1977-07-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the recent report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development which predicts gloomy economic prospects until at least mid-June 1978, and more specifically, in view of its forecast saying that business investment will remain weak, the gross national product will rise about 3 per cent, unemployment will remain high and heavy inflation will continue, and in view of the OECD's prediction that economic recovery could accelerate in the first quarter of 1978 if there is an upturn in real disposable income and personal consumption, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That the Prime Minister immediately convene a first ministers' conference to specifically deal with the problems of real growth, inflation, and high unemployment and as soon as possible thereafter cause a new budget to be introduced which provides for at least tax cuts for low and middle income wage earners.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: Jungle Jim Trudeau said no.


PROPOSED SITE FOR DEBATE ON NORTHERN PIPELINE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the direct effects of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline on northern Alberta, the fact that it will cross a portion of my constituency and that this Chamber will not be available for the debate planned in August, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the debate which parliament plans to hold be held in a suitable place in northern Alberta, preferably in the town of Lac-la-Biche.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, MacEachen said no.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I hope hon. members opposite will accept, they being honourable men and women. In view of the CRTC finding that the CBC is not guilty of pro-separatist bias, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House instruct the Cabinet ministers who accused the CBC of such bias to apologize publicly to the CBC for their unfounded charges.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ouellet said no.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the government was supposed to establish French units within the federal administration; that difficulties

July 21, 1977
Canadian Economy
were experienced in carrying out the project; that the defence department, especially the air force, systematically refuses to provide training in French for its recruits; and that as a result of frustration some Quebecers intend to leave the forces or have already done so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) immediately direct that an investigation be launched to determine whether it is possible for a Francophone to obtain a deserved promotion in the Canadian army even if he is unilingual.


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.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the fact that, while the Liberal Party think the CBC is biased in favour of separatism, the Boyle report reveals that the Canadian people feel, if anything, that there is pro-Liberal bias. In view of these disturbing findings about the paranoia of those who lead our government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That this House direct the government to apologize to those CBC employees whose integrity is impugned and in addition directs the government to take immediate steps to end political bias in the CBC by bringing to an end its interminable tactics of pressuring the state broadcasting system to toe the government line.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion is prompted by continuing alarming reports of the mass exodus of individual and corporate investment money from Canada to the United States, such as the millions of dollars Canadians are investing

in Florida real estate, manufacturing, banking, etc. and the fact that a large Canadian trust company recently bought a large banking firm, and since there are countless other examples of Canadian capital leaving for the United States due to a lack of confidence in the Trudeau Liberal government along with reports that United States business is openly encouraging business in Montreal and Toronto to move to the United States, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to conduct an immediate inquiry into Canadian capital going to the United States with witnesses from the business community to discuss this mass exodus of investment money and why they have no confidence in Canada and the Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity concerning information I have received that a special committee of cabinet will meet tomorrow, scheduled to include the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) to consider the Foreign Investment Review Act and possible amendments thereto along with the recent effectiveness of this legislation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce acknowledge the fact that the principal reason for the sudden calling of this special meeting concerns recent cabinet approval of the sale of Pony Sporting Goods of Canada Limited to foreign interests in a transaction involving Senator Keith Davey, Liberal campaign manager and Gordon Dryden, Liberal party treasurer, and finally that it be made known to this House whether or not the cabinet will, on the basis of obvious facts immediately rescind permission granted for the sale and will in future properly review all foreign takeovers instead of leaving them in unopened folders-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to read a motion when the trained seals keep barking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that he has been given considerable leniency when putting his motion under Standing Order 43.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: There are only five more words.
-instead of leaving them in unopened folders to bale out financially prominent Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 21, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the CRTC report which the right hon. gentleman tabled yesterday. In view of the fact the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was quoted in La Presse of February 24 to the effect that he had a list of names of Radio Canada employees whose ambition it was "to destroy the country" and as the CRTC report does not substantiate these allegations of any separatist bias in Radio Canada, what action does the right hon. member, as leader of the government, contemplate to dissuade or discourage ministers from making unsubstantiated charges of this kind, not supported by evidence?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The hon. member has the advantage of me. He says he has read every word of it. 1 must confess I have not yet read a single word of it, though I propose to do so. I am told by my ministers who have read the report that they are very satisfied with its conclusions.


An hon. Member:: That doesn't say anything.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am just saying they are very satisfied with the conclusions and that they bear out some of the suspicions they had.


Mr. Fairweather:: I am in no position to make any charges, of course, and would not attempt to do so whether the Prime Minister has read the report or not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have just admitted I have not.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The fact is that those who commented to the right hon. gentleman must agree that charges made by various ministers about separatist bias on the part of Radio Canada are in no way substantiated in the 70 pages of the report. I would hope that as leader of the government the Prime Minister might discourage that type of loose and irresponsible comment.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I confessed to the hon. member that 1 had not read the report and therefore he does not need to feel he must make a charge about it. I am simply saying-and this is just hearsay, I know-that the report concluded that the media in general and that the electronic media in particular, the CBC included, had not fulfilled their duty to promote national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me that this was the essence of the charge made by the ministers.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members opposite seem to be in doubt about that. If the word "subversion" is used in the report, as I am told it is, surely this is a fairly slight condemnation in line with what members on this side of the House and other people across the country have been saying.


PROPOSAL FOR COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: As the
Prime Minister has said, he has not read the report and perhaps when he does the use of the word "subversive" will become clear. I should like to move to another part of the report because the Secretary of State and the President of the CBC, my own leader and others have called for a royal commission into communications and into the national broadcasting systems.


Mr. Ouellet:: Where is your leader, anyway? You were complaining the other day because 1 was not here. Where is your leader?


Mr. Chretien:: He is in Cape Cod. He is reading the report in Cape Cod.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The heat is obviously getting to ministers as well as to the rest of us. I wonder what the Prime Minister's reaction was to the recommendation made by various people that a royal commission into the whole area of communications and broadcasting is urgently needed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is my
understanding that the recommendation of the CRTC is not to the effect that a royal commission be set up. However, as the hon. gentleman says, a number of people are of a contrary opinion, including his own leader, he says.


Miss MacDonald:: And one of your ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And one of my ministers, she says. I have asked the minister responsible for the CBC, the Secretary of State, to come to cabinet within a month or so with a recommendation on this issue.


SUGGESTED APOLOGY BY PRIME MINISTER FOR ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: May I refresh the Prime Minister's memory? On February 25 he had this to say in the House of Commons with respect to the matter alluded to by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
I am telling them with all the candour I can command that almost everyone, including the high officials of the CBC, would be prepared to state that the overwhelming majority of the employees in the CBC are of separatist leaning ... They are just asking: What can we do about it without infringing freedom of speech.

July 21, 1977
Oral Questions
It is clear that the view expressed by the Prime Minister has been declared to be false. Does the Prime Minister intend to apologize to the employees of the CBC, and would he ask his Minister of State for Urban Affairs to produce this list, which is supposed to number in the thousands according to statements attributed to him, so as to provide the ITouse of Commons with the evidence which seems to have alluded Mr. Boyle and which for some reason or other the minister forgot to give to Mr. Boyle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to quote me, and then he said that the report of the CRTC has contradicted me. I should ask him to be good enough to quote where the report of the CRTC contradicts me.


Walter David Baker: Just answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am answering the hon. member's question. He is making a false and phony assertion, but there is nothing new about that; we have those every day from the House leader of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is giving an interpretation of the CRTC report and I am asking him to substantiate that interpretation. He is incapable of doing it because the report uses words to prove the contrary, that the conduct of many people-


An hon. Member:: You said you had not read it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert has a supplementary; 1 will bow to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton on a supplementary.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: If I may ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I needed any help at evasion I could look to no better mentor than the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATION NEWS SERVICE BIASED IN FAVOUR OF CENTRAL CANADA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Walter David Baker: I want to ask the
Secretary of State a question with respect to the report. I hope that we will not use the same kind of attempts at adroit

footwork that we have seen from the pyjama-clad Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is your leader wearing today, Stanfield underwear?


Walter David Baker: The CBC has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, Mr. Speaker. One conclusion of the report was that both CBC news services are heavily biased in favour of central Canada. Would the Secretary of State care to comment on that? Is he in a position to advise the House what he intends to do, if anything, with respect to that matter? Because if that is the case, and if that assertion is substantiated, then I think there is a question which the Secretary of State should address himself to respecting the mandate of the CBC.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would not care to comment at very great length. I am sure the hon. member is aware that the CBC have brought forward a report called "The Touchstone Report" which gives some indication of how they feel the activities of the corporation should develop for the future. I have read the CRTC report but I should like to reflect on it considerably more than I have been able to in the short time that it has been available to me so far. I think the questions that it raises are both extremely serious and extremely complex, so I am reluctant to give spontaneously the initial impression which 1 have to the hon. gentleman. I would prefer a chance to study the report in much greater detail before I make further comment.


ALLEGATION CORPORATION FAILED TO CONTRIBUTE TO NATIONAL UNITY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the CRTC report that the CBC, for a number of reasons has failed in its very important responsibility to contribute to the development of national unity; and, if so, bearing in mind the other conclusion of the report that the CBC has autonomy without true accountability, what measures does the government plan to take to ensure that there is accountability and that the CBC fulfils its mandate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these are very serious and substantial accusations which certainly indicate that the report contains a more severe criticism of the CBC than the hon. members of the Conservative Party have implied in their questions to us earlier.
The hon. member has asked me if I agree with these accusations. All I can say is that I have asked that the report be considered very seriously by my ministers and that whatever corrective action can be taken will be announced in due course to this House. The minister responsible for the CBC has been in contact with the president of the CBC. It is only fair that his views be heard also. My understanding is that the CBC is aware of some of these deficiencies and is doing its
July 21, 1977

best to correct them. Elaving received the report, this is a matter we will have to look into.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT NOT WILLING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN CORPORATION
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the CRTC in his letter of July 20 to the Prime Minister recommends against a royal commission into broadcasting at this time, not because it is unnecessary but because "the commission does not perceive that the will and the readiness exist to give priority to these problems nor to implement fundamental changes that might emerge from any major public inquiry". Does the Prime Minister accept that condemnation of his government, and if not, how does he justify the introduction of Bill C-43 which in essence maintains the status quo in broadcasting with the exception of emasculating the power of the CRTC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I would not be able to join issue with the hon. member on his interpretation of the CRTC report. My understanding of it is that the CRTC does not recommend a royal commission for a host of reasons, some of which have been quoted by the hon. member. There are other reasons of a different nature, and they have to do with the hopes that the CBC and other electronic media will take corrective action without waiting for the long process of a royal commission.
It is a very important report which Mr. Boyle has produced. I must thank them for doing it in such a short period of time. The question itself was extremely complex. At this stage all I can say is that our ministers are already seized with it. I have indicated that the Secretary of State responsible for the CBC will be recommending action to Cabinet in a very short period of time.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will read the report very carefully because in that report he will see that the CRTC does not believe, because of Bill C-43, that this government is interested in any fundamental inquiry or report to the broadcasting system.
My final supplementary question is: the CRTC in its report on the national broadcasting service calls for an examination of the present administrative structure for broadcasting before a royal commission is instituted to examine the role of the electronic media in Canada. Is the government prepared to undertake such an examination prior to proceeding with its new communications Bill C-43?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member recites all the recommendations contained in the report one after the other, could I refer to my earlier answer that we have been seized with the report yesterday, as every member of this House has been? We will take a little bit of time to answer each of its recommendations.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTION REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE TABLED ON MARCH, 1972, BE REVIEWED
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the current session is continuing under rather exceptional weather conditions, and as the report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was tabled on March 16, 1972, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to recommend that Parliament reconsider the recommendations of that report, and among others that suggesting that the government be defeated only on a motion of no confidence passed by the majority and that, under other circumstances, the government continue to function despite the rejection of laws that are passed or suggested by the government. In other words, can the Prime Minister tell the House, in short, whether the recommendations of that committee could be studied anew by this Parliament so that they can be applied and so ensure Canada propose administration while allowing Parliament to perform its duties?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is serious, Mr. Speaker, and I share the concern of the hon. member with regard to allowing both the Parliament and the government to perform their duties far more efficiently and, I hope a bit more quickly. At this point in the life of the current Parliament, I can say that it is very unlikely that substantial reforms can be made of the type suggested by the hon. member. I can give him no hope in that regard; that is the type of reform we would like to suggest early in the life of a new Parliament. We have, as the hon. member is aware, through the leader of the government in the House, suggested in the course of the last few years a series of possible changes. We have never managed to achieve unanimity among the parties in the House on those changes, including those who object to the report in question. Therefore, I feel we should continue to make efforts in that direction, but I cannot propose immediate changes. In that matter, the hon. member knows, the government cannot act alone. It must try to achieve consensus among all the parties.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before continuing with the question period I know all members would want to join me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished group of visitors in the form of a delegation. I am referring to the members of the Subcommittee on Social Services and Employment of the Expenditures Committee of the British parliament, headed by their very distinguished member of the Labour party, Mrs. Renee Short.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 21, 1977
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance dealing with the grim forecast of the OECD which indicates that this country will be facing gloomy economic prospects until at least mid-June 1978. In other words, our society is sick economically because of the higher rate of unemployment than anticipated and because of inflation. Considering that the OECD forecast is much more pessimistic than the forecast of the Minister of Finance, can he tell the House on what grounds he disagrees with the forecast of that respected national body, or has he now conceded that his own economic forecasts were wrong and the budget ill-conceived?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: As the
hon. member knows, we do not attempt to make forecasts. We make a projection from the figures that are present at the time. The OECD report for Canada and for all other member countries is somewhat more pessimistic than projections earlier in the year would have indicated. As the report points out, the increase in the inflation rate in Canada has been temporary. We can look to a return to a gradual reduction in that. I have to say that unemployment does remain a matter of concern. My colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has recently announced additional measures for this coming winter which should be of some assistance in this regard. The position we take is that the considerable room we have made available for the private sector, both for private investment and for consumption, should cause, over the months to come, a gradual acceleration in the rate of economic recovery in Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We hope the minister will make this gloomy report available to all members. I would remind him that the Prime Minister has indicated-if 1 am wrong, I know he will correct me-that the private sector has not taken advantage of the budget nor does it intend to in the present circumstances. In other words, this government has too much business in the boardrooms of the nation and should get out. Given the fact that the minister indicated to me some time ago that just because I asked him for a budget he would not move in that regard but that there are other criteria which would allow him to bring in a new budget, does the minister think that the OECD report is sufficient for him to move, and if that is not the type of thing he is talking about, what will make the minister bring in a new budget inasmuch as the last one he introduced has been a disaster and a complete failure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the hon. gentleman something which he should already know, that is that the OECD report is a public document and is available for him to read if he wishes. With regard to the comments on stimulation, either of consumer demand or indeed of business investment, I would remind the hon. gentleman that in excess of $1.2 billion stimulus was provided in the March 31, 1977 budget. In addition, a further stimulus of around $900 million was provided at the beginning of the year by indexation. The

hon. member wonders if calls by him for a budget were not very persuasive. Since he voted against those stimulus measures, obviously I do not regard his further suggestions about stimulation as having great value.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister does not worry me with this bombastic rhetoric regarding whether we vote for or against these measures. Thank goodness we did not because they are not good anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I asked the minister a question and I want an answer. I want to know what criteria must exist before the minister will realize this country is sick and needs an impetus in the form of a new budget. What are the criteria before the minister decides to move in that direction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would you let the minister answer my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is hypothetical in nature.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is bombastic rhetoric, Line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY ONLY ONE YEAR'S SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR NORTHERN PIPELINE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question. An article has appeared in the Financial Post with reference to the pipeline which states that the United States authorities say that $8 billion or $9 billion would be spent on the Alcan route or any other route for reserve of 23 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is only a year's supply to the United States. Has there been a discussion of that since the recommendation of the National Energy Board?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: If the hon. member is asking whether cabinet has considered all the implications of that question, the answer is no. I have indicated in the past that we will be giving consideration to this and we will of course, consider the representations of hon. members opposite.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sure the minister will be getting our representations. Surely if there is a decision to be made between now and September 2, which is the date mentioned by
July 21, 1977

the Prime Minister with reference to questions put from this side, that is one of the considerations that should be under discussion by his department with officials of the United States in reference to the supply of natural gas.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is a further representation, Mr. Speaker, and I have noted it.


AIR CANADA
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the Ontario liquor licence board decision to suspend liquor sales on Air Canada flights in Ontario next week as a penalty for infringement of provincial liquor laws and in view of the grave constitutional implications this action has for the argument that provinces have jurisdiction over air rights within provincial boundaries, will the Minister of Transport urge Air Canada to seek a clarification in the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of the Ontario board's suspension?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of consulting my law officers as to what advice might be given on that matter to the Minister of Transport and Air Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Lieutenant-Commander Valeri Smirnov of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa has been asked to cease activities incompatible with his status of a diplomat for illegally obtaining official non-classified industrial documentation and because Mr. Smirnov's name was on the list of 20 KGB trained agents posing as diplomats in Ottawa, made public last year-and at least two others have already been expelled from Canada-can the minister now explain why Smirnov, who obviously was acting in bad faith in improperly and illegally obtaining important industrial documentation, has not been declared persona non grata and asked to leave the country for good?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the second of the two words used by the hon. member, "illegal". I should emphasize that RCMP comments on this matter did not suggest or claim that there was illegal activity. There was activity which was improper with regard to the Soviet representative's activities
Oral Questions
and his status as a diplomatic person in Canada. So it was in this respect that his embassy was asked to have him desist. There was nothing, however, in that conduct, as revealed by the RCMP, which would justify the kind of action the hon. member suggests.


Otto John Jelinek: In view of the fact-and this is more on a general basis-that on March 24 of last year the then solicitor general confirmed that the RCMP was well aware that a number of KGB agents were operating out of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa and because in the past the government has declared diplomats whose activities were incompatible with their status as persona non grata, would the minister now be prepared to follow his own government's policy and request all diplomats known to the RCMP as KGB trained espionage agents-and I believe there are still 16 left at the embassy-to leave the country forthwith, in view of the very fact that their espionage training activities alone make them incompatible with their status as diplomats? This is the government's own policy, but it obviously is not following it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that it is extremely difficult to discuss these matters openly in the House of Commons.


Otto John Jelinek: Do something about it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member says, "Do something about it", but I will indicate to him that within the past several months we have asked a number of persons from the Soviet Union and from other embassies to leave the country. Whatever hon. members opposite may think, I am quite prepared to rely upon the activities and advice of the RCMP in these matters, and in each case when the RCMP has made recommendations, we have acted upon them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that the government's concern is that the private sector "has not taken up the slack which was provided for it in the budget". In addition, recent indications are that other aspects of the budget analysis are incorrect. Consumer spending and manufacturers' orders are down, and the U.S. economy is not recovering as fast as predicted. There are pretty gloomy prospects for that, and the OECD yesterday released a projection on the Canadian gross national product. Can the minister tell the House what new steps his government is taking to deal with the continuing economic slump and whether he is considering a fall budget?

July 21, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not considering a fall budget. However, at the end of this month I will be having an analysis of the first quarter returns, and as much as is available on the second quarter returns, made to determine whether in the absence of private expenditure some additional public expenditure-additional to that announced by my colleague the other day-will be desirable for this coming winter.


POSSIBILITY OF OPPOSITION PARTIES ASSISTING IN DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY BUDGET
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the severe economic problems facing the country and the detrimental effect of simultaneous unemployment and stagnation and their consequences with regard to national unity and the future of confederation, it seems to many in Canada that a need exists to adopt the same kinds of attitudes and energies of a parliament facing a crisis comparable to fighting a war. Given the seriousness of the matter and the government's apparent inability to deal with the problems on its own, will the government consider inviting opposition parties to assist in the development of a national emergency budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been meeting with groups across the country and trying to get from them constructive views on the past budget, their reaction to it and their suggested remedies for the economy in the time to come. I was at a meeting yesterday along with the Minister of Finance and other ministers. We would be very happy to receive proposals from the opposition parties as to what remedies they see at this time. Opposition members have occasion every day to make suggestions when they write preambles to their questions. They have occasions during budget debates. However, we would be very happy to read any written memorandum that the opposition, including the NDP, would like to send to me or to the Minister of Finance showing how we can combat inflation and unemployment.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Prime Minister, but he knows as well as I and every other hon. member in this House that unless the government indicates that it is prepared to take the opposition into its confidence, it is going to be business as usual in the House of Commons. The point I was trying to make is that the seriousness of the situation is such that I think the Prime Minister has to go beyond saying that he is prepared to listen to the opposition. That is what 1 wanted from the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know if I can safely go much beyond my previous answer. The hon. member seems to suggest that he wants his party, at least-since he cannot be a spokesman for the other opposition parties-to be part of the decision making processes which lead up to budgets. I am prepared to contemplate that. That would mean, of course, an organic alliance between the NDP and the Liberal Party.


Mr. Beatty:: What else is new?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Feelers were sent out a few years ago, and the idea was rejected, but if the hon. member is sending out a feeler now, my response is positive. I would gladly sit down with the Leader of the NDP and see if there is any way our party could swallow up the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the finding of the anti-dumping tribunal that foreign imports are adversely affecting the Canadian shoe industry, can the minister state whether further measures are intended to protect Canadian jobs in this industry?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I have received the interim report of the anti-dumping tribunal and we propose to have public comments on this in the next few days.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Now that the human rights bill has received Royal Assent can the Prime Minister say when he anticipates setting up the Human Rights Commission so that the 4.5 million Canadian women who work in the home can have the Canada Pension Plan legislation reviewed by the commission to see if the injustice perpetrated by this government in refusing them the right to contribute voluntarily to the Canada Pension Plan can be remedied?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make recommendations to my colleagues as to the membership of the commission very shortly.

