1980-04-23

Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I think you will find that there may be a disposition on the part of the House to grant the necessary unanimous consent. My motion is as follows:
It is resolved that this House endorses the publicly expressed view of the Canadian and United States governments that the east coast fisheries and boundary treaties represent fair and urgently required co-operative arrangements in the interests of both countries, regards the early ratification and implementation of these treaties as a matter of national importance to Canada and to good relations between Canada and the United States, and urges the Senate of the United States to take early and favourable action for ratification of these treaties.
That motion would be seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The Post Office is planning to move the Saskatchewan district office from Saskatoon to Winnipeg, leaving Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island as the only two provinces without district offices.
In view of the fact that there are a substantially greater number of post offices in Saskatchewan than in Manitoba, spread over a far larger area, and the move will mean a loss of 103 positions with a salary of about $1% million per year to the city of Saskatoon alone, I move, and I should say that I had asked the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) to second this motion as he is the Liberal member twinned with Saskatoon East, but he demurred and it will therefore be seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House directs the Postmaster General, in the interests of efficiency of operation of the Post Office in western Canada, to revoke the plan to move the Saskatchewan district office from the city of Saskatoon to the city of Winnipeg.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. At this crucial moment in our history, all Canadians outside the province of Quebec find themselves at a loss as to how they, as individuals, can show to the people of Quebec in a tangible way their true feelings about Quebec, its culture, its language, its people and the fact that we in the rest of the country accept that a Canada without the beautiful province of Quebec is unthinkable.
All hon. members have been, or will be, supplied with a copy of the Niagara Falls Review of April 22 which sets forth a program for one-to-one communication between residents of Canada outside Quebec and residents within Quebec. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That this House urge the press in every municipality outside the province of Quebec to forthwith establish a program similar to the one set out in the Niagara Falls Review of April 22, 1980, and that all Canadians outside Quebec be invited to take advantage of such programs to express to the people of Quebec their deep feelings of love and affection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

April 23, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of frequent statements by the Minister of Employment and Immigration that the CPR yards in Winnipeg should be relocated, and in view of the request by the city of Winnipeg that an early decision be made by the federal government on whether it favours rail relocation along with a major financial commitment by the federal government to the project, I move, seconded by the	hon. member	for	Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Government of Canada agree to the terms of reference as outlined by the city of Winnipeg and, further, that the federal government make its decision public by the end of May as requested by the city of Winnipeg.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon.	Members:	Agreed.Some hon.	Members:	No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion which is urgent within the terms of Standing Order 43, and I believe all hon. members will want to take action on it as of about an hour ago.
In view of the fact that Transport Canada has decided that airport firefighters will no longer have any responsibility for the evacuation or rescue of passengers or crew in the event of an aircraft crash or fire, and in view of the fact that Transport Canada has decided that these emergency actions are the responsibility of the airlines-that is, airline employees-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House instruct the government to continue to maintain and provide adequate evacuation and rescue resources at Transport Canada airports.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the western premiers have unanimously stated that they are in favour of renewing the constitution; considering that they emphatically reject sovereignty-association and the status quo; and considering the recent commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in favour of a renewed federalism, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the House call on the Prime Minister of Canada to answer affirmatively to the wish expressed by his western counterparts.


Madam Speaker:: 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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that two major measures of relief for the Atlantic provinces in the Crosbie budget-that is, tax contracts for firms locating in the region and incentives for the construction of fishing vessels-have been abandoned by the present Minister of Finance, and in light of the fact that the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have recently restated their position that revenues from offshore resources should accrue to the provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House directs the Prime Minister, in the interests of national unity, to take immediate steps to meet with Atlantic Canada's premiers in order to achieve a negotiated settlement of this question as an expression of the government's concern for regional development in the Atlantic provinces.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 23, 1980



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the M inister of State for Finance. First, I would like to congratulate him on his appointment. [English]
I would like to ask the minister: In view of the discrepancy between the spending estimates tabled here yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board, of $58.4 billion, and the projections of the Minister of Finance tabled on Monday night, of $60.4 billion for total outlays-which are said to be the result of increases in the oil import compensation program, and also increases in public debt charges totalling $2 billion altogether-and in view of the inability of the President of the Treasury Board to explain the discrepancy on what the latest estimates are-he has taken it under advisement-could the minister tell us, and the President of the Treasury Board, how the Minister of Finance arrives at the estimate of total spending this year under the headings of the oil import compensation plan and public debt charges?
What are the amounts now estimated by the Minister of Finance? Would he tell us and share the knowledge with the Treasury Board?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's West for his congratulations and I would like to tell him immediately that the Minister of Finance and I have full confidence in the ability and competence of the President of the Treasury Board. 1 think that the member for St. John's West can see in the statement of the Minister of Finance that the amounts stated are taken from figures which he had himself anticipated and from the differences in the negotiations on oil prices now under way.


ESTIMATES FOR OIL IMPORT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS AND PUBLIC DEBT CHARGES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the President of the Treasury Board, since the minister of state does not know what these figures are. He has greater confidence in the President of the Treasury Board than we have learned yet.
The Auditor General has pointed out that the spending figures in the estimates are incomplete and sometimes incomprehensible-which is easy to understand, when ministers cannot comprehend them. Has the President of the Treasury Board now been advised by the Department of Finance as to what the government's estimates contain under the heading of
Oral Questions
oil import compensation payments for 1980-81, which 1 think is $3.1 billion, from what 1 can read, and $10.7 billion for public debt charges? Could he confirm whether these are the figures, or what the figures are, and advise us whether the Treasury Board might be going back as a branch of the Department of Finance?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, 1 am surprised that the former minister of finance and his colleague, the former president of the treasury board, short though their tenure was, do not seem to understand that there is a fundamental difference between an expenditure projection and the number which is found in the main estimates.


Mr. Andre:: There is not supposed to be.


Donald James Johnston: That has always been the case. That always will be the case. When the former minister of finance made his projections on that infamous day in December, of $58.4 billion, those were projections; and had the estimates been tabled at that time, they would have been in the order of, say, $57 billion because the reserve to which he sometimes makes reference is not included there.
With specific reference to the oil import compensation payments, the amount provided for in the main estimates is $2.6 billion, and the current projection is in the neighbourhood of $3.1 billion. Yesterday, 1 indicated that with respect to debt costs, the main estimates provide for $10,275 billion and the current projections are $10,775 billion.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have a final supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. That infamous budget has been adopted holus-bolus, with respect to about two-thirds of it, by the hon. gentlemen opposite. So he should watch his epithets, because they will turn into an epitaph.
May 1 ask the President of the Treasury Board this: he has now got the figures for the latest projections, or estimates, for this year. Could he explain to us this statement by the Minister of Finance which says, "implementing blended oil pricing could alone reduce expenditures and financial requirements by as much as $1 billion"?
How will this famous blender reduce these amounts by $1 billion? Could he explain that to the House? We all await it with bated breath. If that is the case, why do not the estimates reflect it, if they are only projections?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the former minister of finance apparently still does not understand the difference between main estimates and projections.


An hon. Member:: What are our estimates, if not projections of expenditures?


Donald James Johnston: The projections clearly do not take into account whatever pricing arrangement is arrived at by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

April 23, 1980
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Donald James Johnston: If the hon. member wishes to address that question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am sure my colleague will be prepared to deal with the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPENDING TARGET OF GOVERNMENT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board, when he tabled his estimates, was at pains to say that these estimates did not constitute a spending plan for the government. Surely the time now has come for the goverment to indicate what its spending plans really are. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell Parliament and the Canadian people what, in fact, is the spending target for this government this year?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that these questions are a rehash of what has already been covered in the speech by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and by the questions and answers exchanged yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Then just answer it.


Donald James Johnston: The projection which the Minister of Finance gave the other evening was the figure of $60.4 billion, subject to reduction on the basis of whatever the blended oil price will be. I really do not understand-


An hon. Member:: That is pretty clear.


Henry Perrin Beatty: When the minister said he did not understand, it was the most candid statement he has made so far during his tenure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board, does he feel bound by the commitment made by his leader, the current Prime Minister, in Toronto on January 12, namely, that increases in spending would be held to less than the increase in growth in the GNP this year? "Yes" or "No"?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: That is a good start.


An hon. Member:: "Yes" or "No"?


Donald James Johnston: First of all, the object of this government, since its declaration of 1975, has been to keep the annual increase in over-all government spending within the rate of increase in the GNP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: That has always been the objective, and it remains the objective.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I would like to point out, Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You are as reliable as Herb Gray.


Donald James Johnston: -something that I think the House would like to know, namely, that on the basis of the estimates that I tabled yesterday, were our friends making any kind of financial projections of the kind they made last December, their total expenditure would be almost as high, except they would not have that very important plan to provide $345 million under the GIS to our senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. First, 1 should like to congratulate him on his appointment to one of the most important portfolios in Canada.
One hundred and fifty lakes in central Canada are dead today, thousands more are dying and plant life and health are threatened. Before the minister left for Washington, we heard him describe acid rain as "a time bomb that has already gone off', and that we were "on the verge of disaster". I share these concerns, and I am sure we all do.
Given the fact that the minister returned from Washington with his tail between his legs, with no commitment whatsoever from the U.S. Administration, can he now assure the House that he views the U.S. response as totally unacceptable to him, his government and the people of Canada, and that his government will be increasing pressure on the United States to get meaningful action?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind comments on my arrival to this ministry. I agree with him that it is one of the most important portfolios, and I am anxious to have his support as well as his good wishes in the months to come.
1 would like to make clear to the hon. member and to the House that the purpose of my trip to Washington was, not to return with an agreement but to begin the process of discussion. We received a sympathetic hearing. The American Secretary of State is here today and the same kinds of considerations which I presented in Washington will be renewed in those discussions.
We are anxious to press ahead as quickly as we possibly can, not only with the movement toward an agreement on air standards which go across borders, but also for some interim assertion of political will on the part of both the United States and Canada to use, as strongly as we can, the regulations
April 23, 1980

which exist presently on both sides of the border to combat a very urgent and pressing danger,


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, the question of acid rain in Canada is hardly a new one. I think some of the proposals being made by President Carter are worthy of note by this House. President Carter's plan called for 300 new coal-fired plants and 107 oil-burning plants being converted to coal, almost all of which will be in the northeastern United States, thereby affecting Canada.
Now, 48,000 lakes are threatened in Canada, and the United States emissions are proposed to increase dramatically. Perhaps the minister could advise this House and the people of Canada what precise steps the ministry is taking in considering the protection and the revitalization of these vital Canadian resources.


An hon. Member:: We can put a fan on the border and blow all the air back.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the question prompts a long response. I should like to say, simply, three things very briefly. We have already pressed on the United States our concerns over the implementation of President Carter's proposals if they were to go ahead unchanged. They must go through the congressional process, and I am confident that many changes will take place during that process.
Second, the hon. member should be as much concerned with the existing transgression of regulations, not simply about the future effects of oil conversion to coal but of the existing regulations which are not being fully applied in the United States. We have been making vigorous representations on that point as well.
The third thing of which the hon. member should be aware is that much of this problem is engendered here in Canada. I have undertaken discussions with some of my provincial counterparts. There are aspects of Canadian performance in this area which must be cleaned up. I am confident that within the next two weeks there will be significant movement on this particular part of the question, particularly in reference to the source of pollution which comes from Inco in Sudbury, as a result of joint action by the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, 1 think a lot of Canadians are concerned about the sort of whimpering, headless horseman attitude which we have seen in the past and see in the present in terms of this type of pollution. Perhaps the minister would advise us the position he and his cabinet colleagues are taking toward the visit of Cyrus Vance today, whether it is simply going to be a back-patting gesturing-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Ross Fulton: -or whether the minister is going to make specific representations, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to Cyrus Vance to make sure the type of
Oral Questions
pollution emissions which are occurring today will be terminated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Repeat the question.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to whimpering. 1 think it is clear from my answers that we have already taken considerably vigorous action. What the hon. gentleman is doing is neighing, after the barn door is closed, about proposals he would like to have made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, last week the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General dropped charges against 57 Ontario stores accused of selling ground beef laced with pork.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he was consulted before this decision was made; and, if so, where does this leave his department in terms of its ability to ensure Canadians that they are getting what is advertised in what they buy?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, these charges were withdrawn because of a previous court decision affecting the legislation. It does not in any way mean that the surveillance, etc., will not be maintained by all departments concerned making sure meat and other products in Canada are pure and wholesome.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General. Now that he has dropped these charges and has abdicated his responsibility to the Canadian consumer-who now has no protection against the sale of questionable ground beef-what guarantees can he offer, to the Jewish community especially, that mixing of ground beef with pork will not continue?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member that indeed officers in my department continue to monitor commercial practices, and if they once more detect ground beef laced with pork they will take the appropriate action and this could mean seizure or criminal lawsuits. The hon. member has referred to dropped charges, which were based on contents and standards and had absolutely no implication of fraud, or selling or labelling in a deceitful way. So the distinction must be clear and 1 want to reassure not only the hon. member but all members of this
326

April 23, 1980
Oral Questions
House and the public at large that officers in my department are on the watch and will take necessary measures in the future.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I would have preferred to ask my question of the Prime Minister, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My question stems from a recent government announcement to proceed in some 20 cities in Canada with the implementation of metric, affecting approximately six million people.
In light of the adverse reaction and effects to small businesses and consumers, will the minister responsible for industry, trade and commerce assure this House-and answer the question-that he will allow full parliamentary discussion on the subject of the implementation of the metric system before it is forced on business communities across Canada?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, first I should like to remind the hon. member that there were ample opportunities for hon. members to discuss this when the legislation on metric conversion was passed in this House. If members opposite will please quieten down, Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that the suggestion he just made will be examined.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board in his capacity as minister responsible for the Official Languages Act.
I think he knows that yesterday the Commissioner of Official Languages under the act tabled his annual report in this House and it is really a cataloguing of inequities and injustices against French Canadians in the public service of this country. In particular, it points out that Francophones are vastly underrepresented at the middle and senior echelons of the public service.
My question to the minister is this: Why has the government hesitated for so long in acting on equality of opportunity to work in French and to be served in French in the public service, especially when he is preaching every day in Quebec that that kind of equality exists which Mr. Yalden says in his report does not exist?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that I was disturbed, and somewhat disheartened, by some of the conclusions reached by the commissioner and by what he said. But 1 am also heartened by many of the things which he did not say, because there have been remarkable improvements in certain areas.
With regard to some of the criticism-on pay differential, for example-if one analyses it, one finds that it is largely because English-speaking civil servants are older and in the under forty group the pay levels are the same. This kind of thing is not contained in the report. 1 think these are facts that should be noted. 1 can assure the hon. member that we are examining the report carefully, and any positive action that we can take to further the objectives of Mr. Yalden, with which we can concur, we will take.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister did not answer the question. [Translation]
Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask a supplementary question. Considering that Mr. Max Yalden has just shown that the problem is mainly one of attitude and action within the federal structure, the federal government, can the minister tell us what steps his government will take to achieve true equality between French and English in the federal government?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as I have just said, we will do all that is within our power to ensure the application of this policy. We have to start with the senior civil servants and with management. We must impose our will because, according to the commissioner's report, it is lacking. So, Madam Speaker, we will manifest our will.


