1967-05-31

TRANSPORT


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make concerning the Northumberland strait crossing.
The department has completed the review of the tenders submitted for the first section of the Northumberland crossing. These tenders covered the construction of approximately two miles of causeway, extending from the New Brunswick shore and in a relatively shallow section of the crossing.
All tenders have been carefully analysed. The prices quoted on particular components such as the concrete structure and durable rock are very much higher than anticipated. This wide gap between the estimates and the quotations received indicates that the whole project, as originally designed, would cost a great deal more than anticipated.
For this reason the government has decided not to accept any of the tenders submitted and to reassess the design of the project. One factor adding heavily to the cost of the present design is the inclusion of rails on the crossing. The design of a crossing combining causeway, bridge and tunnel sections was largely determined by the desire to provide both highway and rail transportation on the nine mile link between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Such a design could be greatly simplified by leaving rails off the crossing and continuing to provide rail service by ferry.
With the elimination of rail service all elements of the crossing could be changed. For example, on the causeway portion it will be desirable to re-examine the width, the crest elevation, and the need for the concrete superstructure originally contemplated.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
On the bridge portion the double deck structure designed to carry the two modes of transportation would no longer be required. The reduced loading in providing for highway traffic only permits consideration of longer
spans and fewer pier elements. The design to provide for marine traffic through the crossing would be affected not only because of simplified requirements, but also because of the removal of the controlling railway grades. With freedom to work to the higher permissible highway grades, consideration could be given to a high level bridge section for total free navigation, a review of the tunnel proposal with revised grades and ventilation requirements, and a short high level highway bridge over a lock. These reviews of design will affect the costs of both bridges and causeway and will permit a reassessment of the desirable lengths of each type of structure relative to the varying depths of water.
Before taking the decision not to accept the tenders submitted, the Minister of Transport and I met with Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island and explained to him the considerations involved in this decision. At his request the government has agreed, in its reassessment of design, to examine whether a simplified method of including rails on the crossing would be practicable. It was made clear to the premier that whether or not a decision was finally made to provide rails on the crossing, the government of Canada recognizes that there is an obligation to provide efficient rail service to Prince Edward Island so long as there is any effective demand for such service, and the government has every intention of carrying out that obligation, regardless of the method by which rail cars are transported from the island to the mainland.
Even if a tender award were made now on the basis of bids received for the New Brunswick causeway section, by the time mobilization and preparation of the quarries were completed the progress on actual crossing construction during the 1967 construction season may be more than offset by the improved rate of production in subsequent years consequent on a simplified design. While it is anticipated that the redesign will take several months, this will not necessarily delay completion of the project.
I would like to conclude by reasserting the government's intention to continue with this project. I might add that the causeway approach road on Prince Edward Island will
May 31. 1967

Prince Edward Island Causeway soon be completed, and tenders for construction of a highway interchange at Albany, P.E.I., are expected to be called this summer.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Prince Edward Island will learn of the minister's statement with some apprehension. Although the minister has expressed some hope that the final completion date might still be met, there will be some delay. There is some consolation, of course, in the minister's avowed determination to keep on with the construction of this very important work, because there has been a fear that the project might be dropped entirely.
The possible elimination of rail service from this causeway would have a very important economic effect on Prince Edward Island. I am somewhat assured by the government's recognition of its obligation to continue to provide suitable rail service to Prince Edward Island by one means or another. I hope, along with Premier Campbell, that even yet some feasible way of including rail service on the causeway might be found.
There will be an onus on the government to keep the people of Prince Edward Island, of New Brunswick and indeed the people of Canada advised as fully as possible on the progress of this very important project. We are disappointed, of course, that the construction which it was anticipated would take place this year will not in fact take place. There is considerable cause for worry because of the wide gap between the estimates of costs and the quotations received. We have no guarantee that this will not continue to be the case, regardless of what the new design will be. We would like to be assured that in future estimates of costs will be as accurate as it is possible to make them.
Since I had but very brief advance information with regard to this matter, through no fault of the minister, I think I have nothing more to say at this time. But in the near future, perhaps even today, we might have some questions to ask the minister to further clarify the situation, especially with regard to the submission of Mr. McCulloch to the Department of Public Works and other matters.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this matter is of sufficient importance to the people of Prince Edward Island in particular and the people of Canada in general that very soon the minister ought to call the estimates of the Department of Public Works in order that

the house may have an opportunity to ascertain all the facts and have some discussion of this question.
The primary purpose in building a causeway was to enable the people of Prince Edward Island to eliminate the ferrying of rail traffic and to bring out their goods directly. The building of a causeway without adequate rail facilities in my opinion is not going to solve the problem which faces the people of Prince Edward Island. There has been some suggestion of a good deal of incompetence which resulted in the gap between the estimates of the department for the project and the bids quoted by the various construction firms. The department can be out a small percentage in its estimates but it ought not to be as far out as the minister seems to indicate.
I think for this reason the whole matter ought to be reviewed. To go to the expense of building a causeway without providing adequate rail facilities on that causeway is to do only half the job. I think the House of Commons should have an opportunity to discuss this matter before the government commits itself any further.



PRESENCE IN GALLERIES OF U.S. TELEVISION PERFORMERS

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to draw the attention of the members of the house to the presence in the ladies' gallery of more than one hundred television performers and writers from the United States who are in Ottawa today as guests of the centennial commission. Accompanying them is Mr. Fisher, and there are some in the Speaker's gallery with Mr. Rogers of the Department of External Affairs. They are also visiting Quebec city, Montreal, Expo and Toronto. I hope all hon. members will join with me in bidding them a warm welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]



CANADA DAY


Mr. Yves Forest (Stanstead) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-124, an act respecting Canada Day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
May 31. 1967


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is being reintroduced, simply tends to amend the present act under which the 1st of July is called "Dominion Day", by substituting thereto the words "Canada Day", which is a more appropriate name and more consistent with our present constitutional status.
In addition, this time the bill provides that in the future the holiday will be observed on the first Monday of July.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-125, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, for the last three years the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I and others in our party have attempted to obtain some declaration from the government on the establishment of straight base lines for the protection of our territorial sea and fishing zones. We have had no success. The purpose of the bill is to establish by law instead of by negotiations straight base lines for the British Columbia coasts enclosing and including Queen Charlotte sound, Hecate strait and Dixon entrance. This will permit the parliament of Canada to have a say in the location in our territorial sea and fishing zones and will prevent the government from selling us out.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	How many miles will the centennial train travel throughout Canada?
2.	How many stops will the centennial train make in each province?
3.	How many miles will the centennial train travel on each different railroad?
4.	What is the name of the railway company supplying the engines for the centennial train?
Questions
5.	How much did the six exhibits cost the centennial commission?
6.	Is picture taking allowed inside the centennial train and, if not, for what reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	The confederation train will travel 12,054 miles during 1967.
2.	The confederation train will make the following number of exhibit stops in the following provinces: British Columbia, 11; Alberta, 8; Saskatchewan, 6; Manitoba, 7; Ontario, 18; Quebec, 18; Nova Scotia, 6; P.E.I., 2; New Brunswick, 2.
3.	The train will travel 6,544 miles on Canadian National Railways trackage and 5,510 miles on Canadian Pacific Railway trackage.
4.	The Canadian Pacific and Canadian Na-tionl Railways each supply one diesel for the train.
5.	Final costs are not yet available. The following figures represent agreed estimates: exit.bits for the six exhibit coaches, $600,000, purchase of six exhibit coaches from C.P.R. modified for exhibit purposes, $623,450.
6.	Picture taking is not permitted on the train for a number of reasons. The primary one is that if the visitors were permitted to take pictures in the exhibit coaches, the flow of traffic in and out of the train would be hindered. Considering that between 10 and 11 thousand people per day have been visiting the train, the smooth flow of traffic is of prime importance to the successful operation of the train.


REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT PARKING PERMIT
Mr. Caoueife: What requirements must an employee meet and comply with to obtain a parking permit on government property (a) on parliament hill (b) on Confederation building grounds (c) on Supreme Court grounds?

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): (a) The Department of Public Works has provided 391 parking spaces on parliament hill. Of these the parking administrator for the House of Commons has assigned 17 spaces to cabinet ministers, 106 to members of parliament and members of the press gallery. The parking administrator for the Senate has assigned 14 spaces for the use of senators. The Department of Public Works has reserved 20 spaces for the essential parking of vehicles belonging to the crown, to tradesmen or to business visitors to the hill.

May 31. 1967
Questions
The remaining 234 spaces are assigned to employees on parliament hill by the parking administrators respectively of the House of Commons, the Senate, the Privy Council and the Department of External Affairs on a priority basis having regard to the employee's seniority, the distance to his place of residence and his physical condition, (b) There are 95 parking spaces available on the roadways adjacent to the Confederation building and in the rear court yard. Of these 14 are in use for essential parking of vehicles belonging to the crown, to tradesmen or to business visitors to the building. The remaining spaces are assigned to employees by the parking administrators concerned, having regard to the employee's seniority, his physical condition, the use of his car on government business and the distance to his place of residence, (c) There are 282 parking spaces available on the roadways adjacent to the Supreme Court and in the Supreme Court garage. Of these 13 are in use by the Judges of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts, 118 are in use by crown-owned vehicles and 5 are allotted for the essential parking of business visitors to the building. The remaining spaces are assigned to employees as in (b) above.


PARKING FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS EMPLOYEES
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Does the federal government intend to solve soon the parking problem of House of Commons employees?
2.	Are any studies under way at present with a view to solving this problem?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2. Consultants are working on the design of a parking garage to be built adjacent to the west side of parliament hill. It is intended to start construction in the near future.


SALES BETWEEN CANADA AND U.S. UNDER DEFENCE SHARING
Mr. Starr: 1.	What were the total sales by Canada to the United States under the defence production sharing agreement?
2.	What were the total sales to Canada by the United States under same?
3.	How many firms participated in Canada in the production of materials for the United States under the defence production sharing agreement?
4.	What are the names of these firms?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	Estimated at $1,491,000,000 since the program commenced in 1959.
2.	Estimated at $1,314,000,000 since the program commenced in 1959.
3.	The Department of Defence Production has official records of only those purchases made directly by the United States department of defence through the Canadian Commercial Corporation. These are estimated to represent less than 40 per cent of the total annual volume of contracts received under the program, the balance comprising purchases made on a direct sub-contract basis between U.S. prime contractors and Canadian suppliers. This latter group represents several hundred large and small Canadian firms which are not compelled by law to provide production information to D.D.P., and who, in turn, may have second and third tier subcontractors for the supply of parts, materials, and services necessary to the fulfillment of their contracts with U.S. contractors. Thus the impact of such purchases is so diffused throughout Canadian industry that accurate identification of the numbers and names of the companies involved is not possible. Through the period since commencement of the defence production sharing program in 1959, it is roughly estimated that over 500 Canadian firms and 10 universities have executed prime contracts or direct subcontracts for the U.S. defence department.
4.	In view of the varying factors outlined in part 3, it is not possible to provide a listing of companies which is complete or accurate.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY EMBANKMENT
Mr. Coates: 1.	What firms or Individuals are associated with Northumberland consultants and what fee did they receive for the study carried out into the feasibility of constructing the N.B.-P.E.I. causeway?
2.	What was the estimate of the causeway embankment as set out in the study prepared for the government by Northumberland consultants and what was the amount of the lowest tender received by the government?
3.	Will materials from Malignant Cove be used by the low bidder on the causeway embankment if then tender is accepted by the government?
4.	If materials are to be moved from Malignant Cove to the site of the causeway embankment, is it the intention of the Department of Public Works, or the federal government, to construct the necessary facilities at Malignant Cove and, if so, what would be the estimated cost of these facilities?
Mar 31, 1967

5.	Were concrete tetrapods included among the materials to be used by the low bidder on the causeway embankment and, if so, how would the cost of these concrete tetrapods compare with natural armour stone?


George James McIlraith: 1. (a) The firms associated with Northumberland Consultants Limited are:
H.	G. Acres and Company Limited; Canadian British Engineering Consultants; Lange-vin, Letendre, Monti and Associates, (b) The fee paid was $375,000. In addition, the consultants costs in an amount of $1,852,515 was paid. Costs include approved daily rates for staff, payments to independent consultants and contractors for surveys and borings, expenses for telephone, telegrams, printing, travel, temporary offices, etc.
2.	Estimated cost in 1965 of causeway embankment 16,740 feet long given in feasibility study $30.4 million. Amount of lowest tender was $42,980,000 for a length of about 12,000 feet of causeway.
3.	Information from lowest tenderer was that they did not plan to use Malignant Cove materials.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) The cost of protecting the causeway with tetrapods is less than an equivalent causeway protected by armour stone.