[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
July 21, 1977

Considering that the President of the Treasury Board came back yesterday after the oral question period and that penalties have already been applied to Montreal civil servants who refuse to speak the second language, and in view of the government refusal to give them the bilingualism bonus, does the Prime Minister intend to support the President of the Treasury Board who favours the implementation of penalties or instead does the Prime Minister intend to commit himself personally in the debate to invite the minister to deal with this matter before it is too late, again in order to prevent this bilingualism crisis which would be deplorable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 have had time to check the answer I gave yesterday and I think that what I indicated is right: the President of the Treasury Board has already undertaken with the civil service union negotiations to implement proposals made a few years ago. If I remember correctly, the decision was to take effect around last November. These contacts have already been made; in this sense, I am convinced that the civil disobedience the hon. member seems to defend, is in no way justified. If there are people who refuse to serve the public-after all they are hired in the civil service to serve the public-then, they should be punished. In this sense, I absolutely support the suspension measures approved by the minister concerned. But, in the meantime, as I said, we do indeed intend to follow up the assurances that have been given a few years ago to the effect that bilingual service would warrant special treatment; in any event, for a certain period of time. And the minister has already taken the necessary steps to solve this problem.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I understand from the answer of the Prime Minister that he agrees with the President of the Treasury Board, but such a promise was made about two years ago by his predecessor. Considering the lack of guarantees and the delay as regards the qualification of the positions, 1 ask, in order to prevent this unfortunate problem from arising again-it is getting more serious and I think the Prime Minister is aware of that-I ask once again whether the Prime Minister is prepared at least to guarantee to the House by tomorrow a short term settlement which would be in line with the just society which he was advocating 10 years ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat the same answer with somewhat different words. It has been some time since the President of the Treasury Board was authorized by his cabinet colleagues to settle this matter on a just and reasonable basis. The negotiations are going on and we are confident that they will soon be successful. All I ask the hon. member is not to encourage those who, in the meantime, and it is just a small minority, decide to violate the law.
Oral Questions


HARBOURS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who will recall having told me recently in the House that in his judgment the time for a second container pier in the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth has not yet arrived. Has the minister any comment to make about the statement made by a minister of the government of Nova Scotia to the effect that the government of Nova Scotia has signed an agreement with the government of Canada for the construction of such a second container pier. Who is kidding whom? Has the minister's department been negotiating an agreement without the minister's knowledge?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the more exact reply I gave the hon. member was that there was some question as to exactly when the container terminal would be needed. There is a difference of view involving a matter of months, rather than one year or more. The question therefore was, when should construction start. The government of Nova Scotia wanted to be sure that as much as possible could be done in advance, to be ready for earlier construction. Accordingly, it asked if we would object to their plans to go ahead with site preparation. That led us to discussions about the necessary lease arrangements. These are now in the final form, and matters are likely to proceed in accordance with the intentions of the government of Nova Scotia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from the minister, despite what he intimated a few weeks ago, that the government of Canada is now prepared to start construction at an early date of a second container pier in the port of Halifax-Dartmouth, and prepared to support this financially? Is the minister saying this now, despite what he said previously?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in line with what I said before, the decision with respect to the actual construction of the container terminal has not yet been taken. The arrangement which is being reached, and is in its final stages, is for putting the province into the position of being able to invest significant amounts of money in site preparation. Since it is agreed between us that a container terminal will be required, and it is only a matter of judgment based on growth of traffic as to when construction should begin, the government of Nova Scotia is interested in making sure steps are taken so that when it decides to go ahead with construction of the container terminal, the shortest time will elapse before it can be put to use.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from the Minister of Transport that the government of Canada is not yet committed to the construction of a second container pier at any particular time? Am I
7862

July 21, 1977
Oral Questions
entitled to assume, therefore, that the purpose of these manoeuvres is to put the government of Nova Scotia in the position of being able to indicate that it has an agreement with the government of Canada with respect to a second container pier, an agreement which does not bind the government of Canada to do anything specific?


Mr. Forrestall:: An agreement for election purposes.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the government of Nova Scotia can clearly rely on the fact that when a container terminal is required, this government will be playing its part in seeing it is built.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It's a fraud, then.


Otto Emil Lang: There is, as I said, full agreement between us that it will be needed. There is only the question of the actual date on which it should be opened. Of course, there has been no formal approval by Treasury Board of money for the container terminal, but work has been done which will allow the government of Nova Scotia to advance the work of construction when the time comes.


HALIFAX-PROPOSED SECOND CONTAINER PIER-REQUEST THAT HOURS OF WORK BE RESTRICTED
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister consider in the remaining negotiations that in the 1974 general election in Halifax-East Hants, very much affected by container expansion at Fairview Cove, the candidates for the three major parties opposed the containerization development at Fairview Cove; but, if the development is to take place there, as I gather it will, I ask that the operations be restricted to reasonable hours. On this point I ask the minister to negotiate with the province of Nova Scotia.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, at this point I can only take note of that representation, but I shall see what can be done in the way of operations.


HALIFAX-ALLEGATION AGREEMENT SIGNED FOR SECOND CONTAINER PIER
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport with respect to the development of the container terminal. I ask the minister to comment on the fact that one hour ago in Nova Scotia the minister of industry indicated to the people of Nova Scotia and of Halifax that he had signed an agreement with Ottawa with respect to the construction of the second container terminal within the last week.


An hon. Member:: Who is lying?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report of those remarks but presume they

relate to the agreement connected with the site preparation work, which is being launched almost immediately.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-SUGGESTION UNITED STATES MAY DELAY CONSTRUCTION-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Washington correspondent of the Financial Post reports that the United States administration is seriously considering not moving any Prudhoe Bay natural gas at present. One of the government's energy experts is quoted as saying that not building a gas pipeline at all has now become a real option, and Mr. James Schlesinger, Mr. Carter's energy adviser, has been telling various agency experts, according to the report, "to think hard about no pipeline". Has the Prime Minister received either from Mr. Basil Robinson, the federal pipeline commissioner, or from any other sources any indication that the United States government is seriously thinking of either not proceeding with the pipeline, or considering as a real option the delay in the construction of the pipeline? What information can he give the House on the matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any intimation of that but, naturally, will inquire from the ministers directly involved and if I find any contrary information, I will report to the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact we anticipate having a House of Commons debate on the matter of the pipeline early in August, it would be extremely useful if members of the House knew whether the American administration is considering as a real option the matter of not proceeding or delaying it since this would open up the whole question of having more time to settle the native claims. I therefore ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake to get that information and give it to the House, if possible before the pipeline debate, or postpone the pipeline debate until that information is available.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member is making a good point. If his information is correct, maybe we do not have to come back at the beginning of August. Maybe we can finish this part of the session today or tomorrow hopefully. I indicated I had no knowledge of this particular piece of information. I do know that Mr. Basil Robinson, mentioned by the hon. member, is going to Washington to meet Mr. Schlesinger's counterpart next week. I will make sure that he looks into the matter raised by the hon. member.
July 21, 1977



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the sixteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,875 (supplementary), 1,961, 2,418, 2,480, 2,648, 2,723, 2,776, 2,822 and 2,834.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,875-Mr. Herbert: (Supplementary)
With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,229, answered on January 26, 1976, have there been any changes in cost since that date?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: July 4, 1977-Statement by the Bank of Canada on the costs of its new head office building: The Bank of Canada estimates that the total construction cost of its head office building project in Ottawa will be $57.3 million. This figure includes both the construction of the new buildings on the head-office site, for which earlier estimates were provided, and the renovation and integration of the existing head-office building, for which no estimate has hitherto been given. In line with common practice, the figure above includes as construction costs outlays on permanent interiors, built-in equipment and landscaping (rather than showing them in other categories as was done in the statement of January 1976). The estimate for construction costs also includes the salary cost of Bank employees allocated to full-time work on the building project. It does not include fees for architects, consultants and other inspectors, and furniture, which are shown separately. Because of the Bank's security requirements, outlays on special construction and on built-in equipment are much larger than in the case of a typical office building; the figure above includes more than $5 million for security facilities such as vaults, secure doors, secure delivery and working areas, and security monitoring systems. An amount of $6.5 million in respect of the existing head office building is included in the above figure for total construction costs. It covers not only a thorough renovation of all the electrical and mechanical systems in that building but also the construction of a larger roof top mechani-
Order Paper Questions
cal room to accommodate equipment to serve the rest of the building complex, the completion of the bridges which connect the building above grade to the rest of the complex, space on the ground floor to house a museum for the National Currency Collection, and the total integration of the below grade floors of the building into the new basement areas. The whole complex, which will be substantially complete by the end of 1978 or early in 1979, is in accordance with a plan approved by the Bank's Board of Directors in August 1971 and announced in October of that year. The architectural plan accommodates the decision of the Bank to preserve the original Bank building. The complex will consist of two new symmetrical 12 storey buildings flanking the existing building, with the 3 buildings connected above grade by an enclosed court and bridges. Much the greater part of the ground floor area will be devoted to public facilities, including the connecting court, the Currency Museum, and a large plaza along Bank Street. Three levels of basement will extend across the whole of the block bounded by Wellington, Bank, Sparks and Kent Streets, The whole of the basement areas will be devoted to the Bank's operations; in addition to vaults and associated security areas there will be working space there for up to 300 people. No space is provided for staff parking. The building complex was planned to be built in stages so that the Bank could continue to operate on the site during the construction period. The first and major phase is now completed, and the final two phases, namely completing the East Tower and renovating and integrating the existing building, are underway. The estimate of $36 million for new construction costs provided in October 1971 did not cover the renovation and integration into the complex of the existing building and, in the event, included far too little allowance for the rapid increase in construction costs that occurred between 1971 and the date at which contracts for later stages of the work would be let. That estimate was based on a narrower definition of construction costs than that used above, and thus excluded some of the interior work and built-in equipment included in the present figure. Like the present figure, it included nothing for architectural, consultant, and inspection fees or for furniture. The current figure on the same basis as the October 1971 figure would be about $46 million, and the difference is due to the extent of about one-half to subsequent additions to the work planned and about one-half to higher costs than originally anticipated. The cost of architectural, consultant and inspection fees associated with the construction of the complex, and the cost of insurance during construction, is now estimated at $5.3 million. The cost of fitting up the building,
i.e. the purchase and installation of office furniture and special-purpose facilities and the related architectural fees, is estimated at $4.2 million.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	Since the coming into effect of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, how many persons with the rank of (a) deputy minister (b) assistant deputy minister (c) associate deputy minister (d) chief executive officer of a Crown corporation or agency, or one of their subsidiaries (e) ambassador or high
80020-33 Vz

July 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
commissioner, have resigned from the Public Service, thus becoming eligible under the terms of the Act?
2.	How many persons holding a position of equivalent classification and status to any of the positions mentioned in Part 1, have resigned from the Public Service, thus becoming eligible under the terms of the Act?
3.	(a) In each case, what is their name (b) what was the effective date of their retirement (c) what position did they occupy prior to retirement (d) which ones have been re-employed or retained in any way, by the government, Crown corporation or any agency, either directly or indirectly, as consultants or under contract or similar financial arrangement?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The information requested is not readily available. There are
93,000	recipients under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (all public servants are entitled). A master list of names would have to be set up by referring to all departments, agencies and crown corporations. They in turn would have to prepare a list of employees who occupied a position listed in parts 1 and 2, who have retired since the coming into effect of the Act (April 1970). A manual verification of personnel records would have to be initiated some of which have been destroyed after two years. Of the information assembled we would have to program our computer in order to match the master list supplied to us by the departments, agencies and Crown corporations. Once this has been done we must refer back to the departments, agencies and Crown corporations to verify if any of the recipients have been rehired under contract. This would entail a lengthy and costly examination of countless files of departments, agencies and Crown corporations, which cost in manpower and time would be exhorbitant and prohibitive.


Mr. Howie: Has the government announced its intention to include an environmental impact study in the second stage of the Fundy Tidal Power Development Study and, if so, is it the intention of the government to provide a formal opportunity for the public to submit presentations to the study and, if so, will this practice be followed in future environmental studies?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board has referred the project to the Environmental Assessment Panel for review. The Panel will submit to the Board guidelines for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement which will be prepared as part of the second stage of the Fundy Tidal Power Study. In connection with the Panel Review, formal public hearings will be held in Maritime communities in order to obtain presentations from all interested parties. All briefs and statements from the hearings will be reviewed and considered by the Panel in the preparation of its report. Public participation is an integral part of Panel operations and is being practised for all projects presently under review under the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What percentage of working women are (a) alone and supporting themselves (b) the head of a family?
2.	What percentage is the average income for women compared to that of men?
3.	What percentage was the average income for women compared to that of men 20 years ago?
4.	How many women are in the labour force?
5.	What percentage do women make up of the total labour force?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. (a) The percentage of working women who are alone and supporting themselves is 20 per cent. This figure includes all females employed, those unemployed but seeking work and, those on temporary layoff. The term "alone and supporting themselves" is assumed to be all females not included in a "census family"*. These females may or may not be living alone, (b) The percentage of working women who are the head of a family is 5.3 per cent.
2.	In 1974, women in the labour force had an average income which was 50.1 per cent of the income of men in the labour force.
3.	The percentage of the average income for women compared to that of men in the 1961 Census was 41.3 per cent. The question on income was not included in the 1956 Census.
4.	During 1976 the average number of females in the labour force was 3,859,000.
5.	On the average, women constituted 37.4 per cent of the labour force in 1976.
* The definition of a "Census family" is a husband and wife, with or without children or a parent with one or more unmarried children (regardless of age).


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In the (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77 fiscal years, did Canada import furniture and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) from which countries (iii) what was the percentage value by country?
2.	For the same years, did Canada export furniture and, if so, what was the (a) total value (b) value by province?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. Statistics on imports of furniture in the fiscal years (1975-76 and 1976-77 are shown on the attached table (No. 1) in terms of value and per cent by country.
2.	Canadian exports of furniture in the same period are shown on table (No. 2) by each province of lading.
[Mr. Lawrence.J
July 21, 1977

Table 1-Statistics Canada-External Trade Division Imports of Furniture by Countries, Fiscal Years 75-76, 76-77. Values in Canadian Dollars 9 June 1977
001	United Kingdom	Value (75-76) 4,080,848	%of Total 2.5	Value (76-77)% 4,786,159	%of Total 2.5017	Ireland	22,127	-	37,901	-043	Austria	21,528	-	90,795	-044	Belgium-Luxemb	873,354	0.5	1,011,846	0.5049	Denmark	11,962,129	7.4	14,221,058	7.4053	Finland	475,459	0.3	577,042	0.3054	France	1,093,327	0.7	855,579	0.4055	Germany West	2,684,779	1.7	3,511,257	1.8059	Greece	32,669	-	9,231	-063	Iceland	392	-	-	067	Italy	3,774,199	2.3	6,108,563	3.2073	Netherlands	1,914,357	1.2	1,586,077	0.8076	Norway	753,695	0.5	584,228	0.3078	Portugal	167,439	0.1	95,177	-082	Spain	960,512	0.6	979,271	0.5085	Sweden	3,672,656	2.3	4,560,535	2.4086	Switzerland	283,468	0.2	462,153	0.2246	Czechoslovakia	788,684	0.5	944,294	0.5258	Germany East	-	-	9,224	-262	Hungary	1,476,564	0.9	982,096	0.5277	Poland	726,292	0.5	550,481	0.3279	Romania	1,858,022	1.2	1,991,277	1.0287	USSR	3,944	-	21,576	-288	Y ugoslavia	2,701,050	1.7	3,413,748	1.8347	Iran	-	-	1,325	-355	Israel	107,332	0.1	355,712	0.2363	Lebanon	200	-	-	-379	Syria	-	-	-	-385	Egyptian A.R.	6,751	-	15,701	-413	The Gambia	-	-	16,139	-414	Ghana	10,380	-	10,320	-415	Kenya	1,248	-	274	-419	South Africa	11,194	-	513	-447	Cameroon	839	-	-	-455	Benin	-	-	-	-473	Morocco	3,671	-	227	-486	Togo	-	-	-	-487	Tunisia	117	-	-	-516	Hong Kong	1,505,616	0.9	2,719,869	1.4519	India	123,695	0.1	114,955	0.1524	Malaysia	1,765	-	529,213	0.3527	Pakistan	12,449	-	27,131	-528	Singapore	161,336	0.1	754,892	0.4542	Afghanistan	-	-	1,315	-553	People R China	173,333	0.1	129,748	0.1556	Indonesia	1,467	-	26,062	-559	Japan	784,448	0.5	1,036,104	0.5564	Korea South	118,506	0.1	335,476	0.2567	Philippines	146,267	0.1	262,297	0.1578	Taiwan	3,110,945	1.9	5,459,964	2.8583	Thailand	8,163	-	136,034	0.1586	Viet-Nam	-	-	-	-614	Australia	36,086	-	132,862	0.1622	New Zealand	1,323	-	19,140	-
Order Paper Questions
716	Guyana	204	-	600744	Argentina	18,703	-	-752	Brazil	244,831	0.2	627,242758	Colombia	28,347	-	22,765763	Ecuador	-	-	-774	Peru	3,798	-	2,466777	Surinam	-	-	990813	Bahamas	-	-	815815	Bermuda	275	-	-822	Barbados	-	-	30,000824	Jamaica	945	-	27,020828	Trinidad-Tobago	500	-	225845	Costa Rica	40,717	-	58,834855	Dominican Rep	307	-	562864	Guatemala	123	-	-867	Haiti	1,626	-	4,877869	Honduras	-	-	1,149874	Mexico	236,896	0.1	295,174876	Neth. Antilles	1,355	-	490879	Nicaragua	-	-	3,130886	Puerto Rico	-	-	412933	Greenland	-	-	10,658990 Total	United States	114,057,099 161,290,351	70.7 131,435,851 100.0 191,998,101	Table 2-Statistics Canada- External Trade Division	Exports of Furniture by Province of Lading, Fiscal Years 75-76, 76-77 Values in Canadian Dollars 9 June 1977 Value (75-76) Value (76-77)	OX	Newfoundland	22,648	17,69400	Nova Scotia	247,197	195,63702	New Brunswick	135,298	90,79503	Quebec	17,068,367	21,851,58004	Ontario	37,741,299	45,829,00305	Manitoba	467,695	229,54206	Saskatchewan	48,152	17,49007	Alberta	92,367	224,46908	British Columbia	1,157,658	1,568,14009	Yukon	400	9,693Total	56,981,081	70,034,043
0.3
0.2
0.2
68.5
100.0


Mr. Howie: 1.	Are there programmes available under the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment to assist in the construction of university buildings or for the provision of equipment, teaching aids or other such facilities and, if so, what are they?
2.	Are there programmes available under the Department to assist university staff members to further their knowledge and teaching careers and, if so, what are they?
3.	Is there any such assistance for teachers at the primary and secondary levels under the Department?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. The Department of Fisheries and the Environ-

July 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
ment has no programs for the purpose of assisting in the construction of university buildings. Policies of the department do, however, allow for advanced students and university staff to participate in research cruises, and to use laboratory equipment when participating in cooperative investigations. The Crown also leases property to the Eluntsman Marine Laboratory which is used in part for student training.
2.	The department participates in Executive Exchange Program with Canadian Universities, this program being administered by the Public Service Commission. The department also manages a subvention program in support of university research, and the journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada enables university staff to publish their research results subject to required page charges.
3.	No.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Does the Department of Supply and Services provide transport services to other departments and, if so (a) what are they (b) at what cost?
2.	How large is the fleet of trucks owned or leased by DSS?
3.	What is the total cost for the trucks and other transportation equipment?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes. (a) (i) Inventory items held in stock are transported to destination points selected by other departments, (ii) DSS offers a transport service to other departments in connection with its public warehousing activity, (b) (i) The cost for the delivery service is included in the selling price of the stocked item, (ii) The costs for this service are as follows: A. small van with driver-$15 an hour. B. Large vehicle with driver and helper-$23.50 an hour. C. Tractor-trailer-at negotiated rates.
2.	The trucks owned are: 29 light trucks; 18 medium trucks; 4 heavy trucks; 2 tractor-trucks; 2 trailers. These trucks are located in: Vancouver; Edmonton; Toronto; Ottawa; Montreal; Halifax; and Goose Bay. There are no leased trucks.
3.	Total acquisition cost: $375,870.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: $23,999,476 (October 1, 1972 to March 31, 1977).


Mr. Wenman: 1.	On what date, was a fee first charged for admission to the Fort Langley Historic Park, British Columbia?
2.	What were the yearly attendance figures for the five years prior to the year when a charge was first levied?

3.	What were the attendance figures for the years subsequent to the date a charge was first levied?
4.	(a) What amount has been collected in admission charges on an annual basis (b) are all the amounts collected used to maintain and enhance the historic site?
5.	What was the yearly cost of operating the historic site for the (a) five years prior (b) years subsequent, to the date when a charge was first levied?


B. Keith Penner: 1. June 23, 1975.
2.	1970-130,127; 1971-102,710; 1972-118,935; 1973- 140,878; 1974-134,607.
3.	1975-102,638; 1976-90,480.
4.	(a) $43,000 (1976-77); $37,000 (1975-76). (b) Yes.
5.	(a) 1970-71, $73,899; 1971-72, $103,744; 1972-73, $136,879; 1973-74, $162,883; 1974-75, $198,305. (b) 1975-76, $242,631; 1976-77, $266,671.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 of this year, six months ago, I placed a starred question on the order paper with regard to whether the government had purchased the Gulfstream 2 executive jet. I have raised this matter four times since January. It is ridiculous, when the government cannot find out whether they have purchased an aircraft. I see the minister is here again today. I spoke to him once before about this. I still have not received an answer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize that there are 55 motions standing on the order paper at the report stage of Bill C-24. I have had the opportunity to examine these motions. I should like to indicate to the House that I have reservations, on procedural grounds, with respect to eight of them.
There are two groups. Motions Nos. 2 and 9 in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) are grouped together. In my opinion, they introduce, subject to argument, a new concept into both the bill and the clauses of the bill which they seek to amend. That is, the concept of
July 21, 1977

Canadian domicile as it may relate to some special privileges or rights with regard to immigration. It seems, on a preliminary examination, that the concept of domicile is a totally new one in respect of the provisions of the act.


Mr. Brewin:: It has been in there for years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) wishes to make an argument, I have indicated that this is my preliminary view, subject to discussion. It seemed to me that I was doing a courtesy to hon. members to give them this information and to make available the preliminary arguments and concerns of the Chair in order that hon. members can address themselves to the preliminary argument.
Subject to argument on the point, it seems that motions Nos. 2 and 9 suffer from a procedural difficulty with respect to the introduction of a new concept. Similarly, the motions which relate to motion No. 40, motions Nos. 34, 35, 36, 43 and 45. These all relate to the basic proposition put forward in motion No. 40 which seeks to introduce an entirely new concept into the act in the form of a refugee claims board with certain powers, to say nothing of the fact that the board, consisting of some 18 members, I believe it is proposed in the motion, would have to be paid. Some expense there would have to be contemplated. Presumably, there is a fundamental difficulty in respect of the royal recommendation. If not that, there is at least the difficulty of introducing into the act a concept that seems to be beyond that contemplated within the four corners of the bill and the clauses mentioned here.
These are the areas in which I would be prepared to hear argument in terms of procedure. I again indicate, as I have in the past, that I will ask for copies of these notes to be circulated to hon. members to assist them in their preparation. 1 have not cited the references to the procedural text because hon. members will see those during the course of the argument.
The remaining motions seem to be acceptable, on a preliminary analysis, on procedural grounds. 1 would attempt to group them as follows. Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 should be grouped for debate, with separate votes on motions Nos. 1 and
4.	A separate vote will also be taken on motion No. 3, and this vote will dispose of motion No. 5. Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 could be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 22, 27, 28, 33, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54 and 55 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 25 could be grouped for debate. Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 17 would be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on motions Nos. 14 and 17 would dispose of motions 15 and 18. However, a negative vote on the motions will require separate questions to be put on motions Nos. 15 and 18. Motion No. 16 will be voted on separately, and this vote will also dispose of motion No. 25.
Immigration
Motion No. 19 will be voted on separately. Motion No. 20 will be voted on separately, and this vote will also dispose of motion No. 21. Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 26 could be grouped for debate, and a vote on motion No. 23 will dispose of motions Nos. 24 and 26. Motions Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 could be grouped for debate. A vote on motion No. 29 will dispose of motions Nos. 31 and 32. A separate vote is required on motion No. 30.
Motions Nos. 37 and 38 should be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 39 and 41 could be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 42 and 44 could be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Motions 49, 50, 51 and 52 will be grouped for debate. A separate vote will be called on motions 49 and 51. A vote on motion No. 50 will dispose of motion No. 52.