REQUEST THAT JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES BE ESTABLISHED
Mr. Serge Joyal (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Madam
Speaker, considering the findings of the ninth report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, considering that last March the government tabled a motion in the House for the establishment of a joint committee on official languages, considering also that last December the right hon. prime minister, who is today on the opposition side, supported the establisment of such a committee, I wonder if the government House leader can tell us whether it is the government's intention of tabling a motion in the near future asking that the ninth report of the Commissioner of Official Languages be referred to a joint House-Senate committee.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent suggestion which we could take up in the near future.
April 23, 1980

Oral Questions
[English]	METRIC CONVERSION


HOUSING
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the CHIP program. Why is it that the government is allowing rip-offs to take place in the CHIP program, under which many operators are installing $350 worth of insulation no matter what size space there is to fill, be it 600 square feet or 1,600 square feet, and in most cases without any ventilation?
What is the government doing to educate and protect consumers on the process of checking out the firms they use to insulate their homes? Does the minister not agree that the program has attracted firms with no expertise whatsoever in the insulation business, because of its poor design and the lack of proper policing and administration?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I can assure my friend that this ministry, in conjunction with the ministries of various provinces which have jurisdiction in the regulation of business operations, together with agencies and commissions such as the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission-of which I was a member until coming into this House and the cabinet-is actively reviewing the problem raised by the hon. member opposite. I can assure him that we are concerned about the problem, and I hope to be able to respond later that these matters have been tightened up.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, has the minister talked with some of the small businessmen, as I have, who are going out of business and are pleading with the government to cancel the CHIP program? They are saying that because of this program, uncaring and large companies are providing poor quality insulation to the consumer. Has he investigated the possibility of establishing federal criteria for installers, and a bonding system designed to protect the consumer; and if not, why not?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, my initial response is that this is not a matter of jurisdiction for the federal government but, indeed, for provincial agencies responsible for business operations. However, it is something I will ask the legal branch of my ministry to investigate.
I would hasten to say, though, that this is the first time 1 have heard this protestation which the hon. member has raised, namely, that people are being put out of business. On the contrary, many, many constituents are saying that this is an excellent program and 1 am being urged, as the minister, to allocate additional funds in the budget to provide for expansion of the program.


REASON FOR CONVERTING TO METRIC SYSTEMPARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, in my supplementary question I would like to go back to the subject of metrication. I was pleased to hear that the Minister of State for Small Businesses is prepared to take under advisement the suggestion of a full parliamentary review on the implementation of the metric system. However, I would like to carry my supplementary question one step further.
In light of the throne speech, in which the government committed itself to putting people first and stated that it will not accept injustices, will the Minister of State for Small Businesses tell this House why we must force metric conversion on the people of Canada, considering the adverse effects that it has on business, particularly people in the food store business, and considering that it was implemented without the proper approval of Parliament, which the minister referred to in his first answer when he said that it had parliamentary approval?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Since the hon. member for Peterborough is asking a supplementary question, will he please be more brief.


An hon. Member:: He didn't have one.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Would the minister assure this House that he will introduce a bill for the implementation of the metric system in Canada before any other cities are forced to accept the metric system?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to the Weights and Measures Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, both passed in 1971, and I should like to tell him that the government has no intention of imposing the metric system ntanu militari and that it has always been the policy of the Liberal party and government of taking care of the people first, not regulations. I told him in my first answer to his question that I would review his suggestion, and I tell him the same thing now.


NATIONAL UNITY
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, 1 really do not know to whom I should address my question since the right hon. Prime Minister is absent. 1 would be inclined to put it to the former minister for federal-provincial relations, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the four premiers

April 23, 1980
Oral Questions
of the western provinces indicated yesterday they would oppose recognition of sovereignty-association, but as categorically as the status quo that you know so well, in the circumstances, the premiers also expressed their firm intention of making the government, which promised a renewed federalism, convene a federal-provincial conference immediately after the referendum to bring about a new constitution that could perhaps be enacted in two years, is the minister in a position today to grant the wish expressed by the western provinces and also by many Canadians?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate at the outset that the Prime Minister is not in the House now because he has an important meeting with the secretary of state of the United States who is visiting in Canada today. Second, as to the hon. member's question, I am very happy to notice that the four western premiers have indicated their total disagreement with the principle of sovereignty-association. I am glad to see as well, that the hon. member for Joliette also believes that sovereignty-association must be rejected.


Roch La Salle: The status quo, too.


An hon. Member:: At last.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member for Joliette says he is also against the status quo. So are we and we are happy to count him among those who do.
However, 1 remind the hon. member that there is a referendum under way in Quebec at the present time and that it is led by a government which proposes to divide the country, to cut it in half. We will see the results of the referendum. We are confident that with the support of all federalist forces in the House and in the National Assembly of Quebec, as well as among the people of Quebec, we will register a strong victory for Canada and federalism. As for the matter raised by the hon. member, 1 refer him to the important speech made in this House by the Prime Minister in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. He will find the answer to his question there.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL RECOMMEND HOLDING OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE ON CONSTITUTION
Roch La Salle: I am rather disappointed by the minister's answer, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister did refer to a renewed federalism. There is, however, no detail about it. The provincial premiers have rejected Mr. Levesque's proposition, as did this federal government as well as the minister and I agree that both the status quo and sovereignty be strongly rejected. But in light of the circumstances and in view of the lack of explanation on a renewed federalism, and knowing very well that regardless of whether the Yes or the No wins there is a pressing need for a meeting among the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers, could the minister, speaking today for the Prime Minister, at least commit himself in the interest of many people wondering about the government's real intentions toward a new constitution? Is the minister prepared at least to recommend that that conference be held with the shortest delay?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has already indicated many times in this House and elsewhere that as far as the government is concerned, we are prepared to consider a full review of the Canadian Constitution, and that what is important and fundamental for us in that consideration is that it be done on the basis of a federal regime, that the constitution be federal in nature; and, secondly, that citizens' rights, especially linguistic rights, be guaranteed in the constitution. This government is ready to negotiate.

\ English]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister table documents relating to the proposed new financing agreements with Indian bands and organizations as outlined in Treasury Board minute No. 763729; and will he inform the House whether these proposed agreements were developed in consultation with Indian bands and organizations?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, to answer the latter part of the hon. member's question first, there have been allegations that there has not been adequate consultation with the leaders of the Indian communities and Indian bands. Therefore, I have suspended the application of the directive based on a Treasury Board minute which was sent out to the bands. It will no longer apply to the bands for a limited period of time, so that there can be further consultation to determine if, indeed, the directive should be applied.
If the directive is found to be unacceptable, then we will use the time to come up with some other arrangements. The bands are no longer subject to the directive embodied in the Treasury Board report to which the hon. member has referred.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, considering that native Indian bands find the three-month suspension inadequate, and that they have expressed fear that the proposed agreements are yet another attempt by the government to implement policies from the 1969 white paper which would lead to assimilation, would the minister act to prevent further demoralization both to Indian people and to Indian Affairs personnel?
Specifically, would he assure the House that he will continue to negotiate with the Indian bands of New Brunswick and

April 23, 1980

Prince Edward Island to reach a mutually satisfactory funding agreement before April 30, 1980?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I met with the NIB two or three days ago and the head of the provincial organization of the Indians of New Brunswick was present. I indicated fully to him, and to all the others at that time, that that is precisely what I wished to do, just as the hon. member has identified the situation.
1 wish to enter into the fullest type of consultation to determine if we can come up with a solution in a joint way which would cover the real objections to these types of procedures which are embodied in the directive. I hope we can do that. I am quite optimistic that we can arrive at an agreement and that the more offensive aspects of this type of directive can be deleted.


NATIONAL UNITY
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would prefer to direct this question to the Prime Minister, but it is supplementary to the questions asked by the hon. member for Joliette.
I am sure that all members of this House welcomed the statement by Canada's western premiers which urged an overwhelming No vote in the referendum and which favours discussions on renewed federalism. 1 ask the minister, is the government considering convening a meeting with the premiers for a discussion of renewed federalism shortly after the May 20 referendum date?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the referendum campaign is in progress at the present time. We will have to see what the results are. If the answer is a clear No in the referendum, we will all certainly be very happy. There will then be the possibility for all the premiers-I hope, including the premier of Quebec-to sit down and talk about the renewal of the Canadian Constitution in terms of a federal regime.
If, for some unfortunate reason, the result was to be a Yes vote in the referendum, you would end up with a situation in Quebec where you would have a government that has already indicated clearly that if it receives the mandate it is asking for, it would not be interested in debating the renewal of our Canadian Constitution.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Marc Lalonde: It would be interested in breaking up Canada. This has been stated, and repeated, by the premier and the minister of intergovernmental affairs for Quebec. This is why
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister has said, and repeated, that this would lead Canada into an impasse.

In short, a Yes vote at the referendum will result in a complete deadlock regarding the possibility of renewing Canadian federalism, for the simple reason that the Quebec government will have been given by the population of Quebec a mandate to do nothing else but try to negotiate the breakup of the country.
As a government, we have already said that we have no mandate to negotiate the breakup of this country, that we are not interested in asking for one, that our role is to preserve the country's unity and that is why we are fighting back now.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE STATEMENT ON AMENDING CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, on a supplementary: The Prime Minister has spoken of a renewed federalism; that has stirred considerable interest among Quebeckers, as does, now, the statement of the premiers of the four western provinces, about exactly what the present federal government means by a renewed federalism.
The question put by the hon. member for Joliette was meant to let us find out whether, as the western premiers have asked, the government is willing to consider convening, immediately after the Quebec referendum, a federal-provincial conference to study the renewal of the federal system.
I should like to know whether this government will make a statement or at least give us an indication, either before or after May 20, of exactly what the renewed federalism described by the Prime Minister would entail?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 find it amazing that the Leader of the Opposition, who had the chance of being prime minister for at least a few months, should put that question when his own party was unable to define anything at all while he was in power. Even today one wonders exactly what thesis it defends.
The question the Leader of the Opposition asked me concerns the general and constitutional policy of the government. I suggest that the answer should come from the Prime Minister himself who will be in the House before the end of question period today, or tomorrow.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL ESTABLISH TASK FORCE ON AMENDING CONSTITUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I regret the partisan tone used by the hon. member because this matter concerns the security of Canada as a whole and is in the interest of all members of the House. As

April 23, 1980
Oral Questions
the minister suggested, we had the opportunity to govern the country and we made a lot of progress in showing the need for a renewed federalism. We also established a small task force presided over by Senator Tremblay to determine what this renewed federalism should involve. We made a firm commitment to publish our position. I now ask the minister if this government shares our view that it would be helpful for the federalist cause at least to establish a task force on the renewal of the federal system to show that the federal government is determined to consider seriously the changes requested by federalist Quebeckers and the people of western Canada.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy that the hon. Leader of the Opposition established this committee presided over by Senator Tremblay. We were very happy about this and we look forward to seeing the results of its work. The government does not need to establish a task force. The issue of constitutional reform is one which concerns us deeply and on which we have been working for many years. This is the responsibility of government departments, including the Department of Justice and all the people concerned in the administration of this government. This work will continue in the months and years to come.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. As the minister knows, this past weekend the North Clay Belt Economic Conference was held in Kapuskasing, Ontario. One of the resolutions from that conference concerns the minister's department and its programs.
1 wonder if the minister is able to tell the House when the Canada-Ontario rural development agreement will be signed. This is not a highly expensive program, but it is vital to a region like northern Ontario because of the variety of projects such an agreement would be able to assist.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, 1 have visited this area of northeastern Ontario and, as the hon. member has stated, everyone would like the federal government to assist this region through some type of an agreement. All I can say to the hon. member is that 1 shall make representations to the cabinet on his behalf and on behalf of the people he represents in this House so that this unanimous request he is now supporting can receive a favourable reply.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and it is supplementary to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough.
In view of the tremendous resentment against any further metric conversion in Canada, would the minister be prepared to relieve all the metric commissioners of their duties until such time as the whole issue has been amply debated in this House of Commons and a need proven for any further enforcement of that regulation?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, 1 would like my colleagues opposite to have a somewhat longer-term vision of the economic future of this country. One has only to look at-


Roch La Salle: A metric vision.


Charles Lapointe: A metric vision, as the hon. member for Joiiette says. Maybe. One has only to look at what is being done in Australia and how the introduction of the metric system is being carried out very rapidly over there. One has only to look at the progress made in this area and in certain major industrial sectors in the United States, such as the automobile industry. I know certain Canadians find the introduction of that system difficult and we are prepared to give them all the sympathy and understanding needed so that introduction will be carried out as smoothly as possible for both consumers and users.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I wonder if the minister, through you, Madam Speaker, would answer my question. Will he fire the commissioners until there is a need proven for their presence?


Charles Lapointe: 1 think. Madam Speaker, that there is no answer to be given to such an irresponsible question.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Last May, CMHC purchased 720 units of rental housing in downtown Montreal with the express purpose of selling these back to residents for non-profit, co-op housing.
April 23, 1980

Since long delays and CMHC roadblocks have resulted in bitter disappointment and frustration for residents, can the minister tell us what he intends to do, hopefully by tomorrow, to resolve this impasse which is endangering a long-established community.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I will indeed consider this notice and attempt to have the answer by tomorrow.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I think the minister is unaware that a delegation of eight people from Montreal came to his office yesterday and has a crucial meeting tomorrow. Since, contrary to usual policy, CMHC is requiring a 50 per cent average increase in rents, which is unacceptable to local residents and will cause mass departures and convert this area to high-income housing, will the minister explain why CMHC is causing rents to jump by an average of 50 per cent, and what he intends to do about this to prevent the destruction of the Milton Park community of 2,000 moderate and low-income tenants?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, this problem no doubt is symptomatic of many of the problems facing the corporation for which I report to Parliament-the problem being simply one of finances. On one hand, we have the official opposition saying that we should not be increasing budgets and increasing deficits. We have to consider, on the other hand, that there are expressed needs as indicated by the question. That is the problem. We have to try to balance the means that we have available with the needs that are expressed. I can assure the hon. member that the officials of CMHC are sympathetic to these needs.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It relates to questions put to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and answered by him today, arising out of his statement to the House yesterday on the tabling of the main estimates. If I may say so, it is rather fundamental that the minister indicated to the House yesterday that what he was tabling were estimates, and I quote him from page 290 of Hansard:
-without any changes to reflect the policies this government is in the process of elaborating.
The lead questions to him today were designed to find out exactly what he meant by that and whether there was any explanation that he had to give to indicate that, by adopting the procedure being proposed, we would be giving the government a blank cheque with respect to the main estimates and that we would have to wait for some future time with respect to its future expenditure plans.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
In the course of his statement yesterday, and he alluded to it again today, the minister indicated that there were several specific cases in which future supplementary estimates will reflect the changes in programs in these main estimates. He went on at that point to indicate that there was a $2.6 billion provision in the 1980-81 estimates for oil import compensation which was based on something that apparently is not akin or related to what the present government intends to do. He said they were reviewing the capital financing arrangements for Petro-Canada. He also said there were matters concerning the unemployment insurance program. Then he said this:
Madam Speaker, these are a few of the items which may have their main estimates funding level adjusted to reflect this government's policies and programs.
What he is really saying is that these main estimates in terms of the programs and policies of this government are absolutely meaningless. He is in effect asking Parliament to accept this process blindly. Frankly, I think it is a fetter on the rights of Parliament and the right of the public to know what the government intends to do. It is a trespassing on what I consider the legitimate concerns of members.
To cement it even further he went on to say, as reported at page 292:
They are being recommended for adoption subject to such modifications as may subsequently be made thereto through tabling supplementary estimates to give effect to policy changes which this administration may wish to introduce.
What the minister is really saying is that the consideration of the government's programs in these estimates in this House of Commons is meaningless. Frankly, 1 do not think we should put up with it. That is the position I take. It is about time the government realized that if there is a problem, it has to innovate some way to change it.
As reported at page 296 he said:
They do not represent an expenditure plan by this government.
Estimates are important to members of Parliament. They are either considered in this House in Committee of the Whole or in a standing committee of the House of Commons. It is only through consideration of the spending programs of the government that we can make an appropriate judgment with respect to the relevancy of those programs to the needs of Canadians. Indeed, it is the only way that members of Parliament can hold the government accountable for what it says to the Canadian people about what it intends to do.
In answer to the second question put by one of my colleagues, the minister indicated that it is always the objective of the government to fulfil this commitment with respect to maintaining a certain level of expenditures. That answer is quite different from one which he gave at the press conference. I quote from The Globe and Mail of April 23, 1980:
-Treasury Board president Donald Johnston admitted he could not predict when the Liberals might meet their election promise to hold down the annual increase in government spending to the nominal rate of increase in the gross national product.
That can have a dramatic effect on the deficit, on the administration of government programs, and on the delivery of government services to the people we represent. Quite frankly,