ADDITIONAL WORK FOR ENAMEL AND HEATING LTD.
Mr. Coates: Has additional work been placed with the aircraft division of Enamel and Heating Products Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia, to that originally contracted for, from January 1, 1967, to April 30, 1967, and, if so, what was the estimated value of this additional work and what was the additional number of man hours?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer is as follows. In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned, no additional work was placed with the aircraft division of Enamel and Heating Products Limited during the period January
I,	1967, to April 30, 1967.


LAYING OF WREATH BY QUEEN AT CENOTAPH, OTTAWA
Mr. Groos: 1.	When Her Majesty the Queen of Canada visits Ottawa on July 1, 1967, is it part of her intended program that she should lay a memorial wreath at the national cenotaph, in remembrance of the fallen?
Questions
2.	If so, is it intended that representatives of ex-servicemen's and ex-servicewomen's groups should be present for the occasion?
3.	If so, in order to preclude any suggestion that this is an event of purely local significance, will the government ensure that representatives of ex-servicemen's and ex-servicewomen's groups are chosen and brought to Ottawa from all provinces in Canada. to be in attendance at this memorable event in our centennial year?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 is also yes.
The answer to part 3 is, in accordance with established policy invitations are only extended to veterans organizations which are national in character to send a representative to any ceremony at which Her Majesty lays a memorial wreath in remembrance of the fallen. The choice of the representative rests entirely with each organization, which bears any expenses which might arise relative to their representative's attending the wreath laying ceremony.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Hales: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the five members on the company of young Canadians council appointed by the government?
2.	How many volunteers to the CYC have agreed to serve for two years, and how many volunteers left before their two years were up?
3.	How much money has been paid to volunteers since the act was established in July, 1966?
4.	How many honorariums have been paid on completion of voluntary service, and what was the total cost of these honorariums?
5.	What is the rent paid for each regional office of the CYC, and (a) where are these offices located (b) what is the total cost of maintaining each regional office?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. All 14 members of the provisional council were appointed by the governor in council. Their names and addresses are: Miss Jean Archibald, 5429 Inglis Street, Apt. 200, Halifax, Nova Scotia. M. Normand Asselin, 45 Somerset Street West, Apt. 4, Ottawa, Ontario. Mr. Wally Kubiski, Apt. 108, 249 Talbot Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba. M. Rodolphe Lafresnaye, Bureau d'Amenagement du Bas St-Laurent, 552, rue Lafontaine, Riviere-du-Loup, P.Q. M. Marc Lalonde, Special Advisor to the Prime Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa 4, Ontario. Mr. Ed Lavallee, 329 Somerset Street East, Ottawa

May 31. 1967
Questions
2, Ontario. Miss Bevonne Patterson, Dean of Women, University of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta. Mr. R. A. J. Phillips, Director, Special Planning Secretariat, Privy Council Office, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa 4, Ontario. Mr. Tim Reid, Department of Economics, York University, Toronto 12, Ontario. Mr. William Rompkey, Director of Labrador Affairs, P.O. Box 280, Happy Valley, Labrador. Mr. Lloyd Shaw, 1690 Armsview Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Rev. Pere Roland Soucie, Directeur de l'Ecole de Psychologie et Education, University de Moncton, Moncton, N.B. Mr. Douglas Ward, 365 Friel Street, Ottawa 2, Ontario. Miss Juanita Westmoreland, 6373 Bannantyne, Verdun 19, P.Q.
2.	All volunteers who sign contracts with the company, 95 in number, agree to serve for two years. As of April 30, 18 volunteers had resigned.
3.	Volunteer allowances until April 30, 1967 amounted to $122,846.17.
4.	Twelve honoraria have been paid, in the amount of $3,690.
5.	(a) Regional office addresses and annual rent: Atlantic region; Rent, $2,640.00. Address: Lord Nelson Hotel, Spring Garden Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Quebec Region: Rent, $5,428.00. Address: 980 St. Antoine, Room 450, Montreal, Quebec. Ontario Region: Rent, $2,280.00 (2nd floor), $2,160.00 (1st floor). Address:
1 Admiral Road, Toronto, Ontario. Western Region: Rent, $2,371.00. Address: Third Floor, Commercial Bldg., 169 Pioneer Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba. B.C. Region: Rent, $1,800. Address: No. 3, 1929 West Broadway, Vancouver, B.C.
5.	(b) Maintenance costs are included in rent.


GRATUITY TO MILITARY MEDAL RECIPIENTS, WORLD WAR I
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Veterans Affairs to make a gratuity available for recipients of the military medal granted for services in the Canadian Forces in World War I, on the same basis as those granted to service personnel recipients of this medal in World War II?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	If so (a) what is the amount of the gratuity to be provided (b) will it be an annual gratuity (c) will it be retroactive?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is no.

The answer to the second part is, it was agreed among the governments of the Commonwealth that the United Kingdom would assume responsibility for all recommendations for world war I decorations for gallantry and medals carrying financial awards, and the responsibility for the payment of these awards, on the ground that they had been authorized by royal warrant.
This matter has been considered on a number of occasions but it has been felt that Canada should not take unilateral action to institute such payments.
The answer to part 3 is, not applicable.


PRODUCERS OF DRUG MYXIN
Mr. Brand: 1.	Which company has been awarded the right to produce the drug myxin?
2.	What are the main terms of the production agreement?
3.	Which personnel were involved In the process of decision leading to the award of production rights for myxin?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer to the first part is, licensing arrangements have been made with Ayerst, McKenna & Harrison Limited of Montreal for the development, manufacturing and marketing of the antibiotic drug myxin.
The answer to part 2 is, the essential criteria used in selecting a licensee, which are reflected in the agreement, are as follows: 1. The ability to perform or have performed the necessary development work. 2. The extent to which the development work can and will be carried out in Canada. 3. That the applicant will manufacture or arrange to manufacture in Canada to supply world markets, except as otherwise authorized by Canadian Patents Development Limited to the maximum extent possible. 4. Willingness to guarantee adequate expenditures on development within stated periods to ensure active development is reflected in the agreement with the licensee.
The answer to part 3 is, Canadian Patents Development Limited made the decision regarding the award of production rights for myxin. In arriving at this decision, Canadian Patents Development Limited, used the above criteria.


CONTRACTS TO HALIFAX SHIPYARDS FOR NAVAL VESSELS
Mr. McCleave: What contracts have been awarded by the Department of Defence Production since April 8, 1963, to
May 31. 1967

Halifax shipyards for the construction of vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy, and what are the amounts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer to this question, Mr. Speaker, is none.


DEMOLITION OF ROXBOROUGH BUILDING. OTTAWA
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What companies originally submitted bids on the demolition of the Roxborough building, Ottawa?
2.	Did these companies submit their original bids as a result of a public advertisement and, if not, what was the basis of selection for companies to submit bids?
3.	What was the amount of the bid submitted by each company?
4.	What companies submitted bids following the second call for tenders, and what was the amount of each bid?
5.	What were the changes in specifications between the first and second call for bids?
6.	Who was awarded the contract?
7.	Did this contractor complete the job and, if not, what was the reason for the failure to complete the job and how much was paid to this contractor for the work done?
8.	Who completed the demolition job and how much did this company receive for the job?


George James McIlraith: 1. Cohen & Cohen Limited, Teper-man & Sons Limited, Ottawa (joint bid). Beaver Demolition, Montreal. Panzini Limited, Montreal. Palmer-Levitan Limited, Hull.
2.	Yes.
3.	Cohen & Cohen Ltd., and Teperman & Sons Ltd. $138,400. Beaver Demolition, $143,600. Panzini Limited, $164,500. Palmer-Levitan Limited, $169,370.
4.	Leopold Fournier, Ottawa, $19,991. Eastern Demolishers Ltd., Ottawa, $21,000. Arrow Wrecking, Ottawa, $24,500. Hugh M. Grant Ltd., Ottawa, $34,000. F. Thibault Lumber & Wrecker Limited, Hull, $34,440. Boulevard Demolishers, Hull, $34,800. Elgin Wrecking Co. Ltd., Toronto, $47,365. Panzini Limited, Montreal, $57,000. Greenspoon Bros. Ltd., Port Credit, $58,000. Advance Lumber and Wrecking Co. Ltd., Toronto, $67,974. Palmer-Levitan Ltd., Hull, $68,000. Harvey et Fils Ltee., St. Hubert, $77,770. Beachwood Steel Supply Ltd., and J. A. Cronier Co. Ltd., Eastview, $83,900. St. Pierre Construction Ltd., London, Ont., $88,000.
5.	The following changes:
Security Deposit: Whereas the first tender call required that a security deposit of $15,000, in the form of a certified cheque,
Questions
accompany the tender, the second tender call did not contain any special security clause, i.e.-for tenders under $25,000 no security need accompany the tender. For tenders over $25,000, a 10 per cent security was called for.
Insurance: The first tender call required the contractor to provide proof of public liability and property damage insurance coverage under which the contractor and the crown would be mutually insured, the amount of such coverage being not less than $500,000. In the second tender call, this was changed to conform to the standard practice whereby the contractor was required to maintain an insurance contract of the type known and referred to by the Canadian Underwriters' Association as a builder's risk policy, insuring the work for its full insurable value only.
Time Allowance: Eight weeks only were allowed for the complete demolition at the time of the first tender call. This was extended to twelve weeks in the second call for tenders with an allowance of two weeks in which to commence work following award of contract.
Disposal of Debris: Arrangements were made in the second tender call only for the contractor to use the National Capital Commission disposal site at Nepean bay in the Bayswater-Wellington street area. This arrangement pertained to earth and masonry fill not contaminated by metals, plaster or combustibles. The use of the parking area east of the demolition site was also made available to bidders for storage and marketing of salvageable materials. In the initial tender call, the contractor was required to make his complete arrangements for a dumping site.
6.	Eastern Demolishers Limited, 1070 Cyr-ville Hoad, Ottawa.
7.	The contractor, Eastern Demolishers Ltd. did not complete the job. Failure to complete the job was due to unsatisfactory performance and the subsequent cancellation of the contract, by the department, following the contractor's loss of insurance coverage with the company with whom the contractor was insured. Nothing was paid to this contractor for the work they had done.
8.	The demolition job was completed by
J.	A. Cronier Company Limited, 53 Young Street, Ottawa, and Beachwood Steel Supply Limited, 100 McArthur Road, Eastview, joint bid, at a cost of $29,985, 38 calendar days after the specified completion date.

May 31. 1967
Questions


DEMOLITION OF OLD PRINTING BUREAU, OTTAWA
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What companies submitted bids on the demolition of the old printing bureau in Ottawa?
2.	Did these companies submit their original bids as a result of a public advertisement and, if not, what was the basis of selection for companies to submit bids?
3.	What was the amount of the bid submitted by each company?
4.	Which company was awarded the contract?


George James McIlraith: 1. Cohen & Cohen Limited, Ottawa. Hugh M. Grant Limited, Ottawa. Teperman & Sons Limited, Ottawa. Greenspoon Bros. Limited, Toronto. Palmer-Levitan Limited, Hull. Hurdman Bros. Limited, Ottawa.
2.	These companies submitted their original bids as a result of an invited tender call. Firms selected to bid were those considered most likely to have the equipment and work force available to do the work within the specified time, and capable of quickly obtaining bonding and financing to enter into and complete the contract under difficult timing and safety conditions.
3.	Cohen & Cohen Limited, $92,777. Hugh M. Grant Limited, $99,000. Teperman & Sons Limited, $102,420. Greenspoon Bros. Limited, $115,000. Palmer-Levitan Limited, $117,200. Hurdman Bros. Limited, $119,750.
4.	Cohen & Cohen Limited, 1963 Merivale Road, Ottawa.


