social fabric of Canada by taking into account the federal and bilingual nature of the nation. Here is another fuzzy area. What does the government really mean? Bilingualism certainly has a number of different meanings in Canada today. In Windsor it may mean the forceful introduction of French schools over the objections of local residents. In Quebec it means French only for immigrants. I do not think the minister should allow any doubt to exist in this matter. Some people may feel that the government intends to continue catering to Quebec by ignoring legislation like Bill 22 and by sending to that province immigrants who are Frenchspeaking or who are prepared to accept the racial policies of the Parti Quebecois and the previous Liberal administration. What does it mean for the rest of Canada? Are we to continue to receive large numbers of non English-speaking immigrants who are encouraged to retain their languages and customs? I think the minister should come clean and tell us what he really has in mind.
I would also like to know what the minister means when he states that we must not discriminate in the selection of immigrants on the grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, or sex. This sounds more like a pious hope than an immigration policy. I am sure all Canadians wish to be fair and want their government to judge a man by his qualities rather than by his appearance or origin. However, having said that, I wonder whether Canadians would support an immigration policy which could make a fundamental change in the nature of Canada's population.
Surely the people who come to this country do so to join us, not to change us. So it must be advantageous for us to recruit people who are most likely to adapt to our way of life. Charity begins at home, and whatever we do in immigration should be geared to the interests of the Canadians who are now here, so in that sense, surely, it is important for us to discriminate. But once again the minister should make his position crystal clear. If he wants to turn Canada into a multiracial society without roots and without unity, then he should tell us. If he is really giving lip service to old cliches, then he should tell us that as well.
I am also troubled by the inference that the government may allow its immigration policy to be influenced by foreign governments. I suspect that this may have happened in the past, and I hope that my suspicions are unfounded. When the government states that one of its basic policies will be to meet its international legal obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian traditions with respect to the displaced and the persecuted, I wonder what this really means.
Immigration Act
If the minister intends to follow automatically the lead of the United Nations, then we may find ourselves supporting refugees of one type but not another. Events in Africa could easily lead us to a racial situation of the very worst type, and I do not think we should be tied to an international obligation that would place us in this position. Will the minister tell us precisely what the government has in mind?
While I am dealing with this subject I would like to have the minister's assurance that foreign governments are not involved in Canada's immigration program and that there has never been a foreign government involved in an immigration movement that has taken place without the knowledge or consent of this House. I am not talking about colonial times; I am referring to the more modern period that began after World War II. I am a little amused by the last objective, and if the government really means it, I must say it is long overdue. The problem, of course, is how the government is going to manage it. The bill states that Canada should promote international order and justice by denying the use of Canadian territory to persons who are likely to engage in criminal activity. All I can say to this is, "Thank God the government has finally come to its senses". But what is it going to do about the international criminals who are already here? The minister should tell us how many criminals are living in Canada illegally. He should list the number of persons with criminal records who have been permitted to remain in Canada in spite of such criminal records during the last five years, giving the reasons why these people were permitted to remain.
Now let me come back to my question. Does this government's past performance justify the kind of trust it is requesting? During the last ten years Canadian immigration policy has been a national disgrace. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the way in which it is handled, and I often have the impression that it has been running along out of control and out of harmony with national interests. This may not be justified, but my concern is shared by many others, and now that we are discussing the whole question of immigration the minister has an opportunity to put the record straight.
The problem of illegal immigrants must be fully outlined and considered. As I understand it, these people came to Canada as visitors and then stayed without obtaining immigration status. Most of them were people who could not meet our overseas selection standards or were barred from entering Canada because they were criminals, subversives, or in other prohibited classes. As they were permitted to enter without any form of registration or screening, there was no way of determining whether they were still in Canada after their visits were over.
How did we get into this mess? The costs have been staggering and the government has ended up allowing tens of thousands of workers to remain here who do not have anything like the minimum qualifications that are normally required, while others are lined up at immigration offices around the world. This has created imbalances in our labour force, taken jobs away from Canadian workers, placed great strains on our social welfare services, and is an important reason for our