April 23, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
I do not think this Parliament should be asked to deal with a meaningless blue book, a book of figures that, in terms of this government's policy and this government's expenditure plans and programs it says it wants to put forward, is absolutely meaningless.
I raise this because it is important for Parliament in the consideration of the estimates by Parliament. 1 raise it for the purpose of saying to the President of the Treasury Board and to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), whom I deal with quite amicably, that it is important before we get into this too far that there be a statement made to catch up with what has been laid out in the estimates, i.e., the plans and programs. It is important. It will be against that program, that statement of expenditure plans that we will be able to make appropriate judgments as to the propriety of the government's programs. Those are judgments we want to make. Whether the government likes them or not is irrelevant.
1 raise this to give my friend, the President of the Treasury Board, an opportunity to consider a course of action which will allow him to give more precise answers to Parliament than the estimates which he tabled yesterday, and much more specific answers with respect to the questions put to him today. It is important to the people that the estimates process not be rendered meaningless and not be watered down like a number of other processes around here.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised this issue as a question of privilege but I think it would have been more appropriate to have risen on a point of order. But if his purpose in rising was to make sure that the House will have the opportunity to study thoroughly both main estimates and the supplementary estimates, then I can reassure him immediately. We have had consultations together-he is aware of that- to ensure that the estimates of previous years can be reviewed by the opposition within reasonable and fair time, taking into account the two elections that took place in the last 12 months. I want to point out publicly to the House that we are prepared to allot the same period of time to the opposition parties as provided for under our Standing Orders, if these provisions could have been applied and if the estimates had been tabled on time last March 1. So I would like to give that assurance to the leaders and again to the House leader of the official opposition and 1 definitely see nothing wrong with what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) did yesterday.
What the President of the Treasury Board did was to table the main estimates and he clearly said the following, as reported at page 292 of Hansard in response to a request for clarification made by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), and I quote:
They are being tabled legally as our estimates but, as 1 indicated, we will be bringing forward supplementary estimates to give effect to those changes-
All these supplementary estimates, Madam Speaker, are subject to consideration by committees of the House. Yesterday, after the President of the Treasury Board had tabled supplementary estimates (A) in addition to the main estimates, I presented a motion to refer these supplementary estimates to the appropriate committees of members of both sides of the House so that there be an opportunity of scrutinizing them thoroughly. So in the procedure that has been followed everything is legal and in conformity with Standing Orders 58 and 59 which are the only ones applicable and pertinent and nothing irregular has resulted from the attitude and the approach taken by the President of the Treasury Board.
This being said, Madam Speaker, again I want to assure hon. members opposite that we on the government side intend to allow them at least as much time as that which is provided for under our Standing Orders for the main and supplementary estimates, just as if the main estimates had been tabled at the proper time. My hon. colleagues are aware that we are operating under exceptional circumstances, having had to go to the people twice within a year, which does not happen every day.
We are therefore faced with the following situation: the 1979-80 estimates have never been approved by the House, and what matters even more, the 1980-81 estimates were not tabled on March 1 last as they were supposed to be under our Standing Orders, and this, for reasons which are clear. And because the main estimates were not tabled on March 1, the normal time limits for the debate on these estimates which are set under our Standing Orders cannot apply, so that we are entirely at the mercy of the opposition which, in theory, could cause the debate to drag on for years, if it wanted to, and therefore prevent the government from dealing with both the main and supplementary estimates.
I know this is not the official opposition's nor the New Democratic Party's intention. There has been in our negotiations up till now a spirit of co-operation that leads us to be optimistic that an agreement can be reached to reinstate so to speak a procedure allowing for serious consideration both of these main estimates and supplementary estimates. No dilatory consideration of course, or one that would leave the feeling that the official opposition is acting irresponsibly. I am convinced on the contrary that the official opposition will act responsibly, it will not use this truly exceptional situation to prevent Parliament from operating normally and disposing of the legislative work accumulated as a result of two successive elections in a year, as called for by His Excellency the Governor General in the throne speech last week.
This being said, Madam Speaker, 1 give to my hon. colleague the assurance he will have at least as much time as that provided by the Standing Orders were they applicable. This indeed is the formula we are negotiating on, and on which I am expecting an understanding from my colleague within the next two days if at all possible.
April 23, 1980

So, we will allow ample time to the official opposition, and on the other hand, the procedure followed up till now and in the future will be strictly and absolutely consistent with Standing Orders 58 and 59, which are relevant in the matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the government House leader has addressed himself to some other question of privilege. He has not addressed himself to the question of privilege raised by the opposition House leader. It is not a question of how much time there is in which to study the estimates or of how much time the government House leader, in his generosity, is going to mete out to us. The question is, what are we going to study? Are we going to study estimates which the government is standing behind, or are we going to study estimates just thrown in to us like a dog to a bone, or a bone to a dog, so that we will be kept busy playing around and the government can get interim supply?
Neither the President of the Treasury Board nor the government has made it clear that these main estimates are anything but a fiction. Let me refer you, Madam Speaker, to the speech on Monday night by the effervescent Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who is now effervescing in West Germany-I hope his message there is accepted in a better way than it was here the other night. This is what he said-1 am not referring to Hansard, 1 am referring to the prepared speech:
The information on the current 1980-81 fiscal outlook will serve as a supplement to the main estimates which are to be tabled tomorrow.
That is a piece of impertinence in itself, to suggest that a speech by him is going to be a supplement to the main estimates. He goes on to say that the main estimates are those prepared by the former government which were ready for printing when the present government took office. He tells us:
It was judged best not to attempt to revise this massive compilation of expenditure figures, but to table the existing material without delay-
Why, Madam Speaker? As a basis upon which interim supply could be sought. It was a frank admission that these estimates will be brought into the House in an attempt to get interim supply through, not as estimates for 1980-81 but just as something thrown as a bone to a dog so that we can chew on it and vote interim supply while the government carries on with the real estimates, whatever those estimates are.
He went on to say:
The expenditure figures in the fiscal forecast I am tabling are based upon the main estimates but contain, in addition,-
Then he gives his own estimates of what the outlays are likely to be. He disagrees totally with the outlays contained in these main estimates. Then, two pages further on, he says this-this is contempt. Madam Speaker; the man should be brought before the bar of this House in shackles:
I would further like it to be understood, however, that these projections do not in any way constitute the expenditure plan or the planned financial requirements of this government for fiscal year 1980-81.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
He wants us to understand that these estimates, his projections, are not in any way the expenditure plan or the planned financial requirements of the government. One loses one breath at the audacity of it. These estimates are tabled and we are baldfacedly told that they do not contain the expenditure plan for the projected financial requirements of the government. Surely we have the right to ask what are the planned financial requirements for the government, and what is the expenditure plan.
If the government is not recommending these estimates except in a technical sense, what are its estimates, and should this House accept estimates-they were tabled as main estimates-that two ministers frankly tell the House are not the estimates they are going to go by? We are being asked to vote money that the government is telling us in advance it is not going to spend in accordance with how we voted. Ministers are going to spend the money just as they feel they want to spend it, with no further reference to this House until they come back with supplementary estimates later in the year or next year. The bald-faced effrontery of those statements demands that this chamber rise up on its hind legs and say, "This is enough; we are not going to vote main estimates which ministers tell us do not constitute their expenditure plan, do not constitute their planned financial requirements". In other words, it is a piece of fiction which they are putting before us to get interim supply-not likely-and then ask us to co-operate in doing it.
So, Madam Speaker, if you look at what is said by the Minister of Finance and what was confirmed yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), he could not be forced into an admission that he supported these estimates. He gave all kinds of examples of where they are going to change the estimates. In fact, they already had them changed before he tabled them. We do not know what authority he had for any of that. I do not want to give the quotations that my hon. friend has already given, but there is another quotation or two that I want to give. He could not give us answers, of course, in any event, on some of the questions that we asked him. I think that the quotations 1 am looking for have already been given, so I do not want to repeat that, but when he was questioned by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), he would not say that they were putting these expenditure plans forward or that-oh, here it is. Page 292:
They are being recommended for adoption subject to such modifications as may subsequently be made thereto through tabling supplementary estimates to give effect to policy changes which this administration may wish to introduce.
1 say fine, Madam Speaker. If there are policy changes not now decided upon that occur later in the year, which the government cannot foresee, then that is a proper use of supplementary estimates. They come in with supplementary estimates. They say to the House of Commons, "Sorry, members of the House of Commons and the Senate, we did not know when we put the main estimates before you that certain events were going to happen. There was a catastrophe. We did

April 23, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
not know we had to spend money. There was a flood here, there was something unexpected there, or there is a massive change in policy on, say, the oil import subsidy program", or whatever the policy is, "and therefore we now have to ask you for forgiveness and to give us supplementary estimates". That is the procedure. You do not come in with the main estimates and say, "Disregard these main estimates; they are going to be whatever we say they are when the time comes that we feel suited to tell you what they are".
So, Madam Speaker, this is in line with the point of privilege that was before you yesterday. Because this government has a majority, it thinks it can do exactly what it likes, and what it now wants to do is to have this huge blue book referred to all the House standing committees and get all the backbenchers and members on this side busy examining the estimates and questioning the officials. Then the lordly ministers will come down every once in a while with their satraps around them or whatever, the flapdoodlers. They are experts. They will come in, the swarms, like they are going to the hive. They are honey bees, queen bees. The swarms of advisers will come down occasionally. We will spend all our time questioning them on these estimates, and after we are through with all that and report back and they are passed by the House, while this is going on they are back in their offices changing the estimates all around because these are not their main estimates.
So what is the point of our having these estimates referred at all to any of these committees? The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance is one of the worst offenders. He is already busy changing these estimates, and his minister has admitted it, so for them to come before this House in this disgraceful manner-it was not bad enough that they disrupted and ruptured the whole budgetary process; they are now gouging the whole system of considering estimates, and we have to appeal to you, Madam Speaker, for protection and to put a stop to this.
When the House leader goes on about how much time he is going to give, we want time to consider real estimates. We do not want time to consider fictional estimates. We want time to consider the government's real spending plans. That is what we want the time for.
Just look at the outrageous speech of the Minister of Finance, who has gone off now ringing the gong in Munich, or whatever he is doing in Munich. I hope it is only a gong he is ringing. He said that he wants us to understand that the projections do not in any way constitute the expenditure plan or the planned financial requirements of this government. "Do not in any way", Madam Speaker. Well, of all the brazen effrontery that has ever been put before a House of Commons, that takes the cake, and that is why we bring up this point of privilege, and that is why we ask you. Madam Speaker, to consider this, as I know you will, extremely seriously with the other piece, the other-for whom the bell tolls. The bell is tolling for this House of Commons in this session and in the next four years, because already in the House we are here only
six days and two of our cherished traditions have been done away with.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I would have deferred to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), but I want to say a few words in support of the position taken by my two colleagues.
There is no more fundamental right and responsibility of Parliament than control of the public purse. This very institution developed because of a concern among the people of Britain that proper control over the public purse was not being exercised. This is the central function which we, as parliamentarians, are asked to discharge as part of our responsibilities.
What the government has done by putting forward estimates that it will not stand behind, and which it disavowed any responsibility for at the very time they were tabled, has been to make a mockery of our attempts to discharge our responsibilities on behalf of our constituents. What happened yesterday when the President of the Treasury Board tabled the 1980-81 estimates was that he not only denied paternity but also disinherited the child at the same time. He said in the course of his remarks that there were going to be substantial changes made. He made it very clear that these estimates did not constitute the spending plan of this government. My colleagues have quoted that statement on his part.
Madam Speaker, if you take a look at Hansard pages 290 and 291 yesterday, you will find that fully one-half of the minister's remarks were designed to indicate changes that he intended to make from these estimates and to indicate why these estimates did not represent the spending intentions of the government. He concluded that section by saying, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, there are a few of the items which may have their main estimates funding level adjusted to reflect this government's policies and programs.
Clearly, the implication of that is that this is only a portion of the changes, and that what Parliament knows about today when it is asked to approve this blue book of estimates is only a portion of the changes which this government intends to make. So I ask you, Madam Speaker, how can we be called upon to discharge our responsibility to guard the public purse when the estimates which are being presented to us are patently phony, even on the basis of the testimony of the minister who introduces them?
When I tried to question the President of the Treasury Board to ask him what the spending plans of the government are-because this is central at the time we are approving the estimates; what else are the estimates for?-his response today was to refer me to the statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) two days ago. Well, in that statement the Minister of Finance expressly said that that statement did not constitute the spending plans of the government either.
The central question here is, what are the estimates? What is the purpose of estimates? If we cannot get the spending plans of the government from the estimates, where does Parliament get them? What is our job? What is our responsibility? What is the point of these estimates we are being asked to
April 23, 1980

approve? What does the government intend to do with the money we approve if we go ahead on the basis of these estimates which hon. members opposite themselves say are false and do not represent their spending plans?
The issue which my colleague, the Elouse leader, was raising, was not that which was raised by the government House leader, a question of how much time we would have to examine these estimates. We want adequate time, but the central question is this: are the documents being put before the House? Is the recommendation coming at the request of the President of the Treasury Board for the appropriation of funds meaningful, or are we being asked to appropriate funds for programs which this government already has no intention of carrying out?
1 submit that unless there is some candour shown by the government very soon in terms of indicating what its full spending plans are and in terms of setting for us a target for its spending for this year-because that is what the estimates are designed to do-if the government does not do that, Parliament is rendered meaningless and irrelevant, and there is no way we can continue to consider estimates which, on the testimony of the minister presenting them, are false.
That is the central issue here, and it is one to which the President of the treasury board has the responsibility to address himself. When will he be candid with this Parliament? When will he table the government's spending plan? When will he in fact give us the information that is essential before we are asked to approve one penny of the spending estimates which are before us today?
These estimates would have been relevant if the budget of the former minister of finance had been passed on December 13, instead of being defeated. If we had not had an election on February 18, these estimates would have been relevant. But all of that has happened, and this government indicates that it does not stand by these estimates, that they do not represent its spending plans, which means then that before ministers ask us to appropriate the funds for which they are asking they have a responsibility to level with the Canadian people and with Parliament, and say what in fact their spending plans are. That they have not done, Madam Speaker.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I find that this whole performance by my friends in the opposition to be quite extraordinary. This righteous indignation is coming from the hon. members who last year retabled the estimates which had been tabled by the Liberal administration in the spring-they retabled them in the autumn. I do not have the specific statement made by the then president of the treasury board in front of me, but my recollection is that all he said was that he was tabling these estimates and that he had no comment to make.
When I tabled the estimates yesterday, I said that we were recommending their adoption, subject to certain changes, and 1 tried to give the opposition every indication of which way we would be moving.
These estimates are not at all irrelevant. I realize that the gentlemen opposite were not in government for any great
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
length of time, nor have 1 been, but at leat 1 know that the process of developing main estimates is one which extends over even more than one year. So it is perfectly obvious that these estimates have validity and that they should be adopted subject to the kind of modifications which we will be bringing forward.
When the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) says to us that these estimates would have been relevant had the budget put forward by the former minister of finance been adopted, 1 say to you. Madam Speaker, that that is an interesting observation because a number of events have taken place since that night in December which would have made these main estimates, in their view, also outdated and outmoded, for several reasons.
First of all, as I think 1 indicated earlier, subsequent to the budget address there was an oil price increase. The oil price increase wiped out the so-called reserve to which reference was made by the former president of the Treasury Board yesterday, and, accordingly, the $58.4 billion projection-which was a projection and did not represent the estimates-became irrelevant. Subsequently they would have been faced with further oil price increases and public debt charge increases, and all of these would have had to be taken into account in the very hypothetical situation of their having been returned to power. It would have been necessary for them to bring forward supplementary estimates at the time of tabling the main estimates, and it would have been necessary for them to bring forward supplementary estimates during the course of the year.
In fact, it seems to me that we have been particularly candid in indicating in the message which 1 delivered yesterday, in my capacity as President of the Treasury Board, the specific areas in which we would hope to make particular and important policy decisions and changes. The guaranteed income supplement is one, and hon. members opposite are fully aware of it.
I must say that I find this performance extraordinary, in light of their own established precedents last year and in light of the fact that this government was elected on February 18 and we have already tabled these estimates. Obviously we have had no opportunity to make technical amendments to estimates of this size and complexity which have been developed over a multi-month period. I find no basis for the seeking of privilege, or for their protest, or for whatever comes forward from my hon. friends opposite. It seems to me that we have been candid. We have given a full explanation, we have tabled the estimates in a timely manner, and, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has indicated, opposition members will have ample time to consider these estimates in committee. The President of the Privy Council has given that commitment to the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to offer a few comments in reply to the comments of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). There is an essential difference between us. The former president of the treasury board in the previous government tabled the estimates as our spending plans. That is, the estimates were the spending