Those are my preliminary suggestions. The House may now wish to begin discussion of the first group, motions 1, 3, 4 and
5.	However, since we would probably move on rather quickly to motion No. 2, with respect to which, as I have indicated, the Chair finds some difficulty, it might be useful to hear argument now. I notice, though, that the hon. member for Okana-gan-Kootenay is not present at the moment, so perhaps the House would wish to discuss the first group of motions, and in the course of that discussion the Chair might be given some idea when argument with regard to motions Nos. 2 and 9 will take place.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to motions 2 and 9, in relation to which Your Honour mentioned that a new concept of domicile had been introduced, I should like a ruling from the Chair on motions 22 and 23 which also bring in the concept of domicile. Possibly that ruling could be given before we continue.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to assimilate all the suggestions made by Your Honour, but with regard to motions 2 and 9, which deal with the question of domicile, I respectfully submit that this is not a new concept. For many years the concept of domicile has been a familiar one-a certain number of years of residence in Canada excluding, except in extreme cases the right of the government to deport someone if that person had acquired Canadian domicile. This feature was discussed by the minister in committee, and I respectfully submit that the effort made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay in motions 2 and 9 is entirely in accordance with the right of parliament to say that it wishes this long-standing provision to remain in the law.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to make sure whether the hon. member for Greenwood is indicating that this bill, Bill C-24, contains in it any reference, other than report stage motions, to the term "domicile".


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to support the suggestion made earlier, that this procedural debate might be deferred until we have dealt with the first

July 21, 1977
Immigration
group of motions, namely, 1, 3, 4 and 5. If they move quickly, we could perhaps go on to motions 6, 7 and 8, and meanwhile arrange for some consultation on the matter and advise Your Honour when we would be ready for the procedural discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: That was the suggestion I made a few moments ago. We all wish to move with some speed to deal with this complex bill, and our opportunity to examine the measure is to some extent limited by the compression of time. This is why I am very receptive to argument that the concept of domicile does, perhaps, exist elsewhere in the statute and has not been introduced for the first time in these motions. Hon. members have an opportunity to develop this aspect and make reference to it, but I would think it worth while to go on to deal with the first two groups of motions and leave the procedural argument until later.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. To ease the work of the House, I should like to mention that when we get to the question of domicile and the argument on that point- whether it is a new concept, or whether it is already in the bill-the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) will not be here to put forward his views.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we can proceed, then, to the consideration of motions Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 20 to 28 at page 1 and lines 1 to 5 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
" "refugee" means any person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
(a)	is unable or, by reason of such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality, or
(b)	not having a country of nationality, is unable or, by reason of such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the country of his former habitual residence;".


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 27 to 37 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
" "family", for the purposes of any provision of this act, shall mean any person being a husband, wife, natural son or natural daughter under the age of 18 or mainly dependent on the family for support, father, mother, fiance, grandfather or grandmother, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter under the age of 18 years, sponsored by a Canadian citizen or a person admitted to residence in Canada;".


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved:: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 27 to 37 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
" "family" means the father and mother and any children who, by reason of age or disability, are, in the opinion of an immigration officer, mainly dependent upon the father or mother for support and, for the purpose of any 
provision of this Act and the regulations, includes such other classes of persons as are prescribed for the purpose of that provision;"


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 17 to 20 at page 3 and substituting therefor:
"person who is a member of the family as defined in this act;"
[ Translation]


Louis Duclos: As we are nearing the end of this session, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important that all hon. members should co-operate to conclude the business of the House as soon as possible, but there are matters of principle which we should not overlook just for the sake of making our lives more agreeable.
The purpose of the amendment which I proposed to the House is to define more generally and-if I may use the word, Mr. Speaker-more liberally the expression "Convention refugee" in clause 2. Bill C-24 defines the expression "Convention refugee". This convention we are dealing with here is the Geneva convention which was signed in 1951 and to which Canada is signatory. We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Geneva convention which was signed almost immediately following World War II had a very particular and special significance in that it did not concern essentially people who were politically persecuted, but people who had been displaced by the unfortunate events the world had gone through between 1939 and 1945. Canada being a party to that international convention undertook to accept certain minimum obligations. On the contrary, article (5) of the convention very clearly indicates that with respect to their obligations towards refugees go beyond the signatory countries may easily that to which they committed themselves by signing the convention.
Mr. Speaker, it would be truly unrealistic to stick to the definition of the Geneva convention when we know that an increasing number of people will want to claim the status of refugee from within their own country, when the convention says that to qualify as a political refugee, one must necessarily be out of the country of his nationality. The proliferation of totalitarian regimes in the world can only increase that trend because of violations of human rights by an increasing number of countries. Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that is recognized by the department when, for example, in issue no. 11, reference is made to clauses 115(1 )(d), 6(2), 115(1 )(e), when the reasons are given for the regulations that will accompany the legislation and it is suggested in support of what I just said, that there is an increasingly frequent number of situations where certain groups are the victims of serious political persecutions and must seek to settle somewhere else although they do not meet the definition of the term "refugee" under the United Nations convention, and it goes on to mention the Ugandan and Chilean cases.
Mr. Speaker, it would only be natural to include in the legislation what is in any case being done in practice, what is being done in the case of the Ugandans, what is being done in the case of the Chileans, through administrative directives, or special programs. It is suggested, Mr. Speaker, that if we
July 21, 1977

included in the law what has been done in practice for some time already, and what will have to be done with increasing frequence in any case in view of the new modern trend toward development, toward the proliferation of totalitarian regimes, Canada could literally be invaded by people claiming the status of political refugees.
Still, Mr. Speaker, 1 think we must make a distinction between the admissibility and the selection of individuals coming to Canada or wishing to come here. It is obvious that if a much broader or narrower definition of a refugee were given, a greater number of individuals would become admissible. However, under the legislation, at the selection stage Canada can always reserve the right to receive or to accept a limited number of applicants, in accordance with our possibilities. Nevertheless, and it must be pointed out, we would have to give priority to the most urgent cases, that is to the people who are most politically threatened. We should not use that possible reservoir of immigration to improve the quality of our immigrants, because they are really special cases, as it has been recognized by the minister when he accepted an amendment to clause 6 of Bill C-24.
Mr. Speaker, in the document which the minister distributed a few weeks ago on the procedures concerning the recognition of the refugee status, the following appears on page 2: "The bill provides for the great majority of refugees accepted by Canada to continue to be selected abroad." The individuals can be selected either in Canada, in their country of origin or in a third country. Since it is recognized that only a minority will be selected and will receive the status of political refugees in Canada itself, it remains that the majority of refugees will be selected either in a third country or in their own country, and, Mr. Speaker, according to very recent history, we know that the majority of those who come and who will have been chosen outside Canada will have been selected within their own country. The amendment therefore simply asks the government to recognize in the legislation what is done in practice through administrative directives and special programs.
Mr. Speaker, it would be truly shameful if Bill C-24 so restricted the definition of refugee that it would not include perhaps the majority of people who would want to come to Canada as refugees. 1 would very quickly like to point out to the House that my amendment is within the spirit of the recommendations, more specifically recommendation 93 of the special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and I know that the minister has been saying since the beginning of the debate, and especially in committee, that such a provision of the bill followed the recommendations of the special joint committee. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this argument should not be used only when convenient. I believe that the joint committee has done some great work and I would like to pay tribute to all my colleagues who took part in the work of this committee, but as much as we can say that the work and the recommendations of the special joint committee were useful in other cases concerning other sections of the bill, we can also say that this argument is valid in the case of my amendment.
Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that it is important that the act itself contain a definition of refugee which takes more into account the present realities concerning this issue, and 1 know that the House in general has set an example to the rest of the world in this matter during the last few years and that it has been generous. However, the new legislation should not use terms which are too restrictive. We will perhaps have to live with it for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years. It would not be a good thing if in 10 or 15 years, a government that is not as receptive or a minister who has something against such people were able to hide behind a narrow definition to justify a policy which would be equivalent to refusing to take its moral responsibilities towards the international community.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to say that 1 most wholeheartedly support the motion of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) which I think is an excellent motion, and rightly is a reasonable, up to date definition of "refugee" which is essential if we are to live up to our promises in this regard.
My next point is this. I see that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has moved over to this side of the House for a moment and I want to say something to him as a preliminary to my remarks. A lot of people, not just members of parliament but the various staffs around this place, resent what 1 would call this inhumanity, this almost insanity, of forcing the House to go through this sensitive, difficult and lengthy bill in the middle of July. I do not think there is any necessity for that whatever. I credit the minister with much more common sense than to have advocated this himself; I think it must have been pushed on him by these young Turks who have sometimes adopted the style of a steamroller to try to get their way.
I make honourable exceptions here, Mr. Speaker. In our committee on this bill, the hon. member for Montmorency and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) worked hard, stayed with it and took it seriously. But apart from that we had platoons of people who just put up their hands without showing the slightest interest in what was going on. 1 want to protest that and say that it is not fair to force members of parliament to stay here in the middle of July to deal with this bill when we in our party-I cannot speak, of course, for any other party-were perfectly ready to come back in August after a decent break. This procedure disrupts family arrangements, reasonable plans for travel and holidays which have been made, and disrupts going to one's constituency. I think it is absolutely deplorable. I want to express that opinion right here and now.
As far as this bill is concerned, I have submitted a number of amendments. They do not constitute a radical revision of the proposed bill. There are some things in the bill of which we
7870

July 21, 1977
Immigration
approve. I certainly approve the setting out of objectives in the bill, although there are some changes that should be made. Particularly I welcome the clauses which refer to the reunion of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad. There must be close co-operation among the federal government, the provincial governments and all levels of government.
We accept the rejection of discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, sex or political opinion which are contained in clause 3 of the bill. In particular, we welcome the explicit statement of Canada's determination to fulfil international obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian approach with respect to the displaced and the persecuted.
We share the view of the joint special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons that Canada needs immigrants, not only on demographic and economic grounds, but to take into account families and humanitarian considerations. The view of the joint committee is embodied in the bill as a whole. It is an aid to vastly increased mobility. Canada cannot afford to have an open-door policy. It has to maintain some control over the total number of immigrants coming to Canada each year. We do not support the policy of total rejection of immigrants flowing into Canada. Our preference is for a policy of moderation in the choice of the people we allow in, and a fair and decent handling of the people who apply to come to this country.
The statement of the principles and the objectives in the bill in no way obviates our criticism of some of the clauses which urgently require amendment for reasons we will outline as the various amendments come forward. We regret that so large a part of the provisions of the bill which applies to immigrants has been drafted by public servants and is based on regulations and orders in council. Such a process fails to secure adequate knowledge or scrutiny by the general public or by those concerned. I have introduced amendments which deal with this. We have had many excellent representations from church committees, legal aid societies, the Law Union of Ontario, civil liberties unions, la Ligue des Droits de l'Homme, and other organizations. Almost every one of the amendments I have proposed is based on those recommendations.
1 should like to deal with motion No. 3. It spells out the class of people who shall be admitted to Canada as sponsored immigrants, that is to say, should be allowed into Canada with a minimum of regulations and obstacles put in their way. This is supposed to be the purpose of this bill. Clause 3(c) reads as follows:
to facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad;
Motion No. 4 in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is typical of his amendments and his approach. It includes such other classes of persons as are prescribed for the purpose of that provision. In other words, even when we are trying to advocate the reunion of families, we have to turn to the executive to do so. We in this parlia-

ment are not asked or permitted, apparently, to state the number of positive persons who should be admitted.
My amendment under motion No. 3 deals with husband, wife, mother, father, fiance, grandfather, grandmother, and so on. It does not change the law except in certain minor particulars. At present, the law is in the regulations and is not in the act. Under the present regulations, the law is not substantially changed by my amendment. My amendment contains two things, one of which the government has announced to be its intention, namely, the admitting of people who are fathers, or mothers, over 60 whether in the work force or not.
Hitherto the law has been that one could be sponsored only if he were over 60 or so disabled that he could not work. In my judgment, the government has rightly suggested that persons can and should be allowed to sponsor their mothers or fathers regardless of their age. I have added one other change, and that is to include the words "natural son or natural daughter". The reason is that there are many countries, some of them not far away from Canada, where the institution of formal marriage is not the same as in our country. People marry, live together and have a family, but they are never formally married. In those circumstances, under the present regulations a mother is entitled to bring in what is referred to as her illegitimate child, which is a distasteful term. The same right should be extended to a father who has supported, looked after a child and behaved as the father. I feel that wording should be included, and that is why I suggest it.
The basic purpose of this amendment is to have parliament take the responsibility, and not the bureaucracy. There is a difference. We are sent here to legislate on sensitive and important issues, and I resent the growing habit, which has been evident for quite a while, of delegating these things to the governor in council, which is another term for the bureaucracy. I have never been in Her Majesty's privy council or cabinet, and thus I am not sure what they do with their time, but I imagine they have a great deal to do and do not have much time to direct to the question of immigration. There is a difference between the minister and myself, and the minister and some supporters of his party. That basic difference is whether we believe in the supremacy of parliament, or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this group of motions I will not be too long. However,
I should like to say a few words at the outset with general reference to the process we have been dealing with. In particular, I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) concerning the non-liberal attitude of the government in terms of propelling so rapidly the final decision of the House of Commons in this debate.
I think the editorial in this morning's Le Devoir is entitled, if I can give a rough Anglophone translation, "A bad climate for a fundamental law". I agree. The law we are presently dealing with in this statute having to do with immigration is the first
July 21, 1977

major revision of our immigration procedures in a quarter of a century, as the minister well knows. In the process of, first, the green paper, subsequently the special joint committee which travelled to about 45 different centres throughout Canada and had a great many meetings here in Ottawa and elsewhere, and finally the bill itself, there has been realization of the tremendous amount of interest which exists with respect to the whole question of immigration. In fact, a newsman this morning, in commenting on the issue of immigration, said that this is one matter on which everybody has an opinion. Unfortunately, sometimes there are situations wherein we get opinions off the tops of people's heads, and not the considered view that Canadians are capable of giving to the matter of immigration.
I suppose that one of the reasons immigration touches people in every walk of life so deeply is that it goes to the heart or the essence of community itself, the essence of the nation. Certainly, as a country that is still relatively new, we realize that we have been fundamentally dependent on immigration. Also, we can observe that in the past decade public opinion has gone through wild swings and gyrations with respect to immigration. As I think I mentioned during the second reading debate, it is most instructive to realize that when we last dealt with immigration in a major way, which was in the white paper on immigration produced a little more than a decade ago by Mr. Pearson's government and Mr. Marchand when he was minister, the attitudes among the general public and in the media, and certainly as reflected in speeches in the House, were such that one faced the subject of immigration with exhilaration and with a sense that immigration was one of the important characteristics, one of the really hopeful aspects, of the unfolding history of this country.
Unfortunately, during the last four or five years, particularly as the economic and social situation has become uncertain and difficult for a great number of Canadians, with internal problems, some of them affecting the integrity of the country, and with questions related to the future evolution of the province of Quebec, immigration has become a difficult subject for many people. It has tended to be treated-this is one of the unfortunate aspects-in a rather pathological way, with the idea that somehow immigration is now rather like a genie out of the bottle; that we must look upon it as something that is perhaps somewhat dangerous for the development of Canada. I know that the special joint committee said in its report, and the minister, as well as his predecessor who was connected with the special joint committee and the green paper, stated that immigration is significant and important to Canada. This has always been said with, "Yes, that is the situation-but." That is what made difficult the work of our special joint committee.
I am delighted that the co-chairman of the special joint committee, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), is here this afternoon, because he did a difficult job and he did it well. Perhaps it means more for me to say that than some other members, because he and I at times were not in agreement. But I can say that he gave important and
Immigration
constructive leadership to that committee in a most difficult situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: All of us who served on the committee won our spurs, in a sense, because we had to go through a great deal of trial and tribulation as we tried to make ourselves available to public opinion and public participation. We had a further aspect of public participation, to a degree, in the work of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, because some briefs and submissions were heard there. I would like to go on the record as commending the very capable work that was done by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). I think she was most fair and helpful in trying to produce a most constructive piece of legislation in that context.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Of course, perhaps we did not happen to suffer as much the kind of "road show" exposure in the standing committee as did the special joint committee a couple of years ago. I say all this because, as hon. members will know, I have not been entirely happy with the process because I think there were times when we did not consult public opinion adequately or effectively. 1 am really quite shocked and seriously disturbed at the fact that the government House leader and some members on the government side seem to be fanatically obsessed with having this legislation become law in the shortest possible time.
They seem to want to use some kind of pressure or steamroller tactic to push this bill through in a few days during a period when most people would recognize that anyone with any sense would not want to sit or stand in this legislative chamber, but would rather enjoy the all too brief summer that comes to this country. I feel it is unfortunate, and it is no credit to the government that they have committed themselves to rushing this bill through so that they can take whatever credit is due to them by having this legislation become a new statute on the books.
It would have been exceedingly valuable for the Canadian public in general had they had a few weeks to reflect upon the work that was done in the standing committee. It is significant that the minister, in writing a letter of thanks to the various members of the committee, recognized the fact that some 99 amendments were passed and made as amendments to Bill C-24. That is not to mention a number of other amendments made from both sides which were not accepted but merely served to give an indication of the complexity and importance of this piece of legislation. We are here, after all, not acting on our own behalf; we are acting in some sense as the representatives of the whole of Canada, trying to put on the statute books of this country a reformed immigration act which will presumably stand for a number of years to come.
1 cannot for the life of me understand why the government or the Liberal caucus would want to pass the bill this month, rather than in a few weeks, perhaps in the early part of
80020 -34 Vi

July 21, 1977
Immigration
September. It seems to me that would have at least allowed for some responsible democratic participation in the key elements-and I think there are a number, as evidenced by the 55 amendments we are dealing with now at report stage-on which the Canadian people would like to register their concern either directly to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) or to each and any of us as individual backbenchers.
Having said that, I would like to say a few words with respect to the specific motion No. 1 put foward by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos). I am very pleased to support this motion and I congratulate the hon. member for putting it forward. Obviously, it arises from his own experience and the experience of some of the rest of us in trying to understand and, to the degree possible, to suggest effective reforms with respect to the way in which we deal with refugees. I want to make it quite clear at the outset, because I think there is often a misunderstanding when it comes to dealing with amendments to the whole structure of procedures for refugees, that the concern which all of us have with respect to the refugee amendments is not in terms of Canada not accepting enough refugees. As the minister has recognized, we have had a commendable record, in terms of responding to situations of great human peril and anguish. Certainly this is so with regard to refugees coming from Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. Canada has gained a worldwide reputation for being ready to respond and to take seriously the great problems that exist for people who become exiled either within or outside their own country.
One thing we have discovered is that because the whole phenomenon of refugees is an increasingly important one, both in the world sense and in the way in which we as Canadians respond, procedures that may have been adequate 20 or 30 years ago are no longer adequate, and that our approach has been either of an ad hoc nature, which makes it difficult to determine whether or not we are handling the situation fairly and equitably, or we have been faced with a situation in which there is no legal framework at all, as in the case of the motion moved by the hon. member for Montmorency.
The interesting thing about this amendment is not just the fact that it was recommended by the special joint committee, which I believe is significant, but also that it really would put into law what is the current practice of the governement. This is what makes it very difficult for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to say that it is not a worth-while amendment. In a sense, we are suggesting to the minister that we want to give him, in legislative terms, the kind of role which has been exercised both by himself and by his predecessors in recent years. If that is not a reasonable proposition, for the life of me I do not know what is.
As has been referred to already this afternoon, increasingly there are situations where there are breakdowns of civil rights or human rights in various countries and where there is oppression, whether it comes from an ideology to the left or to

the right. We know-and we have responded on a humanitarian basis-of situations where thousands of people have been caught within their own countries, suffering all the things which are defined under the UN convention on refugees, and because of the fact that those people are not actually physically outside their countries they cannot be regarded in traditional terms as coming under the refugee category.
We recognized this a few years ago when we faced a situation which was difficult and deplorable in Uganda, and we recognized it, after that, in Chile. There were situations in which tens of thousands of people were suddenly subjected to massive persecution from the authorities in control of those countries. They did not come under the refugee definition of the United Nations. This situation was recognized by the special joint committee. So the department, in its wisdom- and I think it was wise-introduced the category of oppressed minorities. It does not exist in this particular statute, but that was a regulatory way for the department, the government and the Canadian people to respond to these very real human crises and tragedies.
We did respond, and I do not know-perhaps the minister can tell us-of anybody who has objected to the minister responding in this way. However, we have to recognize the fact that even though we handled those people as refugees, referred to them as refugees and established them in Canada on a refugee basis, and even though they were not legally situated as refugees, we participated and went along with it. I suppose it was really to save us going through an enormous debate here and having to amend the immigration law. Here we are, now trying to make our immigration law modern and relevant, and that is why I think the amendment of the hon. member for Montmorency is reasonable and sensible. In fact, I think it would not be sensible not to accept his amendment. The special joint committee recommended, at page 53:25, in recommendation No. 93, the following:
The committee regards the United Nations definition of "refugee" as too narrow and not adequate to accommodate the present-day variety of circumstances and emergencies confronting citizens of many countries. One difficulty is the stipulation that the person be outside his country to qualify as a refugee. Canada has eased this requirement to accommodate Chileans and Ugandans, but the committee sees a need for firm criteria to reflect contemporary refugee situations in which persons must leave their home countries because they have been stripped of citizenship and denied the right to remain. The definition should also include persons living in their homeland who face persecution or punishment for political reasons, provided their governments allow them to leave.
The hon. member referred to that, and there are a number of hon. members in the House this afternoon who sat on the special joint committee and who will recall this, but I think it is useful to have it on the record when we are dealing with this particular motion. That recommendation states the case as succinctly and as reasonably as I think it is possible to do. One of the things which was uppermost in the mind of the minister, his predecessor who worked on the drafting of this bill, and departmental officials, was that they wanted to try to reflect the wisdom and insight which was accumulated by the special joint committee.
The amendment brought forward this afternoon is eminently sensible. Having had a chance to consider this in the commit-
July 21, 1977

tee, but perhaps not sufficiently, and a chance to consult with his officials to see if there is any aspect of this redefinition which would create other problems-and I have not heard of any from the minister or his officials so far-I hope the minister will accept the amendment as being reasonable and sensible. Quite frankly, I think the Canadian people would expect no less.
What we are really trying to do this afternoon is reform the law in terms of present practice. 1 am sure the minister does not what to say to us this afternoon that in the years to come we are not going to be able to be in a position from time to time to respond to situations in which people will be, for all intents and purposes, refugees within their own home countries. People whose lives are in jeopardy, who have to flee and find residence in another country, will be looking for a homeland, and we should be able to provide a homeland for some refugees. Of course, under UN designation at the present moment I suppose millions of people are categorized as refugees. We are not talking here about any increase in numbers we are talking specifically about having the law defined in the clearest possible terms so that all Canadians can be proud of what is now the current practice and responsibility of the government.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to commend the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos). I believe he attended practically every one of the 33 meetings of the committee. He has been consistent in his representations, and we held many discussions both privately and at the committee stage. I thought perhaps my arguments would be more persuasive than they have been but notwithstanding that, the hon. member has brought forward his amendment.
1 also thank the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for his comments on many of the items in the bill, which are excellent. The bill is a very marked improvement over the legislation which is presently in existence. The establishment of objectives in the bill is a good move. Our responsibility to refugees is at long last incorporated into legislation. There is a myriad of improvements in this bill. We removed some of the more objectionable words which appeared in the former bill. As I read it, the former bill seemed to indicate that we were endeavouring to do everything we could to stop immigration, whereas in this bill we are indicating why we want immigration, why it is good, what Canada's obligations are, and what objectives we are hoping to meet through our immigration policy, so that those who come here and those who welcome them will know what the objectives are.
I think it is important that we get on with this legislation. My information is that almost every minister of immigration since 1952 has been endeavouring to bring forward an immigration bill. They have got to various stages only to find that sessions ended, elections were called or there was more important legislation. I think the time to move ahead is when there is a good feeling in the country about a bill and about immigrants. We have a good bill, and it is time to press on and get it passed.
Immigration
At the committee stage we spent some 70 hours going over 99, or perhaps in excess of 100, amendments. We looked very carefully at the amendments. Some of them were accepted, some were changed, and some were rejected. When I look at the amendments which have been put forward, particularly those put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood, I am reminded of a good friend of his, I am sure, and a man I knew mostly by reputation, Mr. Justice Walsh, when he was counsel practising before the court of appeal. On one occasion when he was before the court he handled five appeals. A judge asked him if he appealed all his cases. He said, "No, My Lord; just the ones I lose". That seems to be the precedent followed by the hon. member for Greenwood who has, once again, introduced ten of the amendments which were voted down at the committee stage.
This amendment purports to remove from the internationally accepted definition as contained in the convention the stipulation that a person must be outside his country of citizenship or normal residence before he can claim refugee status. Although the United Nations High Commission does not object to nations extending refugee-type benefits to classes beyond the convention definition, it does oppose any wholesale broadening of the definition itself, as being likely to cheapen the concept of "refugee" and thus impair its ability to secure assistance and protection for true refugees.
From a purely Canadian standpoint, as I said time and again in committee, the proposed amendment would enable literally millions of people to claim treatment as refugees when seeking admission to Canada, which would be an intolerable situation for the administration of the immigration program and would work to the detriment of true refugees.
The bill, however, does not preclude sympathetic consideration being extended to oppressed minorities, expellees, etc., in particularly urgent and meritorious circumstances. This is precisely the reason for clauses 6(2) and 115(1 )(d) and (e), which will allow the government, taking into account people's need for resettlement and Canada's current ability to provide settlement opportunities, to recognize certain groups for refugee-like treatment. These are the provisions that would have been invoked, had they been in force, at the time of the troubles in Uganda, Chile and Lebanon. The bill will, in fact, achieve the end sought by the hon. member for Montmorency, but in a more orderly and effective manner.
What could be the result of accepting this amendment? If we expand the definition to include the majority of the world's population, surely we might have to stop giving refugees priority and processing them next to the family class. Second, we might have to apply reduced selection standards when dealing with refugees. So on that basis it could have an effect opposite to that which the hon. member intended.
I suggest the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is not correct when he suggests that acceptance of the motion would give the sanction of law to the present practice. That would not be the case. Bill C-24 as presently printed would