March 16, 1977
Immigration Act
current unemployment situation. I want to know what has happened and who was responsible for it. When our party was in office, immigration was under the management of the Hon. Ellen Fairclough, and later under the Hon. Richard A. Bell. Most visitors, other than persons from a few countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and France, required visitors' visas to enter Canada. This gave us their names, and if they overstayed we knew who we were looking for. But even more important, the requirements screened out most criminals and subversives because they did not present themselves to our overseas officers.
When was this system changed? Who changed it? Why was it changed? Did the people responsible for the change understand where their actions would lead? The minister should list the names of all people who participated in these deliberations, with details about their advice and why it was or was not taken. He should also indicate how the situation will be handled under the new legislation.
One of our great economic problems is the low productivity of our labour force. There is no doubt that illegal immigrants who do not meet our worker requirements have contributed to this problem, but I understand that the entire flow of immigrant workers, when balanced against Canadians who migrate to other countries, does not give us the occupational balance that is needed to improve or maintain our productivity. Some time ago the immigration branch worked out a scheme with most of the provinces for surveys to determine the provincial worker requirements that should be filled through immigration. I am told by provincial officials that when the immigration flow was geared to this program it was very successful, but it was suddenly stopped without explanation. Would the minister tell us how long the program ran, who was responsible for it, and, most important, why it was stopped? He should also indicate how the new legislation will work in this area and what provision, if any, is being made for the systematic involvement of the provinces.
Some of my colleagues believe that most of the current immigration problems began back in 1966 and 1967, just after the old department of citizenship and immigration became the Department of Manpower and Immigration. They still talk about the extraordinary events that took place during the discussions on the 1966 white paper on immigration. As most of us were not here at that time it would be helpful if the minister would tell us what really happened. I have read the white paper. It is an interesting document. The words were right. But why were the results so different? Perhaps it will be clearer if I quote from the paper, which states:
-tbc unproductive worker, exposed to unemployment, will be the uneducated one who lacks the capacity for learning new, more complex skills... the productivity of the work force should not be offset by the immigration policy as it would be if a large proportion of the immigrants were unskilled.
This sounds great, and it is certainly an approach that could be supported by members on all sides of the House who have the best interests of the nation at heart. My colleagues who were here at that time tell me they went to the initial meetings
(Mr. Ritchie.]
of the parliamentary committee, convened to consider the white paper's proposals, with great expectations. But to their surprise it became clear that Liberal backbenchers on the committee were against their own government's position and began a campaign to have it changed. Meetings were held all through the winter of 1966-67 and they gradually became less and less productive. One by one the good ideas were discarded. Departmental officials had little to contribute and began to act as technical advisers. One provincial official from my province sat up half the night preparing for the questions he expected after the presentation of his brief. He was amazed whep he was not asked one significant question. Then, suddenly, the whole process ended.
On April 11, 1967, Jean Marchand, now Senator Mar-chand, told the committee that the white paper would be abandoned and he unveiled a completely new plan. Our members had spent the whole winter discussing a formal government proposal which was abandoned in 20 minutes without an opportunity for discussion. They thought they would be asked to consider a new plan, but there were no more meetings. It was a highly unusual move. Now that we are considering a new Immigration Act, I think the minister should tell us what happened.
When Mr. Marchand said that the white paper would be set aside he indicated that his department had devised a point-rating scheme for the selection of immigrant workers, and then he increased the number of classes that could be nominated by distant relatives. Rather curiously, in spite of what he had stated in the white paper, he stressed the importance of personal suitability over education and occupational training. He said that a brother would not be admissible solely because he was a brother, but he would be admissible as long as he ranked very modestly in the other selection categories. Provided he had good personal qualities, he would be admissible virtually without skill or education.
What did he mean? I think the minister should explain it in detail. Did he really mean that workers would be allowed to enter Canada without skills and educational levels needed in the labour force? I have noted that the percentage of unskilled immigrants entering Canada that year was 32 per cent higher than it was the previous year. Why was this allowed to happen at a time when the percentage of unskilled persons in the labour force had been steadily dropping at the rate of about 27 per cent for five or six years? At the same time unemployment was rising, as it is today, and the same Mr. Marchand had previously said that the unproductive worker would be the uneducated one who lacked the capacity for learning new or complex skills.
Mr. Marchand abandoned the white paper in April. Four months later an order in council was passed to introduce the new point-rating system. Why did it take so long? It would be helpful if the minister would tell us what really happened during this period. When was the rating system really established? Who were the people responsible for it? Did it require changes or modifications after its initial introduction? If so,
March 16, 1977

what were the reasons for the changes, and who authorized them?
Now I want to turn to a very serious matter that requires immediate clarification. For some time it has been rumoured that the immigration department had used unofficial quotas to control immigration from our traditional sources of immigration. I should tell the minister that I find this extremely difficult to accept, but I want his assurance that it has never happened, and will never happen in the future.
I have also heard that immigration advertising in some of the traditional countries was substantially reduced and that this was done at a time when offices were being opened in other countries where it was obvious that we could only obtain large percentages of unskilled applicants. I would like the minister to comment on this as well and tell us if there has ever been an instance where this has occurred. It would be a sorry day for Canada if it should turn out that this government has restricted the flow of traditional immigrant workers while encouraging the flow of unskilled people.
I have heard reports that one deputy minister of immigration told a representative of the provincial government that he would limit the flow of immigrants from one traditional country regardless of that province's requirements for skilled and professional workers, and that no explanation was given. It was even suggested that some kind of mathematical formula would be applied to restrict immigration flows from certain areas. I find this incredible and I want the minister's assurances that it has never happened.
I understand that one of the planks of the proposed legislation is the idea that people who are willing to go to designated areas where their services are in greater demand will be given preferential consideration at the time of selection. The idea sounds great-but does the minister really think it will work? I understand that it is not a new idea and it was tried out in the early 1950s and abandoned. I wonder if the minister will tell us about the the early farm workers, about the track workers' programs? I would like him to explain why they were not successful and describe some of the by-products of fraud and manipulation that went with them. There is no point starting back into the same old problem area. I want the minister to describe his reasoning.
In conclusion, let me say that I am not satisfied with the provisions of this bill. If it becomes law, the department will be able to go on its own course without parliamentary approval or understanding. Its track record, even in the few illustrations I have given, certainly does not justify this kind of power. On the other hand, if the minister will sit down with us openly and will honestly confide in us in the committee, we may be able to come to a mutually satisfactory position that will be in the interest of all Canadians.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, a number of members who have spoken on this bill have suggested that it probably will prove to be the most far-reaching and important legislation to come before this House not only in the present session but in the life of this parliament. We are
Immigration Act
deciding, in this legislation, what kind of country this is to be. It deals partly with economic questions and it certainly deals with demography.
My grandparents came to this country from southern Russia 102 years ago. They left Russia because the political climate of the country was volatile then, as it was for several generations afterwards, and because they were concerned about the future of their family. They did not want to raise their family in that political climate. They were people of very strong religious beliefs. They wanted to pass those beliefs, values and traditions on to their children, and knew that if they stayed in Russia those opportunities would be jeopardized and family life would not remain as it had been. So they left, at considerable economic disadvantage, and moved to the prairies of our country. They lived in sod-houses. They lived in southern Manitoba and moved to Saskatchewan before Saskatchewan was a province and was part of the Northwest Territories.
Later, my parents lived in an isolated part of British Columbia. Being concerned about the conditions under which their family was growing up, they decided to move again, once more at considerable economic disadvantage, from that isolated area of British Columbia to a more populated area of Canada in order to give their family the benefit of all the advantages which could accrue to them. Again it was the family that was most important to them. One thing that I have appreciated about my grandparents and parents-and I know that other members can say the same-is that they passed those values on to me. In my home the family is the most important thing to me. That is one of the reasons I sponsored the private members' bill which government members and members of other parties in this House supported yesterday. It is the protection of the children we are after. If we do not protect the family in our society, our country will go downhill on greased skids. It is the family that is important.
I am not the only member of this House who shares that kind of tradition. There are those in this country who think that members of our party are looking for a sanctuary for Anglo-Saxons. That is such a distortion of the truth that it deserves no attention. I would, however, like to put on record a list of the names of our caucus members which ought to be indelibly imprinted upon members of this House and upon the Canadian public. Let me just read to members the following names: Diefenbaker, Alexander, Mazankowski, Paproski, Hnatyshyn, Andre, Skoreyko, Epp, Yewchuk, Korchinski, Alkenbrack, Schumacher, Oberle, Jelinek, Masniuk, Elzinga, Friesen, Mitges, Schellenberger-