April 23, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
plans of the previous government. The plans the present President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House yesterday are not, on the admission of both the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his speech, and of the President of the Treasury Board, the spending plans of this government. Therefore, they attack, as my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) has said, the very basis of supply.
Just what is it we are being asked to study and on which we are being asked to deliver comment and opinion? There is a fundamental difference between what was done by the former president of the treasury board in tabling the estimates at that time without comment, and the estimates that have been tabled with major comment and qualification from two senior ministers in the present government. I think that is an essentiel point, Madam Speaker, that you have to consider in deliberating on this important question.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I have just a comment on this matter. It is a pretty serious matter that this House is being asked to consider, followed by committee consideration. We are already asked to consider something that will not in fact be the spending plans of the government. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), however, says that there will be minor alterations. Therefore, it should be possible for him, I expect, to table immediately amendments, or an addendum to his tabling yesterday of the blue book, indicating the alterations.
1 can understand why he would not want to go through the problems of printing and segregating by page and reference number the details in that monster telephone book we call the blue book, but surely it would be possible for him to provide us with an addendum, not a supplement, so that we could really see what the spending plans of this government are. If they are what he says they are, that is, only minor alterations, small changes in interest expense of a billion dollars or so, small changes in the cost of oil subsidy of maybe a couple of billion dollars, then it should be possible for him surely to table addenda to this blue book so that the committees of the House can study the estimates properly and know what the spending plans of the government are. But he does not seem to want to do that. He says that here is something that was prepared back in December, that it does not mean anything, that they are not going to follow it, that they have changed their direction, that they defeated the budget of December 11.
The President of the Treasury Board says he does not stand behind the estimates completely and that they are subject to change. If they are subject to change, and if he wants the House to study them here and in committee, if he does not want to waste the time of members of Parliament, and if he wants to treat Parliament honestly, then surely he will come clean with Parliament and, before these estimates go to the committee, he will give us an addendum to them. The tabling he did yesterday is clearly wrong. I cannot see how members of Parliament can be asked to study something that the government itself says is wrong. If the government says that it is wrong, then the government should point out the corrections. Clearly there will be changes.
These estimates were prepared in December, and there has been an election in the interval. The government has clearly indicated a totally new direction for Canada. The spending that Parliament is being asked to approve on that new direction for Canada, surely should be reflected in the changes filed with the work that was done last fall. We appreciate the problem in preparing estimates. We are not trying to hold the House up; we are not trying to hold the government up. But we want some honesty from them, just some simple honesty. As members of Parliament, we will have to study the estimates. Surely we want to study what the government really intends to spend.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that the House is entering into a debate on a grievance related to the validity of the estimates. There will be other opportunities to discuss this matter in the House when a supply order is tabled. I must therefore conclude that there is no prima facie question of privilege, and with the consent of the House, I shall now proceed to call the orders of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act.


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

Yvon Pinard: In
accordance with section 34, subsection 8 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, Madam Speaker, I wish to table the report of the commission responsible for reviewing the salaries and indemnities of members of Parliament and senators and at the same time to thank Mr. Hales. This same act requires that we appoint a new commission and we shall do so in the near future.


LIST OF DESIGNATED ACTING MINISTERS AND PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Yvon Pinard: Always on the tabling of documents, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages copies of the orders giving the list of designated
April 23, 1980

acting prime ministers, acting ministers and parliamentary secretaries, namely, orders, 1980-824 and 1980-663.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-2, to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-2. I believe it is appropriate for me to say that there was some discussion about the possibility of our dealing with this bill after second reading in Committee of the Whole rather than sending it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. Speaking for our party, I may say that if that proposal were made we would agree to it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, certainly we have no objection if it is proceeded with in that manner and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) agrees.
Immigration Act


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been those discussions, and we are prepared to deal with the bill in that way. I think it is eminently sensible.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. Is the House prepared to make an order by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion amended.


Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-2, to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Accordingly Bill C-2 stands referred to the Committee of the Whole, and I do now leave the chair.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, that was not the intent. The usual course, if I might suggest, would be to debate second reading, and at the end of that debate the bill is referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Walter David Baker: That is correct.


Erik Nielsen: I believe that would be the proper way to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was slow at getting up.


Madam Speaker:: I want to inform the House that nobody stood up. If the House wishes to debate second reading, I will now recognize the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister should stand up.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I apologize for my tardiness in that I did not rise to my feet. It is one of those afternoons, but 1 thank other hon. members of the House for their agreement to move this particular measure along with some dispatch. While it is simple in its purpose and intent, it is very urgent in its result and consequence. Bill C-2 is something which has been required for a long time and without its passage it would result in very severe consequences for the refugee program in this country.
Simply what the bill intends to do is to raise the loans ceiling in the immigration loans fund from the present level of $20 million to $60 million. As members will know, the loans fund goes back a long time in terms of the immigration programs of this country, back to about 1951. The basic principle of it is that the Government of Canada sets up a revolving loans fund and advances moneys to refugees and

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
immigrants coming to this country to help pay for their transportation, and those funds are then repaid.
I am pleased to report to the House that over that period the return and repayment factor has been exceedingly high, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 95 per cent. Thus, the revolving loans fund has proven its validity and its soundness as a financial measure, and carries with it very little extra cost to the government. The only extra cost is encountered in terms of the actual money that we borrow to advance to refugees, which is lent to them at no cost during the time of repayment. But 1 would hasten to add that the repayment is exceedingly quick and that the turn around time is very little time at all.
1 would like to illustrate that by the example of a letter I received from Mr. John Derkson, who is a representative of the Mennonite Brethren in my own province of Manitoba, and who has been very active in the sponsorship of refugees. He sent me a note with a letter he received from one of the refugees who had received a loan from our fund, and pointed out that in a mere four months from his arrival in Canada that particular refugee had paid back the entire sum of the $750 loan we advanced him. That is only illustrative of the general pattern of responsibility and obligation that those who receive loans from this fund have shown.


An hon. Member:: It just happens to be in your constituency.


Lloyd Axworthy: It just happens to be in my constituency, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) illustrates.
We have to increase the ceiling at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, because of the substantial numbers of additional refugees who have been brought into this country since 1979. In saying that I would pay some tribute to my predecessor who did initiate the refugee program in 1979 and was able to establish the program of matching grants to induce and provide a strong incentive for a very large contribution by the private, voluntary sector in this country. In fact I would say that what we have witnessed in Canada over the past years, in terms of the enormous outpouring of generosity by private Canadians through church organizations and voluntary organizations, is one of the great success stories in this country.
The reason we have added to those numbers is just to go back to the original formula established by my predecessor, where there would be some degree of equity or matching between government and private sponsors. It is our feeling that we want to encourage the continuation of that kind of generosity and contribution the private sector, or the volunteer sector, has been giving us in helping us deal with the very vast and major refugee problems which will continue to plague this world, and in respect of which our own country can be of major assistance.
As a consequence of those additional 60,000 refugees coming from South Vietnam, obviously the loan fund was over-extended. For the past several months in order to maintain the program, during the time of dissolution, the election, and delay in Parliament being called, the program has had to
be operated under the requirement of warrants by the government. Because Parliament is now sitting, the time within which we can ask for a warrant will expire sometime in early May. Therefore I want to point out to members the urgency of moving this bill through as quickly as possible.
If we are not able to pass it and raise the ceiling in order to bring the loan fund up to its proper maximum, this would mean substantial cancellation of the airlift that is presently going on. It would mean we would have to break many commitments with the chartered airlines, and it would mean that the entire refugee program would be severely disrupted over that period of time, and would not provide the continuity that is required. What that does in terms of damaging our reputation internationally is obvious. I think far more severe is what it does in terms of the opportunity to provide continued placement of refugees in this country. Therefore I would say it is very important for this House to treat the matter with expedition and dispatch.
I would say to those members in this House who want to use this as an opportunity to raise greater questions about the direction and thrust of refugee programs and immigration policy, I personally welcome that kind of contribution, and it has certainly been my intention, and the intention of the government, to review the over-all question of refugee programs. I hope to come to grips with a larger and more comprehensive commitment so that we will not simply be forced into ad hoc responses year after year. This is something that will provide a program that will incorporate the newfound contribution of the voluntary sector with our own efforts as a government. I would hope that any comments of that kind could be restrained and perhaps restricted until another time, certainly on estimates or when we make statements in the House, because I think the urgency of getting this bill through is so great that such a debate, which I would welcome and in fact invite, might be delayed until a somewhat later date. In saying that, I will follow my own advice and recommend this measure to the House. It is an important measure, its urgency is great, and I hope that we will be able to dispatch it within this day's sitting.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me.
There has not been a large measure of agreement throughout this session, at least from where I sit, but I suggest that this is one of those occasions when we are happy to co-operate with what the minister suggests in terms of the urgency of this bill and the appropriateness of it, in terms of it being a constructive measure.
May I say that many of the assertions made by the minister are in fact correct. The loan program has been a constructive and useful vehicle. We know there has been repayment on a prompt basis, and the statistics, as I understand them, show almost 95 per cent in terms of repayment.
1 also point out that it is necessary, in terms of the expenses which have increased dramatically since the last time, to support it. The summation of what I am really saying is that we constructively support this bill.
April 23, 1980

I will be reasonably brief, but there are a couple of comments 1 would like to make about immigration and immigration policy generally. Immigration policy, and especially the levels of immigration into Canada, represent one of the most sensitive and important social issues that this House will have to face. It is important, as with any issue, that we understand what are the facts. Before we can come to any type of reasoned conclusion, it is important that we all take the time to ascertain what are the correct facts.
Many people in Canada, and many people in this House, would be surprised to know that in 1978 net immigration into Canada was less than 15,000 people. I myself found that astonishing, and people I have spoken to since have found that to be astonishing. This is something I think many people should understand.
The second thing 1 should like to point out to other members in this House has regard to the fact that we should have some sense of realism as to the capacity of the country to absorb the numbers of people who come into the country. The refugee program, which I am happy to say my predecessor implemented, is an imaginative program. It is a program that brought a spirit of generosity to it. It is a program that I wholly support and endorse. I do point out and caution that, no matter what good will exists within this House, there have to be certain realistic limitations as to what this country can absorb. I think there will be a day when we can debate exactly what those limits are.
The final matter I should like to bring to the attention of this House is contained in the annual report to Parliament for 1980, which was tabled in November of last year. On reading the levels of immigration, in particular at page 28, I was somewhat amazed to find that between 1974 and 1978 the family class category of admission of immigrants had risen from 24.8 per cent to 53.5 per cent. Over that same period the independent category of people had dropped from 50.8 per cent to 25.6 per cent. There is no doubt that in certain of the western provinces there is a need for skilled people. I hope that at some point in time we will have an opportunity to debate whether the program should be more balanced. We should have an opportunity to discuss whether we should have more independent people who have trades and come in by merit, or at least reassess the balance in respect of the family category.
I know there is some urgency in getting this matter through, and in the interest of brevity I will conclude my remarks. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party to support the principles enunciated in this bill. My party has done so on each occasion such a bill has been brought forward.
I have been looking at the record of Canada in the area of immigration. It is a record which, I believe, cannot be matched by any of the other industrialized countries of the world. Since the end of the World War II, over 4.5 million people have come to Canada as immigrants or refugees. I am happy with
Immigration Act
that fact and the fact that, unlike the period just before and just after World War II, the immigrants who have come to Canada have not only been from northern Europe and western Europe, but from all parts of the world, areas such as southern Europe, Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and South America. They are not just people who are white Anglo-Saxon protestants, but people from all races and of all religions.
My party is also proud of the fact that in every one of the recent crises in which refugees have been driven from their countries, whether it was Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Uganda, Chile or, as it has been for the last couple of years, from the Indo-Chinese countries, Canada has been in the forefront in accepting and in willingness to accept these refugees.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, but my party is happy with the fact that the Immigration Act which we now have recognized refugees as an admissible category, that procedures have been established for the selection of refugees abroad, and that there is a procedure in Canada for applying for refugee status. These applications are now considered by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. We are also happy with the fact that Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on Refugees. We are not happy with the fact that we have not incorporated all of the provisions of that convention in our own legislation. My party believes that the time has come for Canada to reconcile our acceptance of the UN convention with our laws and regulations with regard to immigration.
We approve of this bill because, as the minister has said, there are a large number of refugees who have come to Canada, and more who will be coming, and because money is needed to help these people resettle. We join with the minister and with the official opposition in expressing our satisfaction with the way in which the refugees and immigrants have been fitted into this country once they have arrived. This has been demonstrated to a large extent by the number of these people, 95 per cent or more, who have repaid the loans advanced to them to assist them in resettling in Canada.
Having said that, I would like to say to the minister, as I said on the occasion a bill of this type was last debated in 1967 and on other occasions, that I think it is time that we look at the practical problems which we face in Canada, partly as a result of our constitution. It is the federal government-this minister and his department-which decides how many people will be allowed into Canada, from where they will come, and who will come.
As I look at the immigration figures, I cannot help but be amazed at the wide fluctuations between them. Let me give a few illustrations to indicate what has happened. In 1967
222,000	people were permitted to come into Canada. Just three years later in 1970 that figure dropped to 147,000 people. Then in 1974 it went up to 218,000 people, and in 1978 the figure was down again to 86,000 people. The hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) put the number much lower. He must have deducted the people who left the country from the people who came into the country.