July 21, 1977
Immigration
make our present practice the law. Therefore, for the reasons given I oppose broadening the definition as suggested in the amendment, especially given the changes we have made in the bill in clauses 6(2) and 115(1) (d) and (e).
I now come to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, dealing with the definition of "family". From my reding of it, the apparent intention is to enshrine in the act virtually all the classes of relatives who can be sponsored or assisted, meaning nominated, plus all illegitimate children. Like the hon. member, I do not like that term, preferring to call such children natural children. Taken with the hon. member's proposed amendment to the definition "member of the family class", it would make all these relatives permanently sponsorable, with no possibility of addition or subtraction except by way of amendment of the act.
I wonder if the hon. member for Greenwood has failed to notice that the definiton "family" is not intended to govern admissibility provisions but, rather, serves the purposes of several other provisions of the act, most of which concern removal from Canada, for example sections 19(2)(c), 27( 1)(/), 27(2)(/), and 33. His amendment would expose all the relatives named to removal because of the removability of a person to whom they are related. The proposed amendment is thus unacceptable from both the admission and the enforcement standpoint.
In clause 4, which stands in my name, I propose to include a new definition of the word "family" or, more appropriately, the old definition. I do this because of apprehensions expressed to me by some members that the original definition or the amendment passed by the committee would be seen by some as evidence of severe restriction in immigration policy.
The definition of "family" in the 1952 act uses the words "father", "mother" and "dependent children". This has always been open to the misconstruction that it covered three, rather than two, generations, although only the latter interpretation has ever been applied. The intent of Bill C-24 was to clear up the ambiguity. Nevertheless, I am given to understand that some people would take disappearance of the words "father" and "mother" as confirmation of an unfounded suspicion that sponsorship privileges are to be reduced, although the definition has nothing to do with the admissible classes. To avoid this appearance, if it is the wish of the House I am prepared to revert to the wording of the definition in the 1952 act, given that it has not caused any legal difficulties. The proposed amendment would restore the 1952 language, with the addition of the new optional power to extend the definition for specific purposes of the act and regulations.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this bill, now being debated at report stage and soon to be passed at third reading, hopefully, is the culmination of a number of years of hard work. Even before the green paper on immigration matters was made public, members of the parliamentary committee and those concerned with immigration called for the appointment of a special joint committee which would travel across the country to gather the views of Canadians on immigration. That committee was appointed; it travelled across the

country and heard the views of many. In one or two areas, because witnesses found it difficult to attend, it did not hear quite so much testimony.
The spirit which animated that special joint committee has also animated our standing committee which has been chaired so ably by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). 1 say this because the committee behaved in a non-partisan way, and serving on it has been one of my finest experiences since being elected in 1972. It considered all questions relevant to immigration and what will be best for Canada's future and for immigrants. We considered 99 amendments and spent 71 hours trying to improve the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank God for you, sir.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Some may argue the committee did not go far enough. Yet unquestionably the bill reported to this House represents the consensus of the committee. Its members tried to introduce amendments which would result in fairer immigration laws and reflect the reality of modern-day Canada. The point is this; it does not matter if members of parliament want to go home in July. We spent so much time considering this bill that it deserves consideration at the report stage and passage on third reading.
No one can say we did not spend enough time on it. The special joint committee considered it at length. We debated it on second reading and in committee, and we are considering it again at report stage. Here let me raise an important point. Certain amendments brought forward during the committee stage have again been brought forward at the report stage. I think the House leader should consider this practice carefully, since I do not think it was contemplated when our Standing Orders were revised.
I want to mention, with regard to the refugee clauses, that members on this side feel that Canada's international reputation in the area of accepting refugees is second to none. Throughout our history that has been the case. I believe all of us can point to certain times when we were perhaps not as forthcoming as we should have been. But when you consider countries that are internationally touted as being leaders in refugee matters, they fall well behind Canada on their total flow. That is over a period of years.
The definition in the bill is one to which Canada agreed as a signatory to the United Nations convention. As I understand it, the definition would allow Canadian immigration officials, refugee officials or whoever they might be, to intervene to the point of where a person is a prisoner of conscience or a political prisoner imprisoned in his or her own country, to say that that person is a refugee. Surely that is as far as we can go. If you look at the turmoil in the world today, you see we have a situation which we would simply not be able to control. The definitions which the signatories and members of the United Nations have agreed to, fit our purposes adequately.
I now come to the question of family. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) brought forward the amendment. I
July 21, 1977

realize that the concept of family class is not in the bill. This is where we have some trouble debating the bill. What we would really like to debate is the regulations. In the regulations there is a so-called family class. The definition of "family" here does have, either directly or by inference, a bearing on the family class. The whole question of family and the family class, or nominated class as it is called in the old bill, needs very thorough re-examination. In testimony in committee we were told that at the present time approximately 66 per cent of our flow is from the sponsored classes or nominated classes. If we expand into the sponsored classes parents, of any age, of Canadian citizens, it is estimated that the flow will increase to about 70 per cent.
I am very concerned about what we are going to do as we establish an annual target. If we increase those eligible under refugee clauses and increase the refugee definition, it will virtually eliminate the independent class. I refer to the immigrant who is an entrepreneur, the immigrant who would come here, not because of family reasons but for the simple reason of making a new start. If this trend continues, we are going to be in trouble. The independent immigrant who does not have relatives in Canada, but who is an immigrant we desperately need, will not come to Canada.
If we go back far enough, we have to concede that someone in our family came here as an independent immigrant and established a family, business, farm, or whatever the case may be. We today are the beneficiaries of that. Some people call them "new seed" immigrants. Call it what you will, I want to place this matter before the minister. I know his officials are very aware of it because I have hammered it so many times already. I am deeply concerned about any expansion of the sponsored class and the family class. I am not against family reunification in any way, shape or form. However, if we expand that definition too far, the independent immigrant, the entrepreneur, will have less chance to come into this country and allow us the benefit of what they can give us. This is the point that must be stated clearly and openly.
With that in mind, the amendment on refugees is not acceptable. I want, again, to stress to the minister and his officials that when we look at any expansion of the "family" definition-although I know it is not in the bill as a family class, but it is in the regulations-we should not take steps whereby the sponsor or family class will increase to such a degree that we will virtually remove the possibility of the independent immigrant coming to this country.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has to do with private members' hour this afternoon. There have been some discussions about how best we could use the hour between five and six o'clock today. Earlier today, the House leader for the NDP, whose party has the business for that hour this afternoon, agreed that it would be useful to use that hour to continue the discussion on this bill, rather than private members' business. As a result of that willingness on his part, there have been the usual discussions. I believe Your Honour will find agreement in the House, now, that the hour between
Immigration
five and six today be used for consideration of Bill C-24 rather than private members' business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I suggested earlier.


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


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an associated point of order. In order to ease the work of the House, I wonder if we could have an order as to when votes that are deferred will be taken. Will they be taken at the end of the day on which they have been deferred? How does the Chair rule on that matter?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding there have been discussions and that votes will be deferred to the end of the day. Votes will be taken tonight on votes deferred today.


Steve Eugene Paproski: At 9.45.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I object to these discussions taking place in public before there has been consultation. I was approached about this a few minutes ago. I said I would discuss it with my colleagues and report later. Let us do it in the right way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that private members' hour today between five and six o'clock will be dispensed with in order to carry on with Bill C-24?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the remarks of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). He stated that it is good to have set forth in the bill the principle of reunification and the principle with regard to refugees. He said there is a good feeling in Canada at the moment and, therefore, let us get on with the bill. If the minister were to look at yesterday's Globe and Mail, he would see there has been a substantial reduction in the inflow of immigrants. One reason is the law pertaining at the moment, as well as the ill-feeling pertaining across the country.
I say to the minister that if we want to create good feelings among new immigrants, we must have proper policies with regard to employment, housing and some of the other social problems. Only then will we generate good feelings among immigrants. At the moment, in the major cities in particular, there are racial tensions which could flare up at a moment's notice. I wish to comment on that matter and underline it for the minister.
Remarks have been made on motion No. 1 concerning refugees. I rather subscribe to the remarks which accompanied

July 21, 1977
Immigration
the motion of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). If there's a will, there's a way. The minister set forth some of the administrative difficulties he foresees if the motion moved by the hon. member for Montmorency is accepted.
Mr. Speaker, if we had the will to accept the up to date definition given by the hon. member for Montmorency, I am sure we could find a way to deal with the difficulties the minister has outlined. If we wish to remain in the forefront in dealing with refugees, it is not sufficient to say that if we accept an up to date definition there will be administrative difficulties. If the up to date definition offered by the hon. member is correct-and there was a feeling throughout the committee that this is the case-we ought to accept that definition and then put in place the necessary administrative machinery to meet the situation. We ought not simply to accept the excuse offered by the minister.
There is another area to which I should like to refer. In motion No. 3, my hon. friend from Greenwood wants to make sure of the definition of "family". He wants it in the bill, not just in the regulations, so he sets forth in strict terms what he means by "family". I have spoken to the hon. member. His motion says that for the purpose of any provision of the act, "family" shall mean any person being a husband, a wife, natural son and natural daughter. I asked him whether this included adopted sons and adopted daughters.
My experience before the Immigration Appeal Board is that difficulties arise in the case of adopted children because many of them are adopted in countries which follow procedures different from our own and at times it is difficult to determine whether a youngster has been adopted legally. I should like the minister to give us some assurance that the words "any children" in motion No. 4 include not only natural children but adopted children. I am well aware of the problems which arise with respect to certain adoptions, but I am sure such problems can be taken care of by regulation. However, it should be said that young children, whether natural children, in the words of the hon. member for Greenwood or "any children," in the words of the minister himself, should include adopted children. These are the main comments I should like to make with regard to these motions.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will not continue at any great length, and I may say it is not my intention to speak very frequently on this bill. First of all, it seems to me, on the basis of what I have been able to observe since I came to parliament, that the question of refugees and the question of immigration are to a large extent separate issues. I am not as concerned about the volume of immigration, the numbers who come here as a result of the legislation, whether amended or unamended, as are some members of parliament. I say this because I have watched immigration rise from 100,000 to almost 250,000 in some years, and then decline again by 20 per cent or 30 per cent, as
[Mr. Gilbert.)
it has done in the last year and a half, all without any changes in the act and without many changes in the regulations.
These fluctuations to a large extent reflect the economic situation in the country. When there is prosperity, we let more people in, and when there is large-scale unemployment, as there is at the present time, we let fewer people in. Somehow, the officials of the department get a message and they are able, certainly without any instruction from parliament-what instructions they get from the minister, I do not know-to regulate the flow. This is done chiefly through changes in the regulations. At one time a person wishing to immigrate to Canada was required to produce a firm job offer. But as unemployment grew there was a change in regulations and suddenly the job offer was not good enough. The applicant was required to produce a job offer in respect of a job which no Canadian wished to take. I am not saying this is wrong, because I am one who believes that in times of high unemployment there should be less immigration, and I do not expect this situation to change very much no matter what the act or a new set of regulations may say.
I am concerned, though, about the question of refugees. We have a good record, probably one of the best in the world. We have permitted large numbers of refugees to come here. I might mention some of the countries from which we have received refugees. At the time of the revolution in Hungary we relaxed our rules and admitted large numbers of refugees from that country. At the time the Asians were ordered out of Uganda we permitted large numbers to come to Canada. When the Viet Nam war was approaching its climax and many people wished to leave South Viet Nam, we relaxed our regulations in their favour.
I have the impression, though-and it is shared by many people-that our generosity was somewhat less toward refugees from Chile after the military junta took over. I have the impression we were much more selective in our treatment of refugees and that the authorities, whether they be in the immigration department or the RCMP responsible for security clearance, were much tougher in the case of Chileans who wanted to come to Canada than they had been with respect to those admitted from the other countries I have mentioned. This attitude, to put it mildly, does not enthuse me. If the people of Canada, correctly or not, have reason to believe that their government is picking and choosing the types of refugees it allows to enter, there is likely to be much less acceptance of the idea that we should be generous in our treatment of refugees. We are living in a world in which citizens of any country may be tomorrow's refugees. This being the case, we ought to be as generous as possible in our definition of what is a refugee and in the provisions under which refugees are admitted here.
It was interesting to hear the minister suggest that as a result of the green paper discussions, the production of this bill, and then the hearings before the committee, a great deal of consensus had been reached. I find this hard to believe. Firstly, in view of the fact that there are over 50 amendments to the bill, many by members of the Liberal party, there does
July 21, 1977

not seem to me to be much consensus. Secondly, when I note some of the views expressed by the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights and the Inter-Church Committee on Population, both of which committees represented a very broad range of all the major religious denominations in this country, it seems to me that the minister has been very loth to accept what I consider to be some of the very sensible recommendations which they made. Let me quote just two short extracts from the presentations which were made, firstly by the InterChurch Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. I quote from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for June 2, 1977. As found at page 30A:23, they say:
We are asking your initiative and support in three ways:
1.	that you go on record supporting the development of criteria appropriate to refugees separate from those applied to regular immigration applications.
2.	that you support the right to a personal oral hearing before a panel which would make the final decision, with appropriate opportunity to prepare such a hearing, for applicants for refugee status within Canada. To this end we are recommending the creation of a refugee claims board.
3.	that you support amendments to the new immigration bill which would institutionalize these changes.
They then go on to outline the clauses which would implement those proposals. At page 30A:35 of the same day's proceedings, when dealing with the need for special refugee criteria, they had this to say:
In any situation, but especially in a world filled with evidence of growing brutality and oppression, refugees, the displaced and the persecuted should find quick refuge and untroubled safety among us Canadians. We are concerned that Bill C-24 does not really provide for special handling of these people with special needs.
In light of those two assessments of the bill, I find it very easy to support the motion of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and I am surprised that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and also the minister, suggested that this would open the door to millions of people. If, as suggested in the amendment, people in foreign countries were permitted to apply for refugee status, this would not mean that they could leave that country. After all, Vladimir Bokovsky, to mention one of the most recent dissidents who wanted to leave the Soviet Union, was not permitted to do so until that government agreed to let him go. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn did not want to leave the Soviet Union, but he left when the government put him out. So to say that we will permit people to be classed as refugees if they want to leave their country merely broadens the classification.
So far as we are concerned, the country in which those people are living must first permit them to leave, and I suggest that on the basis of both past and present experience the door would not be opened very much more than it is at the present time. I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that if we have the will, it is certainly not beyond the ability of the department to work out a procedure that would be satisfactory.
Immigration
I want to say a few words about families. In his motion No. 4, the minister proposes that the act be amended so that at a certain point which he defines, clause 2 would read as follows:
-"family" means the father and mother and any children who, by reason of age or disability-
These are, to me, the important words.
-are in the opinion of an immigrant officer, mainly dependent upon the father or mother-
And so on. I can see 20 different definitions there. An immigration officer in Vancouver may use that definition to decide that a certain person is in the family, whereas an immigration officer in Winnipeg may come to a different conclusion, an immigration officer in Toronto may arrive at a third definition, an immigration officer in Montreal a fourth, and so on. Or two officers in adjoining offices in the same city could come to two completely different decisions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So could the same officer, on two different days.


David Orlikow: Or, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, so could the same officer, on two different days or in two different hours. So it seems to me that motion No. 4 as drafted by the minister is very deficient, and that motion No. 3 as drafted by my colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) includes a much better definition of "family". It is much more specific and gives quite a clear directive to an immigration officer, rather than leaving it to the whim or fancy of one immigration officer as opposed to another. The criteria are quite clear, and it seems to me the motion should be supported. I urge the minister to reconsider his position and to be a good deal more generous than he proposes to be on the subject of refugees. I ask him to adopt the motion proposed by the hon. member of his own party, the hon. member for Montmorency.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, during its proceedings the House must consider various bills, but by their nature and their object some of them deal with the substance of the country itself and more especially define our prospects for the future which must be specified during the discussion so that the country in which we will be living during the next few years meet the objects of democracy and freedom without which a society cannot make any progress, but comes to a standstill.
The amendment moved by my colleague from Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) deals with one of those notions reconsidering our international responsibilities. When the Geneva convention was signed, it dealt with the sovereignty concept as known and applied after the Second World War. The drafters of that time wanted the country to keep total jurisdiction over its subjects, citizens, nationals as long as they remained within its borders and as soon as they had left their territorial boundaries, they could then claim protection from other states. But a foreign state could not intervene within that country in an attempt to

July 21, 1977
Immigration
remove from the jurisdiction of the laws of that country those nationals who had not yet left that territory.
This concept is the one contained in the very definition of the word "refugees" spelled out in the Geneva convention, and in the wording of Bill C-24. The motion presented by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) aims at enlarging this very narrow definition and to surround the concept of the word "refugees" with a democratic context which is recognized today by most international bodies as necessary. One of the most recent international bodies to have seen the day, namely the European Common Market, made it mandatory for its members to respect the basic notion of a democratic regime and it has even provided for specific procedures to preclude or even reject certain requests for admission in cases where the political regimes of these countries did not meet those objectives with regard to freedom that all members of the European Economic Community are bound to uphold.
The definition given by my colleague, the hon. member for Montmorency, to the concept of "refugees" matches this evolution in international law which is now entrenched in the constitutional charter of the most recent regional international organizations. There is no doubt, as it has been underlined by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) that a broader definition of the concept of "refugees" would lead to less stringent admissibility standards. However, it would not change the criteria or the conditions. Essentially it aims at extending to a greater number of individuals who are experiencing trouble with the prevailing law of their country, the possibility of applying for admission to Canada. It does not constitute an obligation per se for a potential guest country- under those circumstances, Canada- automatically to grant the requests for admission made by those refugees. Essentially, the aim is to allow applications for political refugee status by foreign citizens at odds with the laws of their country for the reason that the latter do not meet with the democratic goals and freedoms to which Canada is committed.
Obviously, as emphasized by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the extended definition will entail extra work for immigration officers having to deal with such applications. It would certainly not lead to the excessive levels of applications that have been referred to at certain stages of the bill. It is vital in my view, dealing with the motion by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) that we as a Parliament ask ourselves what Canada's responsibility is, that we promote and defend a certain commitment, a certain content of international responsibility, that we use up to date concepts.
The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) stressed in his speech that the most difficult cases before us today involve precisely nationals still living in their own countries. I think the amendment gives us an opportunity to redefine the context in which Canada will be operating tomorrow at the international level. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have a large experience of a number of countries that went through difficult political circumstances but that, thanks to the support, help and understanding of other countries more deeply committed to those goals, are trying to redevelop a certain concept of

international life different from that which prevailed after World War II, but better adapted to the historical context of the later part of the 20th century.
Therefore, the amendment now before us has in my view a significant symbolic value, in that it makes reference to the role that Canada proposes to play during the years to come. On the very long list of amendments proposed today some are built on basic concepts in our democratic society. I had an opportunity outside Parliament to refer to some of those concepts and those amendments are a new opportunity to come back to them. However, at this stage of the debate, it seems to me perfectly convenient to replace the purposes of this legislation within the context of Canada's international obligations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The deferred division on motion No. 1 also defers division on motion No. 4. As announced by the Chair, I will now put the question on motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).