VETERANS AFFAIRS SALARIES TO NURSES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Are different wage rates paid to nurses employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs depending on the areas across Canada in which they serve?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2. Pay rates applicable on appointment of employees classified at the nurse 1 level are dependent upon the location and experience of the appointee. In addition, the pay plan for these employees provides different maximum rates dependent upon location.
This pay plan is based on data furnished by the pay research bureau following a national survey of nursing salaries. It substantiated the differing pay levels in effect at various locations.
Nurses employed in classifications higher than nurse 1 are paid within uniform ranges throughout Canada.



WATER SUPPLY, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION

["It being six o'clock, the hour for the consideration of private members business has expired."]
George James McIlraith: The answer to part 1 of this question is yes, by well system on penitentiary property at a cost of $82,252. As to the second part of the question, the present well water supply is satisfactory. The third part of the question is not applicable.



Mr. Caoueiie: Are the minutes of the board meetings of the crown corporations listed in schedule D of the Financial Administration Act submitted to the minister responsible?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion for production of papers No. 6 is acceptable to the government.
Motion for production of papers No. 1 is acceptable to the government, provided the authorities of the province of Nova Scotia agree.
Would Your Honour be so kind as to call motion No. 4?
I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


PROPOSED SOUTHERN ROUTE, CAPE BRETON ISLAND
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the federal government, any crown corporations or federally sponsored organizations
May 31. 1967
or agencies and the government of the province of Nova Scotia concerning the proposed project hitherto known as the "Southern Route" in Cape Breton Island between January 1960 and January 1967.
Motion agreed to.
NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING Motion No. 4-Mr. MacDonald (Prince):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all charts, maps, plans, specifications, diagrams and surveys produced by Northumberland consultants for the Department of Public Works in connection with the construction of the Northumberland strait crossing and an analysis of same by the department as well as regulations, tenders and contracts issued by the department and all communications exchanged between the government of Canada and its departments and the government of Prince Edward Island and its departments relative to the proposed construction of the Northumberland strait crossing.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that this motion asks for the production of all charts, maps, plans, specifications, diagrams and surveys produced by Northumberland Consultants for the Department of Public Works in connection with the construction of the Northumberland strait crossing, and for analyses of the same by the department. Then it asks for regulations, tenders and contracts issued by the department. Third, it asks for communications exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island.
The materials produced by Northumberland consultants for the department and the studies and analyses of the same by the department are departmental papers which it has not been the custom to produce, and they are privileged. However, the pre-tender information and the tender documents issued by the department can be produced. Similarly the communications exchanged between the government of Canada and its departments and the government of Prince Edward Island and its departments relative to the proposed crossing can be produced subject, of course, to the consent of the province.


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: If the minister would also agree to produce the hydrographic survey which is germane to these other matters, I would agree.


George James McIlraith: That is one of the surveys produced for the department for its own information. It is not the practice to produce it. I would have no objection to discussing this
Inquiries of the Ministry matter later, separately, but it should not be produced on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 4 be adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Yanakis:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of al correspondence, telegrams or copies of correspondence concerning rural route No. 1, Mande-ville, Quebec, exchanged between the Post Office Department and the federal member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, or any other persons of the said constituency, between January 1, 1955, and April 1967?
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on television last evening to the effect that Canada would be prepared to contribute armed forces to United Nations operations in the Middle East in circumstances similar to those of Korea, would the right hon. gentleman tell the house in as much detail as is appropriate the nature of the government's plans in this regard; and will he also tell us whether parliament will be consulted before troops are sent to any Middle East conflict?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Perhaps this question is of sufficient importance to warrant my reading to the house exactly what I did say. What I said, and I am reading from the text, was that if there was a decision of the United Nations-and I explained that this was a decision of the security council, which would mean it was a decision of the permanent members of the security council acting all together-that there was an aggressor, and that the aggressor should be stopped, then we, that is Canada, would have to play our part.
I indicated as evidence that we do play our part in carrying out our obligations under the United Nations the fact that we sent troops to Korea for that purpose, joining other United Nations forces in resisting aggression. This is a decision that would be taken in the circumstances I mentioned; and before any action

788	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry was taken to implement that decision, as was the case with Korea, parliament naturally would be consulted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement the Prime Minister has just read, may I ask him is the Canadian representative on the security council making any suggestions along the lines contained in the Prime Minister's statement of last evening?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not in respect of any action at all that might be determined as aggression, because that is not what the security council is dealing with. It is not dealing with aggression; it is dealing with a situation that must be prevented from causing a war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask what position Canada is taking in an attempt to ensure free access to the gulf of Aqaba? Is the government making any proposals before the security council, or making any representations either now or in the immediate future?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the security council will be meeting this afternoon at three o'clock. The particular question of innocent passage is not immediately before the council. This is the issue, of course, that provokes the serious and critical situation that exists.
The United States and the United Kingdom have tabled a resolution this morning calling upon the parties, in the language of the Secretary General, to forgo belligerence, to exercise all other forms of restraint and to engage in diplomacy to try to bring about an easing of the situation. It is not clear whether this resolution, the importance of which is emphasized by the use of the word "belligerence" which was contained in the Secretary General's report, will be voted on today or whether there will be other resolutions. Until this matter has been disposed of it is not possible or desirable at this stage to deal with the substantive question.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplemental question. In view of the unfortunate circumstance of some 750,000 Arab refugees in the Middle East, has consideration been given to a United Nations plan, in co-operation with the state of Israel, with other states and with private agencies to settle these people permanently and satisfactorily?

DEBATES	May 31, 1967


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, Canada annually contributes first of all a large sum of money toward the United Nations relief and works agency. The question of final location of the refugees is, of course, a matter for individual governments, but the United Nations has been most active in trying to bring about a solution with regard to this very serious aspect of the problem.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Considering that the question of provincial versus federal jurisdiction over offshore mineral rights is still before the Supreme Court, could the minister explain in what context this question will be among the first subjects to be considered by the newly appointed commission on revision of the constitution?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minisler of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is correct to say it would be among the first questions. If the hon. member is referring to a statement I made yesterday, I indicated that all these constitutional questions were interrelated, and I gave offshore mineral rights as an example of the kind of question which would determine priorities in the study of other questions which were related to the solution which might come from the Supreme Court decision.


MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Friday last, as recorded at page 604 of Hansard, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister said this with regard to Mr. Justice Landre-ville:
However, there will certainly be a statement on the matter not later than next Wednesday.
I am wondering if the government is now in a position to give that statement.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice could answer that question.
May 31. 1967


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to that question which was asked last Friday. It is my understanding that when the other place reconvenes on June 6 notice will be given of the intention to introduce a resolution in accordance with section 99 of the British North America Act for the adoption of a joint address to His Excellency the Governor General requesting the removal of Mr. Justice Leo Landreville from the office of judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario. In the event that the address is adopted in that place it will then be brought before this house for its consideration.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the minister tell the house if he has been in touch with the French government to find out the terms of the France-Quebec agreement on communications by satellite, which has been so strongly criticized by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, our ambassador has, of course, been in touch with the Quai d'Orsay and with the premier of Quebec, whom he saw several times during his stay in Paris; the government is therefore well informed about that matter.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister. Has the government any information as to any plans by Canadian National Railways to discontinue rail passenger service in Newfoundland?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question for the Minister of Transport.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


STATUS OF PERSONS VOLUNTEERING ASSISTANCE TO ISRAEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and may I say, sir, an answer is vitally necessary because of increasing inquiries which are coming to the attention of hon. members of the house. Can the minister advise the house when he contemplates being able to make known the passport and citizenship position of Canadians who are desirous of volunteering their services in a civilian or military capacity to the state of Israel?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of that question in order to examine the implications of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the practice in Canada with regard to this matter.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct i't to the acting minister. In view of the short notice and the preoccupation of farmers at the moment with spring seeding and other agricultural commitments, will the minister give consideration to ordering a deferment of the hearing scheduled for June 22 by the Board of Transport Commissioners into the Canadian Pacific Railway's request for abandonment of a branch line service in the Boissevain subdivision in Manitoba?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the ordinary procedure would be for those appearing in opposition to ask for that deferment, but I shall pass the hon. member's request along to the Board of Transport Commissioners.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In the light of the recent appointment of Mr. Goldenberg and Professor

May 31, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Head as special counsel on the constitution may we expect that a white paper or other statement on the position of the federal government on the revision of the constitution will be made available for consideration by parliament, or by a special committee of parliament, as indicated, I think, from time to time by the Prime Minister?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I have always taken the position, and I think it has been the position of the government, that there was no urgency to submit any papers on the constitution for debate in parliament; and the nomination yesterday of Dr. Goldenberg, that very eminent counsel, has not changed the position with respect to urgency.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell us whether it is proposed to submit to parliament before the meeting with the provincial premiers on July 5 any proposals concerning a constitutional bill of rights which the Prime Minister mentioned in the house, I believe, on May 10.


Mr. Trudeau:: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer to this question is similar to the answer to the preceding question. Apart from that, the meetings on July 5 are informal meetings between the premiers and the Prime Minister. I do not think it would be necessary or proper to debate the subject in question.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Has an agreement been reached between the federal government and the Quebec provincial government concerning the implementation of the E.Q.D.B., and if so, when will a formal agreement be signed by both governments?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: As I announced last Sunday, at Chandler, Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still going on and if nothing goes wrong, we should be ready to sign the agreement next September or October.
[Mr. Brewin.)


TELEVISION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Royal): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would parallel the bold concept inherent in satellite television communication by referring the subject to a committee made up of members from the committees on broadcasting and transport rather than to a royal commission as suggested by his colleague the Secretary of State, thus allowing himself perhaps to be surprised at the quality of work a committee of parliament might produce.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-REAPPRAISAL OF DESIGN On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister advise whether his department has concluded its examination of the McCulloch report on the Northumberland strait crossing and whether Mr. McCulloch's services will be utilized in the reappraisal of the crossing design which the minister announced today.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question in the form asked is no; but that, perhaps because of its very brevity, is a less perfect answer than it should be. Over the past two months certain questions were asked concerning the commentary made public by Mr. McCulloch. I have an answer on that subject. It is rather longer than the type of answer which should be made on orders of the day, and perhaps tomorrow I could give it on motions. I think that would be a more appropriate and more satisfactory procedure.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, now that the riding of Hull has selected its representative, could the Minister of Industry and Defence Production or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, tell us since when the printing bureau has moved to Ottawa, as
May 31. 1967	COMMONS
the address on parliamentary documents is the following: "Mr. Roger Duhamel, Queen's Printer, Ottawa"? We, members of the house have always thought that the printing bureau was in Hull.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member's question is acceptable.


Mr. Auguste Choqueile (Lofbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Would the minister inform his department that the House of Commons has found the hon. member for Sainte-Marie?


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The urgency of this matter was indicated by the appearance of the farmers on parliament hill last Wednesday. Did all audit bureau circulation and sworn circulation papers covering rural areas receive the Canadian Dairy Commission advertisement outlining dairy policy?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the advertisements were placed in those areas which had the most considerable coverage for dairy producers and where the money would thus be most economically spent.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture in respect of the publication in the west of advertisements respecting the dairy policy. I am wondering why he did not see fit to put it in the Western Producer and Family Herald which have a wide coverage among farm families of western Canada.


John James Greene: 1 will check into that, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	791
Inquiries of the Ministry QUEBEC-REQUEST THAT EGG IMPORTS BE REDUCED
On the orders of the day:


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet-

in answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, I wish to say that there were recently egg importations from the United States in Quebec as well as in other provinces, in accordance with the normal terms established in the trade and on account of the price relationship between the United States and Canada.
Those shipments met with the importation standards already established and were subject to customs duties and other importation charges.
By the way, I wish to point out that egg production in Canada, up to now, has exceeded that of last year by about 8 per cent.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
What steps does the minister intend to take in order to grant the egg producers a suitable price?


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister responsible for housing. In view of the continuing housing crisis in Canada could the minister tell the house whether before a summer recess we may expect legislation in the terms so eloquently outlined by the defeated Liberal candidate in Sudbury?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I cannot accept the premise put forward by the hon. gentleman as to there being a housing crisis. There are housing problems in one or two centres in Canada, but in my view the term "crisis" is no longer applicable.

May 31. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Registrar General. Could he advise the house what progress has been made in establishing a Canadian securities and exchange commission? If progress has been made in this regard, when may we expect this desirable objective to be achieved?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the regulation of securities in Canada will be dealt with at the next federal-provincial conference which is to be held in Toronto in mid June.