An hon. Member:: La Salle.


Benno Friesen: And La Salle.


Mrs. Holt:: You are being racist against the Anglo-Saxons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: Jack Marshall is another one.
80010-SO

March 16, 1977
Immigration Act


Simma Holt: You should object; he is being racist.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are not a Tory, but you will be.


Benno Friesen: Yes, you'll be Tory. There are those who want to label and almost libel members of our caucus because we want to have a responsible immigration policy. With the kind of a heritage we have in this caucus I should not have to emphasize, but seemingly I do, that we want an immigration policy because our tradition stems from that kind of policy. I am offended by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) when I read in Hansard at page 3900 that he said the spokesman for our party, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), said that the members of this party "do not give much importance to the principle of family reunification". I am offended by that. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said this afternoon, there are some words in this House that are considered unparliamentary. That statement by the hon. member for Vancouver East is diametrically opposed to the truth. He went on to say:
He is against grandparents of any age sponsored by a Canadian citizen being included in the family class and the retention of the nominated category. His rationale for rejection of the nominated category is that they congregate in the urban areas but independents do not.
Again I want to emphasize that I resent that kind of statement being made by the hon. member for Vancouver East because it libels members of this caucus. It does not do any justice to the truth. The kind of tradition and heritage that we hold in this caucus and in this House ought to put some kind of restraint on a member like the hon. member for Vancouver East. I might add that I and other members of this parliament refuse to be whipped into servile, cringing submission to government measures by that kind of emotional blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: What we are looking for is a responsible policy that is well defined so that we, as legislators, and the Canadian people know where we are going. We want a policy that is clearly defined. Other members have said that we need to have a copy of the regulations and the opportunity to debate the regulations just as much as we want to debate the statute itself. The minister has sat there and nodded his head, saying in effect that he will provide the regulations at committee stage. All he will do is nod his head. He will never put it on the record.
I wish the minister would say emphatically and unequivocally that the regulations will be before the committee for open discussion, the committee will be responsible for the revision of those regulations, and that they will be the regulations under which the immigration department will operate. Right now we do not know what we are debating because the operative part of the act is in the regulations. Let me illustrate. I turn to page 2 of the bill, the definition stage. Under the word "family" I read:
"family", for the purpose of any provision of this act, has such meaning as is prescribed for the purpose of that provision-

That was obviously written by a bureaucrat. What in the world does it mean? Where are we going with that kind of definition? Who knows what it means? I turn to page 60 of the bill. Under "Regulations" It reads:
115. (1) The governor in council may make regulations (c) exempting members of the family class from any of the requirements of the regulations and prescribing, in substitution for such regulations, special regulations for the purpose of determining the ability and willingness of persons who sponsor applications for landing to assist such members in becoming successfully established in Canada,
Nowhere in the bill do we have a clear definition or statement as to what is a family. Every culture is entitled to its definition of a family. However, we do not know what that definition is. If, as the minister proposes, we are going to be able to predict the immigration flow into our country, somewhere along the line we will have to know what we are talking about.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They will make orders in council in reference to that.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is correct; that is the way it will be done. The minister has become an Artful Dodger: now you see it; now you don't. Does he mean a nuclear family as it is normally and traditionally thought of in the North American sense? Does he mean the larger family unit that is thought of in some other cultures? I again reiterate that every culture has its own definition of a family unit. It ought to. That is not to say that defining it means we are any less caring about other members of the larger family unit. We are. How else would the minister and his department work on immigration, not ceilings but targets, as he calls it? How in the world can you establish a target if you do not know what the definition is under which you are operating?
Having said that, I refer to the recommendations made by the committee which studied the green paper and travelled all across Canada listening to briefs, listening to Canadians. I was a member of that committee and I recall the many hours we spent struggling with the formulation of recommendations. I also remember hearing people all across Canada saying, "I guess this is another government exercise which will cost close to a million dollars, but what is likely to come out of it? Will there be any relationship between the recommendations of the committee and the new bill which the government is proposing? "Well, here is an example. One of the recommendations appearing on page 45 of the report of the committee reads as follows:
Significant changes in regulations should be explained and defended before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Again I challenge the minister. Does he intend to take significant regulations, such as the regulation which has done away with the humanitarian clause, and include it in the family clause-I think that is a significant regulation-and take the time to show respect to the committee by explaining and defending them before the committee? The committee
March 16, 1977