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
These figures denote a very pragmatic policy, and that is putting it nicely. It certainly does not indicate that we have made much progress toward a well thought out consistent policy to which we could adhere from year to year. I recognize that the question of immigration and of permitting refugees to enter this country is a very sensitive question and brings out very conflicting emotions. On the one hand there are people who have arrived fairly recently and who still have friends and relatives in the countries from which they came. Naturally, they want their friends and relatives to come to this country.
On the other hand, there are many people in this country whose parents, grandparents or great grandparents may indeed have been immigrants to this country, but they are now looking at the one million people who are unemployed and saying to their members of Parliament that we ought to go slow on the number of immigrants we permit to enter the country. As long as we have that kind of unemployment, it will be difficult to get a real consensus on this question. 1 suggest to the minister that in order to develop a policy which will meet with the approval of a very substantial majority of Canadians, we must move away from the kind of economic situation which we are in now with one million people unemployed.
1 would like to deal with one specific point before 1 sit down, and that is with regard to the problem of the federal government being in control of deciding how many people will come to Canada. The federal government also decides what countries these people will come from, but I do not disagree with that. 1 am very happy with the fact that so many of the immigrants in recent years have come from countries in which the official languages were not either English or French, the official languages of Canada.
Once these people get to Canada, and because education is the responsibility of the provinces, the federal government to a large extent forgets about these people. This, I feel, is a serious defect in our system. I say this because people who cannot speak the language will not only find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain jobs, but will find it difficult to live in Canada except in a very closed society.
The minister grew up in the part of Winnipeg which 1 represent, and I am certain that he is not surprised when I say that I still meet people, particularly women, in their sixties and seventies, who have been in Canada for 30, 40 or 50 years and who still cannot speak English. Even if they can speak a little English, they are not comfortable with the language. These people came to Canada at a time when their husbands worked 60, 70 and even 80 hours a week. As a result, they have lived in their little communities and have not become familiar with the language.
Canada has done better in this area in recent years than it did 40 or 50 years ago. We now have programs which encourage people to learn the language and to learn a great deal more about Canada. However, these programs are far from covering all the needs.
On Monday of this week the Ottawa Citizen published a story headed, "Boat People Strive to Overcome Aches". The story goes on to say:
Their tales vary from loneliness and discouragement to pride and achievement.
For a handful of the Vietnamese boat people, the burdens of settling into the Canadian lifestyle have resulted in bouts of alcoholism and in a few cases, wife-beating.
But most of them agree with social agencies that their key frustrations are learning English or French, finding a job to support their families-
I know that there are programs and that the federal government pays for a certain number of people to take courses in a second language, either English or French, but the numbers for which the federal government pays are far short of the numbers who wish to take these courses. This is particularly true of married women who are not going out to find jobs and who are staying home. 1 say this is a very serious matter. Morally we have no right to put that burden on the provincial governments or on the municipalities.
Some years ago, 1 believe back in 1967 when we were discussing this matter, 1 pointed out that the city of Toronto estimated that it would cost that city $1.5 million a year to provide programs to educate the children in the Toronto schools who did not speak English at home. But now more than 50 per cent of the students attending schools in Toronto come from immigrant families where the language at home is not English. This has created tremendous problems in Toronto.
In my own city of Winnipeg-as I am sure the minister knows-where we have not experienced the number of immigrants as have cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, there are many classes in the core area where the majority of students are either from immigrant families or native families who do not speak English at home. This is a very serious problem for the people of Winnipeg as it is for the people in every city where this situation arises. 1 do not want to prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker, but I do want the minister to take note that at the appropriate time we certainly do intend to pursue this and other questions which we feel are very important if we are to look forward to a time when immigrants who have come to Canada will be able to fit into our society and play their full role.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because 1 know we all want to have this bill passed quickly this afternoon. However, I would like to make one or two points because it is our first opportunity in some time to discuss a few immigration questions that have been building up because of some steps that have been taken resulting from the green paper discussion of a few years ago, and resulting from the long and interesting hearings that went on regarding the new Immigration Act.
First, I think we all agree with Bill C-2, and the question of raising the limits for assistance to refugees is something that we all support. I publicly supported the previous government's program last year when it was first introduced. My position has not changed since. I think the program to bring in the southeast Asian refugees was consistent with Canada's approach to refugee problems. There will be more and more
April 23, 1980

refugees in this era of world conflict in which we live, and 1 hope that the present government will be generous in its assistance to future refugee movements.
I believe it was this week when the minister announced that he was bringing in some of the people from the Peruvian embassy in Havana. I think he should be congratulated for that move.
On the broader question of our immigration policy, and the point raised by the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago, we learned at the committee hearings in the fall that the net intake of immigrants into Canada in the past 12 months was less than 15,000 people. Those of us who learned about that when the figure was made public in the fall were shocked.
Members of the House should again question a system that, in my view, has become so inflexible that it is impeding the growth of this country. I do not think a net intake of immigrants into Canada of 15,000 is enough to keep this country growing.
In my own area, the inner city of Toronto, 1 have noticed the effects the halt on immigration is having on small businesses, on the construction industry, on the appliance industry, and on all of the manufacturing jobs that were doing very well in the sixties and the early part of the seventies. I think it can be argued that the reduction in some of these areas is directly due to the fact that we now have such a small movement of immigrants into Canada. In my view, it is having grave consequences to large elements of our manufacturing sector.
I know that we do not want to go on too long this afternoon, but I am using this opportunity to flag a few of the things that I think we should be looking at as this Parliament progresses.
The hon. member who spoke earlier mentioned that the independent class over the past few years has become smaller in proportion to the family class. Certainly in the evidence that was presented to the various committees during our hearings, it was clear that people in the Department of Immigration were very concerned about it. Personally 1 think that we have to remember that members of the family class who come to Canada have to comply with occupational demand requirements. I think we tend to forget that. A person cannot come to Canada unless that person is a direct member of the immediate family, unless that person complies with occupational demand requirements. The problem has been that the occupational demand requirements are very stiff and inflexible.
The occupational and area demand report, that 1 believe is published four times a year by the department, say-for those who may have forgotten or who are not aware-that no matter what you do, what qualifications you have, or no matter what kind of contribution you can make in terms of being an industrious person who has abilities, if your particular occupation is rated zero, on a scale from zero to 15 in occupational demand in Canada, you are automatically excluded. That is the reason we have had only a net immigration flow into Canada of less than 15,000 people. 1 suspect that most members of this House would never be able to come into Canada under the current immigration requirements, in fact I doubt if
Immigration Act
5 per cent of members of the House of Commons would be allowed into Canada as landed immigrants under the current regulations.
In the search for a system we have effectively stopped the kinds of people who traditionally made the immigrant movement into Canada-enterprising people, people with a sense of adventure who always came to Canada because they were fed up with where they were. They had something to offer but they did not know what. They just set out, and by the millions made good in Canada. They contributed to the Canadian life and in a major way to the Canadian economy. We have now said to those people,"Stay home, you cannot come to Canada." That has very serious implications.
The attitude is all very well if someone says that because we have unemployment in Canada, we cannot bring in more people. However, the problem with that argument is that it does not point out that many of the people who are employing Canadians are people who were immigrants. They create jobs. The argument should be made that they create more jobs than they take away from Canadians and others in this country.
The system has to be reviewed. It has gone much too far in restricting the movement of enterprising people into Canada. In fact it has not only restricted but stopped it. It has made it zero. The large immigrant movement into Canada in the seventies has resulted in a tremendous contribution to the Canadian economy. We have now put a stop to that. I hope that hon. members, the minister and the officials will take note, look into this question, and use a little more common sense than saying to those who would make good Canadians, with their initiative and sense of adventure, that we do not want them. I do not think that is very good.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the use of funds loaned to people who are immigrants into Canada, whether they are independent immigrants-and I have had instances of loans in those cases-or whether they are refugees, has been a good investment for Canada. It is the kind of thing that Canada has done for a long time. Away back in pioneer days immigrants to this country were given assistance by our government, sometimes in terms of just a cow or a horse or some farm equipment. Helping a person to come to this country is important. The history of these loans has been that the vast majority of them have been instantly repaid. Therefore this has been a first class program, and the extension of it to $60 million is very appropriate.
The bill before us gives us an opportunity that we have not had for some time, namely, to say a few words with respect to immigration. It is important for members of Parliament. Mississauga is a city that has a great number of people who were born in other countries. Indeed, our city probably has people from every land in the world, not just nominal representatives but great numbers of people with different ethnic origins, cultures, and backgrounds. Therefore the whole question of immigration and how it is handled is important to the people of my city.

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
The community dialogue that I sent to my constituents last March dealt entirely with immigration. As the replies to this questionnaire are received, 1 will be sending the material to the minister. I thought that today I would give the minister what we found in an analysis of the first 1,000 replies to that questionnaire, some of the problems raised by my constituents, and some of their attitudes.
It is important that we look at the question of immigration. How this or any other government handles immigration must depend on the feelings of those already here, particularly the feelings of those in a riding that is very much made up of immigrants. Their feelings and how they feel about further immigrants are something that must be considered in handling the whole matter of immigration into Canada.
Something 1 find very difficult is the fact that people somehow feel that their member of Parliament has great influence with the immigration minister. Indeed, last Saturday alone three sets of constituents came to see me on immigration matters. I do not think a week goes by that 1 do not write a letter to the minister. My executive assistant is probably on the phone to our immigration offices almost daily. Therefore this whole problem has to be resolved.
Some things must be done within the ministry. Some things should be done about the way it handles the over-all quota system required under the act. We should try to change the attitude of subjectiveness held by some people. My constituents firmly believe that the immigration officer who made the decision either liked them, did not like them, somebody had pull, somebody had drag, or that I, as a member of Parliament, could do something about it. I can assure them all 1 like. I certainly assured them in my newsletter that a member of Parliament might be able to tell them what the law is and to some extent the occupational demand and so on, but there is really not much I can do with respect to determining their points under the point system. Nonetheless the feeling persists, particularly for people who wish to bring their relatives to Canada.
The reason the number of family sponsored immigrants is up so dramatically is that the young, aggressive person wanting to come here as an independent may be turned down, but when it is a family matter, the family here and the immigrant in the other country keep pressing and eventually figure out how to accumulate the magic number of points in order to come here. It may well be the persistence of family sponsored immigrants that led to the situation where in 1978, 74.3 per cent of the immigrants were family sponsored whereas only 25.6 per cent were independent immigrants.
1 agree with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) that the independent immigrant who comes here to create and build in Canada, who has the pioneering instinct to come out on his own, is probably the kind of immigrant that will create a new industry and new opportunity for Canadians. That type of immigrant may not come in with the exact occupational skills we want, but his entrepreneurial abilities would go a long way toward creating jobs in this country.
There is another matter that must be brought to the attention of the minister. I am sure he knows about this because I wrote to him only yesterday. I refer to the way certain immigration offices throughout the world operate. I may be telling tales out of school about key immigration officials from the Toronto area, particularly Mississauga, but I am told, and I know from my own experience, that if you have a problem with the office in New Delhi or with the office in Port of Spain, forget it, because even telexes sent from the ministry itself to the ministry's own offices do not get answered. People can wait to be interviewed for two and three years; they will get no response to letters written, and clearly this creates social problems.
I am going to get into the question of ethnic origin and all the rest of it because I believe we have to pay attention to what people think. It may well be there is a hidden or isolated quota system in each office around the world and that the way to enforce a quota system is through bureaucratic delay. If that is the case, it is totally reprehensible. I have discussed this matter with all sorts of immigrant groups and it would not be reprehensible to them if they were to know in advance that the quota for the New Delhi office was 1,000 or 2,000, or whatever it was, and that once that office had accepted that number of people, no matter how it was arrived at, whether they were family sponsored or whatever, that office had fulfilled its function for the year and if you wanted to apply you had to wait until the following year or until there was a quota open for that office.
The global quota which, this year, is 120,000, seems like a lot, but in fact it may not be that many. It seems there is a tendency among our people, the constituents I represent-and I am speaking today almost entirely on behalf of my constituents, and I am not necessarily giving all of my own views, although some of mine are certainly included-to feel that certain offices are being used to ration, if you like, the Third World people who want to come here.
Getting into the question of ethnic origins, I did ask these questions in the questionnaire and I think the minister would be interested in the answers. I think we should look into the balance of how our population is made up. That is the kind of response I have received from people from China, from Kampuchea, from India, Pakistan, Uganda and so on. They say the same thing: we have got to keep some sort of balance in the country. That is not a racist remark; it is a question of how they have perceived the country to be made up. I think the minister should seriously consider publishing a breakdown of his quota, allowing certain percentages for each office so that people may know where they can apply and, if they have to come from one part of the world to that office. It certainly would lessen the difficulties encountered by members of Parliament in trying to get an answer out of an office which does not seem to want to reply.
Dealing with the criteria the minister follows at the present time under the act, there seem to be basically three criteria.

mmi
April 23, 1980

One, of course, is family unification. A second would be manpower needs in Canada and then, as the minister is aware, there is special provision for refugees, the ones we are taking from the Vietnam area and certain refugees from certain countries in Latin America plus self-exiled people who happen to come here from one of the communist countries. I sent all those details out to my constituents and received some interesting replies.
First of all, people in urban Canada have a perception that there are too many people coming into the country. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), maybe there are a lot coming in but there are a lot going out. The net result, as was pointed out, was only 15,000 this year. When I asked my constituents whether they thought 120,000 was too high or too low or just about right, 13 per cent of them said it was too low, 25 per cent said it was about right, and 62 per cent said it was too high. That may be a question of communication by the department because as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) it may be that the perception that immigration is too high may be a bad communication problem by the ministry and by those involved in immigration, by those looking at the demographic requirements of Canada.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Cambridge, the net figure may be ridiculously low. Nonetheless, the percentage by people in Mississaugua is on those lines. No less than 62 per cent say that the figure of 120,000 allowed in under the present quota is too high. The minister must bear in mind that this perception is what really counts when we are trying to govern a country, and questions of immigration do, of course, bring out the whole problem of the integration and multicultural attitudes of our society.
It may seem strange, but the overwhelming proportion of people replying said that the manpower requirement was number one. Some people said that if we do not need the people to work here, they should not come in at all. It should not matter who they were related to, we should not let them come in at all. Ninety per cent of the respondents listed manpower requirements as the number one priority under which people should be allowed into the country.
The next item, of course, was the question of ethnic origin. That became rather an interesting situation. The question of ethnic origin came second and the question of humanitarian or family relationships came down low on the list, and that seems to be different from the attitudes which are expressed in the way things are happening. You ask these questions and then you begin to doubt the answers perhaps. You begin to say, well, you know, maybe the ministry knows best. But when you are looking at a question of immigration and you find that people are saying something dramatically different from what is really the practice or the happening in the Department of Employment and Immigration, you begin to wonder whether the department should not perhaps alter what it is doing.
Immigration Act
Earlier this session the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question with respect to some pollings. It might well be appropriate for the minister to do some polling on attitudes with respect to immigration. The minister is continuing to get things like "Overview" from the National Citizens Coalition saying a number of rather tough things about the immigration program followed not only by this government but by the former government and by the government before that. It is not just the present minister who is getting it in the ear. The former minister of immigration got it in the ear from them, and I gather the present policy of the department, the way the minister is handling things, is essentially no different from the way the former minister was handling things. May I say the department is quite good at getting replies back to members of Parliament. I am quite pleased with the efficiency of the department. Perhaps there is an improvement in the efficiency. But the minister's approach is no different from that of his predecessor. Yet there is a lot of stir out there in the country on this matter. The coalition stirs it up. Undoubtedly the minister has been getting letters from a William Kelly, founding an organization known as Friends of the United Kingdom.
The minister knows that if we do not pay attention to the way people are reacting, we are going to have a very unhappy population. Surely to goodness it is the responsibility of his department to react and to run an immigration policy the way the people who are here as Canadian citizens want it run. It is not a question of some high faluting theory of people who are either far right or far left in their political ideology. It is a question of running immigration policy in accordance with the way the people who are in Canada right now seem to want it run. I therefore recommend to the minister that he do some private polling on this matter and perhaps make the attitudinal results available to members of Parliament.
My questionnaire went on to deal with attitudes with respect to the provision in the Immigration Act that five points are given if you decide to settle in an area of low unemployment. For example, as I said to a constituent on Saturday, "If your sister would only move to Calgary, I would bet she would find a job as a typist, and she would get in here instantly". That may be the case, but the situation is clear that there are extra points under the point system for where you happen to go in the country.
In an area like Mississauga the reply I get from 67 per cent of the people is that the minister should direct where immigrants go. He should make a form of contract with them, with some sort of a bonding system, and have people go to the north, to farms, and to certain places outside the great metropolitan areas. There may be a feeling that there are too many people in the cities and that the frontiers of the country should be expanded and developed. I do not know exactly where that feeling comes from, but I can say to the minister that enormous numbers of people replying convey that type of attitude. A typical reply is that simply giving an immigrant extra points to locate in a designated area does not accomplish

