Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):

Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Communications. He will know that in June of this year his Department sent a letter to a number of Canadian industries which began as follows:

In 1984, the Department of Communications in conjunction with Statistics Canada is planning to conduct a survey on how individuals spend their time, minute-by-minute, over a 24 hour period.

The letter goes on to say that it is proposed to survey 11,000 people in 1984 at a cost of $465,000.

Will the Minister tell the House today that such an outrageous expenditure should be abandoned, and will he say that the letter that he sent to me earlier this week saying that the proposal is still under consideration, should be abandoned as well?

Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):

Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman refers to a time-use survey that was planned by a number of federal agencies, including Stats Canada. I have now had an opportunity of reviewing that proposal to do a time-use survey and decided that it would be inappropriate at the moment.

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. When the special recovery program was announced, Pacific Highway customs facilities in Surrey were part of that list of special targeted programs for fast tracking. The consultant had been hired and had almost finished his report when the program was withdrawn. I believe that was because of the Minister's directive. Another consultant was hired to do the work all over again. I should like to ask the Minister why that happened? Is it his version of fast tracking? If the funds have

October 14, 1983

been withdrawn, to what other part of Canada have they been assigned?

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned in my years in the House is to check that sort of allegation to make sure it is factual. 1 will obviously try to do that within the next couple of days.

Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):

Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism and of his Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice.

In view of the fact that we will be celebrating the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights soon, and considering that the treatment of Japanese Canadians in World War II is a black mark on our history, will the Minister of Justice indicate that progress has been made toward making moral and material restitution to Japanese Canadians? Will he consider, as part of that restitution, the establishment of a Chair of Human Rights or, perhaps in conjunction with the ethnic chairs, a Chair of Japanese Canadian Studies in Canada?

Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):

Madam Speaker, I think there is a general disposition in Canadian society and Parliament to recognize there were serious excesses in the way that Japanese Canadians were treated during the Second World War. As the Hon. Member knows, as a result of the Bird Commission after the war, that was recognized in part by compensation paid to some 1,300 claimants in 1950 for property claims. Of course that does not exhaust the range of possibilities. Once one gets beyond property claims, however, one gets into undefined areas where there can be a considerable amount of disagreement.

As Japanese Canadian spokesmen have said themselves, it is not just or even primarily, a question of compensation. It is something that has to be worked out by our society with the assistance of the Japanese Canadian communities. There is a considerable disagreement still, as I understand it, among members of that community about how we can best make up for the excesses of the past. I think some further maturing time is required for a consensus to develop on the best way to proceed.

Personally, I have no problems with the suggestions made by the Hon. Member, but I do not think at this point we could adopt one suggestion or another.

Report of Special Committee IMMIGRATION

Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the questions put by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton regarding the position of a Member of Parliament who applies anonymously on behalf of an illegal immigrant. If the illegal immigrant is turned down, what is the position of the Member of Parliament regarding his oath to uphold the laws of Canada? Must he report that person, then, to the Immigration Department as an illegal? Has the Minister had a report from the Department of Justice on the position of a Member of Parliament in that particular case?

May I finally ask him why he appointed his Parliamentary Secretary to be the chairman of the committee which decides which illegal immigrants are allowed landed immigrant status and which are not? Why was it not left with the bureaucracy? Why does he bring politics into it now?

Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Madam Speaker, I believe the answer to the first question is that I am not in a position, nor is it customary, to give legal opinions to Hon. Members. The answer to his second question would be that I do not think it appropriate for me to determine or dictate to Hon. Members of Parliament how they perform their duties. It seems to me the procedure for review is there and it is quite proper for a Member of Parliament to bring cases to it. I would leave it entirely up to an Hon. Member's discretion and conscience as to whether he or she think they are acting wisely in taking advantage of that procedure.

To answer the third question, Madam Speaker, the reason why I appointed my Parliamentary Secretary to chair that committee was that I thought it was very useful to add to the bureaucratic assessment the views of the kind of person who is in regular contact with constituents. It seems to me there is in this process not simply a question of bureaucratic determination, but also the application of compassion and political-I do not mean partisan-judgment in the best sense.

Mr. McDermid:

Not at all.

Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):

Madam Speaker, there are seven motions standing in my name, which are

October 14, 1983

Report of Special Committee

reports from the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. The first one would be the fourth report, the second would be the fifth report. I would be grateful if the Chair would call the motion with respect to the fifth report.

I move:

That the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure presented to the House on Thursday, March 3, 1983, be concurred in.

This is the first opportunity, Madam Speaker, that any member of that committee has had to address the House with respect to concurrence in the reports, beyond the third report, setting forth the temporary rules we are living under at the moment. Therefore, in my preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to certain people who have laboured long and hard on the work of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the committee, generally, of parliamentary reform.

The first group I would like to mention is the very distinguished staff of the committee. We had two co-ordinators on the committee, Mr. Alistair Fraser, who was a Clerk of the House, and Mr. John Holtby, who is a distinguished student of Parliament and who learned his craft over many years in the Ontario Legislature. I am so pleased he was able to help our committee in such a competent way. The Clerk's department was represented by Mr. Marcel Pelletier, Mr. Robert Marleau, Mr. Philip Laundy, Mr. David Gussow, Mrs. Susan Baldwin, Lucie Gratton, Hugh Stewart, Nino Travella, Rita Blais-Beaudoin and Marjolaine Morrisette.

The Library of Parliament was represented by Mr. Gerald Schmitz, Mr. Gary Levy, Mr. Bruce Carson, Mr. Louis Mas-sicotte and Mr. Brooke Jeffery. As well-

Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to page 27998 of yesterday's Hansard? The Chairman of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform (Mr. Lefebvre) said the following-this is very short-and I quote:

Madam Speaker, because my position as Chairman of the Committee was brought into question by the words that were spoken, I want to say that there definitely was an understanding by the members of that Committee that these reports-

-and one of these reports is the one the Hon. Member is debating-

-would be arrived at by consensus, that there would be unanimous decisions on the understanding there would be no move to concur in the House.

The Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is betraying his colleagues, the members of the Committee, and he is breaking his word, and in the circumstances I submit, with respect, that he is acting contrary to an understanding among Committee Members and that he should not be heard in the House today, because-

Order.

Mr. Pinard:

Mr. Speaker, I quoted the Chairman of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Procedure who said on the floor of the House yesterday that there was an understanding among Committee Members that there would be no move to concur in the House, including the report the Member for Nepean-Carleton wishes to debate. I can only say that he is betraying his fellow Committee members, that he is out of order and that he does not have the right to move his motion today. I am simply making a point of order, and I ask the Chair to interrupt the debate in order to respect the undertaking that was given and observe, purely and simply-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):

Order, please. I thought the President of the Privy Council was proceeding to a motion of one sort or another. For that reason, I have allowed him to go on. There is nothing coming out of the point being made by the President of the Privy Council. If there is indeed a point of order which he wants to make, I will obviously hear it. However, so far I have not heard a point of order.

[ Translation]