recommended that where possible this course should be followed before regulations were put into effect. Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the flow chart of the implementation network which the minister and his officials have outlined. We see that back on February 14 they had already decided they would revise manuals and then refer the material to management. Apparently these regulations are already set for operation. The forms have been printed, the regulations have been drafted and they are ready to go with regard to them. Why is the minister so reluctant to tell us what these regulations are?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the catch.


Benno Friesen: Has he something to hide? Do the Canadian people not have a right to know what the implications will be? If he has nothing to hide, he will share them with us. Another of the views expressed by the special parliamentary committee studying the green paper read as follows:
The committee objects to the practice of issuing regulations under the guise of confidential departmental directives.
Again I would remind the hon. gentleman that all across Canada citizens were coming to us saying, "Is there to be any kind of comparison possible between the findings of the committee and the new immigration bill?" The most significant thing which in my view identified the bill before us with the old act is the fact that in both cases the regulations are being kept from the Canadian public. All we can do is read the Canada Gazette to see whether the regulations have been changed, and then we can find out what departmental policy is at a particular time. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is pretty shabby treatment of the Canadian people. I should like to illustrate what I mean.
Just a few days ago I received from the department the quarterly statistics manual, "Migration, '76" showing migration statistics up to the third quarter of 1976. As everyone knows, we are facing an unemployment crisis in our country; one million people are unemployed. So I was naturally interested in seeing what the Department of Immigration was doing in relation to the number of immigrants coming to this country in a time of such high unemployment.
On page 8, in table 3, the department outlines the flow of immigrants by occupational groups and province of destination. I may say I find this to be a very helpful document and I am grateful to the minister and to the department for sending it to us. But I was amazed to find out some of the things that are happening. Under the heading "Teaching" I find that in the first three quarters of 1976, 1,998 teachers came to Canada-effectively, 2,000 in the first nine months of the year. I do not have my finger on the need for teachers all across this country, but I do know that in British Columbia teachers are looking for jobs and I am sure that is true of other provinces as well. Yet I find that the department of immigration brought in, as I say, 2,000 teachers in the first nine months of 1976. I see here that Quebec, with 10 per cent unemployment, received 409 of these teachers, and Ontario 711. I wonder whether the Teachers' Federation of Ontario is aware of the number of teachers who came to Canada last
Immigration Act
year, and particularly to that province, in face of the unemployment picture today. The number of new teachers admitted to British Columbia was 263.
What startles me is that in order to qualify to come to Canada these teachers have supposedly to apply to the professional division of Canada Manpower in the central offices of large provinces; they have to qualify in the professional centres before coming here to work. I do not know about the experience of other hon. members, but any time I have gone to the Manpower office in my riding I have found they are very honest with me. They say, "Unemployment is running at about 9>/4 per cent and we cannot really do very much." Any time I try to intervene on behalf of a constituent to help bring someone into the country under the unification of families policy, a Manpower official says, "Yes, but with the unemployment figures we are facing today it really cannot be done." So I run up against a brick wall.
Nevertheless, we find that in a nine-month period 263 teachers came to British Columbia. Let me go down the list. Clerical workers. I would imagine that with unemployment running at 7V4 per cent across Canada, 10 per cent in Quebec, between 15 per cent and 20 per cent in the Maritimes, and about 8 per cent in British Columbia, clerical people are looking for jobs everywhere. There should be people lining up for clerical positions. Yet I find that in nine months no fewer than 7,478 clerical people were brought into Canada. Of those, 1,303 went to Quebec, 3,864 went to Ontario, and 1,101 went to British Columbia. Just a few weeks ago I tried to find a job for a secretary in British Columbia. I called up the Manpower office and asked whether there was any shortage of secretaries in the province. I was told that these people were Coming out of his ears, that he had more than he could handle. Yet the immigration department ratifies admission of 7,500 in nine months-all by regulation!
As for sales, I guess this is another area in which jobs ought easily to be filled. In a period of high unemployment many people who are unemployed would gladly take on a sales position if only they could get a job. The immigration department brought into Canada 2,040 sales persons in nine months, and I am wondering what the hundreds, if not thousands, of unemployed sales people would think if they found out that some 2,000 extra sales people were admitted to this country by the immigration minister. Of that number, 414 went to Quebec, 999 to Ontario and 332 to British Columbia.
In the area of machinists we are facing a critical situation, yet 2,400 came to Canada in nine months, from where I do not know. I wonder whether the machinists union is aware of that? With 10 per cent unemployment in Quebec, 400 machinists went to the province, and 158 went to British Columbia. In the fabricating trade, 6,533 people were admitted to Canada. Of that number, 1,769 went to Quebec. Just think of all the textile workers who are unemployed in that province, yet the immigration department brought into the province another
80010-5 0^2