At this time I have to put the question on motion No. 3, which will dispose of motion No. 5. Motion No. 3 is in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
July 21, 1977


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division; and this division disposes of motion No. 5, also in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare motion No. 4 carried on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport- Increase in freight rates on potatoes and provision of additional equipment-Reason for timing of announcement; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) The Canadian Economy-Report of Fitzgerald Associates on "The Way Ahead"-Request for tabling of report or reference to committee; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale)-Veterans Affairs-Date of establishment of local office in Brandon.
Immigration



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members may consider this to be an appropriate time to proceed with the argument in respect of motions Nos. 2 and 9 and also motion No. 40 and other motions related thereto. If there are any members who wish to discuss the procedural regularity of motions Nos. 2, 9 and 22, I would be pleased to hear their arguments now, although I note that the hon. member in whose name motions Nos. 2 and 9 stand is not expected to be here to pursue those matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to argue in defence of the procedural regularity of motions Nos. 2, 9 and 22. I recognize the points you made when you gave your preliminary opinion, to the effect that there is no reference to domicile in Bill C-24 and that therefore these report stage amendments bring in a new proposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The situation that we are facing here seems to me to be very similar to the one we faced in the bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to capital punishment, that is, that what was a concept in the immigration law previously, namely, the concept of domicile, was removed by this bill which repeals the existing law and replaces it with a concept of permanent residence. That being so, the question that would remain is whether reinstating a concept which was taken out of the law by virtue of a bill which repeals it is simply a change in detail or a change of such a fundamental nature that it goes to the principle of the bill.
I would indicate that since the amendment is sought to be made to clause 4 of the bill, it is significant that clause 4 appears under the heading "Principles", and that the principles of the bill appear to be stated in clause 4 as relating to concepts of Canadian citizenship and permanent residence. If that is so, the concept of permanent residence would appear to be part of the principle of the bill in place of the previous concept of domicile. Therefore, the amendment which would seek to reinstate from the statute law an aspect of the law which was there before, but which is repealed by this bill, would seem to be going contrary to the principle of the bill. I thought I would expose that reasoning for the benefit of the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for adding to what you said earlier. I thank you in particular for drawing the parallel to the legislation that we had with respect to the criminal law. Initially, may I make the

July 21, 1977
Immigration
point that in that case we did not repeal the entire Criminal Code and bring in a new one; we amended the Criminal Code in one respect. In this case we are repealing, in its entirety, the present Immigration Act, as provided in clause 128 of the bill.
I submit that because clause 128 of the bill repeals in its entirety the present Immigration Act, Bill C-24 is removing the question of domicile from the existing legislation. It seems to me that there is something that is analogous to the very principle of the report stage, indeed to the rules that govern the report stage which give us the right at that stage to put back into the legislation something that was removed at the committee stage. I realize that the time when the concept of domicile was removed was when the bill was brought before the House and given second reading, but what I am trying to address myself to is Your Honour's contention that there is nothing in Bill C-24 on domicile, and therefore that report stage motions Nos. 2, 9 and 22 bring in a new idea.
My contention is that Bill C-24 pronounces on domicile by virtue of the fact that it repeals in its entirety the previous legislation known as the Immigration Act, and that it is relevant to the whole process of striking out the whole concept of domicile for members at the report stage to ask that the concept of domicile be put back into the legislation. It is for this reason that I contend, sir, that motions Nos. 2, 9 and 22 should be allowed, at least procedurally.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any necessity to elaborate on the arguments that have already been put forward by you and the introduction that you were good enough to make to the House when you indicated the grouping of the particular motions. What we have done here, very clearly, is to eliminate the original bill. We do not have a bill that we are simply amending; we have done away with the bill completely, and all the concepts that we are dealing with are subject to amendment.
What is attempted by motion No. 9 is to reintroduce a concept which was in the old bill. It endeavours to introduce another concept in the bill which was not considered when we brought this new bill into being. On that basis, it seems to me that your point is well taken, sir, and that the idea of reintroducing a concept of domicile from an old bill into this new one, which does away completely with the old act, is inappropriate. Therefore, the motion should be ruled out of order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that we have done away with the old Immigration Act. He is a little premature. We have not done away with it. It is still the law of this land. As my colleague pointed out very clearly, we are changing the law, or we are proposing to change it, I assume, by repealing the Immigration Act at a later date. In the meantime, I would respectfully submit that a concept such as domicile, which has historically been associated with the right to immigrate or to stay in this country once you have immigrated, is part of the legislation in respect of immigration.

I find it difficult to comprehend how parliament at this stage of the proceedings should not be entitled to say there is a concept which we think protects people and it should be incorporated. I am not trying to argue the merits of it now; I am merely trying to argue the procedural point of view. It would seem to me that the function of the rules of parliament should permit us to do something which is clearly relevant to the basic theory of immigration. We have in the bill provisions which deal with residence, and we want to add a clause or put back a clause that was formerly recognized regarding people who have acquired Canadian domicile.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And keep alive a concept.


Francis Andrew Brewin: And keep alive a concept which is there at the present time. I respectfully submit that parliament should be allowed to do this, and should not be restricted by any interpretation of the rules which would prevent the will of parliament being expressed on this highly important subject.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) and I briefly discussed these motions, and I am prepared to act on his behalf and move them, if they are acceptable to the Chair. With regard to the acceptability of motions Nos. 2 and 9 concerning the concept of domicile, it has already been stated clearly by some hon. members that this is something that is part and parcel of the present Immigration Act. There is a real question, in line with the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as to whether, in dealing with the new legislation, that would be considered to be a new motion. That is particularly so with respect to the fact that there are going to be hundreds of thousands of people-we do not know exactly how many; this is something we tried to determine in committee; perhaps the number will be well over a million-who will continue to be defined under this category.
Perhaps Your Honour did not have an opportunity, because of the length and complexity of the bill and the shortness of time, to notice that in clause 127 the concept of domicile is very clearly stated and very clearly referred to as being part of the new administration in terms of the coming into force of this bill. Just to refresh the mind of hon. members, in clause 127 we find these words:
Where a person acquired Canadian domicile in accordance with the Immigration Act as it read before it was repealed by subsection 128(1) of this act and did not lose Canadian domicile before the coming into force of this act, a deportation order may not be made against that person on the basis of any activity carried on by him before the coming into force of this Act for which a deportation order could not have been made against him under the Immigration Act as it read before it was repealed by subsection 128(1) of this act.
In other words, what I am saying is that it is not just a question of this presently being the status under the Immigration Act, which will cease to exist when Bill C-24 becomes law; indeed, there is going to be for many hundreds of thousands of Canadians certain legal protection and legal recognition under
July 21, 1977

the designation of domicile as it presently exists. The minister will well recall that in the discussion we had concerning the inclusion of the domicile provision in the new legislation, he was quite willing to recognize that for many hundreds of thousands of people-and we cannot fix an exact figure because apparently exact figures are not kept-the domicile provision and designation will still apply.
That is very clearly why it is part of clause 127. Therefore, when this bill comes into effect there will be a domicile provision, a domicile designation and a domicile categorization. While it is quite true that it will be quite different with respect to the functioning of the law-Bill C-24, as compared to the present law-it is not true to say that there will not be, for the purposes of definition or even of administration, the concept of domicile. That is why I argue strenuously that this is not a new concept. It was an important concept, and it was incumbent upon the department to provide some kind of recognition and continuing designation for a very substantial number of people who have lived in this country, for a considerable length of time in some instances, and who will have to live, as long as this new bill will be in effect, under the designation of domicile.
So I argue that it is not just a question of what was in the former act. That has been suggested, and I think that is a valid point in terms of the importance of it. I argue that it is also in this bill and it is very clearly defined in clause 127. That sets out very clearly the legal situation and the legal protection for those who enjoy the designation of domicile. Of course, it will be fixed to a date, the date of the proclamation of this bill; but this bill in no way discontinues the designation of domicile. What is proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay in motions Nos. 2 and 9 is merely the extension of the provisions of domicile as they are set out in clause 127, and to elaborate them somewhat; but certainly not to introduce a new definition into the context of this bill.
Elaving said that with respect to those two motions, I must say, quite frankly, that my arguments and my position can be a good deal more convincing with respect to that, as well as to the questions Your Honour has raised concerning a number of my motions, particularly motion No. 40 which would establish a refugee claims board. As Your Honour has recognized, I was attempting, through a series of amendments, to set out a particular procedure with respect to dealing with refugees. The minister is well aware of this because it was discussed in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the record would be a little tidier if we dealt with one set of motions at a time. If the hon. member has concluded with respect to motions Nos. 2 and 9, perhaps I can now see if there are any other hon. members who wish to make a contribution to that argument. If not, perhaps I could conclude.
1 have some sympathy with the arguments which have been advanced with respect to these motions. 1 do not want to mislead the House by saying that the concept is unknown to the immigration law. In fact, the concept was part of the statute as it existed previously. Neither do I want to indicate
Immigration
that it is not relevant to the bill. I do not want to confuse any of that language. Certainly, anything which would define the status of people in Canada would certainly be relevant to this bill because it relates to the subject of immigration.
The problem I have is simply this. The bill which the House passed at second reading contains a principle. The principle is the repeal of the existing law on immigration and the replacement of that law with the one contained in Bill C-24. One of the principles involved in that, however those principles are defined, seems to be the elimination of the concept of domicile. The argument made with respect to clause 127 seems to be a counter-productive argument, with all due respect.
In fact, it seems to me that clause 127 simply advertises that elimination and makes provision for those who up to the time of the passage of this bill had acquired domicile. That seems to me to be a reinforcement of the fact that one of the purposes of this bill, which was passed at second reading, is to repeal the immigration law in such a way as to remove the concept of domicile and replace it with the concept described in clause 4 of the bill.
My difficulty there is not whether the concept is a new one, in the sense of the immigration law, or whether it is relevant, but whether it is appropriate to permit, by way of a motion at the report stage, an amendment to a bill which, it seems to me, would be counterproductive to the very basic principle of the bill. One of the basic principles and purposes of the bill is the elimination of domicile from the law. It seems to me that to permit an amendment which would reinstate the law of domicile is to say that amendments could be used to contravene directly the principle of the bill. That is something which we obviously do not support and I cannot consider.
The language used in clause 4 of the bill leads me to believe that it is certainly intended to be a rather fundamental principle of this bill that the concept of domicile be removed. Therefore, any amendment at this stage which would seek to reinstate that falls into precisely the same category as amendments which I previously had to rule on and which one by one sought to reinstate capital punishment when it had been removed by the bill. I ruled in each case that those amendments were directly contrary to the principle of the bill.
I find the parallel here irresistible. If this were simply a change of some detail, or some incidental circumstance with respect to the application of the bill, I would follow and accept the arguments of the hon. members who have spoken in favour of the amendments. The reason for my ruling them out is that they offend the principle of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this afternoon, when one of Your Honour's deputies was in the Chair, a point was raised about the possibility of some recorded divisions being taken tonight. I complained that this was raised before any opportunity for consultation. So far as I am concerned, that consultation has now taken place, and we are prepared to agree to the taking tonight, at 9.45, of recorded divisions on any report stage amendments stored up to that time, so to speak. But that is all

July 21, 1977
Immigration
we are suggesting. Let each day's evil take care of itself. We will let tomorrow go without any votes, and take care of Monday when it comes.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we understand the suggestion shall apply to today only. To that extent, we agree. We can discuss what is to happen on other days.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is agreeable to us.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed, and so ordered, that the taking of deferred divisions on report stage amendments will proceed at 9.45. The proceedings will be interrupted at 9.45 this evening for the taking of any deferred divisions which have accumulated within our procedures up to that point. We may consider how this procedure will affect the adjournment debate already announced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could the bells not ring for 15 minutes only?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Part of the order should say that the proceedings will be interrupted at 9.45, the bells will ring for 15 minutes, and the votes will be taken at ten o'clock. That would allow the adjournment debate to proceed as announced a few moments ago.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: For the purpose of the procedural argument, perhaps we could address ourselves to motion No. 40.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I said before you ruled on motions 2 and 9, it is somewhat difficult to argue in support of the establishment of a refugee claims board primarily because the establishment of the board will involve some financial expenditure, which is beyond the ability of a private member to recommend. Although I was absent from the committee hearings when the point was discussed, members of the committee experienced certain difficulty in having this matter brought forward and voted on during the committee's regular proceedings. However, committee members tried to bring about a more effective, efficient and fair way of dealing with refugees than our present immigration procedures contemplate. I recognize that the introduction of a refugee claims board may introduce a new element into our procedures. However, if I can set aside for a moment any suggestion of a charge against the Crown, I suggest that this is not a foreign idea. At least, the idea of suggesting one procedure as against another is not foreign to us.
As Your Honour may know, and as the minister has said several times, there is in the bill a much more clearly stated procedure with respect to the processing of refugees than ever was contained in our immigration law. I am attempting to bring about, by way of this particular procedure and motions

set down on the order paper, much more clearly defined procedures, perhaps more public procedures and, in the final analysis, a much fairer way of processing refugee claims which may come to the attention of the department. If one can judge by what has been said in the House today, there is concern that somehow one of two things will happen: that an enormous number of people will suddenly appear on our doorstep-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, I thought we were debating the procedural acceptability of the motions, and not debating their merits. It seems to me the hon. member is now debating their merits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In every case, anticipating what may be raised hereafter by way of argument on the merits, I may perhaps be lulled into being somewhat generous with remarks concerning the procedural point. However, I should bring the hon. member back to the point being debated.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was debating the procedural aspect. I wish to make clear that I am not attempting to introduce a proposition at variance with what is contained in Beauchesne's fourth edition. I am not trying to introduce a proposition foreign to the proposition of the bill. I do not think the minister himself would argue that anything in these motions is foreign to the purpose of the bill. I merely wish to make our procedures more equitable. Being concerned with equity, I argued that this particular series of motions should be accepted. I did not intend to introduce any factors inconsistent with the over-all scope of the immigration bill. That scope, or those objectives, are set out clearly. There is an attempt in my motion to be much more non-discriminatory, more open and more fair with respect to those whom we judge should be granted refugee status.
The question of costs involved can be interpreted perhaps in one of two ways. From time to time private members have proposed legislation allowing for the appointment of individuals, and such legislation has in no way obligated the Crown with respect to expenditures. Realistically, I recognize that this would very likely be the case in the present instance and I would accept Your Honour's ruling in that regard. I think the ideas incorporated in the motions are eminently reasonable and in harmony with the bill as presently printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member recognizes his fundamental difficulty in proposing the motions he has just defended. I am sure the motions are well-intentioned and would put forward a regime designed only to extend greater justice and fairness to those who seek refugee status under our immigration law. However, it is basic and fundamental, under our practices and precedents, that it does not lie within the power of a private member to put forward, by way of amendment or otherwise, measures which would call for the expenditure of funds, unless he has been able to contrive, I presume with the assistance of the minister, the royal recommendation in respect thereto.
But that is not the case at present. Therefore, on that one, basic ground alone, without going further, the motion fails. It
July 21, 1977

seems to me that the motion relating to the establishment of a different kind of board than now exists under our immigration law would obviously provide for expenditure. Therefore, on that basic, fundamental ground, I rule the motions out of order. Motion No. 40 having been ruled out of order, the motions related to it also fail, those being motions 34, 35, 36, 43 and 45.
As I said earlier, motions Nos. 2 and 9 having failed, motion 22 is the only other motion which mentions specifically the concept of domicile. Therefore, motions 2, 9 and 22 are out of order.
I note that motion No. 23 was referred to earlier. I have examined the language of motion 23 and do not find the word "domicile" in it, although there seems to be language in it which has a similar description or connotation. In fact, the word "domicile" is not used. Therefore, on procedural grounds I am not able, without further elaboration, to find difficulty with that motion.
That brings us to the consideration of motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). That, in accordance with early discussion, also brings forward motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and motion No. 8, in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I should also add that Mr. Paproski is the seconder of motion No. 6, Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) the seconder of motion No. 7, and Mr. Brewin the seconder of motion No. 8.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 11 to 13 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"long term demographic goals as shall be established by the government of Canada from time to time after consultation with the provinces, concerning regional demographic needs and after consultation with such other persons, organizations and institutions as it deems appropriate in respect of the size, rate of'.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 19 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"ter of Canada and the multicultural nature of Canada;".


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 3 by striking our line 41 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"origin, colour, religion, sex or legal political opinion or activity;".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, when the special joint committee reported, and during second reading debate on Bill C-24, my party stressed the need for a Canadian demographic policy. We contended, on second reading, that Canada has no demographic policy. The minister's remarks on second reading convinced us that this is the case.
Immigration
When this matter was raised during committee stage, further evidence was brought to our attention which illustrates that, in fact, Canada does not have a developed demographic policy. The purpose of this amendment is to put into place the mechanism by which a demographic policy would, in fact, be developed. We are not calling for a demographic policy to be put in place, and to be in place immediately. What we are calling for is that the procedure and development of that demographic policy to be put into place in very fair terms.
The minister went part way in clause 7. I am not trying to move ahead, Mr. Speaker. I hope I am in order. In clause 7, the minister went part way in the development of a demographic policy. I must stress that he only went part way. The amendment in clause 7 is acceptable. We endorse it and hope to go further on it. Clause 7 states that after the establishment of annual levels-
The minister... shall lay before parliament, not later than the sixtieth day before the commencement of each calendar year or, if parliament is not then sitting, not later than the fifteenth day next thereafter that parliament is sitting, a report specifying
(a)	the number of immigrants that the government of Canada deems it
appropriate to admit during any specified period of time; and
(b)	the manner in which demographic considerations have been taken into
account in determining that number.
What the amendment does is obligate the minister to lay before parliament the target, not the exact number, of the number of immigrants who will be landed in the next year. That target might be overshot or undershot largely on the basis of the number of refugees that we land during that given year. We cannot determine beforehand, on any demographic considerations or manpower considerations, the number of refugees who might be landed in that given year. 1 believe that is clearly understood by those members who sat on the committee.
What will happen at this stage is that the minister, under clause 7(b), will have to place before parliament the demographic considerations, in other words, the rationale for the number he deems wise to land in that given year. That is fine as far as it goes. However, demographic considerations have not been defined in 7(b). The minister can give us the demographic considerations as he sees them. A process must be established whereby we will get those policy statements and demographic considerations. That is the reason for the amendment.
I believe I am supported in this by the report of the special joint committee. 1 do not recall how the committee split at that time. I do know there was general agreement on recommendations Nos. 84 and 85 of the special joint committee. It is important that they be read into the record at this time. Section 84 of the special joint committee report, page 53:23, reads as follows:
As now proposed, the only inducement offered to a prospective immigrant to settle in a designated community is the opportunity to emigrate immediately. This would be attractive only if a waiting list had developed. With a waiting list, an immigrant choosing to settle in a designated community would do so entirely voluntarily since he would be admissible in any event if he were prepared to wait.

July 21, 1977
Immigration
These are the operative words.
The committee urges that this proposal be approached imaginatively, and that consultation with the provinces be undertaken about the various ways of applying the principle which the committee wishes to promote that one of the goals immigration can help to serve is regional development.
Section 85 reads as follows:
The committee is under no illusion that its proposal would solve the problems of regional development or urban congestion. It recognizes that incentives must be available to attract Canadians as well as immigrants to areas where people are needed. However, a proposal along these lines could go a little way toward meeting these objectives, and the committee urges that such a change be implemented on an experimental basis, and carefully monitored.
Our amendment would obligate the federal government to develop long-term demographic goals. In the amendment we placed before the committee we set a time period of every five years. We have removed that in order to make it more feasible, because of the difficulty the time period might create. However, longer term demographic periods should be provided, because all we have in 7(b) is a yearly basis of landed immigrants subject to demographic considerations. There is no obligation to give long-term projections.
It is vital that there be an obligation in the legislation to consult with the provinces. Everyone on the committee paid lip service to consultation with the provinces. During the special joint committee hearings there were numerous representations to the effect that it is the provinces, municipalities and school-boards which are faced with large financial obligations because of an immigration policy in which they have had little, if any, input. It is the federal government which puts the policy into place and lands the immigrants. There should be a consultative process to determine the impact on the communities and the need for the services these people will require.
One of the recommendations of the task force the western premiers established is that an ongoing consultative process be put into place. If my amendment does not carry, this will not take place. That is why we believe it is necessary. Further, there is the question of regional needs. It has been brought forward, especially by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), that a whole new approach for maritime Canada will have to be viewed with respect to immigrants in order to get entrepreneurial skills into the maritimes and somewhat alleviate the chronic unemployment in those areas. That is a valid point. It holds true for other areas as well.
The provinces would have a much better tab on their input into regional needs. Their information could be put into the consultative process, not only so that immigrants will benefit Canada but, which is more important, so they can establish themselves successfully in Canada. This amendment will force the federal government to put into place and follow the consultative process.
The amendment goes further and opens up a consultative process with any group interested in demography. I will not go into that in great detail. However, it has been stated many times that immigrants will play a larger role than heretofore with regard to population increase. That is only half of the argument. The other half of the argument is this: by all economic factors we need to create 400,000 to 500,000 jobs in

a given calendar year in Canada. At the present rate the government is creating only some 200,000 jobs a year and the consultative process will help us decide how immigrants fit in and how sufficient jobs are to be created for Canadians coming onto the labour market, whether they be young Canadians or women who have not been in the labour market but are now entering at the rate of some 150,000 a year.
Surely it is apparent that Canada is in need of a demographic policy, a consultative process. All my amendment does is to go further than the minister has already decided to do. It merely puts into place a consultative process and stresses the need for a demographic policy.
I say quite openly that this is a new area for Canadians and we have a long way to go. But I believe it is apparent that we must lose some of the attitudes we have had about Canada- that Canada is a vast land and that we can accept people without any further view as to the distribution of the population, the demand on natural resources, housing, transportation, education, you name it. It is for that purpose I would like to see something in place which would finally create a small committee or group of persons who I know have the expertise to put into place a demographic policy which is definitely needed in this country. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not intend to speak on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I have never found "demography" to be a very useful word. I have read some books about it and their authors, like all experts, disagree with each other, so I am not at all sure 1 am as enthusiastic as is the hon. member about these demographic goals. However, he has had his say. He may be perfectly right, and maybe he has persuaded me, but 1 am not quite sure, yet.
The amendment to which I propose to call attention is motion No. 7.1 would remind hon. members that Clause 3 sets out a Canadian immigration policy. It says:
-the rules and regulations made under this act shall be designed and administered in such a manner as to promote the domestic and international interests of Canada, recognizing the need . . .
Then the clause goes on to list various things, including
(b) to enrich and strengthen the cultural and social fabric of Canada, taking into account the federal and bilingual character of Canada.
This is the paragraph to which I should like to draw particular attention. I say "Amen" to it as a very sound statement of purpose, but I believe it falls short in one important particular. It is true we have a federal and bilingual character: I pay full tribute to that and to the necessity for it. But it so happens we also have a multicultural fact. There are many different peoples in this country. I have not counted them all up but there must be at least a million people whose roots are not in the French or English speaking areas.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Three and a half million.
July 21, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a million Paproskis.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I underestimated the Paproskis, it seems. 1 do not know how many there are exactly, but there are a great many of them. Most of them have come here in fairly recent generations, and most of them want to be consulted and to be recognized as citizens with a status equal to that of other Canadians. In my own city of Toronto there is a real multicultural fact. People from many different parts of the world have come to make their homes in the city, and may I say they have immensely improved it. They want to feel they were consulted, that they were part of the pattern, that when we speak about the purposes of this legislation we are not speaking just about French and English Canada.
We are fully justified, of course, in making reference to our French and English heritage, but I do not think we are justified in omitting any reference to that other fact of life, the multicultural nature of Canada. I cannot understand the minister's objection to doing so. I would have thought it would have been wise for him to have included such a reference if only for political reasons. The government of which he is a member has spent money on multiculturalism. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) was the minister in charge of the multicultural program. We recognize the right of people to be different and to cherish different cultures.
It seems to me this is a most inoffensive amendment; it is hard to conceive of one which should meet with less objection. Perhaps the minister and his advisers decided at one point that they would make no concessions whatever. I would say that his refusal to make a concession on this point is equivalent to a slap in the face to citizens who have their origins in various countries.
The minister reproves me for having introduced too many amendments. I can tell him that every amendment I have introduced has been suggested to me by organizations and that many of these organizations represent particular ethnic groups. Does he think they are not entitled to be consulted? He shows a great deal of complacency about these matters. If he would only show an ounce of common sense he would accept this amendment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about all three of these amendments. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has raised a crucial issue, one which was brought forward time and time again during the meetings of the special joint committee as it travelled across the country. It is at the heart of the reason for having an Immigration Act in the first place. The reason is, surely, to regulate the flow of people who come here either as visitors or to seek landed immigrant status. The whole question of why they come and where they go is as crucial as any other aspect of the bill.
It is interesting that in this bill, as in no previous immigration law before it, we have a clearly stated set of objectives,
Immigration
which I know the minister feels quite keenly about and for which I think he and his staff should be commended. It is fundamentally important that we have stated in very clear and ringing tones in the objectives the purposes of the immigration bill. We should indicate the non-discriminatory character of our immigration policy and the basis on which our immigration programs and Immigration Act will operate.
It is therefore important at the outset, in the very first clause of the bill respecting the fundamental purposes of the legislation, that we have stated that it is for the attainment of demographic goals. I suppose I share a bit of the feeling of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who said that he is not quite sure what "demography" means. All kinds of people who pass themselves off as demographers or demographic experts might have trouble agreeing, but if we slip away from that technical word or from a word that smacks of some kind of jargon we recognize that what it really says is where people live, and asks what kind of settlement, what kind of community building, what kind of evolution in human terms, will take place in this country.
I suppose in a previous generation this was all caught up in a kind of laissez-faire situation. One did not talk about demographic goals 25 years ago when the last Immigration Act was passed. At least if we had talked about it I do not think we would have received a very good hearing. There was a pretty general feeling that people simply lived where they chose to live. Communities developed almost willy-nilly as a sort of unseen hand in events took control. Yet because the complicated and sophisticated society in which we move has become very apparent, certainly in terms of a much more complex immigration bill this time than the one we had 25 years ago, we have to be concerned with the way in which communities, provinces and regions develop.
All of us are reminded, almost on a daily basis, of the problems which arise when we suffer urban congestion or rural depopulation or regional disparity and housing problems. There are any number of social and economic problems which confront us. Quite frankly, one of the difficulties in trying to resolve immigration policy is that we have concluded that by dealing simply with the subject of immigration we were going to affect in a fundamental and total way all of the economic and social problems that we are facing in this country. I think that most of us who have become involved in this subject for a while realize that this is not the case. However, Mr. Speaker, we do know that increasingly, perhaps primarily because of a declining birth rate, the phenomenon of immigration is going to become critically important.
Much of the evidence which was placed before the special joint committee very often came from urban areas which had strong views about the impact of immigration on their particular community. This was particularly so in the larger urban centres across Canada. What was not nearly so obvious, but which became obvious, when we moved into regions which had not experienced on a per capita basis the same amount of immigration, say over the past half century, was that there were also problems there respecting what I call a shortfall in