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
the task because, if it takes extra points, all we have achieved is to admit an immigrant we do not really want in the area. If the immigrant is otherwise acceptable, he should not need extra points.
It is suggested that the government should facilitate viable settlements in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, for some reason, or the clay belt region.
I want to say to the minister that he should pay attention to these types of attitudes. The responses I am getting convey the attitude that there should be some direction to settle in a particular area, and that is with particular reference to the refugee program. There might be much more willingness to take more refugees if the refugees brought in were directed to certain specific outlying areas of the country as farm labour and so forth, and not allowed to come to the large cities.
The next question I raised was a question regarding appeal proceedings. The minister will remember that during the last election the former minister deported an East Indian lady after an alleged approximately $80,000 worth of expense. There is no question that that deportation was probably legally proper and all the rest of it, but the thing which bothered a great number of people-and it was brought to their attention-was the enormous amount of money which was expended on what people perceived to be a very extended appeal process. I want to tell the minister that some 65 per cent of the people responding indicated that they either wanted no appeal procedure at all or that the appeal procedure be a very brief and limited one, and directed only to one issue, whether the person is improperly or illegally in Canada, and no other issue, and they wanted no long string of appeals.
The other day there was a situation when I was involved with the minister where 1 suspect the minister issued a deportation order. The person being deported will appeal under the present law-quite properly, I think the minister will agree- and may well appeal right up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The question really boils down to whether Canada should finance a system of justice that allows persons who are not citizens, and who in many instances are illegally in the country or in the country only by permission, to use the court system, and the delay system that the court system we have in the act allows, to carry on with appeal after appeal and eventually use up, as was the case in the matter which came up during the election, some $80,000 in costs. That type of thing is just not acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.
To summarize, I think there is a strong desire to see more strictness and some real selectivity, to make sure that manpower considerations are paramount and that when we bring in large numbers of people we have a policy which directs them more or less to new areas of the country so that we do not ghettoize people in the large cities. The interest of Canada in matters of immigration should come first.
1 commend the new minister on the taking over of his portfolio, and I wish him luck with that portfolio. It is a portfolio which causes great concern and heartache, and which sometimes is not too politically rewarding. I wish the minister well.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I support the minister's feeling, as he stated it today, that it is time we had a planned, rational refugee policy rather than the emotional ad hockery that seems to be fairly common in our non-policy and which tends to favour some refugees while ignoring others.
If anything, I think we need a fair, impartial, and planned refugee policy which considers international needs and which, of course, is based on Canada's ability to accommodate people. We need a refugee policy which is humanitarian and not political. Therefore I suggest that our policies should be seriously studied and redefined, and that we support United Nations refugee policies on a regular basis and not just react to emotional crises which arise from time to time, which often make us feel like short-term do-gooders but which really do not make much impact on the problems of this world.
I would like to mention just two or three examples which I think dramatized this during the period when I was the critic on immigration for the New Democratic Party. Last year Canada generously sponsored some 50,000 political refugees from southeast Asia. We speedily processed their applications. There was a minimum of delay. Yet, at the same time in Argentina when there was a desperate situation with political prisoners in jails-some of them were waiting in Brazil to get out of their first country of asylum-the Government of Canada promised one hundred visas. We ended up by taking only nine people, refugees from that country who arrived in Canada later. The people who tried to enter Canada from Brazil had to wait for at least six months because our processing was slow. The Brazilian government required, of course, that they leave before that time.
So it appears that we could speed up the processing when we want to, but perhaps at the expense of refugees in other parts of the world, in this case particularly in Latin America.
I should like to point out also the case of a young Chilian refugee, Galindo Madrid, well known in British Columbia. He jumped ship and came to Canada as a political refugee. It was later established by the UN authorities that he could not return to his country without facing injustices there. After two years in Canada, during which he worked as a dishwasher and proved himself to be a responsible person-dishwashing was probably the only job he could get-he was refused asylum in Canada from the very same government-at that time it was a Tory government-which went overboard with election emotionalism because when two young Russian lovers jumped ship in Vancouver, they were welcomed to Canada, in contrast to Galindo Madrid, and were given asylum immediately.
I mention these examples to illustrate the unfairness and the emotional and reactionary policy which we have at present, and I urge the new minister to be as open hearted in his approach to refugees from right wing regimes as he is to refugees from left wing regimes. 1 hope his criterion for admitting refugees will be humanitarianism, not political

April 23, 1980

prejudice. Of course we support the humanitarian needs of refugees who want to come to Canada at this time.
I should like to point out also that it is not good enough for us to consider only admission of refugees and immigrants without looking at what happens to them and what happens to Canadians, and looking at some of the feelings of Canadians once these immigrants and refugees come to Canada. It is very important that we have well planned immigrant services which will assist refugees and immigrants in general in adjusting quickly and in becoming established in Canada following their arrival. It is important that immigrant services be financed in a more flexible way-and 1 hope at some time to talk to the minister about this-and that these kinds of financial arrangements with immigrant service agencies be adopted in a flexible way over a three-year period at least.
As my colleague has mentioned, it takes longer than a three-year period for women to adjust. Immigrant women who come to Canada and who cannot speak English, who often raise children and cannot go out into the community as quickly as men, are now deprived of services if they have been here longer than three years. That means they will never adjust in this country, and that is why there are cases of grandmothers whose only contact is with their own family because they have been cut off from the Canadian community at large. That is another aspect we should consider.
Furthermore, there is a great need for the expansion of services for immigrant women who suffer double discrimination. If we look carefully and study the cases of immigrant women who are able to find jobs-many of them have to work in order to survive in Canada-we find them in jobs providing the lowest wages and very little in the way of benefits or protection. Often immigrant women are unable to obtain child care services, which prevents them from taking language classes. Often they are deprived of the possibility of participating in training programs, orientation programs and preemployment opportunities, all of which are important to their adjustment in Canada.
Our Immigration Act discriminates against immigrant women, treating them as spouses rather than as people with rights of their own as human beings.
1 think we should consider also the particular problems of immigrant workers who are working as domestics and farm workers, people who are brought to Canada because Canadians are not willing to do these jobs. These people have no rights when they come here, they have no benefits, and they are open to exploitation and intimidation by their employers. Domestic workers, many of whom are immigrant women in Canada, receive no UIC benefits, have no Canada Pension Plan, and are fearful of being deported if they complain about their work situation. They are unprotected by either federal or provincial labour legislation. Often they are overworked, having to work seven days a week, and underpaid. They have no recourse to appeal. I think the federal government should take leadership in developing policies and legislation to protect immigrant workers. After all, it is the federal government which brings them to Canada. It should prevent that kind of
Immigration Act
exploitation from taking place, rather than saying this comes under provincial jurisdiction.
It seems to me that if a domestic worker has worked for six months, or perhaps even longer, and has fulfilled the requirements, she should be entitled to receive landed immigrant status so she can have the protection that other workers have in Canada. The services of domestic workers are still needed here. So the federal government should take leadership in this area and not just leave it to the provinces to offer protection to immigrant workers whom we bring in to meet labour market demands in our country.
In British Columbia our farm workers, most of whom are of East Indian descent, have a terrible work situation. They receive low wages and are exploited by middle men who take their wages from them. They receive far below the minimum wage in many cases. Fortunately some of them are working for collective bargaining rights. This is something I would hope our government would support.
I know we are running short of time so I will be brief, but there is one very important and critical issue which I should like to raise at this time. It has to do with the current concern of many Canadians because of the infringement of human rights, and this could apply to either refugees, immigrants or Canadian-born citizens who are so-called visible minorities.
Our party, as I am sure are many members of the House, is seriously concerned at the repeated examples of racism and stereotyping which we have witnessed in the media in recent months, media that are supported by our tax dollars and are supposedly educating our citizens, and 1 shudder to think of the kind of education that some of these programs are giving to our children as well as to adults. Such programs inflame public prejudice and discrimination, attitudes that are only too prevalent among our citizens in times of economic stress.
Last year, a CBC program portrayed organized crime in such a way as to imply that most Italian Canadians have Mafia connections. At about the same time the National Film Board produced a very insensitive documentary on the Chinese community. It was produced largely in Vancouver. The misinformation and stereotyping in this film, which was called "Bamboo Lions and Dragons", was offensive not only to many Chinese people but to us non-Chinese who viewed it as well.
Most recently we had the incident of media misinformation and outright racism which was made public in the program called W5, entitled "Campus Giveaway". 1 hope that all hon. members are aware of the gross exaggeration in the stated number of foreign students in university programs, students who are not admitted unless there are spaces which are not required by Canadians. That program was a disservice to foreign students, and an insult to Canada's commitment to train young people for leadership roles in Third World countries. Much more serious, however, was the deliberate attempt to pick out and smear a group of Canadian students, probably many of them second or third generation Canadians of Asian descent. Because they were not Caucasian, Canadian-born citizens were accused of being foreigners with no right to a university education. In a country that stands proudly for

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
multiculturalism, this is a national disgrace. It is not good enough, after denials over a seven-month period, that the CTV president apologized a few days ago. This was only two days before a national protest meeting was held.
I should like to quote one of the protestors who spoke at a meeting in Vancouver as follows:
The battle may be won but this does not remove the hurt.
An apology will not remove the insult and disrespect to thousands of Chinese Canadian citizens, nor will it assure that there will be no repetition of such incidents in the media. I am pleased that in this case an ongoing group has been formed called the "Chinese Canadian National Council for Equality". I know that this group plans to meet with other ethnic groups to form a strong coalition to do something about this discrimination and infringement of human rights. They are working to protect human rights for all and toward a true multicultural Canada. But this is not just the duty of those who are the victims of racist attitudes.
Those who are hurt should not be the only ones to object and have to defend themselves alone. Human rights are the responsibility of our country as a whole, and the responsibility of every citizen. Surely it is a particular responsibility of our media-the press, television, radio, columnists and film. Therefore I should like to present to the House and to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) several recommendations which were made at the meetings 1 attended in Vancouver.
First, media members should establish a code of conduct for their own industry and their own colleagues. Second, stronger legislation with teeth must be introduced to protect human rights and to be a deterrent to the kind of programming that we saw on W-5. Third, we should have a public ombudsman and positive programs on the media produced with advisory people from ethnic communities. Finally, members of Parliament must demand that there will be no more racist programs such as "Campus Giveaway" on Canadian television, particularly Canadian productions.
In the interest of time, I should just like to mention that there are a number of issues connected with the Immigration Act which very much require review and which I wish we had time to debate at this time. If we shorten our presentations, I would ask the minister if he would consider a time, perhaps during the hearings before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, when these issues could be discussed at some length.
Some of the aspects of the Immigration Act which I felt as immigration critic in the past really needed review were the following: the powers given to immigration agents to decide who is or is not desirable to come to Canada; appeal procedures, which certainly are very poor in regard to refugees but need improvement for other immigrants as well; discrimination against women immigrants, which I have already mentioned; policies which really disregard cultural differences, particularly the cultures of Asian countries where extended families are
considered to be families and where our policies tend to break up families. I know of many cases-and I am sure other members do as well-where children as they turn 21 must be left in their home country while their parents come to this country. This is quite unacceptable to many immigrants from India and from Hong Kong. We give special concessions to entrepreneurs and to people with capital, yet we make it very difficult for many other immigrants to come to Canada.
Of course our immigration policy must take first account of the concerns of Canadians. We must have jobs and housing for all. In times of economic stress, in many ways it is understandable that people who are finding it hard to find jobs, to find a house or shelter for themselves and their children, are resentful of newcomers who seem to find homes and jobs more easily. We know that it does not work that way. Immigrants create jobs. We are all immigrants. We must have positive programs to help create understanding. The best way to do this is to ensure that Canadians and immigrants alike have jobs, housing, and the services which they need in our communities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is our ardent hope and desire, on this side of the House at least, to see Bill C-2 given second reading this afternoon. Therefore my remarks will be rather short.
In speaking in support of the bill, I should like to say that the concept which it embodies confirms that the immigrant in economic terms is a valuable asset to this country. There is a long-standing tradition to this effect. This is a program which started early in the 1950s. It is my understanding, as others have already said, that Canada has done this before then in order to attract people to this country.
It is a fact, although this belief is not shared by everybody in the country, that an adult immigrant arrives in this country as a productive individual. Having been raised at the expense of another jurisdiction, and being in good health at the expense of another jurisdiction, he becomes almost immediately upon arrival a participant in the community, not only as a consumer and producer but also as an active member of the community and therefore a highly valuable, positive asset in the community, centre, town, region, province, or nation as a whole. This is what Bill C-2 means to us. Evidentally all of us in this House support it. The amount reflects the fact that there are certain projects and programs which require more immediate support because of increasing costs in the world. It is a fact of life that we not only recognize but support.
However, this bill raises in the minds of those of us who are familiar with the pattern of immigration and settlement in Canada the fact that there is a weak link in the chain which is beyond the scope of this bill but is implicit in its wording. The weak link in the chain is the fact that in this country we have a service or network of so-called immigrant settlement and adaptation programs which are not adequate. In analysing this bill and in passing it, it is important that we make reference to the desirability of a successful adaptation of immigrants brought into the country under the auspices of the bill, in other
April 23, 1980

words, that we pay more attention to the needs of immigrants upon settlement.
The budget devoted to this particular program, the adaptation program, was in the neighbourhood of $2 million in the previous fiscal year. It runs in the same neighbourhood this fiscal year, with a slight decrease. I look at that fact in a very distressed manner. It seems to me that if we are embarking upon a program of this kind, we must increase the funding of this program, in particular the funding of volunteer agencies which are active in the communities across the country, mainly from Montreal to Vancouver, in facilitating the adaptation of the immigrants.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) made reference a moment ago to the three-year rule. I do not know whether the time frame is accurate, but whatever the time frame is, I would urge the government to reconsider it and to remove it entirely.
There are situations in which immigrants who arrive and settle never require services. There are cases and instances when services are required upon arrival, and there are in the last instance situations in which this need arises well after the so-called three-year rule. Therefore, the services ought to be made available in a flexible manner as the need arises and not with time limits imposed, of course, through bureaucratic criteria that really do not take into consideration the facts of life and the process of integration of the individual into the new community.
The next point I would like to make briefly has to do with the receiving society, Canadians born here and Canadian citizens by adoption, who see the arrival of new immigrants and who make the necessary adjustments in absorbing those new arrivals into the neighbourhoods and into the new communities.
Here again, as I understand it, the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) has an important responsibility to perform in somehow facilitating and encouraging, on the part of the so-called host society, an attitude of understanding and adaptability so as to encourage and make the welcome of the newly arrived immigrant warmer and more cordial.
It is quite clear that this task again is one that needs to be urged upon the government through the facilities of the Secretary of State which, as I understand it, is the department that keeps the pulse of Canadian society as a dynamic entity, in continuous change and in continuous adaptation as a result of the constant yearly immigration of individuals from various continents who come to settle in this country.
In order to make Bill C-2 effective, and in order to make the process of the adaptation of new immigrants in years to come not only easier but more successful, there are two ingredients required; one is a stronger immigrant settlement and adaptation program, and the second has to do with the preparation of the host society so as to be better equipped in receiving the newly arrived individuals.
Immigration Act
Before I sit down, I would like in my intervention to reply briefly to a suggestion made earlier by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who, in his long deliberation, which actually deserves perhaps the yearly top award to the politician who most successfully manages to talk out of both sides of his mouth, made one point clearly. He recommended that immigrants be sent to specific destinations for employment purposes, and that they be, if I understood him clearly, destined to such places for a certain period of time.
We on this side of the House reject this notion because it would create in Canada two classes of individuals, those who are free to move and those who are not. That is unacceptable. The strength of Canada's immigration policy has been that as a nation Canada has achieved something rather unique, namely, that it has treated and continues to treat immigrants, except for the right of voting, in the same manner as those who were born here and who are Canadian citizens. In humanistic terms that is a very rare and highly commendable achievement. We do not want to have this record spoiled by a suggestion of the kind made by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Finally, if ever the Canadian government were to adopt a measure like this it would contravene both the spirit and the letter of the Helsinki Agreement which we signed in 1975, and which contains as a very strong premise the freedom of movement within countries and between countries. We would like to see that respected and implemented by other countries around the world as well.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do want to make a short contribution to this debate, and I hope it will be a contribution.
Most blanket policies have severe weaknesses, and I would endeavour to prove this afternoon to the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), particularly, if he indeed requires that proof, that blanket policies of the Department of Employment and Immigration also have very severe weaknesses.
Let us take as an example the view of many people in Canada who say we should not bring immigrants in because we have 900,000 or one million people unemployed. That has a very severe weakness. It may well be sound that we should not bring immigrants in who are going to be in heavily unemployed areas where there is much unskilled labour. It is totally in error when we suggest that we should not bring unskilled labour into other parts of the country.
I want to point out two or three places in my own constituency of Bow River where there is a need for unskilled labour. When I receive letters from officials of the department of immigration refusing excellent applicants simply because they have not learned a trade or do not have a profession, I have difficulty explaining that to those people who want this type of worker.
For instance, let us consider our small towns, and 1 will use Bow River as an example. I suggest this would be applicable to