March 16, 1977
Immigration Act
1,700. In addition, 2,782 went to the province of Ontario, and 671 toB.C.
As for the construction trades, we are facing a decline in the construction industry and a lot of construction workers are out of work, as well as carpenters, carpenters' helpers, masons- you name it, Mr. Speaker. Despite this, the immigration department brought into Canada 3,208 construction workers. With one million unemployed in this country, do we want to bring in additional construction workers? Of that 3,208, 388 went to the province of Quebec, 1,573 went to Ontario and 399 went to British Columbia. I know that in the lower mainland of British Columbia there are construction workers who would like to have a job.
Is the department serious about enforcing its regulations governing the need for a manpower permit to enter Canada? How is it that 400 construction workers in nine months enter British Columbia, in view of the kind of unemployment that industry is facing there? The number admitted in nine months was 48,590, but with their dependants, amounting to 68,921, the total figure in the first nine months of last year for immigration was 117,511.
I am not concerned so much with the total number of immigrants; rather, I go back to the time when I represented people who were dealing with immigration officers and manpower officers in an effort to help them unify their families in Canada. Or there have been occasions when a businessman has come to me and told me he needs a man who is qualified to do a certain kind of work. I would tell him to go the Manpower and to have Manpower advertise the job for 30 days all across Canada. If in 30 days no one applies for the job, then I tell him he can bring in a person from outside. I think that is a fair arrangement if everyone were playing by the same rules. However, I have struck out every time except once. Only once was I successful in helping an employer bring an employee into Canada, and that was because no one else in Canada could do the job, which was a very esoteric and unusual one. On every other occasion Manpower has advertised jobs across Canada.
When I see these immigration figures, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what is going on, whether there is one regulation for one group of people and another regulation for another group. If, for example, there is an oversupply of staff in jobs such as sales, how is it that by the department's own admission 2,040 sales persons were brought into Canada? I have no objection to people coming to this country, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is wholesome for Canada to have an infusion of immigrants. But the same rules should apply to everyone, and somehow I do not think this is the case.
This reminds me of a man who came to me several months ago. He had lived for some years in one of the British possessions in the Third World and had raised his family there. Finally he decided to move to Canada. His adult son decided to move back to England, where he worked in a professional capacity chartering cargo planes. This young man is the only member of that family in England; I do not think he has even an uncle or a cousin there. All the members of the family live

in different parts of the world, but his parent and one sibling are in Canada.
Having read press reports concerning the government's policy on family reunification, the father went to the local immigration office and applied for his son to come to Canada. In effect, the immigration officer said he would try, but that since he was now an adult he had to apply under the independent category. He applied, and naturally was struck out. Finally, the father called me and I contacted not only the local official, who was as helpful as he could be under the regulations, but also the immigration officer in London to see whether he could find some ingredient which would enable the one son left in England to come to Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, there was no way.
The government says it believes in the reunification of families, but I go back to what the hon. member for Vancouver East said. The government wants to parade itself to the Canadian people as believing in the reunification of families, but when I try to reunify one family it does not work out that way. This policy is good only for certain people. I have yet to be successful in bringing that young man over to Canada, even though he is the only member of that family left in England. Is that justice? Something has to be done, and that is what I mean about the injustice of having the regulations separate from the bill. The minister seems determined to make sure that we will never see them and debate them on the floor of the House, and the Canadian people will be kept in the dark as to how the immigration policy of our country will operate. And they call this the just society!
There are a couple of other aspects of the bill which give me cause for concern. I think the whole area of the refugee class is something we should reconsider. I reiterate that we are members of the Canadian family or are members indirectly because we left a country or our forefathers left a country for political reasons. I have a great deal of sympathy for those people, and more than sympathy, compassion, for those who are faced with a future in a country that is hostile to their convictions and where their life is at stake. But in the intervening years, in the last 100 years, we have been facing a new philosophy in this world; that is, the philosophy of pragmatism which says that whatever works is right, that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Truth is truth if it works, and it is no longer truth it it does not work. That is pragmatism.
There are a lot of political activists across the world who believe in that philosophy and who are politically active in their country. They even believe in the violent overthrow of their country. Their morality is based on pragmatism. What we have to define for ourselves is what their relationship would be to our way of life here. We would be totally irresponsible Canadians, and certainly irresponsible legislators, if we did not examine thoroughly the implications of that philosophy as it pertains to the immigration policy.
Surely we owe it to ourselves, to the future of our country, to our children and to our children's children, to make sure