July 21, 1977
Immigration
the number of immigrants who arrived. We could spend a lot of time canvassing the various reasons why this occurred-the dynamism, employment opportunities, attractiveness of very rapidly growing urban centres in this country which absorbed a higher percentage of the immigrants who have arrived this century.
Whether the factors be those or others, we do know that immigration has not followed an even pattern. In fact if one were to look at the present situation, it is an extremely uneven pattern. A high proportion of the immigrants coming to this country are concentrated within one province; indeed, they are concentrated within one specific geographic area.
I am concerned on two fronts, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned that with the recognition of demographic goals set out in the objectives there will be a much greater consciousness on a longer term basis, on the part not only of public officials but the general public itself, of the implication of immigration, not just on an immediate basis in terms of the economic situation-which is uppermost in our minds at the present time- but on a longer term basis in terms of the evolution and development of the country.
What concerns me, and I think should concern the minister, is that when he recognizes the importance of trying to achieve demographic goals I am sure he must also recognize that this is not something which can be achieved unilaterally. Surely the lesson we have learned in recent years is that the federal government cannot by itself establish demographic policy. It would run into enormous difficulty if it sought to do so.
I know the minister has no such intention and has indicated so clearly. I also know that the present demographic group which is set up to co-ordinate the fact finding and projections on the part of a number of key departments in the federal government is also working closely with the provinces. But I think it must be clearly stated in law that this is one of the very clear objectives, namely, that the demographic goals which are to be evolved over the next few years, for the life of this legislation, will be evolved in full consultation with the other legitimate authority-the provinces-and other organizations and even individuals who have something important to contribute to this very important process in community and country building.
Unless that commitment is clearly stated in the objectives, then surely the minister is not attempting to put on the statute books a law which is both realistic and fair so far as the evolution of this country is concerned. I hope that the minister will give serious consideration to this amendment submitted by my colleague from Provencher and will see it within his power to accept it as reasonable and right.
With regard to motion No. 7 moved by my colleague from Greenwood, which raises the whole issue of the multicultural nature of Canada, I do not think the argument really needs to be reiterated. I think it was very clearly stated. We are both a bilingual country in terms of our origins and the evolution of this country since Confederation, and multicultural in character. I could wax eloquent about the multicultural aspects of Prince Edward Island but I realize that that is not the purpose

of this debate this afternoon. If this is to be a modern and relevant piece of legislation, and if it is to be clearly stated in the objectives that it is the character of this country which has to be preserved and enhanced, then it is only reasonable and right that, in addition to the bilingual characteristic which is now increasingly and generally recognized, its multicultural nature should also be included.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to my own motion, No. 8, which refers to the clause which clearly states that we are to have a non-discriminatory policy. 1 refer to Clause 3(f) which provides:
-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;
This is a time when increasingly authorities, national governments, even agencies under the purview of the United Nations are making clear the position that there is the concept of equity and equality. If we fail to state this, there is always the possibility, hopefully less than probably, that acts of discrimination will take place, particularly against those who may seek admission to this country. There were a number of predecessors to the present immigration minister who declared in this House, since I have been a member, that we would have a non-discriminatory policy. The late Prime Minister Lester Pearson made it very clear, in support of that concept, that Canada would adopt a policy of non-discrimination in its immigration program. Those on the special joint committee and those who have studied immigration closely take the view that only in recent years, really only within the last decade, can Canada rightfully say that its immigration policy is nondiscriminatory. What I am asking for in this amendment is that it be realistic in terms of potential discrimination which exists both in this country and in the world today. We must recognize that in the past there has been discrimination on the basis of race and creed. These are no longer acceptable as bases of discrimination in the type of democratic society which is existent in Canada today.
We have left uncovered an area of increasing potential for discrimination. The world in which we have moved in the late sixties and early seventies is one increasingly polarized with respect to strong political opinions and activities. There have been instances within our own society of actions being taken which were based on a person's political point of view. Unfortunately in one or two instances I have encountered discrimination with respect to political opinion, which is something we must be very careful to guard against. In a highly complicated technocratic society it is dangerous to start narrowing the borders of accepted and legitimate political activity and opinion.
During the last few years we have seen a number of countries which previously enjoyed democratic and parliamentary institutions such as our own, lose those institutions because of intolerance and a regime which eliminated free political expression and activity. It is not encouraging to realize that there are fewer parliamentary groups and fewer
July 21, 1977

countries in the world today which tolerate freedom of political expression and activity than there were before I became a member of this Chamber.
In a world which is faced with very strong contending pressures and ideologies, there is a danger that we might succumb, for some possible short term gain, to the temptation to reject political opinions which would be legitimate in normal times. We might believe, for some reason or other, that they should be eliminated or discriminated against.
What 1 have said here has been discussed in committee and was originally proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood. I am referring to the fact that we should include the aspect of non-discrimination in this legislation with respect to legal political opinion and activity. To do less than that is not to provide for pressures which will exist during the course of the years when this particular bill will serve as the immigration statute for this country. Therefore I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the inclusion of this provision in the legislation.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) indicated that the determination on the demographic policy would not be amenable. The hon. member for Provencher referred to Clause 7 which clearly spells out that the minister, "after consultation with the provinces concerning regional demographic needs," etc.-thus there is an obligation on the minister.
As has been said, the bill already recognizes that national demographic goals may be established in the future. In that case immigration planning and operations must be consistent with those goals. However, in our opinion the Immigration Act is not the appropriate vehicle for establishing statutory provisions respecting demographic planning. Demographic planning will involve much more than immigration. In fact immigration may well be a relatively small element. In any event it is also questionable whether such a positive subject as demographic planning should appear in a statute which is predominantly enforcement oriented.
I will not repeat the comments I made at second reading, but commencing on March 10, 1977, at page 3863 of Hansard I elaborated on those comments. Motion No. 7 is in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). In my opinion the immigration statute, which pertains mainly to the admission of people to Canada, including visitors, and the removal of offenders from Canada, is not a suitable vehicle for official endorsation of multiculturalism. From a practical standpoint one would have to be apprehensive that the inclusion of multiculturalism in the governing objectives could be used to try to compel a government either to maintain the present ethnic composition of the Canadian population or to make a deliberate effort to speed its rate of change. Neither of these extremes is acceptable.
Motion No. 8 is in the name of the hon. member for Egmont. Primarily he has refugees in mind in proposing this amendment. There should be no distinction among refugees,
Immigration
fleeing rightist or leftist persecution. However, the effect of the amendment would be much broader than that. It is difficult to see how most provisions respecting subversion and national security could be reconciled with the proposed amendment. No political party is illegal in Canada, yet membership in a particular party abroad, where it is probably legal, is often the principal evidence that a person is a security risk.
With the amendment it would appear that the subversion/ security provisions could apply only in the case of an overt act defined as an offence in Canadian law. This would be going too far in the case of refugees. It would effectively prevent the screening out of people, although refugees by definition, who were forced to leave their countries of citizenship or residence because of their adherence to parties with extremist policies, which would be just as dangerous in Canada as elsewhere. For those reasons I would be against these motions.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express surprise at the minister and the government for not accepting the amendment proposed in motion No. 7. This is an extremely important and fundamental matter, because it deals with the whole question of the policies of biculturalism and bilingualism in this country, something which has been accepted by all parties.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), contained in motion No. 7 which proposes to add to Clause 3 the consideration in this act of the multicultural nature of Canada. I find it difficult to understand the government's reluctance to accept this amendment.
This country has been committed by parliament for almost 15 years to the concept of increasing the use of both the English and French languages. That policy was first announced by former Prime Minister Pearson. It was worked upon by the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which he appointed and whose findings were supported by all party leaders and the majority of members of all parties represented in this parliament. The Official Languages Act, which was brought forward by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), was supported by all four party leaders and by the majority of members of all four parties.
Members of parliament have supported the idea of the bilingual nature of this country because we recognize the importance which the people of Quebec, particularly the majority of the people of Quebec who are French speaking,

July 21, 1977
Immigration
give to the concept that this country should recognize that the people who founded this country spoke two languages. Members of parliament in all parties, if they are honest-1 speak now only of members of parliament who represent English speaking constituencies because I cannot claim to be as knowledgeable about those who represent French speaking constituencies-know how much hostility there is among so many of their constituents, how often they are telephoned or receive letters asking why the French language is being rammed down their throats. Representing, as I do, a large ethnic constituency in which the majority of people are neither of French nor English origin, I know that among the most skeptical, among those to whom it is most difficult to explain the necessity for increasing the use of French in this country, are people who are neither of French nor of English origin. Their suspicions are based on the idea, 1 believe, that to the extent the second language is given more power, more influence and more recognition, their status as first class citizens is jeopardized.
One of the things which the government has done with the support of all parties to try to combat that feeling is to support the language and culture expansion and development of those ethnic or religious groups which come from non-English or non-French speaking countries and who have maintained, and indeed expanded, until recently on an almost completely voluntary basis, the languages, the culture, the music, the art and all the other forms which their culture took in the countries from which they came.
In recent years federal and provincial governments have stepped in without clearly understanding that the continuation of these other cultures, languages and arts has to be essentially on a voluntary basis. It has to be based on people's desires, whether they be Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, German or Jewish. I could go down the list with dozens of examples. They must want to do this. However, federal and provincial governments have been prepared to help them financially and materially.
We now have a Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Guay). The federal government proposes and parliament agrees to the expenditure of millions of dollars to help fund the work of various ethnic and racial groups. In view of the importance these groups put on the preservation, maintenance and expansion of their cultures-the roots from which they came-it seems to me that every opportunity should be used to make it clear to these groups that we encourage them to develop the multicultural foundations of this country. Recognizing, as the minister said earlier today, that the purpose of this bill is essentially to deal with people who are coming into this country, and recognizing that this is not the place to discuss in any great detail the whole question of multiculturalism, I still believe that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood is a good one.
The amendment would reinforce the knowledge of the people of this country who are of neither English nor French origin that they too are equal, first class citizens of this

country and that the Government of Canada cares about them and wants them to succeed in their efforts to maintain their languages and cultures. I intend to support this motion, and I express my surprise and dismay that the minister has rejected it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few points on the record. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has done an excellent job as my party's spokesman regarding Bill C-24.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am a little concerned about the reluctance of the minister. I know the minister, and I respect him. In terms of implementing our immigration policy he has a very onerous job, but all the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is attempting to do is bring to the attention of the House and the country what this country is all about.
This bill contains objectives, and I do not want anyone to think that these objectives relate only to the immigrant or the person coming into the country. They apply also to those who live in the country now. All the members of the committee of which I was very fortunate to be a member were interested in seeing that we have a just and fair immigration policy and that there be certain objectives set out in the bill. One objective is that our immigration policy be non-discriminatory. Second, we should be concerned about and aware of the need to reunify families. Third, we need to take a new approach to refugees.
Within the confines of those three principles the minister brought in Clause 3(b) which reads as follows:
to enrich and strengthen the cultural and social fabric of Canada, taking into account the federal and bilingual character of Canada;
All the hon. member for Greenwood wants to do is add a few words to bring about an actual realization that we appreciate the contribution which has been made by people of all colours, races, creeds and cultures to the development of this country, and the minister stands in his place and says he will not accept those further words. After the word "Canada" the hon. member for Greenwood wants to add "and the multicultural nature of Canada". That is all we are talking about here.
1 do not want to say that the government is playing politics with the policy of multiculturalism, but it seems to me that we have an on and off policy. That is continually brought home to me in terms of multicultural policy. Canada is a multicultural and multilingual country, with English and French as its two official languages. That is a fact.
I once asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) how he and his cabinet members devise policy and on what basis. This can be checked somewhere in Hansard. The Prime Minister said, "On the basis that this is a multicultural country, but bilingual".


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I don't think he said that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) says he does not believe it. I would bet him $100, and he could well afford it. I am trying to
July 21, 1977

be responsible. I am trying to show that the government plays footsy and displays a hypocritical attitude at times when it comes to the multicultural policy, and that disturbs me. This policy was brought in on October 8, 1971. At that time the secretary of state was Gerard Pelletier. He has gone on to big and better rewards. He is now the ambassador to France. What did he say around October 8, 1971? I would like to read from a paper entitled "Towards a Canada Uniquely Canadian" by Dr. Joseph Kage, President of the Quebec Ethnic Press Association. There is no date on this document, but I want to put on the record what the good doctor indicated. He quoted what the Hon. Gerard Pelletier said. The paper states:
"When we speak of cultural pluralism we are making a fundamental choice for Canada, both now and for the future, for we are talking about the development in Canada of a multicultural society. The government refuses to sacrifice, in the name of unity through conformity, any of the cultures which are represented in our population, whether these cultures are European or native to Canada such as those of the Indians and Eskimos. Canada is not a 'melting pot' and the government is opposed to any measure aimed at assimilation. On the contrary, it encourages all initiatives which have as their object the promotion and dissemination-alongside the two main cultures, English and French-of other cultural values".


Mr. Haidasz:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am going to get to that hon. member later on.
I have another undated document. This is one signed by one Bernard Ostry, Assistant Under Secretary of State. It is on the letterhead of the Department of the Secretary of State. It is entitled "Guidelines for Submissions for Grants under the Multicultural Programme".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Wasn't he in charge of Canadian unity?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes. I do not have much time. Let me put a few things on the record. I do not know what the date of the document is, but it must have been around October 8, 1971, or shortly thereafter. This is what Bernard Ostry stated:
Funds may be made available only to projects which fulfil some or all of the objectives of the multicultural programme:
Notice, Mr. Speaker, how that word "multicultural" is always springing in there.
They will assist the development of a Canadian ethno-cultural group or groups which have demonstrated their desire and ability to develop their culture within the Canadian context and to contribute to modern Canadian society, as well as a clear need for assistance.
They are designed to share a cultural heritage with other Canadians.
They will promote an awareness of Canada's cultural diversity.
They have the participation and financial support of the community to which they are directed.
They assist immigrants to become full participants in Canadian society.
That is what we are talking about. The government whip will not remember what was said in those days; he was not around then, and will not be around much longer.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: 1 wouldn't bet on it, if I were you.
Immigration


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is not aware of what I quoted, which is why he was surprised at my comments on multiculturalism. That was the policy of the government on and around October 8, 1971. I am amazed at the minister's policy. He was first elected to the House of Commons at the same time as the hon. member for Hamilton West, in 1968. He knows that his government accepted the objectives of multiculturalism. The government first brought forward the principle of multiculturalism, which we all accept. Now the minister says he cannot accept the amendment the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has proposed. He will not accept that nine-word amendment.
I ought to put on record certain facts and statistics to show that when it is in the government's interest to do something, it will do it. But when it acts, it does not think of the hardship its policies will work on those who may be affected. On October 8, 1971, the government announced its multicultural policy, which had hitherto been under the aegis of the then Secretary of State, Gerard Pelletier. There was a young member of this House, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), who is still a member, who was made minister without portfolio responsible for multiculturalism. I have great respect for the hon. member; unfortunately, his constituents did not return him in the 1972 election. I cannot understand why. Consequently, we were without the services of that minister without portfolio. But even when he was minister, his job was not full-time. He was not a full minister of state; he was a minister without portfolio, responsible to Gerard Pelletier who took over-all responsibility for the multicultural program.
After the election of 1972 the young doctor from Parkdale, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), was made responsible for multiculturalism. The government suddenly said, "We recognize the significant contribution our various peoples have made to this country's development and, for the first time, shall appoint a full-time minister responsible for multiculturalism."


Steve Eugene Paproski: We want Stanley Haidasz.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That minister did his best.


An hon. Member:: What's your point?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance wants to make a speech.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He doesn't care about multiculturalism.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am coming to my point. As I said, the hon. member for Parkdale was the minister responsible for multiculturalism, but sometime in October, 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "We do not need you any longer. Multiculturalism is not important." The Prime Minister removed from office this country's first full-time minister of multiculturalism and put the implementation of the policy under the armpits, as it were, of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I say, shame to that. That is what I mean when I say the government is playing footsy with this policy.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is an armpit policy.

July 21, 1977
Immigration


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Next, the Prime Minister appointed a young man from St. Boniface-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Who?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A young man from St. Boniface. He had nothing to do. Suddenly the government thought he could give leadership to parts of the western provinces. It wanted those provinces to elect some Liberal members. It had to give the hon. member something to do. Consequently, the government appointed the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) as Minister of State (Multiculturalism). In other words, the government has been hypocritical, which disturbs me. Having accepted the principle of multiculturalism by appointing a full-time minister, the government, as shown by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), has flip-flopped again. The minister has said in so many words, "We do not have a multicultural society."


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: He has not said that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Despite anything the government whip may say, I suggest, since the government has recognized the fact of multiculturalism by appointing a full-time minister, it should accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, which would incorporate the objectives of multiculturalism in the language of the bill. If it did this the government would be consistent. Since on the one hand we have a minister responsible for multiculturalism and since, on the other hand, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration says in so many words "No, I am not interested," or "this is not the policy," there is something wrong with the government's position. If the minister has any heart, if he has compassion for those who are other than Anglophone or Francophone-and sometimes I think we talk only about those two groups and forget all the other people who built up this country-the minister will accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood. But apparently the minister does not recognize the contribution other groups have made to this country's development.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He does not care.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That minister does not care.


Mrs. Holt:: Don't say that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't tell me not to say it, Simma. I said it and 1 will say it again.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Then wash your mouth out with soap.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the minister cares, let him accept the hon. member's amendment, and thus show that he supports the policy of multiculturalism. I am ashamed at the minister's attitude, and shocked. We are debating this provision at length, to give the minister time for sober, second thought. Let him reflect on our position. He has nothing to lose by adopting it, and much to gain. If the minister refuses to accept the amendment he will put himself in the position of being accused
[Mr. Fairweather.)
as an opponent of multiculturalism. Or, at best, the government will be accused of hypocrisy, and we would not want that to happen, would we? Therefore I hope the minister will stand in his place and say that, having considered the matter, he will accept the reasonable and needed amendment the hon. member for Greenwood proposed.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who spoke just now and others have tried to leave the impression that somehow the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Guay) is not suitable for his job. I want to correct that impression. Considering his Metis background, his own background and his family, I think he is eminently suited for his position, and I want to correct the erroneous impression some have tried to create.
We should not forget that other government policies have to do with discrimination. At present we are debating a bill to do with immigration. We are debating a long-standing policy. It has always been this country's policy to satisfy, by way of immigration, the requirements of its two founding races. That is why the bilingual situation is mentioned. Personally I think that if you went further to deal with the multicultural area, you might get into some kind of quota system. I would be very concerned about that. I am not saying that is what is intended in the amendment. However, just as the hon. member seems to have some concern about other provisions in the bill and is moving this amendment, his amendment causes me concern. I would rather have the bill as it is. Therefore I speak against the amendment.
I do not think multicultural people in my area, whether they be Scottish, Italian, Hungarian, West Indian or East Indian, find any offence in the present policy. I certainly have not run into it. I just want to put that on record. Personally I do not support any tampering with the policy as it stands and, therefore, I do not support the amendment.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), I will be very brief. I have to put on record how astonished I am to hear the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) seriously insisting that this amendment be adopted. It is nothing more than pure tokenism. There is not one single thing in it to increase the rights of immigrants or prospective immigrants. It is absolutely pure, unadulterated tokenism. It is nothing but hypocrisy for him to stand up and argue that the implementation of nine words, which do not do anything for immigrants or prospective immigrants, will make as much difference as he insists they will. I normally have great respect for that hon. member, but tonight I am ashamed of him.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: I enter this debate very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I am rather surprised at the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). I do not feel this amendment is hypocrisy. Indeed, it is an honour to rise and
July 21, 1977

enter this debate in support of the motion moved by the member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to include in the statement of objectives, section 3(b), the word "multicultural".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Canada is a country made up of hard-working and talented people, many of whom have come from other countries to make this their home. There are thousands of native born as well, and together we represent a great range of ethnic backgrounds and many political parties. We have Canadians who have come from Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, from other European and Asiatic countries and, of course, from Great Britain. We are glad they chose Canada. It was on that basis the federal government introduced the policy of multiculturalism in 1971, and in so doing affirmed multicul-turalism to be a fact of the cultural and social fabric of Canada.
I am also in support of this motion as I firmly believe that multiculturalism is an excellent means to foster and facilitate national unity. I say this as a westerner, for westerners take great pride in our earnest hopes for a united Canada based on the diversity of our ethnic origin.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to accept the motion of the hon. member for Greenwood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 7.
Immigration
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 19 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"ter of Canada and the multicultural nature of Canada;"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I am speaking in this House 1 do not want the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) to make any reference to the fact that perhaps some of my comments have anything to do with my skin. She was not standing in her place at that particular time. I thought she understood this particular problem. I do not want her at any time in the future to make reference to my skin. It was not an offensive intervention, but I just question why she had to bring that in. That is my point of order. I have been here nine years. It is the first time I have heard that. I want to let hon. members in this House know that Alexander can be quite tough when it is required.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am still on my point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just want to say that I have a great deal of respect for the hon. lady, but let it not happen again.


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


Simma Holt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) speaking on a point of order referred to remarks made by some hon. members. The Chair cannot rule on what was said by a member who was not recognized. There has been, and I am sure there will continue to be, shouting across the aisle which the Chair cannot recog-

July 21, 1977
Immigration
nize unless an hon. member rises in his place and is recognized. Therefore the Chair cannot rule on such a point of order. The hon. member for Hamilton West may have a valid point, but I cannot accept it as a point of order.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My name was referred to, and it has been implied on the record that I am a racist-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I never said that.