VANCOUVER-INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO INCREASE HANDLING CAPACITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the report of the British Columbia research council to the effect that the port of Vancouver is operating at the limit of its capacity in respect of the handling of grain, is the government taking any steps or has the government any plans to increase the capacity to alleviate this bottleneck in export deliveries of Canadian grain?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, grain has been moving very satisfactorily through the port of Vancouver. I was in touch with the authorities there as recently as this morning. There is no bottleneck. If there is any impediment in this regard we will certainly look into the matter.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. As the minister probably is aware, some of the lobster fishermen in district 7B have suffered a severe loss of gear by reason of a storm which took place very shortly after the season opened. District 7B, of course, is an area where the lobster fishing regulations

are restrictive. Will the fishermen be able to replace the traps which have been lost, and has an arrangement been made whereby these traps can be replaced without another application?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time this problem has been brought to my attention. I can assure the hon. gentleman that in no circumstance would we prevent fishermen from replacing traps which have been lost due to storms.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the government received recent representations from the city of Vancouver requesting the use of the Department of National Defence lands at Jericho for park and recreational purposes? If so, will the minister grant this request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waierloo South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received any information to the effect that the International Nickel Company of Canada is restricting the supply of nickel for use in Canada. If so, what action is the government taking to ensure that the needs of Canadian industry will be met?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. gentleman might wish to place that question on the order paper.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, there is an urgency to this question since a number of industries in Canada are affected by the shortage and there is a possibility of lay-offs unless a correction takes place in this industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member realizes that he can place the question on the list of matters to be debated at the time of adjournment.
May 31. 1967	COMMONS


PARLIAMENT HILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to address this question to the Minister of Public Works, but I shall address it to any minister who wishes to take it under his wing. I ask this question because of certain comments I have heard from visitors to parliament hill. In order that these visitors may be informed as to all functions taking place on parliament hill, would the minister consider placing a bulletin board at the main entrances to the grounds which would contain notices of functions for that and the next day?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to take this question under advisement, Mr. Speaker. Naturally notices of that kind would have to be in both languages.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell the house whether the chairman and members of the C.L.R.B. are bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question is in order.


PERMISSION TO C.B.C. EMPLOYEES TO JOIN UNION OF CHOICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell the house whether the C.L.R.B. has decided to make it easier for the C.B.C. employees to exercise their right to belong to a union of their choice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is in order and, if it is, it could be put on the order paper.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	793
Inquiries of the Ministry
[English}


EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO REOPENING OF CHINESE PAVILION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question with regard to the unfortunate fire in the Chinese pavilion at Expo. Has the minister received any assurance that this pavilion will be rebuilt?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government of the Republic of China intends to rebuild it. The nationalist Chinese pavilion was not damaged as much as was at first feared. The restaurant, for example, was scarcely damaged and will be reopened in a short time. The structure of the building itself was not badly damaged. I understand it can be opened again, and will be reopened within a month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


REPORTED THREATS TO DAMAGE CUBAN PAVILION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have what is in a sense a question related to the last one asked. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question in connection with the threats of anti-Cuban extremists in the United States against the Cuban pavilion at Expo. Is the minister aware of these threats, and is he considering the situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with my colleagues the Solicitor General and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Solicitor General has the matter in hand.


APPRECIATION FOR PERFORMANCE BY RED ARMY CHORUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I do not presume to speak for all members of this house, but I certainly can speak for those who heard the Red Army chorus in the hall of parliament this afternoon. We are obliged to you, sir, for making this visit possible and appreciate it very much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
May 31, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-
Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for making it possible for the minister to leave the house. Perhaps she is tired of hearing me speak for the third time in three days.
I assure her and my colleagues that I am not going to make a habit of this. I think even the minister would have to acknowledge that the amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act that are placed before us in this bill are mere patchwork, in spite of the fact that a new citizenship act was heralded by announcements in four throne speeches from 1963 to 1967. The end product clearly shows the uncertainty which surrounds its origins and the difficulties this particular bill is having in joining the legislative list.
I want to assure the minister that, speaking for the official opposition, in spite of one or two comments and criticisms we welcome the concept of the bill and are glad that its passage has been given priority during centennial year. I assure the minister that nothing will be placed in the way of the swift enactment of the bill. I should just like to list quickly four of five complaints, so to speak, or comments and perhaps the minister will have some suggestions to make about them when she closes the debate.
The first and most serious is that the court of citizenship appeal, that is the Exchequer Court, unlike the immigration appeal court will sit ahead of or prior to the final grant of discretion by the minister. It is only a matter of months ago that we were dealing with the Immigration Act, and the process of appeal from the Immigration Act of a few months ago to the citizenship act has been reversed.
It seems to me, in any event, that this is a contradiction in policy and I think parliament and the country are entitled to an explanation for this shift in policy. After all, immigration appeals in matters involving security-and we had quite a helpful debate on this point -are left to the minister. I think there should be frankness in the matter of security
[Mr. Enns.1

cases and the granting of citizenship, particularly in so far as that grant concerns alleged members of the communist party. It seems to me that there is a paradox wherein the party itself is legal in Canada, but early membership in that party may rule out, even if there are not other reasons for so doing, the award of citizenship. I have always felt that the democratic fabric of this country was strong enough to withstand this type of assault, if it is an assault; or to put it another way, I have always felt we should not be so uncertain about our fabric that this paradoxical situation should become enmeshed in our law.
I have heard a certain anecdote many times, and I am sure the minister has also, about the former president Clemenceau of France. Some advisers and friends approached him and said to him: "Monsieur le president, your son is a communist." The great president then said to them: "But my son is 21. Come to me when he is 31 with the same story and I will begin to worry." I do not want anything more to be read into this anecdote than what I imply by it, but I think that with the experience in North America since the days of McCarthy we have seen what early membership in either the so-called communist party or in groups espousing its objectives might mean to a man's future.
The hon. member for Carleton, (Mr. Bell) in a most compelling speech in the private members hour last Friday, spoke of the anomaly of children of diplomats and service people. I hope the minister will be able to clear up that point when she comments on this act.
Then I want to make mention of the revocation of citizenship. I am one who believes that revocation should not be a matter of ministerial or regulatory discretion, but should be part and parcel of an actual conviction. Perhaps the minister, who is a distinguished counsel, would like to comment on this problem.
Then I think it will be admitted, as it has been to some of us by the members of the minister's own department, that it is time we had a revision and consolidation of the regulations outlining the qualifications for citizenship. I have particularly in mind the people who came before 1930, and then the group which came in the period between 1930 and 1947, and so on. My information from the minister's own department is that the only body of law, if a confidential memorandum is a body of law, is a series of these documents.
May 31. 1967

They are used by the department's own officers to teach them to interpret regulations which are not yet consolidated. I think we have had sufficient time now to gain an understanding of the larger concept, and it is time the entire administration tidied up and consolidated not only their statutes but their regulations. I think that if we could employ 50 lawyers to do this job, provided they could put these regulations down clearly-and unfortunately this does not always happen-if they did nothing else for the next ten years, our successors would profit by their work.
Lastly I should like to plead-and I think the minister will agree with me on this-for a humanitarian interpretation of this act. Unfortunately, and since I have never been a federal minister I do not have to take any blame for this, there are some areas where the judicial officer presiding over the court of citizenship takes an extremely harsh line in interpreting the act. I am not sure whether I should mention particular judges. I do not wish to do so by way of complaint, but to compliment one particular judge. I wish to say that we in the maritime provinces are very well served by the presiding officer of the citizenship court in that area, and I think any member of parliament from the mari-times should take an opportunity to visit the court while it is in session and see the wonderfully civilized way this public official not only interprets the act and regulations but welcomes immigrants into the fold. If the example of the presiding officer in our citizenship court in the maritimes were followed across this country, we would have reason to praise each and all of these officers.


Mr. McCleave:: There are several of them.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am thinking of one in particular, namely Judge Kenneth B. Carson from Moncton, New Brunswick. He seems to me to embody the qualities of humanitarian-ism which I think the interpretation of this act would require. I am sure there are other such officers, but I happen to have witnessed this person in operation and have been the better for it.
Mr. Chairman, these are all the comments I have. I am sure the minister will take an opportunity to reply to them. I hope the act will receive speedy passage, and that something which took so long to create will prove to be of great benefit to those people who seek this land as their home.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, it is my desire to take advantage of the discussion on clause
Canadian Citizenship Act 1 of the bill to add my voice in discussing one phase of the government's policy which has been followed persistently over the years, and in this bill I see that no change in policy is proposed. A visitor coming to Canada can do so on a temporary basis on a tourist visa. The only other way one can be admitted to Canada is as a landed immigrant. Such a person to arrive here as a landed immigrant must be absolutely acceptable to the officials of the department and to the government. Once the landed immigrant is here he must remain in this country for a period of five years before he can apply to a citizenship court for the privilege of being granted Canadian citizenship. If the court is of the opinion that he will make a good citizen and is in favour of granting him Canadian citizenship, the application of the immigrant then goes to the citizenship branch of the department where the final decision is made by the minister.
What has been our experience over the years? I have heard of several cases of landed immigrants receiving favourable decisions from the citizenship court, but being refused the right of citizenship by the department in Ottawa. This is serious enough, but what is more serious is that in handing down the ministerial decision no reason is given to the landed immigrant, who has been here five years and has received favourable recommendation from the court, as to why the minister has turned down his application. He does not know what is held against him and what the charge is. It may be based on misrepresentation and lies, but since he does not know it he cannot contest it.
It is not sufficient for a court to recommend the granting of citizenship. In my own constituency there are immigrants who have been here for five years and who have received a favourable judgment from the court, but who were then turned down by the minister, with no reason given. Two years later they went back before the court, once again received a favourable recommendation and again were turned down by the minister. No reason is given. They do not know why they are denied citizenship. So, what happens? After they are turned down twice, and very often after they are turned down once, I know what they do in Vancouver East. They get in touch with their member of parliament. They ask: What have I done wrong; what is held against me?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I take the matter up with the minister of citizenship. What answer does a member of
May 31, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act the House of Commons receive? He receives the same answer as that given to the applicant for Canadian citizenship: We are sorry, Mr. Winch, but we cannot tell you the reason; we will not give you any reason. Here we have one who is attempting to get Canadian citizenship. He has been admitted to Canada because the department of immigration thought he would make a good citizen. He has been a good citizen for nine years and in that time has been twice recommended for citizenship by the courts. Then, the minister not only has the power but uses the power to say to the applicant and to the member of parliament: We will not tell you why the applicant has been refused.
I have had the experience of following through these citizenship and immigration cases, when I have received these answers. Upon more than one occasion I have found that the reason the department refused the applicant was the result of lies and charges laid by somebody who was jealous of that individual, envious of him for some reason, and wanted to do something to hurt him. How are these applicants for citizenship, in all justice and fairness, going to be able to do something about it? I do know that in clause 30 of this amending bill there is provision for the right of appeal when one is turned down by the court. On the other hand, there is nothing in the bill that I can see whereby one who is favourably recommended by the court can appeal against the minister's decision, and know what the charge is.
Now, Mr. Chairman, surely this is about the most dictatorial, unjust policy that could ever be conceived in a democratic country or in a country of justice. This is a situation which, I will admit, completely burns me up, the principle is so unfair and unjust. I do not believe it is right in any Canadian policy or in any aspect of our life that a person should be found guilty without knowing what the charge is, and without being given the right to defend himself.
I do regret exceedingly that this change is not in the bill. I realize the minister has only had responsibility for citizenship for a short time. However, I appeal to her in the name of justice, in the name of fairness, that if she is going to take the ministerial power to deny citizenship to those recommended by the courts, in the name of decency let the individual or his representative in parliament know what the charge is, so it can be met.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly in support of the bill before us.