March 16, 1977

that the people who want to come to Canada are those who believe in the validity of our institutions, who want to see our way of life perpetuated and who believe in democracy as we know it today. But more and more we see around the world societies and political systems that do not hold to our way of life. It is all too easy to declare yourself a refugee from that kind of society. I reiterate that we need to be very understanding of the plight of refugees, but it seems to me that the United Nations' declaration may be a little too tolerant in that area. Certainly, I do not think we should allow them to define, in Canada, whether or not they are political refugees.
If I understand the act correctly, one of its provisions is that the judge who is adjudicating the final stages of a refugee's disposition within Canada must ask of that refugee, "Are you a political refugee"? If you do not believe in the absolute right or wrong, or the absolute truth, and you are pragmatist, then surely anything you say can be justified; and if the judge asks you whether you are a political refugee, then of course you are going to say "Yes" if it means staying within the country rather than being deported to your hostile homeland. Somehow we will have to come to grips with this provision in the Immigration Act. I reiterate that we need to be very compassionate and understanding of the plight of the refugees, but we have to do it in the knowledge of the new philosophy which exists in our society.
Finally, there is one other provision in the bill which I believe should be examined carefully. I think this provision was drafted with the intent of being more fair and finding a more operative and equitable way of admitting people into Canada. It has to do with what is called the inadmissible classes. What concerns me about this is the fact that there are about 750,000 people who apply to come to Canada every year, and there are probably 1.5 million who want to come, but only half of them take the first step, that is, to apply to come to Canada. Even under the present regulations most of them are refused. There are six or seven times as many people who apply to come to Canada as are admitted to this country.
With that kind of reservoir of people of whom probably 99.9999 per cent would be wholesome contributors to our way of life, it concerns me that we want to spend so much time examining the ways in which we can get people to come to the country who might be a threat to our society. Why should we spend so much time on that when there are so many people who would appreciate the opportunity of living here and who would contribute to the welfare of our society? I think all members would agree that for some classes of people it has been too difficult in times past to come in, and I am glad to see provisions in the bill which eliminate the discriminatory aspects of the bill, such as health provisions and so forth. But in the previous act they were the so-called prohibited class. Now the drafters have used some cosmetics; they have used a less offensive term and they are calling this group of people the "inadmissible class."
As I look at the provision, I see it as a nightmare for the people who are supposed to administer the act to find ways of making it as equitable as they want it to be. Is it the intent of
Immigration Act
the act to make sure that people who have been convicted of crime in their country are treated the same way under our system of jurisprudence?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Is there agreement to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude my remarks in a couple of minutes. I cannot help but think that under this provision we are creating more problems than we can solve. If we are to take our Criminal Code and superimpose it over the criminal codes of every other country in the world, what a nightmare that will be. We would have an army of bureaucrats trying to make sure that every provision of the Criminal Code matched a similar provision in other criminal codes. Can you imagine what kind of a job that would be? In the United Nations alone there are 150 countries, each with its own lifestyle, traditions and set of values. What is a crime in Canada is not necessarily a crime in other countries. How in the world will we standardize our laws? I think we have good intentions, but how are we going to do that? These are the things the minister and his officials have not examined thoroughly enough. They have to be examined further if we are going to have a bill which will benefit Canadians now and in the future.
I will conclude by saying, as I said at the outset, that the immigration bill has probably the most far-reaching implications for Canada of any bill we will be debating in this session and probably in this parliament. It behooves us, as legislators, to examine this bill more carefully and to demand of the minister good stewardship of his department. The minister should provide the regulations so that we can examine them and be responsible for them, as we ought to be. If he will do that, he will be doing a service both to parliament and to the Canadian people.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that my speech will be short. This has been a lengthy debate and I do not want to jar its tenor in any way. I simply want to contribute two points to the debate before it is wound up by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).
The first point I would like to make is with reference to refugees. We need a better procedure for refugees, and I hope this bill will provide a procedure to take care of cases like the one about which I am going to talk. This case concerns a teenager whose uncle moved to Canada and established a very successful business in Halifax-East Hants. When trouble broke out in Lebanon, the young man managed to move to Cyprus. He was in a position to move to Canada at a moment's notice if we had had a procedure for making him a Canadian citizen. His uncle here wished to adopt him. His parents wished that he could have that right. They were prepared to give their son

Immigration Act
up, and under all the circumstances it seemed to me to add up to a pretty humanitarian type of situation. However, there was great frustration in trying to bring it about. There was frustration in dealing with the regulations in the act which we have now. There was frustration in dealing with the school system in Nova Scotia and in dealing with a dozen and one things, including the attitude of the bureaucracy in Cyprus. So, all in all, what seemed to me to have been a step which should have been taken very quickly turned out to be a step which even with the best help of those in the minister's office here in Ottawa we were not able to take.
I am prepared to share my frustration with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in the committee and to present this as a classic case in which there should have been not only more discretion but also the ability to move rather quickly. This matter has really bothered me and I present it for the public record now. However, when the committee is asked to deal with the refugee part of this bill I would like to have at least five minutes in the sun.
There is another point about which the House might expect me to speak at more length than I will, and that is the point about regulations. Regulations sometimes take on horrendous or even Frankensteinian-monster proportions to the people in this place and in the other place. For reasons which are probably pretty apparent, having worked in the committee which deals with regulations I know that one can live with a certain type of regulation, but with other regulations it is very difficult indeed. Those who argue that the regulations should be seen beforehand make a very good argument. I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, whose attention I hope to get eventually, would be well advised to take the same attitude as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) about the proposed regulations under the gun law; that is to say, they shall be looked at in committee before the act becomes final. I think that was a very useful precedent in our parliamentary process. We all know that that particular bill did not go to its final conclusion, but the fact that that offer was made was, to my mind, a substantial improvement over anything we have seen before with regard to regulations. I hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will accept this proposal as being reasonable.
I do not think it hurts to have proposed regulations examined from the standpoint of the criteria which have been adopted both in this House and in the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I gather I am not to have the ear of the minister, but perhaps my contribution can be drawn to his attention. I make my proposal very seriously. Perhaps I can repeat that it would be a very useful step, when new legislation which contains broad powers for dealing with problems by way of regulation is introduced, to have the regulations attached to it brought in so that they can be examined. They do not necessarily need to be examined in the committee which I have the honour to head; I think they should be examined in the committee which deals with the legislation.
[Mr. McCleave.)
In that committee there are likely to be experts. For example, I am looking at my friend, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), and I think many things should be brought into the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry by way of regulation so that he can have the first crack at them, rather than the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. As we all know, the legislation dealing with statutory instruments provides that future regulations shall be presented to that committee.
The second thing is that some of the tactics the privy council office has used on our parliamentary committee to keep future regulations away from that committee should be restricted. I said I would speak only for a brief period of time, but I make these points sincerely. I would be inclined to raise hell, if I may use that word, if no regard was paid to the two small representations I have made this afternoon.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have read with interest some of the remarks made earlier in the debate. I did not have the opportunity to hear them all firsthand. However, I listened carefully to some remarks today. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) said that this bill is likely the most important legislation we will deal with in this parliament, and I know other people have made similar statements. I believe that the whole subject of immigration and migration policy as it affects the jurisdiction of the federal government is indeed a major responsibility. I do not think anyone, no matter what his views with respect to this important and, at times, controversial subject, would say otherwise.
There are a couple of basic questions which I think have to be examined at the outset with respect to the legislation which is before us. I suppose the principal question which must be asked at some point in the process is why new immigration legislation is being proposed. Perhaps that is an overly obvious question to ask, since it has been well documented by the minister and others who have participated in this debate that a process has gone on for three or four years which has involved the initial commitment of his predecessor, the publication of the green paper and supporting documents, the reference to the special committee, the work of that special committee, its report, obviously made after lengthy consideration on the part of the committee and, finally, this legislation.
I think this question must be raised at the outset: Why are we launched on this particular process? The best argument I have been able to hear, either from the minister, his officials or his predecessor, is that the legislation of 1952 is obviously obsolete. It is obvious that the reference to obsolescence has as its basis those prohibited classes which now are an anachronism. They bring to mind words like moral turpitude, epilepsy, and the names of other illnesses which in all justice we would not want to see included today in any legal definition.
If the intent was primarily to remove the obsolescence built into the present legislation, one feels that it would not have been necessary to embark on such a major process involving special reports, special committees, examinations by special
March 16, 1977