Simma Holt: -and that I made a reference to the difference in skin. I said I am an anonymous ethnic because my skin is not a different colour. However, I am still of the ethnic group. I was not being racist, and I want that to be on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. We can all enter into this question of privilege. It will then degenerate into a debate. With the kind permission of hon. members, we will move on to motion No. 8.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 41 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor: "origin, colour, religion, sex or legal political opinion or activity;".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 27 to 36 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) in the case of a Convention refugee, it is established that that person is a person
(i)	described in paragraph 19(1 He) unless the offense in question is a political offense; or
(ii)	described in paragraph 19(l)(</)(ii), 19(l)(e), 19(1)(/), 19(1)0?), 27(1 )(c) or 27(2)(c); or
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
(iii)	who has been convicted of an offense under any act of Parliament and has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two or more years."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly with respect to this motion. It concerns the situation affecting the present U.N. convention on refugees. As the minister well knows from conversation in committee, very real concern was registered in terms of the general provisions as they are presently outlined in Clause 4(2){b). It very clearly states that a person under this category of convention refugee can indeed be affected by crimes that were not of a political nature, but will be regarded under these present terms of the act as serious enough to prevent recognition or acceptance of that individual as a refugee.
It seems to me there is no clear delineation in the bill between those who are legitimate refugees and those who might be either a threat to Canadian society or have committed acts of a criminal nature and who should not, and would not, be accepted. The bill, it seems to me, would be in breach of the convention on refugees which we signed, I believe, some four years ago. I hope the minister will offer some explanation of how this particular clause will square with our acceptance of the UN convention on refugees. Can he give us an assurance that the High Commission for Refugees has accepted this as a valid interpretation of article IF under the present convention because, if not, it would seem to me we are in danger of putting on the statute books of the country a law, one section of which would fly in the face of the agreement we presently have on refugees.
It seems to me as well that the definition of a political offence is too narrow with respect to those who might come to Canada as refugees after committing acts of a criminal nature. I think the minister should recall a recent decision by the Federal Court in the Armstrong case. This involved extradition proceedings on the part of the United States in which it was argued that because of the nature of the accusation against Armstrong, the fact that there had been a bombing as part of a political protest against the war in Viet Nam, he should be regarded as a refugee instead of as one who had simply committed a criminal act within his own country. It is clear from the decision at that time, in 1973, that the Federal Court adopted a narrow definition of "political offence". Therefore the action by the minister in asking for this kind of provision, one which is to my mind much too broad, is unsatisfactory and will create real problems in its implementation.
With respect to the latter part of the amendment concerning the lengthening of the period of imprisonment from six months to two years, may I say that both in our own country and in a number of European countries, the practice is to regard as serious offences those which are of a "penitentiary nature" or which begin with a "penitentiary offence" of not less than two years. To have it start at the six month figure, which can cover a much wider range of situations and experiences both in our own country and others, seems to me to be much too sweeping and to demand an unrealistic standard with respect to those who come under the refugee classification. I would therefore
July 21, 1977

suggest seriously to the minister that he reconsider his position concerning Clause 4(2)(6) and indicate whether some adequate adjustment could not be made in order to avoid putting ourselves in defiance of the UN convention of refugees and so as not to create an onerous situation with respect to the six months' imprisonment provision.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment would make three changes respecting reasons for refugees' loss of protection. It would exempt refugees from loss of protection because of a 19(1 )(<?) type offence, if the offence was of a political nature; it would exempt them from loss of protection for being likely to commit an indictable offence in Canada; and it would amend the standard for which refugees could lose protection because of offences committed in Canada.
It is my opinion that there is no need for the exemption for political offences. On the one hand it is unlikely that a truly political offence would be construed as an offence under Canadian law, as required by the provision respecting criminality. On the other hand it is doubtful that we should welcome a person who has committed a 19(1 )(c) type offence-murder, arson, kidnapping, etc.-even if it was committed for political purposes.
The distinction proposed to be made between refugees likely to commit an indictable offence (19)(l)(r/)(i) and those likely to participate in organized crime (19)( 1 )(z/)(ii) is difficult to understand. The former are the more immediately dangerous and there would be greater justification for denying protection to them, but the motion proposes just the opposite. In practice, however, we believe that both classes are serious enough to warrant a denial of protection.
The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) also wishes to change the standard of criminal offences committed in Canada for which a refugee would lose protection. During committee consideration of the bill, this standard was made identical to that for permanent residents, whether the refugee is a permanent resident or a visitor, that is, an offence for which the person actually received more than six months or was liable to five years or more. The hon. member would change this to a single standard of an actual sentence of two years or more. It is difficult to say whether this would mean raising or lowering the standard, since court sentencing practices vary so much. It would have the effect, however, of creating yet another standard in an area that is already complex.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Immigration


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. MacDonald (Egmont)) negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 11.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Motion No. 11.
-That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause7
(a)	by striking out line 29 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor: "7.(1) The Minister, after consultation with";
(b)	by adding immediately after line 3 at page 8 the following new subclause; "(2) The number announced by the Minister pursuant to subsection (1),
shall in no way limit the number of refugees admitted to Canada."
He said: I intend to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps, if the minister can clarify this clause, I shall not need to move my amendment, in which case 1 shall ask for unanimous consent to withdraw it.
I am sure the minister means that the quota is exclusive of refugees. That is the only interpretation a humane government or anyone else could reach. I think our Canadian history with regard to refugees has been particularly honourable. We think of the Hungarians, the Czechoslovaks, the Ugandans and the Chileans who came to Canada in special circumstances, and I would be very upset to think that these refugees were deducted from the quota enunciated in the clause I seek to amend. If the minister could assure me that they are not to be deducted, and that I am under a misapprehension, I would then ask for permission to withdraw. Otherwise I will pursue the amendment and ask hon. members to support it. I hope we are not playing a numbers game and that, if there are special circumstances, the refugees who are admitted are not deducted from the general total.
I should like to draw the minister's attention to a particularly poignant story which is much to the point in terms of the dilemma faced during the British mandate over Palestine. Refugees were assembled in terrible circumstances in Cyprus and special arrangements were made with Britain to try to relieve the refugee camps on Cyprus. With regard to the movement particularly of orphans of one-parent families and of young parents with children, the objective was to move this group out of the Cyprus refugee camps. The British government, to their eternal shame in my opinion, deducted this particular movement of refugees from the quotas into the mandated country. I hope that this occurrence will not happen in present day Israel. I hope there would not be a refugee deduction in a place like Lebanon. The minister should have credit for a very sympathetic movement of people from Leba-
7894

July 21, 1977
Immigration
non, although I guess they were not particularly in the refugee category.
I hope this point can be cleared up rapidly. If it can, I will ask my colleagues to let me withdraw my amendment.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's concern might be more relevant if we in fact said that each year we were going to accept a certain number. What we are talking about here is setting levels which will be most flexible.
Just so there will not be any misunderstanding, there need be no concern that the use of levels will arbitrarily limit the admission of refugees, contrary to Canada's humanitarian traditions. If it is understood-and if it is not, it should be- our intention is to use the processing priorities provided for in 115(l)(f) to ensure that refugees, through being given second priority-first priority is the family class-would never be subject to numerical limitation. There is virtually no likelihood that the level would ever be set so low as to restrict or delay the admission of the family class, convention refugees, or those like persons who may be designated pursuant to 115(1 )(d). In other words, they will be top priority. If we were dealing with a specific number here, there might be some concern; but the fact that we are dealing with levels gives us the flexibility that we need. The priorities that we set under the act, putting convention refugees in the second category after the family class, I feel give no real cause for concern.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the Chair to understand that there is a request to withdraw the motion?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think we had better test the House, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 11. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Fairweather) negatived.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"grant; or"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires a little explanation. It has to do with terms and conditions. It applies to lines 8 and 9 of Clause 14, at page 11 of the bill. The clause presently provides as follows:
(a) he-
That is, an immigration officer.
-shall grant landing to that immigrant, in which case he may impose terms and conditions of a prescribed nature;-
My amendment seeks to strike out the last two lines which read "in which case he may impose terms and conditions of a prescribed nature".
The idea of imposing terms and conditions on people we admit to this country is a new one. The terms and conditions are not to be revealed to parliament; they are entirely within the discretion of the immigration officer who is handling the case. As far as I can make out-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-there are no restrictions on what sort of terms and conditions are referred to. If my amendment is turned down and we pass the clause as presently worded, we are giving to an immigration officer the right to impose terms and conditions on a person he has found admissible to Canada under the regulations. I think that is wrong.
I think there is somewhere else in the bill a restriction on the terms and conditions, but in the clause with which we are dealing here an immigration officer grants landing and he can impose terms and conditions. I think that under Clause 15 the terms and conditions apply only for six months.
In committee at the instance of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) the committee passed an amendment which restricted certain terms and conditions which could be applied; but it is my submission to this House that no case can be made out for giving an immigration officer power, in effect, to legislate, to say what terms and conditions apply to a person whose landing would otherwise not be contrary to this act. An immigration officer would be able to say he will land that person but only if he observes certain undefined, vague, and perhaps highly onerous or ridiculous terms and conditions as imposed by that officer.
I do not think I need say more than that. Throughout the bill I have suggested a number of amendments designed to remove restrictive, unnecessary clauses which multiply the powers of officials, and in this case not even officials but any immigration officer. I am trying to simplify the procedure. We have never had this sort of thing before, and I do not want to be part of any process which imposes it now.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, when I read this motion in the first instance the intent of it was not clear. It seems to me that it would have the effect of eliminating the power of an immigration officer at a
July 21, 1977

port of entry to impose terms and conditions on the landing of an immigrant. No such change is proposed with respect to an immigration officer at an inland point under clause 14(4), a senior immigration officer under clause 23(1 )(a), or an adjudicator under clause 32(3)(a). The proposed amendment would be unacceptable for this reason alone, if no distinction among the different situations was intended.
During committee stage we agreed to and accepted an amendment giving up the power to impose conditions specifying place of residence. We did this by accepting the amendment to add clause 115(4). For the purpose of ensuring the integrity of the selection system, we wish to retain the power to impose conditions related to the occupational selection factors. Conditions respecting the admission of fiancees and people requiring medical surveillance are also important. It must be remembered that the duration of conditions is only six months at the most, and that even within that short time they may be changed or cancelled for good cause.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 25 will be grouped together for debate. Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 17 will be voted on separately. A vote on motions Nos. 14 and 17 will dispose of motions Nos. 15 and 18. However, a negative vote will require separate questions to be put on motions Nos. 15 and 18.
Immigration


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 24 to 27 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"in the opinion of a medical officer concurred in by at least one other medical officer,"


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 11 to 12 at page 14.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 13 to 15 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) commit one or more offences referred to in paragraph (c), or".


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-24, An Act, respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 36 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"force of any democratic government;".
Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 40 to 44 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"lives or safety of persons in Canada;".


Louis Duclos: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 19 by striking out line 41 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"likely to participate".


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 46 and 47 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"an adjudicator, have entered Canada not for the purposes of being an immigrant or a visitor but for the purpose of circumventing the legal means of entry required by the Act or regulations; or".


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in clause 19 by striking out line 34 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Income Tax Act or the Narcotic Control Act, where".
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 5 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"or given under this Act or the regulations and which have been made public."


Francis Andrew Brewin: Motion No. 25.
80020 -3 5 Vi

July 21, 1977
Immigration
That Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada, be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 45 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"by force of any democratic government,"


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to sound enthusiastic before one starts his speech. I feel I should pound on the table to get the attention of hon. members.
Clause 19(l)(a) seeks a workable compromise between the original text of the clause and the amendment passed in committee. Although we are sympathetic to hon. members' concerns that underlay the committee amendment, my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), is very apprehensive about the practical impact of that amendment.
The committee amendment added two elements to the clause: the motion of reasonable grounds, and the need for consultation with a medical specialist. Both could have serious implications for administration of the law. The reasonable grounds addition would open medical officers' prognosis to judicial review. We disagree in principle with trying to apply judicial precision to questions that must remain a matter of professional experience and judgment applied to the peculiar circumstances of each case, but apart from this there would be serious practical problems.
If a medical officer's decision can be challenged legally, it follows that he must be available for examination and crossexamination. Since most medical examinations are carried out overseas, it would be extremely difficult and costly to arrange for medical officers' availability at judicial proceedings in Canada. In addition to constant disruption of service, it is estimated costs would reach as much as $2'/2 million a year. Nearly all medical examinations overseas are performed by local practitioners as part of their normal practice. It is believed that few would be willing to tolerate either the exposure of their judgment to Canadian judicial scrutiny, or the need to travel to Canada at unpredictable intervals. It would be necessary to replace the whole overseas medical examination system with an all Canadian service at enormous cost.
There would be even more difficulties with the medical specialist addition. I should like to cite some of them. It is not clear how one would determine the appropriate medical specialist. It is highly questionable that one needs the advice of a specialist in every case of health impairment, for example, a child with measles or a person who had lost both eyes. There are few or no specialists available in many countries. Examination by a specialist would add substantially to the applicant's expenses. It may not be reasonable to expect foreign specialists to be able to make a judgment on danger to the public or use of health facilities in Canada. The required consultation between the medical officer and specialist would create still greater operating costs.
In short, the committee amendment would probably hamstring the immigration medical service to the benefit of a very few people. Nevertheless, in order to allay hon. members' fears about unfettered discretion exercised by single medical offi-

cers, we are prepared to offer two safeguards: first, the proposed amendment under which a finding of inadmissibility on health grounds would require the concurrence of at least two medical officers; and second, a commitment to a stipulation in the regulations to be made under clause 115( 1)(/) that one of the factors to be considered by medical officers shall be any reports from relevant medical specialists where so indicated.
I have spelled out some of the more practical concerns which the Department of National Health and Welfare will visualize because it is the department that is responsible for this portion of the immigration laws and procedures. In committee we endeavoured to cover this particular ground and to do it in a way that was appropriate. The amendment as proposed by motion No. 13 goes a long way to allay the fears experienced by members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to speak on ten different motions all at one time. I do not propose to pursue what the minister has said about medical officers. I fail to understand the complexity of the problem as he has developed it.
Hitherto, the government, when dealing with medical cases, has proceeded on the opinion it secured from medical men. It should do that, and it should make up its own mind as to the evidence it wants to get. This theory of vast throngs of people having to be put on staff to do this job is typical of this minister and the department he represents. They conjure up totally exaggerated myths and dreams of all the terrible consequences if anything is done to change this bill.
The best thing would be to toss out the term "medical officer" altogether and insert the phrase "on the advice of a medical officer", the department may do so on and so forth. That was done before with no complaint. This myth-making by the minister, which we have been subjected to time and again, on the advice of those who advise him, has reached a point where I find it difficult to take some of these suggestions seriously.
I should like to deal with my motions which relate to the very core of what we consider to be the most objectionable feature of this bill. Clause 19 of the bill deals with the prohibition of people who cannot come to Canada. For the first time in the history of Canadian jurisprudence, it does not deal on the basis of having been convicted of an offence. It does not deal on the basis of having admitted an offence of some serious criminal nature. It deals with reasonable grounds for the suspicion that an offence is going to be done. Motion No. 14 strikes out lines 11 to 22 at page 14 of the original bill, Clause 19, which read as follows:
persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government;
The core of this is: "persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will". It is not grounds that they have, but a belief they will do something which is considered offensive by the drafters of this legislation. The minister or his representative proposed an amendment to the original clause 19(d) which
July 21, 1977

is partly an improvement. It confines it to a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons in furtherance of the commission of any offence that may be punishable under any act of parliament by way of indictment. The original clause 19.(d)(i) reads as follows:
commit one or more offences punishable by way of indictment under any act of parliament...
We all know that the statute books are full of acts regarding some serious and some trivial offences. Regulations have been so innumerable in the past that it has been almost impossible to put them in books for a person to see how many regulations there are.
All you need to bar a person is to have an immigration official look into a person's eyes and say, "I have reasonable grounds to believe that you will commit some offence in the future or you will engaged in the future in the commission of some offence". The first is by way of indictment-those are more serious matters-but the second is under any act of parliament. It also says "by way of indictment". It is true that it is limited to the commission on the suspicion or speculation that you might do something that the immigration officer thinks would fall within the general definitions here, and that you might be punishable by way of indictment. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, that it is incredible that a so-called Liberal government would introduce clauses such as this one which deny the basic right to be tried before you are punished, which deny hearings, so that you do not know what you are being punished for. This is a move toward a repressive state and it is utterly wrong.


An hon. Member:: That is untrue.


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is what you say. I don't know how you know anything about it, but you certainly can talk.


Mr. Bechard:: Are you God Almighty, Andy?


An hon. Member:: Don't be so arrogant, for goodness sake.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not arrogant.


An hon. Member:: All he did was to ask you a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: He did not question me. He said that what I said was not true. He can get up and speak for himself. He is one of that platoon that walked in toward the end of the hearings and took pride in the streamroller proceedings that I referred to earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address himself to the Chair. There might have been an intervention but I did not hear any of it, so I suggest the hon. member continue his remarks and address the Chair.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I apologize for not addressing you, Mr. Speaker, and also I apologize if I showed some heat at this senseless, needless interruption that took place, but perhaps it is because of what we have been subjected to here in the last little while.
Immigration
We spent 70 hours in this committee-we sat there for hours and hours. I think the hon. member attended only about two of those hours and managed to make irrelevant observations during that period.
I have explained why we are against it. We are against it because it is contrary to the basic civil liberties and rights of people in this country. We oppose it, and we will continue to oppose it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I intend to address myself to motion No. 13. Let me say first of all that I am surprised that the minister should get up in his place tonight and try to reverse that which was done in committee, because I do not believe his heart is in it. It is really the ghost of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which must be around somewhere.


An hon. Member:: Even the body is here.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let us put the facts on the table as they developed in committee. We know that the approval of medical certificates is done by medical officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare who, after examining them, send them to the Department of Manpower and Immigration. With all due respect to the medical profession-and I am not trying to step on sensitive toes-it must be said quite bluntly and honestly that the meeting we had with the medical officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare that evening was less than successful because no matter what questions we put to them, the answers implied that as lay people we knew nothing, nor should we ask. I do not accept that as a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 do not believe there is such a term as medical infallibility, but that is what we were getting from them. Now after passing the amendment in committee we hear that the Minister of National Health and Welfare got all hot and bothered and left it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to bring in this amendment, reversing what we have decided.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If you take a look at what our amendment was going to do you will see that it was trying to ensure that the person who was having the medical examination could avail himself or herself of the best medical help available-that is all. I know that medical check-ups are done by native doctors in the country where application is made. When the minister rose in his place tonight and told us they will need another $2.5 million, how can he justify that figure? Is that another thing that the Minister of National Health and Welfare fed to him? Did he check it out? Does he believe it? He knows the applicant pays for his medical examination. What is he talking about? Does he want us to buy that bill of goods?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Any excuse to spend more money.

July 21, 1977
Immigration


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What are we looking at? It came primarily from two groups. If I have not sounded very positive, it is because I believe this is a retrograde step by a minister who is only concerned about his ego and image. I am referring to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I want to commend the Minister of Manpower and Immigration for one thing in this regard. Clause 5 in the 1952 bill had words such as "imbeciles" and "morons". Thank God that is now removed from the bill. Also epileptics are removed.
I again want to commend the minister. I want to indicate for the record, so that we do not forget, the fact that we received a commitment in the committee that those persons who are in Canada on the minister's order and who cannot be landed because they were epileptic will be contacted once the bill has been promulgated and given an opportunity to get landed immigrant status. It is high time they were. The Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded made a suggestion in their brief. It was not trying to negate the work of our medical officers, but it suggested that a person who is examined by a medical officer without the training of a psychiatrist or a psychologist and who does not pass the mental test should have the right to be examined by a specialist in that field. That is all we are asking for, but what this amendment would do would be to allow two medical officers to certify. The Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded said at page four of its brief:
If immigration officials are to be able to give proper consideration to cases involving mental retardation, in addition to medical assessments, they should have available psychological, psychometric, educational and social assessments carried out by qualified professionals including psychologists, social workers, education and rehabilitation specialists.
That is all we are asking for, but no, the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not like it, and when the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not like something, we change. There is no such thing as a judicial review. I have too much respect for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to think that on his own he would give us that kind of information. I believe his heart was not in it.
I want to raise another matter which I think has escaped most hon. members, and that is the matter of Canadians who want to adopt children who are orphans in the developing world, because their parents are gone for one reason or another. Very often it is because of war, especially in the case of the disaster and the terrible things which happened in Vietnam. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the House because I believe it is important. In the last four years Kuan-Yin has been able to place some 600 orphans with parents in North America, but hardly any have been placed in Canada, despite the fact that there are Canadians who want to adopt children. An official of that organization told me today that every step of the way is a battle with the Department of National Health and Welfare. The organization tells me it is too expensive to hire legal help and to go through the red tape

which is required to place a child in Canada. This is a sad testimonial.
Some hon. members opposite and some hon. members on this side of the House will understand what I say because of their experience in teaching. Children are given standard psychological tests. They are tested for their mental ability. Some children from deprived backgrounds often score low, not because of a lack of mental ability, but because they do not have the social experiences which would allow them to score higher. For example, one child scored an I.Q. of 67. I do not take for granted the fact that one test is definitive. I do not think anyone who does psychological testing does either. Children who do not understand the language used in these tests will score low. In one case a child from Asia was asked what a mailbox was used for. The poor child had never seen a mailbox.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We don't know what a mailbox is for either.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: With the service we are getting, perhaps that is true. After that child had been in North America for two years his mental ability was tested, and his score was 115. All we are asking is that a psychologist or a psychiatrist who has ability in this field be allowed to do the testing. However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare says no. Therefore we cannot have that.
This amendment is retrogressive, it is arbitrary, and it is another indication of the absolute power the Minister of National Health and Welfare wants. I say the amendment is wrong, and if hon. members have any sense of fairness they should not support it. The amendments which were passed in the committee were a small step toward fairness for those people who are less fortunate than some of us.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) wants to say a few words. I was surprised when the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) was explaining his amendments that the hon. member for Niagara Falls was arrogating for himself all the knowledge and wisdom.


Mr. Young:: That wasn't my comment.


David Orlikow: That is certainly what it sounded like. I want to put on the record some of the submissions made to the committee. If the hon. member for Niagara Falls had attended more than one or two committee meetings, he would have heard them. I wish the hon. member would either not interject, or at least interject loud enough so that I could hear him.


Roger Carl Young: I attended many more than one or two.