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
almost any other rural riding in much of western Canada. There is no unemployment in our small towns and villages. The Canadian of Chinese origin who operates a restaurant in a small town many times works 14 hours a day while trying to raise his family, yet he cannot get help. It is useless for him to go to the manpower office in Calgary because most of the people will not go to a small town or village. As a result, the people in the small towns or villages have no one available.
When that Canadian of Chinese origin makes an application on behalf of a nephew or a niece in Hong Kong or mainland China who qualifies in every other way, I suggest it is not wrong to bring that person in even though he or she may be unskilled. I think that is in line with what the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) was suggesting. These people are members of a family. This family will teach them the language, if that is required, and will make sure they continue to get their education, with the result that the Canadian of Chinese origin will not have to work 14 and 16 hours a day. That is the situation in many small towns, and 1 think it is applicable in many areas.
The next example I should like to give relates to farm work. There is an application before the department at the present time in respect of two young men from Bermuda who were met by the son of a farmer when he was there. They said they would like to come to Canada on a temporary basis to see what it was like, and work on a farm. This man has 2,000 turkeys arriving in a very few days and he cannot find anybody to help with the work. It requires a lot of work to care for 2,000 turkeys, and that is not particularly skilled work. The immigration officials interviewed one of these men-I have not heard about the second one-who was an hotel man, and they turned him down. That one man, at least, could have done that job on that turkey farm.
Many other farmers have been trying to obtain labour, but people will not come out and work on farms. There are many young men in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and countries like that, who would love to come and work in Canada. In many cases these are men of integrity but have no farming experience. In other cases these are men who were raised on a farm and who understand cattle and know the soil, the difference between loam and gumbo. Unfortunately many of these potential immigrants are turned down.
There are many farmers who are frustrated and discouraged because they cannot get help. The blanket policy of, "let's not bring people to Canada because we have unemployment", has several weaknesses with regard to small towns and our farms. There are many hon. members in this House who would agree that it is difficult to get certain types of labour in beautiful resort areas like Lake Louise and Banff. One of the motel operators in Lake Louise had to close early last year because he could not find workers. Lake Louise is not a large settlement of people from which to draw labour, and people will not come from Calgary. Here is a need for immigrants.
In referring to the situation in Lake Louise, I do not have particular types of immigrants in mind as I did in the other
two cases. Surely there are people in this world today who want to work at this type of job. I would like to see the minister put the boots to some of the people who hang around the unemployment office in Calgary and who will not go out on some of these jobs. The blanket policy is not sound, and I urge the minister to reject it and utilize a more flexible policy.
For example, if there is an unskilled member of a family who wishes to immigrate to a small town where his or her relatives are, then 1 think that we should have a policy to allow such a person to enter Canada. This person will become just as much a Canadian as his relatives have been, and I think that we can bring the right kind of people into the country in this way.
The other point I would like to make is with regard to the restaurant business in small towns. It is difficult to find Canadians who wish to do the menial tasks demanded by our society. Many immigrants would come to Canada and perform these menial tasks. They will take these jobs and try to work themselves up in society. So where Canadians are not available for these menial tasks, let us bring in immigrants who want to work. They can be of any colour or creed. 1 do not care whether they are black, yellow, pink, blue or white. The main thing is that they be people of high integrity, people who want to become Canadians and who will be loyal to this country.
The other point that 1 wish to mention is with regard to the refugee problem. I believe that we are our brother's keeper, and I think that it is a splendid thing that Canadians are prepared to take those who are suffering in other countries and who have no home and nothing to live for. I spoke to a recent refugee in Calgary, shortly before I returned to Ottawa. He spoke broken English, but 1 was amazed at his ability, for a man who had just come from a foreign country a few days before, at speaking English. He said, "Wonderful, wonderful; I have a job". The job was very menial, but he was happy that he had a job. He said in his broken English, "I love Canada". That man will become an excellent citizen. I think that we should encourage refugees to come to Canada. 1 have some people in my constituency who say we should not bring in too many. Perhaps we are bringing in a proper quota right now.
There are many Canadians who would like to better themselves through training in language and many other things, as do the refugees, and 1 hope that our policy is flexible enough to allow these Canadians the same advantages as the refugees, and thereby enable them to become good Canadians because, after all, charity begins at home.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I want to remind the House that since the World War II, that is in the last 35 years, Canada has opened its doors to some 350,000 refugees. In other words, within the scope of our over-all immigration program, one immigrant in ten has come to Canada in that period, under the immigrant status. It also means that, in 35 years, 350,000 refugees have chosen to come to Canada,
350,000	new Canadians are Canadians by choice.
April 23, 1980

The importance of interest-free loans to allow the transportation of refugees cannot be doubted but it is important to point out to our people that after those refugees come to Canada, they have to reimburse the transportation costs. Generally speaking, Canadians think they pay to bring in the refugees to Canada, but the truth is totally different: the refugees reimburse their transportation costs at a later date.
Some of those who have benefited from that interest-free transportation loan later on expressed their gratituderconcrete-ly and in moving terms to the Canadians for the chance they have been given, through that free loan system, to start a new life in Canada, to find new hope and to prosper with their families in a free and welcoming land.
Throughout the years, several ethnic groups have benefited from those loans. For instance, the Hungarians, the Czechoslovaks, the Chileans, the Ugandans or, more recently, the Indo-Chinese. In truth, one of the main advantages of the loan system is that Canada can react more quickly to situations that are very complex and demand immediate action. It must be noted that, in this the twentieth century, in democracies such as the one in which we live, the main difficulty often lies in reaching a decision. To have substantial sums in readiness for interest-free loans gives the minister or Parliament the possibility of acting very rapidly and, as a first consequence, often those swift decisions allow us to bring people here fast, saving them from pressures or even simply from death, when the political or economic situation in the countries they must leave is critical.
The successive movements of refugees into Canada have proven clearly that each group could settle permanently in this country and contribute generously to the economic and cultural life in Canada. We all know, because we all have immigrants or refugees among our constituents, that those people have become full and active members of our communities.
My constituency of Manicouagan is 600 miles long by 1,250 miles wide and the co-operation and engineering competence of these refugees or immigrants has contributed greatly to the success of the important mining and hydroelectric projects that we have witnessed on the north shore in the last 20 years.
It can be said that those who came to the north shore to meet this challenge have been greatly appreciated, and this applies as much to the engineers as to the simple workers. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said earlier, it is extremely important to realize that refugees and immigrants are a first-class work asset and wonderful even as simple citizens because they have chosen Canada while we have had the luck to be born here. These people make extraordinary efforts to come here and adapt to our country and they add a diversity to the Canadian community which can only enrich our nation.
I would like to take this opportunity to underline the very important work done by two mayors in my area, the mayor of Schefferville and the mayor of Sept-Iles, to help the Indo-
Immigration Act
Chinese refugees who had requested admission to Canada. The Manpower and Immigration employees in Sept-Iles also did an extraordinary job, and I would like the minister to take good notice of this fact because it is often said that public servants are too slow, that they are not really sensitive to the needs of the people. This afternoon, I want to emphasize that in our area, the reaction of the public servants to the plight of the Indo-Chinese refugees was marvellous and that the reception given to these people by the residents of Schefferville and Sept-Iles was extraordinary.
The bill now under consideration will enable Canada to maintain its considerable efforts to solve the problems of refugees throughout the world. Even though our attention has been focused mostly on the transfer of the Indo-Chinese refugees, which was probably the most important such operation ever undertaken in this country, the increase in the funds to be used for transport and which will be always available will enable Canada to pursue its humanitarian work in other parts of the world and allow us to receive in Canada, this land of freedom and prosperity, men and women seeking peace and justice.
I would also like to add that by opening our doors to refugees we seize the opportunity of having men and women who become the bulwarks of our rights and liberties. Often, these people have lived through extremely complex and difficult experiences in their country, which they must leave very quickly, and when they come here they enable us to detect in our system statutes or legislation which may constitute misuses of our rights and freedom. Often, as Canadians, we have never had the opportunity of expressing the fact that our rights and liberties are highly important values. These people make us realize that we can be proud of the level of freedom and rights that we enjoy, even though we may not be aware of it. These newcomers can make us realize this and by that token make us appreciate better our country.
As the minister said in his speech, this bill requires no financial commitment. But it is one step towards the creation of a world of sharing and openheartedness and I expect all members of this House to support the bill. I thank the minister for it and I hope we will grant it speedy passage.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanidi):: Mr. Speaker, I think Canada and Canadians welcomed with great joy in their hearts the decision of the previous government to accept such a large number of refugees from Indo-China. 1 think also it was a masterly stroke, given the notion that there are some tendencies in Canada-and we must admit this-to wonder whether we are accepting too many persons who may not fit in culturally. It was a masterly decision to decide that the number sponsored by the government would correspond and match the number sponsored by individual Canadians and groups. Therefore, of the 50,000 that were accepted, it meant
350

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
that 25,000 would involve Canadians themselves individually or in community groups bringing in refugees to this country, looking after them for a certain time, and knowing what the responsibilities in so doing were.
Now we learn that an additional 10,000 have been accepted. It is not clear to me-perhaps the minister may be able to make this clear in his statement-whether the same conditions will apply or whether this additional 10,000 will be accepted and sponsored by the government itself.
However, there are a number of fallouts from this admission of 50,000, now 60,000, individuals from Southeast Asia, which had not been anticipated and which are causing some concern that 1 believe ought to be brought to the attention of the minister. I brought it to the attention of the previous minister in correspondence, but 1 do think the matter requires underlining because that concern has not been put to rest. It has to do with some of the non-North American diseases, or diseases that have been brought into the country that up to now have been unknown here. A fair number of them have been diagnosed and brought to the attention of hospital authorities. This is all the more worrisome for those who have these misgivings and concerns, and they are legitimate. A great number of these refugees have gone into the food-handling business.
Some of the diseases are transmittable by contact with the skin, by breath, and also, 1 believe, perspiratory glands. For example, there is a new type of flu that apparently has been introduced, also a new type of hepatitis which is most peculiar. Canadian dentists have been warned about this particular type of hepatitis. Hepatitis is a fairly disastrous type of disease. I had to spend about six weeks of my life recovering from it. 1 know that it is dangerous and that it comes from habits that we in Canada have managed to overcome, but this strain may well have been brought into this country by some of these refugees.
Tuberculosis has also been identified. I believe we had eliminated tuberculosis from the Canadian medical scene. Malaria is one of those extraordinary things that has cropped up. There may not be any anopheles mosquitoes in Canada. I hope that these types of mosquitoes were not brought in via luggage because malaria is a most debilitating disease. 1 was fortunate enough, though living in the tropics for many years, to have avoided that disease. However, I did see a number of people who suffered long-lasting disabilities because of the effects of malaria.
Then there is a form of gonorrhea that I believe is peculiar to Southeast Asia, which has been introduced into this country. I was assured by the authorities three or four months ago that proper medical attention was being paid to these people before they came into Canada.
I wonder whether the minister has had this matter brought to his attention and whether he feels that it is sufficiently worrisome to issue new instructions, or renew the instructions concerning medical examination of these refugees before they arrive in Canada.
1 hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that these are cooked-up excuses by people who are unwilling or are resisting the introduction of these refugees from southeast Asia. I think it is worth noting that there have been alerts circulated to hospitals urging all medical personnel to make a note of any unusual diseases that cone to their attention, and to bring them to the attention of the provincial authorities. Furthermore, in the budget which was introduced in the legislature of British Columbia about two or three weeks ago, an additional $2.5 million was provided for the examination of the health of those refugees who are now in the country. It is not to check them as they come in because, and the minister should know this, it is assumed that there is a medical examination before they come.
True, they come from very desperate situations. That is understood. However, the fact remains that if there are illnesses or diseases, they should be diagnosed before the individuals arrive so that they can be properly treated once they arrive here. I did mention, and I think it is worth repeating, that some of these diseases of which I spoke are transferred by contact. Therefore the concentration of so many of these refugees in the food handling business has added to the concern of those who have expressed it to me.
Aside from that, there are a couple of matters 1 feel I would like to mention on this occasion. I doubt that there are many members in this House who have not had problems brought to them by persons from Britain seeking to emigrate to Canada to join members of their families. It may be a distant relative, an elderly sister or a married sister. This might be a widowed sister in Britain. I have in mind one such case.
There is another case where a person wanted to find out whether the social and physical climate was one to which he could accustom himself. He was very enterprising. He found a job. He found a prospective bride. That was fine. However, when the things were being processed, delays were encountered that would defy the imagination. The local immigration authorities would say, "It has just gone to Ottawa for processing, because we need this, that and the other thing." When it came back there would be another excuse. The bureaucratic excuses in this area of having British-born people emigrating from Britain into Canada have been a problem, and I would bet money on it, for every single member of this legislative body. I am sure everyone has had at least one case. 1 have had dozens of them.
All you have to do is try to emigrate from Britain and you are in trouble. I do not know why it should be, but it happens. Others come in. You would think there are the same rules, but I have had to write to the High Commissioner to have some matters looked into and have them put aside. I raise this, not because I want to but because it has been my experience. 1 do not get these problems with other countries, but I get them from Great Britain.
April 23, 1980

I find this difficult to believe having been in the public service, but I find there is a suggestion of bias against British born coming into this country,


David Michael Collenette: Nonsense.


Donald W. Munro: Say nonsense if you like, but that is the suggestion my experience is leading me toward. I do not want to accept it. 1 hope it is wrong. But the minister should know there is this feeling among the public in Canada. That feeling does exist.
In conclusion, someone took a dig at one of the speakers from this side. Perhaps I should also take a little dig. On our return here before the Speech from the Throne, we were picked up at the airport by a taxi driver and driven in. The man said that he was pleased that the Liberals had been returned to office because he had been told that had the Conservatives been returned they would cut off the right or the openness in Canada for relatives from these countries. He had been told that by some of the candidates during the election. Lies were being circulated. 1 find that deplorable. It was being done. The remark was unsolicited. The man did not even know 1 was a member of Parliament. He spontaneously came out with that. 1 find it regrettable that any party would descend to that sort of prevarication in order to win votes.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak on Bill C-2, an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1976, whereby the amount of moneys will be raised from $20 million to $60 million. 1 wish to support this amendment, and at the same time offer a few thoughts about the question of immigration.
I would first like to extend to Madam Speaker my own personal congratulations on her new appointment. 1 remind the House that she is one of our native Saskatchewan daughters, having been born in Prud'homme, Saskatchewan. The people of her local community are extremely happy with the appointment.
I would also at this time extend my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). It is my sincere hope that he will have the basic concern and sensitivity to what I consider to be a most difficult assignment, an assignment which will have an historical reality in the lives of millions of people in generations yet unborn, many times on his own personal decisions as to who will come and who will not come to our country.
During the last year Canada has responded to the needs of the "boat people" in what I believe was a very fitting and humane way. The "boat people" were special among immigrants because they received a very high media image. Television, radio, and other media coverage showed the unique way in which they escaped and became refugees. Millions of other people who are in a refugee state do not get the same kind of publicity, and therefore do not get the same kind of care. I believe that the "boat people" have already had a unique influence on Canadian life. I believe that Canadians, groups of
Immigration Act
them in communities or church groups, have responded to this new event in our history in a most generous and open way.
During the last week as I was visiting my constituency and other areas of western Canada, 1 met some of these new families, and I spoke to a number of Canadians who were sponsoring them. I can see a good overflow, a good interchange beginning to take place as prairie towns and villages have taken it upon themselves to integrate into their lives a family that a year ago they did not even know existed.
The "boat people" though, are only symbolic of what is taking place in the world as regards the migration populations. Never before in the history of the world has population pressure been at the intensity that it is in many sections of the planet at this time. Open lands and spaces are just not available as they once were even in our century. Today, millions upon millions of people are being pressed into situations of life which, because of lack of space, lack of food growing land, lack of places to live, have turned cities and other areas into great squalor and slums.
The social and political conditions which have brought this situation about cannot all be mentioned at this time, but the basic fact remains that millions in ever-increasing numbers are now living on the face of the earth in conditions which are not of a minimum human standard.
I say these things because 1 think that we, as Canadians, have been blessed in a most unbelievable way with great areas of land and possibilities and have to look seriously at a principle which states that "people without land have a right to land without people". Many, of course, can argue that this statement pertains to national lands, but as we enter this decade and the ones which are to come, I think we have less and less right to bar people from access to a better life because of the technicality of having been born in the wrong place. So I foresee in the future great migrations of people to land which is now vacant or, at least, underused, and this will come about either in a peaceful, bargained way, or it will come about by force. This is a principle that has descended through the ages of humankind. People without resources will finally take over the means they need for a better life.
To reflect on ourselves, I believe that most of the people sitting in this House are themselves immigrants, or else certainly the children of immigrants who came here within the last 372 years-excluding my hon. friend from the constituency of Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) whose relatives arrived some
20,000	years earlier. In my own case, my family originated in Ireland and came here because of a population explosion and famine some 150 years ago. In the generations which have followed we have had the benefits which that first great tragedy brought indirectly through the migration of my ancestors.
My forefathers, like the forefathers of many other Canadians, were, of course, looked upon as strangers, as aliens, and there were prejudices against them when they came. Later on, they themselves developed prejudices against others who were