committees, concluded by a fairly lengthy debate on this matter in parliament. Obviously, much more is at stake than the occasional anachronism in a piece of legislation.
There have been, as I suppose the minister and his officials may say, very real pressures for a new act which could give us some kind of new approach, a more modern approach, to the question of immigration. I think we come closer to the truth when we hear the minister or his officials talking about more effective management of the immigration program. We use certain code words, Mr. Speaker, and when certain public people use code words in talking about immigration we must examine those words most carefully. I am of the firm belief that some of the code words have to do with management, efficiency, the effectiveness of resources and some of the other things listed in the objectives set out in this bill for the first time, to which I shall refer in a moment. Those code words should be looked at carefully and as penetratingly as possible, because they may tell us a good deal about the real intentions of the government, the minister and his officials.
I believe that the government is attempting to respond, perhaps even reinforce, some perceptions which have received a good deal of publicity and discussion during the past few years. Those perceptions do not see immigration as a kind of objective or neutral social phenomenon; they see it as being a major problem, a major social difficulty which we must confront and somehow solve.
It seems strange to me that almost everybody seems to believe we are dealing with a difficult and complex problem, a problem which somehow must be controlled, managed and brought under effective jurisdiction. I find this a disturbing concept from two points of view. It disturbs me because it flies in the face of the evolution of this country. Numerous speakers on both sides of the House have indicated, as they have shown with documented evidence, that we are in a very real sense a nation of immigrants. I think the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) mentioned that something like ten million immigrants have come here since confederation. Clearly, at present more than half the population consists of either first, second or third generation Canadians or is related to those who originally came here as immigrants within the last 100 years. Indeed, some time ago, when reflecting on the public attitudes of a couple of years ago and of a decade ago when Mr. Marchand introduced the white paper and amendments to the Immigration Act, I looked at a number of editorials which were written a decade ago. I examined a good deal of the publicity which had surrounded the introduction of that white paper.
I have the white paper here, but I will not quote from it. If hon. members read it, it should become obviously and painfully apparent to them that this same government, under a different leader and minister but listening to essentially the same bureaucratic advisers, took the position about a decade ago that immigration was a powerful tool, a powerful process which has been extremely valuable in the total development of this country. One recalls the rhetoric surrounding various events of our nation's history, the appeals by public figures to
Immigration Act
Europeans and statements about this great land of promise, Canada. We know the extent to which previous governments in our history invested large sums of money in order to ensure an adequate flow of new Canadians to populate this country and open its virgin territories. As late as a decade ago, indeed, after we had existed for more than 100 years as a nation, this government was able to talk in positive terms about the continuing phenomenon of immigration as being an asset to the further development-the exploitation, if you like-and exploration of this country.
The green paper produced two or three years ago contained none of that positive, buoyant atmosphere. It was, indeed, a document which left one with the feeling that although immigration perhaps was not an evil it was a problem, and that if we did not cope with it we would find ourselves living in a social situation which could rapidly get out of control. When we are told we need a new immigration act, it is not just a question of revising or eliminating anachronisms in a piece of legislation 25 years old; it may, indeed, be turning around the question of immigration. That is what has bothered me so seriously about the measures which the minister has brought before the House in this bill.
We are not debating a piece of legislation which would enshrine Canada's continued belief in the importance of having new people come here with new ideas to populate this country, although there is lip service paid in the objectives to those kinds of values and cultural advantages-but they are far down the list when compared with advantages of trade and commerce. Lip service is paid to the notion of effectively regulating, managing, controlling and dispersing the immigration phenomenon of this country.
We have been taken in, Mr. Speaker. When problems have developed concerning unemployment, inadequate or unavailable housing in urban centres and the occasional reports of racial or ethnic disturbances or confrontations, we have allowed extremists in our society to propagate the belief that immigration is a problem and that we must effectively control this dangerous gene of immigration. I suggest that the seeds of such beliefs were sowed ten years ago with the introduction of the points system, because that system allowed us to enunciate a new kind of discrimination.
At root, what bothers many people about the green paper is that it considers immigration as a problem. Basically, it sees immigration as negative, as something to be managed. It is much more concerned about systems management than about dealing with people as people. That, certainly, is the atmosphere pervading this legislation. The points system, to which I will refer in a moment, laid the groundwork of a new kind of discrimination with which we have had some years of experience. I say, at the outset, that in a sense we have turned the subject of immigration on its head. I think we should all be clear about what has happened to us, because all of us have to some degree fallen into an enormous trap. The trap is simple, but many threads and nuances run through it. It is that immigration is no longer to be considered as basically a