I feel it deserves the support of all the members of the house, since it expands the proud concept of Canadian citizenship. It may be that this bill could have been dealt with in earlier sessions of this house. However I can think of no more suitable, no more fitting time to deal with a bill of this sort than in the centennial session of the Canadian parliament.
I believe a very useful amendment to the citizenship act is the one permitting older people who have lived their lives here, but who may not have had an opportunity to acquire a detailed knowledge of French or English, to acquire Canadian citizenship upon demonstration of having been here for an extended period; thereby demonstrating the real test of citizenship that living lives as good citizens, raising families and contributing to the development of the country.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, when the minister concludes this debate if she would give some further assurance with respect to the amendments before us dealing with section 12 of the citizenship act, the taking of the formal oath for Canadian citizenship. Many of us recall that about a year ago a problem arose when a family from a European country felt their religious conscience was such that they preferred to affirm rather than take an oath. The citizenship court judge in question felt he did not have the power to allow them to do so. I am somewhat concerned that it is not clearly spelled out in the act that people who, through the dictates of their conscience, feel they can only affirm rather than swear the usual oath will be entitled to do so. I hope the minister will give some explanation and reassurance upon this important point.
I suggest that the minister should be commended because of the amendments in the bill before us removing what, in effect, are the remaining distinctions between natural born and naturalized Canadian citizens. I think it is proven almost daily throughout the country that good citizenship does not flow automatically from the accident of birth. There is a lot to be said for the value placed upon citizenship by those immigrants coming to this country after having made a definite choice of Canada as the place in which they want to live and want their descendents to live for generations onward.
The removal of this distinction, Mr. Chairman, I believe helps to strengthen the concept and value of Canadian citizenship.
May 31, 1967,	COMMONS
Another improvement is brought forward throught the creation of an appeal procedure to deal with the decisions of citizenship court judges. I believe this provision fills one of the greatest gaps in the existing citizenship law.
I found it rather strange, Mr. Chairman, that there were appeals for such things as careless driving or throwing cigarette wrappers on the sidewalk, but no appeal from the decision of a judge on the vital question of whether or not a person could be a citizen of this country. I always felt it was certainly an anomaly to leave to the discretion of the individual citizenship court judges across the country exactly what criteria they would use, the questions they would ask and the manner in which they would come to a decision on whether the person appearing before them demonstrated in the course of the hearing that he ought to be given Canadian citizenship.
In the past there were judges, and I have heard it said there are still judges, who applied some very odd standards in arriving at their decisions as to whether or not the applicant should be recommended for Canadian citizenship. I have heard it said, and I have seen evidence of this myself in the past although not at the present time in our own area, that questions are asked in a narrow and discriminatory manner. It is obvious that simply knowing the name of the largest river in Canada for example does not constitute the supreme test of someone's ability to be a good Canadian citizen. It seems to me that the real test is the desire of the person to link his life fully and completely with this country, its present and its future. I think that without requiring a detailed examination of someone's knowledge of our history, geography or form of government, it should be possible, through questioning the prospective applicant about the life he leads in this country, his job, his hopes and his intention for the future, to determine whether or not the person in question really is one we want to have as a Canadian citizen.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that a knowledge of our history, geography and form of government is not useful. Certainly it is. However, it is equally useful to a natural born citizen. It is rather strange that because a person is born here he can know nothing whatever about our history, our geography or form of government and still be considered a citizen in the fullest sense of the term.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It seems to me that there is great value in doing more to make sure that everyone in 27053-51
DEBATES	797
Canadian Citizenship Act this country has a much wider understanding and knowledge of our history, our geography and our form of government, though I realize that this question may not fall completely within the competence of the federal government. I think that one project arising out of our centennial year would be to try to ensure that from now on we will fill one of the greatest gaps in the concept of Canadian citizenship, one which flows from the fact that many Canadians do not have sufficient knowledge of, and therefore sufficient pride in, their heritage, their history, this country's present status and the glorious future which I am sure will spring from this centennial year as we enter our second century.
I mentioned the approach that I thought should be taken by citizenship court judges in the hearings that they conduct in various parts of the country. Certainly the ceremony should be one of warmth and welcome. I might say in passing that a fine example of the manner in which a citizenship court should be conducted is given by the citizenship court judge for the district of London which includes Windsor. This is certainly my experience of the sessions of this court I have seen which have been held by the present judge in the city of Windsor.
I have heard it said, Mr. Chairman, that not all of the judges meet the standards required in this respect. Therefore I think it is incumbent upon the minister and her department to see that the type of standard maintained by the citizenship court judge in the London district is that which is used throughout the country. Perhaps the minister wants me to refer to specific cases I have heard about that do not meet the high standards of the London district court, but I think that may be for others to do. It is for the minister and the government, however, to take the necessary steps to correct the situation where this is indicated.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset of my remarks there could certainly be no more fitting type of legislation to consider in the centennial session of this parliament than an act to strengthen and widen the concept of Canadian citizenship. Through this bill we are certainly taking an important step forward to enable everybody, whether born in this country or an immigrant to this country, whatever their origin may happen to be, to be able to say from the depths of their hearts "I am a true and proud Canadian".
sMay 31, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the remarks just made by the hon. member for Essex West concerning Judge Calder of the citizenship court in London. I corroborate and support all of the remarks he made in this regard because I have had exactly the same experience. The minister having had recommendations from both sides of the house, I hope the recommendation of the hon. member for Essex West will be carried out.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some brief remarks in general terms concerning citizenship and young Canada, the generation that will succeed those of us who are presently sitting in this house. There are various ways in which the minister could be helpful in this regard.
First of all, I want to point out that I am fully aware that education is the specific right of the provinces, and I in no way wish to interfere with provincial jurisdiction. But inasmuch as citizenship is the responsibility of the federal government, I think there are ways and means by which the suggestion I have in mind might be implemented. All of us in this house have had the experience of meeting groups of students who come to the house, usually as a result of a promotion by one of our two large railway companies at this time of year. I know that most hon. members have usually made a point of meeting the students and perhaps introducing them to members of other parties, and the like. I also realize that some members have given students a brief rundown on what they might expect to see in this chamber when they sit in the galleries.
After several experiences of this I found a number of teachers asked me whether I would mind writing down what I had told the students, because the teachers themselves were not aware of the procedure here. They did not understand how political parties operate, how the house conducts its business, and so on. It appeared to me that not only the students but the teachers had no real conception of how this cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy operates and what goes on in this chamber.
Reflecting on this matter, Mr. Chairman, I began to realize that although I may have a number of academic degrees I myself did not know how the house operated until I became a member of it, and then perhaps only after an extended period of time.
It seems to me that if our parliamentary institutions are to survive, those who are to
[Mr. Gray.l

Canadian Citizenship Act his status? I want an answer before allowing this bill passage. In the event that through some technicality Lord Thomson has lost his Canadian citizenship I hope the minister will bring in an appropriate amendment to restore it. I am sure the minister would not wish anyone to think that the government would not consider such an amendment because of political spite directed at Lord Thomson. In any event, I hope the minister answers my question:	Is or is not Lord Thomson a
Canadian citizen? If such a distinguished man has lost his Canadian citizenship, surely it would be a simple matter to bring in an amendment to remedy his loss.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps at this point I might answer the hon. member's question. I wish to say to members of the committee that my parliamentary secretary has charge of the bill before the house. It is the first piece of legislation that he is piloting, and aside from the matter raised by my hon. friend, he will be answering the queries of hon. members.


Mr. Knowles:: Tres bien.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have ascertained that Lord Thomson did not lose his Canadian citizenship through accepting an award from the Queen of the United Kingdom to be a member of the upper house of the United Kingdom deliberative body. Before going farther may I read section 15(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act which provides:
A Canadian citizen who, when outside of Canada and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act	other	than marriage,	acquires	the
nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada, thereupon ceases to be a Canadian citizen.
I am informed that on May 30, 1963, the then Roy Thomson, a natural born citizen of Canada, formally applied for United Kingdom citizenship, thus by his voluntary and formal act acquiring the nationality of a country other than Canada. A certificate was issued on	June	5, 1963, from	the United
Kingdom sources to that effect. Thus not through any action of the Canadian government but through Lord Thomson's personal initiative did he lose his Canadian citizenship. It appeared that he held some prize in higher regard than he held the status of being a citizen of Canada.
The hon. member and the hon. member for Kootenay	West	raised the	question	ofCanadian	citizens accepting	honours	or
awards from other countries. The Canadian Citizenship Act does not provide for loss of citizenship if Canadians are honoured. The hon. member asked whether, notwithstanding

the policy expressed by government after government that Canadian citizens should not accept awards or honours from other countries unless for services rendered to the offering country in respect of war or military operations in which that country has participated as an ally or associate of Canada, or in the United Nations, citizens becomes disfranchized, so to speak, or are penalized if they accept awards.
Such a citizen is governed by the express wish of parliament set out initially in a resolution. Since then the policy embodied in the resolution has been followed by succeeding Canadian governments. There is nothing in the Citizenship Act which deprives him of citizenship or places any other penalty upon him.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the minister permit a brief question at this point? The hon. lady was referring to a section of the act under which a person who does certain things, such as applying for citizenship of another country, may lose his citizenship. As I read the section it says the governor in council may at his discretion remove the citizenship of a person who does this or certain other things. Has the governor in council in fact exercised that discretion?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is a quite different section. The one I read, section 15(1) says that if a Canadian citizen voluntarily acquires, other than by marriage, the citizenship of another country he will-and these are the operative words-"cease to be a Canadian citizen". It is a situation which comes about by the operation of law, not by order in council.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for York East.


Mr. Slanbury:: May I ask the minister a question supplementary to the one just
asked?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The chair recognized the hon. member for York East.


Mr.   Olio@: I hope the hon. member for York-Scarborough will have an opportunity to ask his question in a little while. I intend to be brief. I am glad to be addressing the parliamentary secretary-the minister has gone out for a smoke.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Otlo:: I forgot.
May 31. 1967


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of privilege.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would be very pleased to hear the question of privilege raised by the minister, but maybe she would resume her place, first.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We are in committee, Mr. Chairman.
My question of privilege concerns the facetious remark made by my hon. friend-one which will not look so facetious when it appears in print, in black and white.
My hon. friend knows I have had reason to suffer personal deprivation-on behalf of my former portfolio of health and welfare and on behalf of the youth of this country-which has left heavy marks upon me and I would, therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark he made, in view of the fact that the record might otherwise be misleading.


Steven Otto: I knew there was something the minister does not do, and now I remember what it is-she does not smoke. I withdraw that. I know she is not going for a cigarette.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is worse.


Steven Otto: I wish specifically to refer to the questions asked of applicants for citizenship, and to the conduct of some of our judges in relation to applications. I have in my hand what is called a guide to Canadian citizenship. This is a little booklet which is given to all applicants for their information-and also to scare the daylights out of them. Right at the front, in the preface, it says:
When your examination takes place the judge may ask you questions on any of the subjects as a means of testing your knowledge of Canada and Canadian institutions.
I will refer to some of the questions. I hope the parliamentary secretary knows the answers to them, because otherwise he may be in danger of losing his citizenship, I take it. These are examples of the questions which may be asked, and I think the department should look into this situation carefully with a view to making amendments. This booklet is very complete. It contains questions such as this:
There was a treaty by which the British got control of New France. When was this?
There was rebellion in both upper and lower Canada in 1837. Who were the two leaders of the rebellion?
What is meant by confederation?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is a good question.
Canadian Citizenship Act