David Orlikow: The hon. member may have attended, but he obviously did not listen. If the hon. member would refer to the minutes of the meeting of June 7, 1977, at page 32A:8 he would see the submissions of the Student Legal Aid Society and the Law Union of Ontario. I am not a lawyer, but these are organizations comprising lawyers and law students who
July 21, 1977

work in parts of Toronto where there are large numbers of immigrants. These organizations work with immigrants and their friends and relatives to help them come to this country.
They work with the department and with the law and the regulations as enacted by the cabinet and interpreted and administered by the department. For the edification of the hon. member for Niagara Falls 1 will read some of the criticisms of the bill which those two organizations made. If they sound familiar, I suppose it is because the hon. member for Greenwood has included most of these criticisms in the amendments which he has proposed. Let me begin on page 32A:8 and read their comments on Clause 19(1 )(a).
Under the proposed Bill, conduct permissible in Canada yet criminally punishable in less democratic countries would constitute a bar to admission; the bar should only extend to those who have committed acts which would be prohibited in this country.
For instance, if in the Soviet Union one were to distribute books written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, one would undoubtedly be prosecuted under Soviet law for doing something illegal in that country. If you applied the present section of the act to that person, you could exclude him from entering this country.
Commenting on proposed Section 19(1 )(c) they say:
The prohibition on persons 'likely to engage in criminal activity' casts such a wide net that it may have the effect of both undoing the effect of other sections of the bill, and short circuiting Canadian law on criminal procedure. This class of inadmissible persons should thus be deleted from the bill.
They also say this about proposed Section 19(1 )(z/):
The present act puts a person in an inadmissible class only if he has been involved in subversion by force or other means of 'democratic government', but the Bill proposes to extend this to subversion by force of any government. Since subversion of any kind against democratic government is covered by s. 19(l)(e) of the bill, it is recommended that this subsection be deleted.
I cannot imagine ever being involved in the subverting of any government, but can well believe that some who want to come to Canada may try to subvert authoritarian, dictatorial governments, of which there are too many, for example in Africa. Yet under that clause in this bill they could be excluded from entry.
They say this about proposed Section 19(1)(/):
The prohibition against persons who are 'members of or associated with an organization that is likely to engage in acts of violence' is a broad and vague classification which is prone to abuse; deserving cases for exclusion are caught by the provision covering 'persons who are likely to engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.'
We have seen too many examples in the country south of us of the branding as criminals and the prosecuting of people it is supposed are likely to commit acts of violence, to use the language of the bill. In whose opinion are they likely to do this? In the opinion of the minister, or of the immigration officer? Surely we are not going to condemn someone for something we think he may do. That would be dangerous.
The Parkdale Community Legal Services organization repeated many of the criticisms just enumerated. Let me put on record some of their opinions. Speaking of the provisions of
Immigration
subsection 19(1 )(/z) they said, as recorded at page 32A:190 of the committee proceedings:
Subsection 19(1 )(/i) is a re-doing of the present subsection 5(P) and is every bit as vague and arbitrary as the old section. It is the section which, because of its lack of criteria, is often used to exclude anyone who is merely suspicious, inarticulate or different. It too should be deleted as there are many other sections to cover those truly undeserving of admission.
Let me put on record what they say about Section 27, which is covered by motion No. 25. They say:
Section 27 covers the removal of persons from Canada after their admission and includes the removal of landed immigrants regardless of their length of residence in Canada. Subsections 27(1 )(a) and (e) suffer from problems already discussed under Section 19.
Subsection 27(1 )(e) is substantially the same as the present subsection 18(l)(e)(viii) and poses the same inequities. The wording of this subsection coupled with the current case law, make it possible for someone to be deported after being in Canada any number of years, for very minor misstatements on their application. The Supreme Court of Canada has characterized the effects of this section as harsh. Furthermore, when coupled with Section 9 of the new Citizenship Act, a person may have his/her citizenship revoked and then be deported for relatively minor infractions on this subsection. It is not enough to suggest that this won't be done. The power is there, and has already been used.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) were present he could tell the House more eloquently that I can how similar provisions in the Immigration Act were almost used following World War I in the attempt to deport from Winnipeg British people who had lived in the city many years. They had come to Canada from Great Britain and their only crime was that they were the supposed leaders of the general strike in Winnipeg in 1919. The authorities wanted to deport them under a similar section of the act, but desisted only after the protests of one who I think became a Liberal solicitor general, E. J. MacMurray.
I hope history has taught us something, has shown us we do not need such draconian legislation. Frankly, I am amazed that a so-called Liberal government should include such a provision in the bill. I urge members of the House to heed the advice of the Parkdale Community Legal Services, and of the other organizations to which I referred, and reject this clause. Such advice is based on knowledge of the law.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the intervention of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) in connection with motion No. 13. I can understand the motivation of the committee which led to the adoption of that particular amendment. It clearly was based on the presumed uncontrolled and unlimited discretion of the medical officer in formulating his or her opinion as to the health status of a particular immigrant. However, I believe there are serious grounds for concluding that the new wording proposed by the hon. member is incapable of achieving the control which was intended and, further, that it will not be virtually impossible for my department to continue to operate an immigration health service in support of Canada's immigration program. I should like to put a few reasons on record in support of this statement.
Hon. members must remember that it is not possible to designate medical practitioners for immigration medical pur-

July 21, 1977
Immigration
poses in certain countries, such as Spain, China, Yugoslavia, Taiwan or the Soviet Union, much less to determine the qualifications of appropriate medical specialists in those countries, to use the wording of the amendment proposed in committee. In those cases the state concerned designates the local examining medical practitioners and occasionally accedes to request for medical consultations when these are required. Departmental medical officials ordinarily do not have any direct contact with these physicians. They certainly do not have any control with respect to their designation.
Another point worth bearing in mind is the incongruity of the so-called medical specialists in India, Japan, Lebanon, Ghana or Afghanistan, opining for example, on the subject of, and I quote the amendment passed by the committee, "excessive demands on health or social services" in Canada with respect to health impairment discerned in an immigrant applicant in one of those countries, assuming that the requirement for, and I again quote the amendment, "consultation with the appropriate medical specialist", as the amended version reads, applies to Section 19.
The hon. member raised questions as to costs. He went out of his way to point out that the applicant immigrants are paying for the medical specialist consultations. I suspect that what he proposed would end up hurting sick people whom he claims he would want to help. It is estimated that for approximately every 2,000 immigrants there might be as many as
50,000	cases where it would be appropriate to have a consultation with a medical specialist.
Let us assume a consultation fee of about $100 per immigrant. It immediately adds an additional $5 million to potential immigrants who will have to bear that particular cost. As the hon. member knows, many of these people come to Canada with relatively small means, especially if they suffer from a particular health impairment.
(Division No. 94)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Brewin	Knowles	NystromDe Bane	(Winnipeg	OrlikowDuclos	North Centre)	PetersGilbert	Lambert	SaltsmanJoyal	(Bellechasse) MacDonald (Egmont)
NAYS Messrs.	Symes-13.Abbott	Francis	MacEachenAlexander	Gauthier	MacFarlaneAllmand	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MaineAppolloni (Mrs.)	Gendron	MaloneBaker	Gillespie	Marchand(Grenville-Carleton)	Gillies	MartinBeatty	Goodale	McKenzieBechard	Goyer	McKinleyBegin (Miss)	Gray	McRaeBlais	Guay	MilneBlaker	(St. Boniface)	MuirBlouin	Haidasz	MunroBoulanger	Herbert	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Breau	Hnatyshyn	Nicholson (Miss)Brisco	Holt (Mrs.)	O'ConnellBuchanan	Hopkins	PaproskiCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Horner	ParentCaron	Isabelle	PennerClermont	Jamieson	PhilbrookCoates	Kaplan	Pigott (Mrs.)Collenette	Kempling	PortelanceComtois	Lajoie	PoulinCorbin	Lalonde	Prud'hommeCrouse	Lang	ReidCullen	Laniel	RobertsDanson	La Salle	RobinsonDarling	Lawrence	RompkeyDemers	Leblanc	Sauve (Mrs.)Dinsdale	(Laurier)	SharpDouglas	Lee	Smith(Bruce-Grey)	Lefebvre	(Saint-Jean)Drury	Loiselle	StanburyEpp	(Chambly)	StanfieldEthier	Loiselle	TessierFaulkner	(Saint-Henri)	TurnerForres tall	Macdonald	WatsonFox	(Rosedale)	Yewchuk
Young-102.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 1 lost.
As to the figure of $2.5 million about which the hon. member was concerned, it is related essentially to having medical immigration officers from the department and medical specialists appear in litigation procedures and the costs arising therefrom.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-24, an Act respecting immigration to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 7 lost.
Motion No. 7 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is upon motion No. 8.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 6 lost.
Motion No. 6 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 8 lost. Motion No. 8 negatived.
7902

July 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded. Therefore the question is: "That this House do adjourn."



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day. I hope now to be able to direct the attention of the House briefly during the adjournment debate to a matter of some major concern to potato producers in eastern Canada, particularly Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. As the minister will recognize, it concerns the problem of transportation costs and transportation equipment for the potato industry.
This has become a major question. This is roughly the fourteenth time over the past eight months that I have raised it in the House, either in the question period or adjournment debate.
There has been a developing problem of major proportions in terms of equipment that will be made available for potato producers. As the minister and his officials know, most of the potatoes were moved in carriers that were not made in this country. In fact they were rented from American rail operators and remained available to the Canadian railroads at a very inexpensive rental cost.
These refrigerated cars, some 4,000 or 5,000 in number, were normally adequate for the movement of potatoes to central Canadian markets. However, when the American railroads decided it was no longer possible to obtain existing equipment or build new equipment, these deteriorated very rapidly both in number and in quality. The situation today is that we have roughly 25 per cent of those that were normally available, something around 1,000 cars.
Some provision must be made in the very near future. In fact some would say the time is already well past when such equipment can be available on time. Otherwise we will run into a crisis situation during the peak shipping month of February or March. There will simply not be enough vehicles available to move potatoes to markets where demands are greatest.
We might have encountered the situation in the last shipping year were it not for the fact that an unusual opportunity developed for potato producers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to ship a very large amount of table potatoes to

Europe after their own crop failed. I doubt whether that situation is likely to arise again this year or on many occasions. Indeed, with the bumper crop predicted for this year, we could well be in a very serious situation next spring when we try to move the bulk of our potatoes to market.
I raised this with the minister on June 9 because it had been announced a few days earlier, around the first of the month, that CNR was contemplating rate increases of 12 and 20 per cent. By the first of the year we will have something like a total rate increase of 34 per cent.
In addition, there was a suggestion that in place of the refrigerated cars which are no longer available or adequate for service, insulated boxcars roughly double or more the size of the present reefer cars should be provided. When the producers and retail operators heard of this, they were appalled, both at the discriminatory nature of the further rate increase which was away beyond any kind of guideline as it presumably existed with respect to cost increases under the present wage and price control program and, second, the appropriateness or adequacy of the insulated boxcars that CNR was contemplating using.
The rough experience that had been noticed over the past year, the difficulty with the substantial number of freeze-ups of potatoes that were in insulated boxcars, the problems of adequately handling them at the receiving end, as well as the problems in loading them for the producers came as extremely bad news to potato producers in eastern Canada. Therefore I was somewhat surprised when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) told me the CNR had simply put this information on the table in order that they could proceed with discussions with the shippers on the subject of equipment, its availability and, presumably, its cost.
Since that time the special task force has worked diligently. Its report has now been circulated among potato interests in eastern Canada and it seems some break-through is being made. I believe we can expect an announcement that some cars will actually be built. The problem will, of course, be whether they will be in time or whether they will be enough. My understanding is that some 300 cars may be ordered of the size in the 90,000 lbs. range, and of the type suitable for the use of eastern potato producers, but that many of them may not be available for at least two or three years. Three hundred cars are really not adequate; they will accommodate, perhaps, less than 50 per cent of the real demand which will exist for these cars, and I hope more adequate consultation with the industry will lead to a more positive and more comprehensive plan being implemented.
In addition, I believe the plan to use insulated boxcars will not be any asset to the market or to the potato producers. I hope this proposal will be studied further. What is important, though, is to have a decision, to end this long and unsettled period in which potato producers do not know how to meet their marketing commitments. This is an industry which has tried desperately in recent years to get itself adequately organ-
July 21, 1977

ized so as to realize a fair return for producers, and further delay is not helpful. I trust the parliamentary secretary will be able to give us a favourable progress report this evening.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the problems of transporting and distributing potatoes from Prince Edward Island and northwestern New Brunswick have ranged from inadequate rail equipment and port facilities, to inefficient market co-ordination and unrealistic transportation rates.
Both government and industry have long since recognized some of the complex issues in dealing with the question of distribution, and while some steps have been taken to improve the system, many of the basic issues remain unresolved.
Therefore, as the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is aware, Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with the problems and to develop a consensus on future steps among all major interest groups, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) appointed a working group on the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick potato distribution system to consult with representatives of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick producers and shippers, P.E.I. and New Brunswick governments, CN and CP, truckers and ports. It was the task of the working group to come up with recommendations by August, 1977, on a short term basis which would ensure the efficient and cost-effective distribution of potatoes for the 1977-78 crop year, and longer term measures by early in 1978 to ensure desirable system capability for future crop years.
As the minister said in the House just yesterday, a draft report by the working group on the first part of their task is complete. In fact officials were in Moncton today to discuss the report with the interested parties. A final report is expected within a week or so, at which time the government will consider the matter and take such actions as it deems necessary to ensure the most effective system of distribution for potatoes. We take note, of course, of the representations made by the hon. member and will also take note of the representations of other hon. members who may be interested.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-REPORT OF FITZGERALD ASSOCIATES ON &quot;THE WAY AHEAD&quot;-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT OR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on April 4 of this year I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to a document from the consulting firm E.P. Fitzgerald Associates of Ottawa entitled "Comments on The Way Ahead-A Framework for Discussion." This document contains a series of recommendations as to what action the government should take to rectify the serious economic mess Canada is in. I am here tonight not only to find out what action, if any, the Liberal government has taken on this document but also to draw attention to the very serious economic problems the government is ignoring because of the priority it places on such things as bilingualism and culture. This government, Mr. Speaker, has not been giving very serious attention to economic problems and it would be amaz-
Adjournmenl Debate
ing to find out how many other documents like the E.P. Fitzgerald report are not being acted upon.
While of course there are many aspects to the economic fiasco the government has created, I believe one of the more critical items is the drain of Canadian investment money leaving Canada. On two occasions 1 have introduced motions under Standing Order 43 calling for the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic affairs to conduct an immediate investigation into the money leaving Canada by way of investments in the United States. The government, of course, chose to ignore this serious problem by rejecting these motions, just as it is ignoring all economic matters by not presenting a budget this fall.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the whole matter of the various documents the government has containing economic proposals, and the whole question of the drain on the Canadian economy of money leaving Canada by way of investments should be a matter for the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to consider in detail.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the proposals of the Fitzgerald report dealing with the promotion of the private sector because there is such little faith in the Liberal government that it has brought about the drain of millions of dollars leaving Canada. The promotion of the private sector recommendations read as follows:
Promotion of the Private Sector
Because the private sector constitutes the main tax base for all government programs in addition to providing much needed employment, it is apparent that expansion of private enterprise should be given top priority.
It is suggested that some of the ways in which this could be done include the following:
(a)	Emphasis on the development of high technology and secondary industry
in Canada.
(b)	Increased support to the setting up of labour intensive industry in the
Third World while retaining capital intensive industry at home.
(c)	Use of tax-bonds and de-taxation measures to return consumer oriented
programs, e.g. the building industry, to private sectors.
Again, although the writer has specific proposals in mind in each of the foregoing areas, these have been omitted for the sake of brevity.
American business representatives are openly encouraging Canadian businesses to move from Montreal and Toronto to U.S. locations. It is alarming, Mr. Speaker, that it has reached the point where Canadian investment in United States real estate has gone from $300 million in 1972 to a high $2.5 billion this year; to the point where Canadian investors own 30 per cent of the major apartment complexes in Seattle, Washington, and Canadian firms have developed 17 major complexes in U.S. cities. All of this is because of the lack of faith in the economic policies of the Liberal government. Even a major firm like Canadian Pacific is making huge investments in the U.S.
In every year since, and including, 1973, Canadians have made more long term direct investments-real estate, plant and equipment, etc.-abroad than foreigners have made in Canada. Since 1973 more than $1 billion of direct investment capital has left the country. In more human terms, if an
80020-36Vi

July 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate
average $60,000 capital investment is required to create one permanent job, more than 17,000 potential jobs have not been created because of this outflow.
The net outflow of capital has been growing in recent years. In 1976, even though foreign economies were plagued by stagnation, Canadians invested $555 million abroad. And, for the first time in at least 25 years, 1976 was the first year in which foreigners actually reduced the value of their holdings in Canada-by $395 million. Figures for the first quarter of 1977 show that the net outflow is continuing: $35 million in the first quarter, an annual rate of $140 million.
Statistics Canada, which is the Canadian government's statistical agency, reports, that Canadian long term investment in the United States increased by more than 66 per cent between 1969 and 1974, from $5,564 millions outstanding at the end of 1969 to $8,376 millions outstanding at the end of 1974.
The Statistics Canada figures show total Canadian direct investment in the U.S. in 1974 was $4,900 millions, up from $2,079 millions in 1969; portfolio investment $2,967 millions, up from $2,309 millions, and miscellaneous investment $500 millions, up from $216 millions.
These totals, of course, are far below total United States long term investment in Canada, which amounted to $46,675 millions in 1974, up from $33,045 millions in 1969.
With both inflation and unemployment running at disturbingly high levels in Canada, the opposition parties and labour organizations are all concerned about the outflow of capital which, if put to work in Canada, would provide more jobs, and in theory would counterprice inflation by encouraging price competition to sell more goods available. The federal budget presented to parliament on March 31 contained a good many tax relief items aimed at encouraging more investment in Canada and more jobs. The results have been disappointing. A fortnight ago a cabinet minister, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), was almost shrill in a speech imploring businessmen to invest their capital in expanding operations and jobs in Canada.
In Florida, where Canadian tourists spend an estimated $500 million a year, Canadians are increasing their investments, not only in retirement condominiums, but in business ventures of many kinds-real estate, manufacturing, banks, etc. Florida economic development officials report more Canadian investment inquiries in the last five months than in the previous 14 months, mainly from small and medium-sized Canadian firms in many industrial sectors. Canada's Royal Trust Company recently bought the American Bank of Orange County in Orlando for $2.3 million.


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


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has been unfair because for

several minutes he has been laying on the table hundreds of statistics on which I will not comment now. 1 do not accept them as being valid. I should like to take the time I have to deal with Mr. Fitzgerald's submission, which I understood was to be the content of his interjection. I should like to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and myself are very grateful to the many hundreds of individual Canadians, among them Mr. Fitzgerald, and to the groups and firms who took the time and effort to respond to our request for views on "The Way Ahead".
Mr. Fitzgerald's submission put forward, in a rather general way, some criticisms of what he regards as conventional economics and mentions certain new concepts which he feels would lead to an improved understanding of economic processes and problems. The alternative theory which he has offered is not very clear, but a more general point is that governments do not usually act on the basis of general critiques of economic theory or of new general theories received in the mail or in submissions. The real testing grounds for such critiques and theories are public debate and professional analysis. I wish Mr. Fitzgerald well, but I doubt that the chances are very high that future finance ministers will be forced by the tide of public and professional opinion to formulate economic policy on the basis of his new theories.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre alluded to certain specific proposals concerning tax bonds and reductions in the taxation on housing included in Mr. Fitzgerald's submission. Because of the time factor, I should like to refer to one of his proposals. According to the tax bond proposal, corporations would be given the option of subscribing to long term government bonds bearing an interest rate lower than current market rates in place of paying some fraction of their taxes. This proposal is put forward as a means of relieving pressure on firms to increase prices, and as a means of raising capital for government investment projects. Given that the bond issues are to replace receipts of tax revenues, it is hard to see how the measure increases the financial resources available to government for capital spending.
The measure would amount to a reduction in the effective rate of corporation taxation with the revenue loss financed by increased borrowing. The extent of the effective tax rate reduction would depend on the extent to which the interest rates on the bonds were below current market levels.


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


VETERANS AFFAIRS-DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL OFFICE IN BRANDON
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the question I should like to raise tonight has been under discussion for almost two years now. It is a very important issue concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs. It will decentralize its service facilities and establish a network, in places like the good city of Thunder Bay, Ontario, and the great city of Brandon, Manitoba, of storefront operations manned by
July 21, 1977

qualified service officer personnel of the Department of Veterans Affairs in order more effectively to serve the populations living in those regions.
I have submitted questions from time to time to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and he has acknowledged them positively, saying that a decision is just around the corner and that if I would rest my soul in patience, the announcement would be made. When the parliamentary secretary responded in a similar debate of this kind almost a year ago, he indicated that the decision was about to be made.
I regret that neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary are present, but I trust that the spokesman who is representing the government tonight will be able to answer in specific terms to two questions. First of all, will the government proceed with this policy which will provide on the spot advisory and counselling services to the veterans, and will one of these offices be located Brandon; and second, when will the program be initiated?
The reason I have become involved in the matter is a letter that was circulated from the regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the city of Winnipeg which serves Thunder Bay, from the area welfare supervisor on February 10, 1976. It was directed to the service officer of the Royal Canadian Legion in Brandon, Mr. John Heming. It reads:
Dear Mr. Heming:
Due to budgetary cutbacks our country travel has been curtailed until the beginning of the new fiscal year-April, 1976.
I apologize for the inconvenience this will create to veterans in the area, but ask for your co-operation in forwarding full particulars of any veterans problems in your area with which I may be of assistance. Please include in your referrals full name, address, regimental number and nature of problem.
I am looking forward to seeing you in April.
This letter is dated February, so I think he will agree that there was not too much service given at that time to a veteran population which is represented by almost 5,000 ex-service personnel in the Westman region who are active members of the Royal Canadian Legion. Based on percentage figures, that means that there must be a veteran population of over 15,000 because those areas of the country made a great contribution to enlistments in both World War I and World War II.
As a result of this letter the branches of the Royal Canadian Legion in the area conducted a write-in campaign and letters flowed into me and to the minister in great numbers. It was on the basis of this write-in campaign that the minister was persuaded, I am sure, that this was a good policy and an urgently needed one. The situation was reinforced by a statement of Mr. Bob Adams, the director general of veterans services, located here in Ottawa, in an article in the Legionnaire, the official organ of the Canadian Legion, when he indicated that this program was being contemplated and that it was going to be a storefront operation with as little in the way of support staff as possible and it would bring uniformity
Adjournment Debate
into the disbursal of the program's goodies, as Adams said, "Standards of counselling and social welfare will be set here in Ottawa" he said, and they will be uniform across the country.
I raised the question on May 31, and again the Minister of Veterans Affairs said:
The study I initiated at that time in reference to this question is still under way. Brandon is under study at the present time. As far as giving the hon. member a definite date, I prefer not to do so now.
Another two months have passed, and I hope tonight that the spokesman will be able to indicate some specifics in this regard. It is much less expensive than the travelling involved and the long distance telephone calls involved. It is a program which is a part of the decentralization emphasis which has been announced by the minister.
We have the grandiose plan of taking the department to Prince Edward Island. I think even greater priority is demanded by the issue which has been brought forward in quite specific terms in hundreds of letters which have come from the veterans of the Westman area. The legion service officers are trying to fill in to the best of their ability. They have initiated an operation service, and they are to be congratulated for filling the gap which has to be filled. It is a vacuum of service which has to be met and I trust-


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


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sure the spokesman will give us a positive response tonight.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member presents the problem very well. As the hon. member is aware, the minister has indicated that a review of the organization of the department is under way with the hope of improving service. The number of veteran clients is increasing. Those of us who are veterans are getting older and are going to require more services, so there is no question that there will be a need. The problem is the freeze on manpower but, as the hon. member has indicated, one way of improving service is to increase the number of offices. In order to improve service, some services in those offices must be combined.
The study is still under way. The data is not all in. I cannot give a date, but the study is under way, and there is no question that Brandon and Thunder Bay are two centres where this kind of service is necessary. One of the pressures will be the need for increased service. We all appreciate that. In my visits to veterans hospitals I find that the numbers are increas-

July 21, 1977
ing rather than decreasing. The minister has assured me that as soon as the data is complete he will be giving thorough consideration to this, and one of the things to be considered seriously is decentralization into small communities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.

Friday, July 22, 1977