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
either here before them or who came after them. The problem of having a prejudiced viewpoint remains true of everybody with human blood in their veins. It is a prejudice we have constantly to work against, particularly today when the peoples of the world, by circumstances and history, are forced to live outside their traditional, natural communities, and to mix as a planetary people. 1 believe the basic prejudices which people carry within themselves have had much to do with immigration laws and restrictions which, even today, work against certain groups who wish to enter into Canada.
1 trust the minister and his department will seriously take account at all times of laws which have built into them a prejudice against a certain type of person simply because such persons happen to be of a special colour or religion or political leaning, and will see that a bias of this kind is, as far as possible, eradicated from our immigration laws.
In just a moment I would like to speak about a particular instance which has come to my attention, having been raised by some of my constituents. It is an example of bias built in to our Canadian legal system. It specifically concerns Canadian families of Chinese origin who wish to bring in, from their former country, a relative who, according to Canadian standards, is not a relative because of differing marriage practices in China. In this particular case, a Chinese woman living in my constituency has been trying for a number of years to bring to Canada a man whom she considers to be her brother. However, in the Chinese tradition, her father had two wives. She belongs to the first wife and the brother belongs to the second. In these circumstances the brother has been refused entry. I hope that in future legislation we can be sensitive to the cultural norms of other peoples and respect them in bringing their families to our land, even though they may not truly fit the family standards which Canadian law lays down.
Finally, I would like to say that the immigration policies of Canada must be tied very closely to the whole of our foreign policy and that is why I believe there ought to be a complete revision and review of our foreign policy, tying it in very closely with the needs of populations around the world and how Canada will respond, not to the particular needs of Canada but to the particular needs of the planet.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments remaining I want to make a few remarks on Bill C-2. My hon. friends have expressed support for this bill and I think it will make Canada's welcome to immigrants much better than it was before.
As I sat listening to their remarks, I wanted to bring to the minister's attention a problem which the government's policies have created particularly for the city of Vancouver and, no doubt, for other regions where there are high immigrant levels. The problem is known by the call letters ESL, which stand for "English as a second language". It is one which has been created by the immigration policy of the federal government. It has been brought to the attention of both the federal minister and his predecessor by myself and, I am sure, by others.
We heard earlier about immigrants who do not learn the language, and we understand how that happens at times. The problem arises when children who speak no English attend Canadian schools. The total education program is, of course, delayed while the children are tutored in the English language, and the education of Canadian English-speaking children is held up while that process is taking place. The penalty falls upon those children whose education is delayed, and also upon the taxpayers of regions where immigration is high, because school boards are required to pick up the tab for this "English as a second language" instruction. In the case of Vancouver, the cost complained of by the school board amounts to something like $2 million a year. I just want that to be on the record. There is this problem, and the burden is a heavy one. It is an unfair situation, and the federal government owes it to the regional areas to come up with a solution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Axworthy) agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
On clause 1 -


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Chairman, in the context of Bill C-2 and the whole question of immigrant assistance programs, I would like to raise a rather sensitive issue which leads to some questions which I would like to put to the minister while we have him present.
The matter relates to a quotation that has been brought to my attention in a recent issue of the Indo Canadian Times, published in Vancouver, and dated March 1, 1980. The front page of that issue shows a photograph of the present Prime Minister, and a translation of that article leads to some remarkable information which, to my surprise, never was put before the Canadian people during the recent election campaign. A partial transcript of that article, which is entitled "Efforts to free people who came to visit and gone underground", reads as follows:
Readers would remember that in the last issue at the time of the federal elections some prominent politicians stated that it is the policy of the Liberal Party to free (to grant landed immigrant status) to thousands of visitors who have gone underground, in case they get in power. Now the Liberal party is in power and we are going to form a committee who should take responsibility and in consultation with the heads of various organizations, take a deputation to Ottawa to meet the government and put pressure upon them to achieve this task by this summer.
The task, as rumored within the minister's own department, I understand, is to encourage the government to grant a general immigration amnesty, and to grant it by this summer.
I raise this at this time as a rather sensitive issue, and I hesitate to raise it because all of the speakers this afternoon, myself included, feel that we have much room in this country and much opportunity to continue to attract more and more

April 23, 1980

peoples from other parts of the world to enjoy the bountiful goodness of the Canada we know.
However, we have immigration laws in this country which demand respect. Our public servants are required to enforce these laws, and such a political promise or undertaking makes a travesty of those laws and, in fact, seriously complicates the whole question of all of the antagonisms which surround the immigration policies of our federal government. 1 do not at this time have the names of the prominent Liberal politicians, but I would be very anxious to hear the minister respond and indicate the extent to which he has knowledge of these undertakings, which were never discussed with the public but which, apparently, were used for the sole purpose of gathering votes, making a travesty of our immigration policy in the last general election.
Is the minister aware of an undertaking or a commitment to a general amnesty by certain Liberal politicians; who are these Liberal politicians; and is this not a flagrant abuse of innocent humans in encouraging them to come to this country illegally for the purpose of breaking an existing law which might be changed should a government be replaced?


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. 1 see that it is now 6.05. It may be the wish of the House to allow the Chair not to see the clock or that I call it six o'clock.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. I believe there may be some disposition to dispose of this bill today. Perhaps unanimous consent might be requested for proceeding to third reading after the bill is reported.


Denis Éthier: The parliamentary secretary suggests that there may be unanimous consent to proceed through all stages of this bill. Is that agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 believe the unanimous consent about third reading would have to be obtained with the Speaker in the chair. At the moment I simply suggest that you not see the clock. We shall co-operate.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions I would like to ask of the minister. He may want to reserve his response until a future meeting of the standing committee, but I would like the questions placed on the record now.
The first question which I asked of the minister was, does he have any personal knowledge of certain undertakings made to various ethnic communities in this country, to the effect that some form of amnesty would be granted after the February 18 election to persons coming to this country on visitors' visas, for the purpose of overstaying their presence?
The second question relates to an apparent upsurge in advertising within some countries encouraging the peoples of those countries to apply to Canadian immigration authorities or Canadian consular offices for visitors' visas. Apparently the word going around beneath the surface is that, having come to this country on the basis of such permits, they would then overstay their privilege. I am informed that there is a signifi-
Immigration Act
cant upsurge in travel advertising for that very purpose in some parts of the world.
Third, is the minister aware of this situation through any internal departmental communication? In other words, have his officials advised him about their concern about an upsurge in advertising which is being used to attract people to come to visit in Canada, since February 18?
Finally, would the minister condone a situation which would appear to reward those who enter this country with an illicit purpose, and is he aware that this kind of politicizing of the immigration policies of this country is not only distasteful to many ethnic groups, but also tends to polarize and aggravate the whole question of immigration and strained racial relations which exists in this country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 am somewhat taken aback by the questions raised by the hon. member because this is certainly the first that I have ever heard of any such suggestion or commitment. Frankly, I do not believe it. I have never heard anybody in our party state that there would be a general amnesty for any special group.
I recall-and this is simply from memory-that there was an amnesty declared several years back, prior to the passage of the Immigration Act, with respect to those who had been in the country for a long period of time, but that was a very clean cut period, and it came to an end.
1 can give the hon. member every assurance that there is no amnesty being planned, nor is there one in the planning process, nor is there one being contemplated. I have never heard any reference by anybody in our party or in my department to suggest that that was the case. I would be very pleased to receive from the hon. member a copy of the article to which he referred, to have it examined further and to see what the sources may be. 1 can give the hon. member the assurance, to ease his mind and the minds of others, that that is certainly not the case.
We do have an immigration law, and we are attempting to uphold it. As the hon. member well knows, with the large number of people coming to this country, enforcement is not always easy, but we do have a very effective enforcement branch. I heard in debate today from several other hon. members that some tend to think that our enforcement is too zealous at the present time and that we should, if hon. members will pardon the expression, liberalize it. At the same time, I would say that the amnesty question is something 1 would not want to contemplate, and we do not contemplate it.
As far as the other question about travel advertising is concerned, as the hon. member knows, that is not within the jurisdiction of my department, but I do believe-and this again is recalling from when I was sitting on the other side of the House-that there were some very strenuous attempts made by the previous government, as well as by the government previous to that, to encourage more visitors to Canada in order to provide some offset to the balance of payments losses that we have, and 1 suspect that there is a certain kind of ambition to bring more people to Canada to spend more

April 23, 1980
Immigration Act
money so that the money spent by tourists who leave Canada to go down south can be offset.
Again I assure the hon. member that there is certainly no illicit or ulterior motives behind that, other than to deal with the fiscal balance of payments problems. 1 will certainly take the matter up with the Minister of State (Trade) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ascertain what the advertising is, but 1 would say on the first hand that that would be the purpose of the advertising, not to do anything more than that.
As far as any other illicit purposes are concerned, one of the primary requirements under this act is to ensure that there is an impartiality in the application of the law. That is really the standard 1 intend to apply.
As the hon. member well knows, discretion has been exercised on a variety of grounds, and that is something that is treated with a great deal of care. Various ministers and governments have approached it with somewhat different philosophies, but that is a question of philosophy, not a question of any intention to break the law. It is simply a matter of applying different interpretations. Again I give him every assurance that in the enactment of this provision visas are not given out to visitors with a great deal of abandon. In fact they are given out very charily. As he knows, the changes to the Immigration Act in 1978 require any landed status to take place in a territory outside of Canada, which does provide a substantial check and balance against any abuse.
I think there should be some review. I have heard some very interesting and very helpful comments from members during this debate about how we might ensure that those laws do not abuse people or discriminate against them in reverse. I will take those under close recognition. I am very pleased to have those comments, but any other further purposes I would deny and simply say that we will enforce the law as it is written and try to provide the enforcement of that law with all the compassion we can bring to bear.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to close off this intervention by stating that I will be most pleased to table with the minister copies of the newspaper article. It refers to previous articles or advertisements placed during the election campaign. Apparently certain Liberal politicians made certain undertakings. I would recommend that the minister examine those undertakings to see if they are in accord with the policy of the Liberal party.
It is my understanding from the commitment he has given us today that, as a matter of policy, the Liberal party and this government will not be contemplating any sort of amnesty, general or otherwise, within the tenure of its office. I think there are a lot of people within the country who will appreciate having that assurance, as much as we want to find ways to modify our current immigration policies along the lines suggested by several hon. members this afternoon. I thank the minister very much for that confirmation. I will see that he
gets a copy of as much of the transcript as I have, as well as the original article which is in a language that I cannot read.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, it was my hope that the minister would have wound up the debate on second reading and provided some sort of answers to questions which were not actually in question form. There were a number of comments made to which I think replies were at least suggested. Particularly I am thinking of fhe medical examination situation which I brought to his attention during the debate, whether he has had this brought to his attention by his officials and what assurances he can give us. I do not know whether he is able to do that at this particular time. I would be prepared to leave it to another occasion so that we could receive those assurances. Perhaps the minister could get them overnight from his officials and we could continue Committee of the Whole stage tomorrow.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary to extend the discussion much further because I can give every assurance to the hon. member that I took notice of his comments.
On the question of medical examination, anyone who applies to come into the country, whether through the normal route of immigration or by the special refugee program, is required to have medical examinations while outside the country. Usually they are given by Canadian doctors or people from the health services. Those are most rigorous and are applied to most tests. I am not sure that medical science is at a stage where it can detect all the exotic strains of viruses to which he referred, but I know that the kinds of medical examinations which are required are very, very rigorous. Also I can tell him that once refugees are landed in the staging areas in Canada, they are further subjected to additional medical examinations. In fact, when I visited the staging area at the Greaseback medical base outside of Edmonton, I witnessed the kind of medical review which is required of refugee families coming in there.
Also I should indicate to the hon. member that there is a high degree of consultation with the provincial health services because they have expressed these kinds of concerns. We have had several discussions with them, and they are prepared to provide special facilities or treatments when they are required. I would say to the hon. member it is not always the case that every refugee family or individual that we take is going to be totally able-bodied and totally well in all life and limb. Some of them suffer certain kinds of handicaps. As part of our refugee program, we think that we should have our fair share of those refugees who have those kinds of problems. Provincial health authorities have been most co-operative in ensuring that those kinds of facilities will be available. In fact in discussion with both the health minister in Ontario and the health minister in Alberta, it was indicated that they were prepared to take additional measures above and beyond the normal ones to ensure that there would be proper care facilities available for refugees who have special problems.
I would want to give the member every assurance that to the extent medical science offers us proper detection, we are
April 23, 1980

applying it. If there are further problems which he wants monitored, I will take it up with the department to see if there has been any evidence of anything special occurring. I would be quite glad to communicate that at a later date.


Donald W. Munro: I did not want the minister to leave the impression that it was handicaps or disabilities which were causing the concern. There are actual exotic diseases which are being brought into the country. This could reach proportions which could be rather frightening. For example, internal parasites are something which I would like to think we have been free of in this country, but they could very easily spread with the type of work in which some of these people have been engaged.
I am glad of the assurances. I hope he will go on monitoring and making sure that there is this particular care in the medical health field for these people before they are admissible, and as they come in, to find if there are other diseases that were not detected during the initial investigation. I hope that the co-operation with the provinces will continue as he mentioned.


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member raised the issue of whether there would be a full response to a variety of comments, questions and suggestions that have been made. For the sake of time and the need to get the bill through, I do not intend to provide a response to every individual, although I would say that as the new minister I certainly welcome their contributions. It was a learning experience for me and it will help me in my own duties. I should like to say to members of the House generally that I am glad this bill provided us with an opportunity to air this. What is quite clear is that there are a number of people in this House who not only have an interest but have a great deal of knowledge.
I hope we will be able to have the opportunity at a later stage in the life of this Parliament to have a full discussion on immigration and refugee policies. I remind hon. members that under the new Immigration Act one of the requirements is for this government to consult with the provincial governments in establishing new quotas. Also I indicated publicly that I intend to initiate a variety of consultations with the volunteer sector and other interested parties throughout Canada in order to discuss the general question of the new refugee program or
Business of the House
policy and what we should do about immigration. I am pleased to note today with the good will that has been expressed by members that members of the House of Commons will be able to provide the kind of change of attitude and outlook which will provide us with a base to establish a longer-term immigration and refugee policy. I would say to the member that I hope we will have future opportunities after those consultations are finished.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Lloyd Axworthy: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask the government House leader if he will tell everyone what he has told some of us, that we will be on the employment tax credit bill tomorrow?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all I should like to thank hon. members for letting this bill go through all stages today. Tomorrow we will proceed, as I stated yesterday, with the employment tax credit bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As you said the day before yesterday.


Yvon Pinard: And the day before, also.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand there are no further discussions in the House. It being after six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 22(1).
At 6.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 24, 1980