Steven Otto: There are other questions here.
Since the war there has been a strong cultural upsurge in Canada. Can you mention two important forms of cultural activity in Canada?
What are some features of radio and television broadcasting in Canada?
The minister has gone, but I know the parliamentary secretary can give a very explicit and short answer to that question.
Who is responsible for education in Canada? Who pays for it?
What is the difference between government service and voluntary organizations?
There are 40 or 50 questions in this 90-page booklet. In reality, what have they really to do with the desirability of an applicant for citizenship? Most people, especially applicants for citizenship, are busy trying to earn a living and would-be citizens have to spend 90 per cent of their time establishing themselves and, in many cases, becoming familiar with a new language. This takes almost all their energy. We should certainly not expect applicants to know more than other Canadian citizens. I think they should know as much, but not more.
I dare the parliamentary secretary to address these questions to a group of a hundred citizens chosen indiscriminately. I think he will find that not many people know the answers. I believe some common sense should be used.
As one hon. member has reminded us, one has established a certain vested right in being a landed immigrant. He cannot be thrown out of the country without good cause. At the same time, citizenship is withheld from him. This it seems to me has created a curious situation. Let us have either one or the other. If we say to a landed immigrant who has been here, say, ten years "You have a vested right to stay here", while at the same time withholding citizenship from him, we are surely acting in an illogical manner. What are the reasons behind this approach?
I wish to make a further point in conclusion. I should like the parliamentary secretary to take notice of it and direct it, if possible, to the attention of the government. I do not know whether the channel is open yet between the parliamentary secretary and the seats of the mighty, but my hon. friend is on his way up, and he may therefore be able to convey the proposal I have in mind.
Yesterday I introduced a bill to provide that every legally landed immigrant who landed in Canada before July 1, 1967, should
May 31. 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act be entitled to citizenship as a gesture of goodwill during the celebration of our centenary. Only an oath of allegiance would be required.
I have heard and read that over a period of many years very few landed immigrants have been deported. My bill, is therefore, unlikely to produce much difficulty in this connection.
Consider the reactions of all these immigrants when they are told that on the 1st of July, our birthday, they can make application for citizenship in the assurance that they have the right to obtain it. I imagine we would organize some festivities in this connection. Immigrants who are not yet citizens are sharing in all our celebrations. They would like to be part of these festivities, and I can think of no better way of including them than to accord citizenship in the manner I have proposed.
I should like the minister and the parliamentary secretary to give serious consideration to this idea. If the cabinet would introduce an amendment along these lines, and if the house would approve it, so much the better.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the hon. member for York-Scarborough wishes to ask his question now, I could then recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I shall be glad to give way to the hon. member for Winnipeg North and make my remarks after that.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, citizenship and amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act have been the subject of discussion in every parliament since I came here in 1962. Members of all parties, including backbench government members, who represent constituencies which have fairly heavy ethnic representation, have bombarded the government with suggestions for improvements to the Canadian Citizenship Act and its day to day implementation. They have made suggestions which would wipe out the anomalies that have existed and still exist.
I was amazed that the minister brought forward what another hon. member has referred to as a patchwork bill instead of placing before us the major redrafting that we have been promised for three or four years. This is a bill which will make relatively minor improvements to the act under which we operate. I am also amazed that the minister did not make an opening statement, explaining the purposes of this bill and what she hopes its passage will accomplish, indicating


also when we may expect to get the major revision promised by successive ministers.
When he opened the debate on behalf of the official opposition the hon. member for Royal hoped that the minister would answer questions at the end of the debate. I have no objection to the parliamentary secretary doing that, but on such an important bill and such an important subject I think the house and the country should have heard some opening remarks by the minister to indicate the purposes of the bill.
It is all very well for the hon. member for York East to say, as he did in a pretty eloquent speech, that this bill goes a long way toward wiping out the differences in respect to citizenship between people born in Canada and people who come to Canada. I do not think the bill goes that far. The hon. member for York East pointed out that people who come to this country and apply for citizenship must be able to answer a large number of questions, which he said most citizens could not answer. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that without some study a majority of the members of parliament might have difficulty passing the citizenship examination, if it were necessary for them to pass it in order to become citizens, or even to become members of parliament.
Those who were fortunate enough to be born in Canada do not have to pass any examination to get citizenship.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Why should we?


David Orlikow: I do not think we should; but I am not convinced that a person who comes to this country, stays here five years, supports himself and his family, sends his children to school, pays taxes and all other expenses, should have to pass a citizenship examination.
However, that is not the main point on which I rose to speak. I rose to say that, as with so many things that parliament and government do, this bill is mere window dressing. Under some of its provisions we are making promises and commitments to people wishing to become citizens, but under other clauses we are going back on those promises and commitments.
Clause 31 provides that when a citizenship court has held a hearing and decides that a person is qualified to become a citizen, the minister may grant him citizenship. That word "may" is not in the clause by accident. While the minister may grant that person citizenship, I presume the minister may also not grant him citizenship. This is a pretty
May 31, 1967

sweeping power to give the minister. As has happened so often in the past, when the minister refuses to grant citizenship, he will not tell the applicant, his lawyer, or even his member of parliament the reason for the refusal.
I am not going to name names today, but a former minister of immigration, now Minister of Labour, who was in his seat a few moments ago, knows one case which I have in mind. In many parts of Canada very distinguished people have been refused citizenship. I can think of a distinguished professor in the city of Toronto, a world famous authority in his own field, a landed immigrant who has held many important positions in government service, and he has been consistently unable to get citizenship. I can think of a professor in a Canadian medical college who came to this country from the United States as a landed immigrant. He is a brilliant scientist, and under his direction his medical department expanded tenfold or more. He was able to attract to it many distinguished people from other countries. He has represented Canada at a large number of world scientific conferences to which he was sent by his university, and I suppose on occasion by the Canadian government. But that man, despite the most distinguished sponsors, including a deputy minister in the federal service, was repeatedly turned down for citizenship.
The hon. member for Royal questioned whether a person should be refused citizenship because of his political views. I doubt whether the two people I have mentioned were ever members of the communist party. But even if they were at one time, if they are of a calibre and character which permits the government of Canada to allow them to come to Canada, to live permanently in it, and to occupy important and distinguished positions, then what earthly common sense is there in refusing them citizenship? If a person is a security risk or is involved in espionage, then there might be a reason; no doubt there is. But because a person disagrees with the foreign policy of the United States, disagrees with the foreign policy of Canada, or thinks that Canada should not have nuclear bombs, are these sufficient reasons to refuse to grant him citizenship? When we do that we take away the democratic rights which all of us like to believe every person in Canada has. I suggest to the government that it is time we wiped out this type of thing.
Canadian Citizenship Act [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I should like to talk about another matter. As I have said before, and as I say now, in my constituency there are a number of persons whose applications for citizenship have been turned down over a long period. These are people I suppose who came here in the early 1900's after world war I, who were sympathizers with the communist revolution in Russia. Some of them I suppose belonged to the communist party. Others never belonged to the communist party itself but belonged to what those of us who have fought communism or have had anything to do with it refer to as front organizations, those fraternal organizations and co-operatives which, I admit, were established by the communist party and its sympathizers.
These people do not come to me. Not a single person has come to me to ask for my help in obtaining citizenship. Perhaps this is because my record of antagonism to communism in Canada or in any other country is so well known. These are people, however, who have been in Canada for 10, 15, 25 or 30 years. Surely it makes no sense that they should be denied citizenship after all these years simply because they belonged to the communist party or to one of the fraternal organizations, the names of which I will not burden you with at this time. Even more serious is the fact that, not only are they denied citizenship but they are not given the reasons for the denial of citizenship, nor are they given the opportunity to present evidence to show that a mistake has been made, if one has been made.
This certainly is not the place to discuss the R.C.M.P. I have not been quiet about the fact that I am not the greatest admirer in this house of the R.C.M.P. and its ability to decide who is or is not subversive. Even if one should be the greatest admirer of the R.C.M.P., he must face up to the fact that it is composed of a group of human beings who, like any other groups of human beings, or like any other individual, can and do make mistakes. I shall not go over the record, but we did have a case, the name of which I cannot remember at the moment, which my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, raised some years ago concerning the young man who was refused the right to re-enlist in the navy because, supposedly, his uncle was an official of the communist party. When my colleague took up the matter and investigated it, it was found that although they had the same name there was no relationship. If my colleague had not
May 31, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act taken the matter up and looked into it, that young man never would have known the reason he was refused the right to re-enlist in the navy.
My colleague, the hon. member for Springfield, says, "Suppose it was his uncle". We have come a long way. Surely we are not going to convict people or say they are guilty because of association, especially when the association is within a family. We choose our friends, but we do not have much to do about choosing our families. What I am saying is, having come a long way in our efforts to meet the difficulties in respect of prospective immigrants, surely we can devise a procedure whereby people who are denied citizenship because allegedly they do not meet the security standards, whatever they are-and I as a member of parliament do not know what they are; perhaps the parliamentary secretary knows-can be given a general idea of what they are accused of. I am not saying at this time that this should be done in open court. I am not saying that the person who makes the accusation should appear before the court. I am not saying that the specific details must be documented. I recognize the tremendous difficulties we face when we try to deal with the whole question of security.
I do not believe it would be impossible to have an appeal board composed of distinguished citizens whose records are so clearly favourable that they could be given, in confidence if necessary, a general statement of the reasons a person is being turned down. This board would be in a position to set the record straight, if the record obtained by the government agencies involved should be incorrect. There is nothing in this bill which spells out that right. There is nothing in it which spells out the right of a person whose application for citizenship has been turned down to be given a bill of particulars or even general knowledge concerning the particulars, so that he can answer the charges or explain the charges in order to clear his name. It seems to me that this is completely contrary to every principle of justice, democracy, or human rights which we in this country repeatedly espouse.
While it is not my intention to vote against the bill, we have some reservations and may move some amendments. I do say, however, that for me, and I believe other members of this house who have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions, it is a bitter disappointment that the government has not really met any of the specific objections which repeatedly over the years have been made by

members of parliament on both sides of the house.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I am particularly happy to participate in the discussion of this bill because it heralds the removal of discrimination against Canadians not bom in Canada and, as well, makes the act more meaningful. When we speak of our natural resources seldom do we fail to boast of our vast mineral deposits, our vast forests and the abundance of hydro power, to say nothing of the great deposits of oil, gas and so on. But how often do we mention the more important prerequisites for the development of a modern industrial society: our manpower and the concept of unity, with a single concept of citizenship.
I recall that in February, 1959 the present Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, introduced a bill in this house which was designed to remove the discriminatory section of the act-which also is the objective of this bill-whereby a naturalized Canadian citizen, under certain circumstances, is subject to the loss of his citizenship. However, like many other good moves advanced by private members, it was talked out by the supporters of the Conservative party.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This day and age shows unmistakable trends toward a lessening of narrow nationalism, more particularly because the present act is in conflict with the spirit and letter of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was supported unanimously in this house. I am referring to the section of the act which provides that under certain circumstances a naturalized Canadian citizen can still have his Canadian citizenship papers revoked by the governor in council. I have been advocating, ever since I was elected to this house in 1958, the elimination of discrimination against naturalized Canadian citizens so that henceforth they will stand on an equal footing with the natural born citizen. I submit that if a naturalized Canadian citizen should commit an offence of a treasonable nature the law will take care of him, the same law that would apply to a natural born Canadian citizen.
I have always felt strongly about the need to eliminate this discrimination, not just because I happen to be a naturalized Canadian citizen but there are thousands in the same category, all of whom by accepting Canadian citizenship have accepted all the duties and obligations that go with it. I cannot see any difference between the duties and obligations
May 31, 1967