March 16, 1977
Immigration Act
positive force; it is no longer to be considered as essential to the further unfolding of this country.
This is, in fact, increasingly a problem-oriented situation which must be increasingly controlled, regulated and brought under some kind of effective systems management. It has also been a very convenient scapegoat, particularly for government apologists or others who want to blame many of the social ills of our country on those who are new or different. We should not be surprised at this. This is not something altogether different from other societies.
If we study some of the social development and cultures to the south of us, or in Great Britain, and the problems that have arisen with regard to urban slums, unemployment and abrasiveness of situations which exist in educational centres, all have caused people to look for some effective solution or basic cause as to why we are faced with these particular problems. If we can point to the stranger, the person with a different accent, different customs, different language or different skin colour and blame many of the problems of our society on those we regard, quite frankly, as outsiders and strangers, that is a very dangerous situation for any society to arrive at. To be aware of that in the context of this debate is certainly to be very irresponsible. To allow for the growth of these kinds of myths is to strengthen beliefs and harden situations which will make it more difficult in the final analysis to solve some of the very real social and economic problems that we face.
The objectives set out in the bill claim that this will allow, for the first time, as the minister said in his press release at the time of the tabling of the bill:
The bill explicitly affirms, for the first time, the fundamental objectives of Canadian immigration law; family reunification, non-discrimination, concern for refugees, and the promotion of Canada's economic, social, demographic and cultural goals.
It is noteworthy that in spite of the government being preoccupied with this matter for the better part of three or four years, neither this minister nor his predecessor have given us a very firm indication as to our economic, social, demographic and cultural goals. The furthest we seem to get on this is some statement by the minister that there will be a process of consultation before such things as levels or quotas are arrived at. Clause 3(f) of the bill reads:
-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-
To use the word "non-discrimination" to apply to that is certainly something I would hope all, or almost all of the people in Canada would strongly support. It is in line with previous declarations that have been made in the past ten-year period. Certainly, it was an important step forward in making that kind of assertion. I say that because, as I think previous speakers have mentioned, our record with respect to complete neutrality and non-discrimination concerning Oriental and Asian immigrants is not one of which any of us can be proud. The situation with regard to the Chinese, Japanese and Indian people has been one that should give us all cause for thought,
when we are all inclined to say all too quickly that Canada has had a great and long tradition of non-discrimination when it comes to race.
What disturbs me is that while the minister has enshrined in the objectives admirable sentiments, which I think are agreed to by many other countries similar to Canada, the points system as it has been established and as it will apparently continue will indeed perpetuate if not exacerbate discimination in other areas with which we have yet to come to grips.
It may be true that we do not discriminate against those who are of different racial origin, but very clearly our points system discriminates against the poor. It may be true that we do not discriminate against those who have another creed, but we very clearly discriminate against those of lesser education or sophistication. It may be true that we do not have any particular discrimination against people from any particular origin, but it is true that we locate our offices and the processing of those who apply for immigration very much with a view to origin and geographic location. As I have said, the points system discriminates very much in favour of those who are already here. It is a self-serving one, self-serving in a negative sense in that those of us who are here feel increasingly threatened by those who want to come.
There is, within the context of this kind of points system, a sort of siege mentality which, given the kind of world we live in, will increase interaction between nationalities, groups and cultures which is exceedingly dangerous. In fact, the points system is a kind of clever put-down of those of different economies, societies and cultures. Behind much of the debate on points and quotas is the very real question of a protection of privileges. There is in a sense an attempt to achieve a kind of monolithic, cultural and economic enclave. While an enclave may have some appeal on a short-term basis, its long-term virtues for all the citizens of this county are greatly to be doubted.
It is important that we realize the sense of the Immigration Act is to move, not toward a more open society but toward a more closed one, one that will require more regulations and more rules and regulations that are not really public knowledge. I shall mention that again, because I think the lack of commitment on the part of this minister to, in effect, explain how the act is going to operate is nothing short of shocking, given the importance of this bill to every Canadian.
I would hope that within the time the bill is being debated on second reading, perhaps before we come back to debate it again, the minister will reflect on the numerous calls he has had from many members of this chamber for full disclosure of the regulations before we conclude second reading. Only in that way can we be sure that when the minister said future immigration levels are made a matter for open decision and public announcement in advance by the government, his commitment to such open decision will in fact be a credible one.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 17, 1977