imposed upon them as citizens and those imposed on persons born in Canada. I submit that we have a Canadian citizenship of sorts; however, it lacks a cohesive force. Our Fathers of Confederation believed they could accomplish the building of a nation with two ethnic stocks, the French and the English. Little thought was then given to the introduction of many other ethnic stocks. We are built on the bedrock of a bicultural state, but the superstructure also includes a large number of other racial groups. Therefore I am pleased that in the interest of Canada the perpetuation of second-class citizenship will, by the passing of this bill, be eliminated. This will help to unify the racial groups in this nation where unity is the essence of successful development.
Fourteen years ago Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, addressing a gathering in the city of Toronto, had this to say:
I believe it is because we have learned to respect one another and to conserve our heritage that it has been possible since the war to admit 800,000 immigrants into our country without disrupting or even disturbing the basic character of our national life. These men, women and children are making a real contribution to our national life. Without them, we would be the poorer economically, culturally and spiritually.
Most of them have come to Canada with the firm intention of becoming good Canadian citizens, and we are making it possible for them to develop a genuine attachment to this country, because of the increasing respect and understanding we have learned to have for the traditions and backgrounds of one another.
In November, 1962, I moved the first reading of Bill C-88, an act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act. The purpose of the bill was to enable a citizenship court to recommend the granting of a certificate of citizenship to an applicant who is the wife of a Canadian citizen, even though she is unable to speak either the English or French language.
There are several hundred wives of Canadian citizens who by reason of age or because they are living in isolated places have not been able to master the English or the French languages, and indeed are unlikely to ever learn them sufficiently to qualify for citizenship when they appear before a judge for examination. Some of them can carry on a conversation in more or less broken English and can understand basic questions put to them-this also applies to many of the male applicants-but when they are in the court, facing the usually stern countenance of a robed judge, they become panicky and tongue-tied and fail to pass the examination. As a result, they are rejected.
805
Canadian Citizenship Act
They are advised to reapply after an additional period of two years, and when they do they have to again pay a $10 fee to go through the same process, with possibly the same result. This routine has discouraged many rejected applicants from reapplying and has thus prevented their becoming legal citizens of the country of their adoption. The entire system of examination requires revision.
Applicants for citizenship are asked questions by the court, some of which could stump even a member of parliament, as was pointed out by my good friend the hon. member for York East. Let me give you some examples of what I mean. The hon. member for York East gave some examples. In a list of 42 questions asked by a judge of applicants for citizenship the following appeared: How are members of the Senate appointed? Do you know what year Jacques Cartier landed in Canada? Can you name the two leaders of the 1837 rebellion? How did Canada become a country as a result of an agreement between certain provinces? What is the name of this act of parliament? What are the names of the provinces that joined in this federation? How many territories are there in Canada? What is the largest province in area? What province has the largest population? What is the name of the most recent act of parliament affecting our constitution? Which level of government is responsible for building highways? Which province produces most lumber?
Just imagine, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hubert Badanai: These are samples of questions put by some of our citizenship courts to immigrants seeking to become Canadian citizens. It seems to me we can devise a better and more simple set of questions for those newcomers who are anxious to become citizens. In October, 1961, a delegation from the Canadian Council of National Groups met in Ottawa and presented a brief to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration seeking a revision of the Canadian Citizenship Act, which at present denies citizenship for various reasons, none of which have been made clear to the applicant. In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I honestly believe that applicants for citizenship who were rejected for reasons other than the lack of language requirements, should be given an opportunity to present a defence against accusations in which, in many
May 31. 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act cases, petty jealousies and animosities were involved. Their cases should be reviewed by the minister, and I urge the government to do something about this form of discrimination.
For several years the citizenship branch has been more or less neglected. However, since it has been divorced from immigration-and here I must say that I do not know whether this is for the best-we should look forward to some improvement, and we hope it will receive the attention which its importance to the development of the nation warrants.
There is a definite need for more counseling of immigrants whose contacts with the Canadian community should be encouraged and fostered.
In large centres such as Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, Windsor and the lakehead, where perhaps 50 per cent of all post-war immigrants are concentrated, the establishment of citizenship offices would be justified. If we are to meet the problem of integration, which is a continuing problem, then the expense of establishing these offices is more than justified.
Such an office could serve as an information service for newcomers. It would recruit a large group of volunteer workers who would assist with reception, translation, the teaching of the English language and any other service required by immigrants.
In addition to the usual services performed by a citizenship office, there could be a close liaison with the local department of manpower on matters of discrimination in employment and housing. Many immigrants and members of minority groups encounter problems in the area of civic rights, yet few persons know that the local manpower office deals with complaints of this kind. They would more readily go to a citizenship office in connection with economic, social and cultural rights. These offices would provide a uniformity of services throughout Canada.
At the present time many of the national groups or individuals offer assistance to members of their own nationality. This type of assistance could be very helpful if channelled through a citizenship office. Presently this assistance is not on a professional or organized basis, and since it is offered by persons of the same nationality it can deter or retard integration. Then also, there are some ethnic group leaders who claim political control of groups, and this is a dangerous and unhealthy condition which leads to political exploitation.
I am convinced that if we gave more attention to problems of citizenship on a local level we would remove some of the criticisms
[Mr. Badanai.l
which were heard during the hearings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bi-culturalism. The citizenship office would be able to deal with a problem before it developed into a national issue.
I believe that integration is the basis of Canadian unity and that all groups and individuals are bound together in a common citizenship and contribute to the development of a common heritage. This is not window dressing, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
I wish to congratulate the minister upon bringing forward this particular measure, which will eliminate a long standing discrimination that has irritated newcomers for a long time. I may add that personally I am particularly appreciative of the citizenship judge, Mayor Ernest Reed, who during the time he has been president of the citizenship court at Fort William, has served the whole district of Thunder Bay from White River in the east to Atikokan in northwestern Ontario. He has shown great tact and consideration in the examination of applicants for citizenship. If we had more men of his calibre in every city in Canada, there would be no criticism of the citizenship examination procedure in Canada. I am proud of the fact that I had the privilege and the pleasure of recommending him for the office which he fills with efficiency and dignity.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I will speak very briefly. I have listened with keen interest to the previous speakers, and I hope that the genial parliamentary secretary will pass on our ideas to the minister.
The hon. member for York East brought up some ideas and thoughts, which were also dealt with by the hon. member for Fort William, concerning the rather asinine questions which are put to the applicants for citizenship. When Hon. Guy Favreau was minister of citizenship and immigration I suggested to him that a new booklet be brought out for the use of immigrants, and I understand that such a booklet is now in preparation. I hope the parliamentary secretary will bring this matter to the attention of the minister so that this new book can be brought out at the earliest time possible, because there is a great need for it.
The hon. member for York East also brought in a new bill yesterday, which I had the privilege of seconding, the purpose of which is to give an opportunity to immigrants who have come to Canada and have not yet become citizens to become citizens in our one
May 31, 1967	COMMONS
hundredth anniversary. I think that to become a Canadian citizen in the year of our one hundredth anniversary should prove to be an exceptional thrill.
The various judges in the citizenship courts across the country have to decide who should become a citizen.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Since the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Essex West have referred to the London court, I would be remiss if I did not refer to our citizenship court judge. I want to say that in the county of Norfolk we have one of the finest citizenship courts in the land, and I say this very sincerely.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must apologize for interrupting the hon. member-


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I have not much more to say.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I should like to point out that I believe one of the most important steps an individual can take, outside of the vows of marriage, is when he becomes a citizen of a country. Let us never forget this. These people are giving up their own country. It is nice for us to sit here complacently, but we are born and brought up in this country. Let us put ourselves in their shoes. Let us go to another land and come before a judge. How are we going to be received? Are we going to be received with open arms?
We must remember that the person has been allowed to come into this country. In Norfolk county, Judge Brickenden is recognized as one of the finest judges in the province. After the court hearing, the I.O.D.E. give the applicants, coffee and sandwiches. We meet with them. The mayor of the town meets with them. I know, because it has been the subject of discussion in caucus on several occasions, that there is a city not too far from my constituency where the people cannot say the same thing about their citizenship court. It is too bad, and I sincerely hope the minister will give the matter consideration, because that type of situation cannot be allowed in Canada.
27053-52J
DEBATES	807
Suggested Citizenship Program
In conclusion, I should like to say that one of the promises of the Liberal party, which possibly was forgotten by the previous speakers, was to make as one the naturalized and natural born citizen. This has been done.


Mr. MacEachen:: I am rising on a point of order and I appreciate that I am a bit out of order in rising. I am wondering whether we could pass this stage of the bill and when it is up for third reading any members who have comments to make might make them then.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We have not heard from the parliamentary secretary. This bill has been talked out by government members. We expected to have an explanation, since there have been four speakers from the opposition. I object to this procedure.
Progress reported.


SUGGESTED PROGRAM OF INTERNSHIP IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a form of internship program in the House of Commons; the purpose of the said program being to better equip outstanding young political scientists, .iournalists and law school faculty members, with a better understanding of the national legislative process; the participants to be brought to Ottawa for six to nine months of fulltime work as assistants to members of the House of Commons and to be paid a minimum stipend financed by the government and an established foundation grant, competition for the fellowship to be made each year, announced to coincide with the opening of a session.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of bringing this subject once again before the house in the form of a resolution. Last June 27, I had an opportunity to speak on this resolution at some length. I do not propose to take the time of the house today to repeat what I said at that time but will simply make a few brief introductory remarks. The resolution was conceived in my mind because of the great accumulation of briefs, reading material, bills, and other research work which many members of this house have to undertake.
As our government increases in complexity, it is becoming more apparent that a member is in need of help in one form or another. One of the best ways in which the individual member may secure this assistance would be I believe by the adoption of an internship for students of political science, journalism and law. They would come to Ottawa under a
May 31. 1967

Suggested Internship Program program of internship similar to that of the medical student who serves his internship in a hospital before he starts to practice. I can think of no better place than parliament hill to obtain the experience, the practical knowledge, which people in these professions should have. This is the background of the concept of this resolution.
What is the answer to the problem? We have assistance available in the library. This scheme has been in operation for about two years, and I believe the staff has been brought up to about ten research people. They have two secretaries. It is estimated that the cost of the staff for this year will be about $115,000, according to the estimates. In his report the librarian has stated that only 68 members have used this service. It would appear from the lack of use of this service it is not providing the type of help for which the member is looking.
We must, therefore, turn to another field and I believe that field is the internship program which I am promoting in this resolution I believe that in order to keep my remarks in some sequence I should, first of all, briefly set out the purpose of the resolution, the method of selecting the interns and the source of the funds that would be required to pay for the program. Then, perhaps I could quote from one or two of the editorials that appeared the last time this internship resolution was discussed.
I think I have said enough about the purpose of the resolution. We all realize the purpose and the need for the program. What about the method of selection? How would these interns be chosen? These are proposals I am putting forward and I hope we will be able to go into the details at some other time or place. The intern would be selected through a nationwide competition. I believe the age of these people should be from 21 to 25 years. The criteria for selection would be superior training, practical experience and professional competence.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I suggest that a committee be made up of two Conservatives two Liberals, one member of the New Democratic party, one from the Social Credit party, two political scientists, two lawyers and two journalists, and they would pick those who are suitable for an internship. The applications would be made by the graduates in the three categories I have mentioned. These applications would be received in December and a selection made

by March 31 so that the interns could commence work on September 1.
There are many other details I could go into, such as how much they should be paid and that sort of thing, but I do not want to take up too much time because many others may want to speak on the resolution.
All of this costs money, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested that we pay these interns a living wage similar to that paid medical interns-something in the neighbourhood of $4,500 or $5,000 a year. I think the government would be well advised to consider setting up a centennial fund of $1 million for this purpose. If this amount was invested at 6 per cent, say, for easy figuring, and we paid the interns $4,500 a year the fund would take care of about 12 interns. We could also turn to organizations such as the Ford Foundation, who I am sure would be interested in contributing to an internship scheme such as that outlined in this resolution.
I am sure that the funds would be forthcoming, Mr. Speaker. This type of internship program has been in operation in the United States for a number of years and has worked very successfully. It would provide personal assistance to the member which at the moment we do not have. Naturally, those employed in the library must work on a nonpartisan basis, but I think members would prefer to supervise their own research work rather than rely on impartial, broadly based material prepared by an independent staff. I think each member would benefit from better research and would be able personally to supervise the work of his assistant.
I can think of many jobs that these interns could do while working with a member of parliament. They could, for example, prepare research material, get material ready for speeches, read over many of the briefs that come to members, and best of all assist members with very complicated legislation coming before the house. I do not think there is a member in the house who would not admit that he comes into this chamber ill-prepared to study and digest legislation and to make really clear and concise remarks about it.
In this regard one has only to cast his mind back to the Canada Pension Plan, which came before this chamber. What time and what facilities had each one of us to study that piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker? I think of the great transportation bill that came before the house last session and also the unification bill. I am sure that all of us could have used

May 31, 1967	COMMONS
to great advantage the help of an intern in these particular fields.
Think also, Mr. Speaker, of the great training this scheme would give a person who won an internship. Look at the great value the experience would be to him. If he returned to practice law he would be a better lawyer. If he went into the field of journalism he would be a much better journalist. If he became a professor in political science, think how much more capable he would be in the classroom.
Another consideration is that many of these young interns may have in the back of their minds the thought that some day they would like to be a member of parliament. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, just how much better members they would be having had this internship and having had the opportunity of being here for at least one term. I do not think I need dwell any longer on what a great help they would be to the members of this house; indeed their appointment would be to the mutual advantage of both members and interns.
I should like to conclude my brief introduction to this resolution, Mr. Speaker, by putting on the record one or two extracts from editorials that appeared after I introduced this resolution on June 27, 1966, during our last session. There is this paragraph in an editorial which appeared in the London Free Press on July 4, 1966:
It is a plan that merits consideration in that it would serve a dual purpose. Such employment would be of value to the interns themselves in the insight it would prove into the legislative process, as well as in the contacts within government service that would be established. It would afford, in effect, a practical post-graduate field of study. At the same time, if properly established and utilized, it would help elected members keep abreast of affairs domestic and international.
I have here one paragraph from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star under date July 7, 1966:
A Conservative private member's bill, proposing a novel method for improving research facilities for members of parliament ought to be studied by the government during the summer recess to see if it can become government legislation for the next session ...
The government should consider resurrecting the scheme.
This comment appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for July 30 of last year:
Hales' idea was warmly received-so warmly, in fact, that it was praised to death. One after another member rose to express support. They were still expressing support when the hour allotted for private members business elapsed.
DEBATES	809
Suggested Internship Program
I should also like to put on the record this comment in a letter from Mr. G. C. Andrew, the executive director of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada:
I think the interns idea is an excellent one, and if there is anything the Association of Universities and Colleges can do to assist in developing it or carrying it out we would be only too delighted to do so.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in a letter from a professor at the University of Saskatchewan
there is this comment:
I trust the issue of Internship in legislative processes is not dead. Such legislation is imaginative and should be productive.
Lastly, may I quote this sentence which appeared in the Windsor Star for March 16, 1967:
There should be broader opportunities for more people to receive practical political training in offices other than those of members of the cabinet.
You will see from those editorial comments, Mr. Speaker, that this proposal has had wide acceptance. I sincerely hope that the house will accept it in principle. I would be delighted if the house would see its way clear to have this resolution sent to a committee for study. I think the committee on procedure of this house would be the best standing committee to which to refer this question. I will not at this stage go so far as to say that a special committee should be set up to study the matter; but I do feel there are many details which should be looked into, and this can be done to best advantage in a committee.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks so as to provide ample opportunity for any other hon. members who wish to speak on this resolution.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member who has presented this resolution is to be commended for bringing it to the attention of the house and therefore to the Canadian public. If there is any criticism to be made of his proposal it is that it does not go far enough. By that I do not mean that there is not room in our parliamentary system for what the hon. member sets out in his proposal. If the hon. member's proposal were adopted I hope it would not be thought that there is not room for what I might call a general system for providing administrative assistants for members of parliament.
The hon. member said that in the United States Congress and Senate there is an internship program of the sort he proposes. That is quite true. However, in addition to interns
May 31, 1967

Suggested Internship Program each United States congressman or senator has a staff of administrative assistants. I stress that while the hon. member's proposal is commendable, there is room for expanding it. In saying these words I hope I will be pardoned for advertising thereby another resolution on the order paper in my own name, which I hope will come before the house soon.
My own proposal is to provide members of parliament with administrative assistants who would help them to do research and to communicate with officials. Though I support the hon. member's proposal, its weakness is that it is aimed at helping the students and professors involved, more than members of parliament. It is important for our students to know more of our parliamentary system; there is a serious need to inform the Canadian public about its workings. They all should have greater factual knowledge of the workings of this system. Not enough of the people teaching political science in our universities possess the type of first hand knowledge that the hon. member suggests would flow from his proposal. Our professors and students do not have the first hand knowledge that hon. members have; it is vital that more people become intimately aware of the workings of our parliamentary and political system. In that regard, certainly, an internship program is useful and necessary, but if there is any priority, it is to help members of parliament perform their work rather than to help students and professors to learn more about parliament. Primarily, our aim ought to be to help members of parliament carry out their duties to the Canadian public more effectively.
Hon. members ought to have assistants who will keep in touch with government officials, follow up correspondence and requests, help in the preparation of committee work and in work to be performed in the house, gather information, carry out research and so on. When an hon. member is in the house or in committee he cannot deal with officials with respect to matters of policy which concern his area or the country at large; he cannot discuss with officials or ministers problems concerning his riding or the country at large; he cannot discuss with members of the public those problems which they feel he ought to deal with. A member of parliament needs someone whose main efforts are directed toward helping him perform a better job. This is more important to provide training for students, useful though that may be.


If there are difficulties with the hon. member's proposal I submit they would disappear were there added to it a broader, general scheme to provide full time administrative assistants for members of parliament. The hon. member suggests that interns would work from six to nine months and then go back to the schools they came from. I think hon. members will agree that it takes approximately six months, more or less, thinking back to their own first days here as members for one to learn his way around, to know how the system works, whom to talk to and where to look-to become really useful, in other words. Were we to follow the hon. member's proposal, just when the intern is becoming useful he would return to his university or law school. There is room for a system where someone might stay for several years, so that he might put into effect the experience he has garnered in his initial period of apprenticeship. There is room for people to make careers of serving as administrative assistants to members of parliament. You will find these assistants-people who are well educated and well informed-serving congressmen and senators in the United States.
Why should the internship program be limited to students of political science, journalism and law school professors? What about students of accounting, business, or history? They might also participate in the program to good effect. I should point out, however, since I think the hon. member's proposal is sound, that I do not wish to have my remarks taken in a negative, critical sense.
The hon. member's proposal therefore ought to be broadened to make eligible categories of graduate studies other than he has mentioned. However, with a broader system of providing administrative assistants hon. members could have people working with them who have completed their education and have experience in wider fields, in addition to those mentioned in the notice of motion. Under a general system such as I have mentioned one ought to be able to recruit assistants from fields of endeavour other than the law and political science. What about accounting, business, the labour movement, and other areas of activity?
Were my proposal adopted, each member could have an assistant or assistants. However, hon. members representing ridings with smaller population, say, might possibly share an administrative assistant. In the initial period of the program, an assistant might be used by several members.
May 31, 1967

It is important also to ensure that the intern or assistant has a political philosophy and policy aims that are compatible with those of the member he serves, or else stresses and strains might be set up which would not help the member or the intern. Basically, the intern and the member he serves should have the same political philosophies and aims. That would be a positive feature of a general scheme of permitting members of parliament to have administrative assistance over and above the hon. member's proposal.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is certainly room for the proposal of the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) but I suggest priority should be given to a general scheme for providing administrative assistance to members of parliament along the lines I have outlined. If my proposal is not given priority, then at least the two proposals should be handled together. I fear that if the hon. member's proposal were dealt with first of all it would strenghthen the hands of those who do not fully understand the need for a modern parliamentary system to deal effectively with the complexities of present-day government.
My own view is that this is a constructive proposal, but that the implementation of a general scheme should be given priority. The public does not sufficiently realize that we in this parliament have ultimately to take responsibility for the operation of a government apparatus employing some 300,000 people, including those in crown corporations, and handling a budget of some $11 billions.
In these circumstances members of parliament need assistants working directly with them and responsible to them-people who are outside the government apparatus-so as to help members find out what is going on and inform themselves and the public about the details and the operation of the system. Armed with this knowledge members would be in a position to influence more effectively than is possible at the present time the direction which this apparatus is taking.
The impression is sometimes conveyed that all the work of parliament is done only in the House of Commons, or perhaps in the house and Senate. Useful as it may be as a forum for speaking to the nation and placing the views of members on the record, useful as it may be for taking broad, formal decisions, this house is really not a place for carrying out on a day to day basis the real work of
Suggested Internship Program overseeing the operations of a modern government and achieving legislative oversight in a meaningful way. It is therefore in the public interest that elected representatives of the public should be given the facilities to do the job expected of them.
It will become increasingly likely that what we are doing may well give the appearance of supervising the work of the government of our country, but will be far from the reality. We may well be doing nothing more than going through the motions, rather than dealing with the true substance of government.
The lack of staff to which the hon. member and I have alluded, and which had led us to place our respective notices of motion on the order paper, limits the degree of supervision over legislation which ought to be exercised by the representatives of the Canadian people in the interests of those they serve. Those who send us here expect us to perform this task and are surprised to find we lack the facilities to enable us to carry out all the responsibilities which should be carried out on their behalf.
In conclusion, let me once more commend the hon. member for having placed this resolution on the order paper, permitting us to air our views on this subject once again. Though it may not seem to affect the public as directly as some of the other matters we deal with -economic development and social welfare measures, for example-in the long run it may well turn out to be as important as any of these things if we are to make sure that long after this centennial year is over we shall continue to have a government which is really responsive to the demands and needs of the people of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales). Incidentally he is an alumnus of the college I attended in 1909, and the hon. member's uncle was a classmate of mine at the same college. While he was introducing this resolution I could not help thinking of his uncle, who possessed a constructive imagination similar to his own. I remember attending a theatre at Guelph to see a performance of "Prince for Tonight". It was his uncle who suggested it would be a good idea if all the students, who were sitting in the gods, were to gather up as many gartersnakes as possible and suspend them from cords so that they dangled beside the faces of the people sitting in the dress circle. This we did, to their great annoyance.
812	COMMONS
Suggested Internship Program
I	thought this was an interesting and novel proposal, and I listened to the hon. member's explanation with great interest. I thought it was a constructive and imaginative proposal for dealing with a problem which does exist at the present time as far as members of parliament are concerned. In view of the fact that this type of service has been tried in the United States and found to be successful there, I believe the government should give consideration to the hon. member's motion.
He is simply asking that the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a form of internship program in the House of Commons. That is all he is asking. I think the government should accept this proposal, and I am rising to support it in principle as a constructive means of meeting a problem which does exist.
The hon. member recognizes that if this scheme were adopted it would be valuable to those who were chosen to serve members of parliament as research assistants. At the same time, valuable services would be provided to members themselves. I have heard this subject discussed at length in committee meetings, caucus meetings, and so on. There is no doubt that a need exists. That is why I hope the government will accept this proposal and refer it to the committee on procedure for further study. At least this would start the ball rolling.
There is one thing such a proposal could do. It could provide a means of avoiding the excessive cost which arises in the United States Senate in connection with secretaries and assistants to senators. We in Canada could not undertake that kind of expenditure.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Possibly members of parliament might be willing to give $2,000 a year from their $6,000 tax free expense accounts toward the cost of paying these research assistants. The government might give another $2,000 on top of that, and the students in question might be willing to do their best to live on that amount because of the valuable experience they would obtain by working as research assistants for members of parliament.
I am not sure at this stage what would be best to propose, and I do not think any of us have given enough careful study to know what scheme would serve members effectively and at the same time be within the financial capacity of the money appropriated for operating this house. For this reason I think the government should accept the hon. member's suggestion that the notice of motion be

DEBATES	May 31. 1967
referred for further study to the committee on procedure.
When the various aspects of the matter are considered by that committee, and when evidence has been given by members of the staff of the House of Commons and by others who wish to give evidence to the committee, I think we could settle this problem satisfactorily without excessive cost to the taxpayers of the country.
I notice that the hon. member quoted several editorials which indicated that newspaper editors in his province think there is some merit in his proposal. He also mentioned the opinions of some professional people, and I presume they are interested in the internship aspect.
The only other suggestion I would make is that when the matter is considered by the committee, the occupations which might be covered by the scheme could be broadened. However, I conclude my brief remarks by urging the government to accept this resolution and have it studied by the committee on procedure, so that that committee can report its findings to the house with respect to the service that can be rendered and the cost involved.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with the principle enunciated in this motion and would agree that the young intelligentsia of this country should be exposed to the practical workings of our national legislative process. However, the actual wording of the motion seems to indicate that most of the benefit would accrue to the young people involved. This of course has some merit. I believe it would give these young gentlemen a clearer concept of parliament and of the duties and responsibilities of members of parliament, and if this were so I believe we might get a great deal more sympathy.
The type of individual who could be expected to participate in an internship program is likely to be one who would later have a great deal of influence upon public opinion, and later on through public utterances and editorials he would be able to project a much more objective and salutary image of parliament itself.
The other advantage of this type of program, as I see it, is the fact that these young gentlemen would become acquainted with members of parliament. This could be bad or good. After a short time in parliament perhaps they might think it would not be a bad idea to run for public office. Of course it
May 31. 1967	COMMONS
could be a two-edged sword: They might decide never to catch the political disease.
Civic groups and many public spirited citizens have stridently deplored the lack of our young people going into public life, and the apathy of the general public. This is a valid fear. We all recognize the ingredients of a healthy, vital, and progressive democratic process. What is needed is a veritable array of dedicated young men willing to enter public life, ready and able to make the sacrifices that it demands. If we are to preserve and enhance our parliamentary system we must have this type of individual. Therefore if this plan awakens to even a small extent a feeling for politics in the young people involved, then for that reason alone the plan is justified. However, the real merit of the plan is the assistance it would give to members of parliament.
What about the plight of the ordinary member, and in particular I refer to the backbencher? I have been in this house one and a half years, and frankly I feel the great majority of members are hard working. They are trying to do their best for their ridings and for the country, but I believe members should have more time to ponder the great issues of the day, to study legislation, and to analyse briefs. This cannot be done if their time is consumed with committee work and answering correspondence.
At present we have fine offices. We have secretaries. We have very adequate equipment, but what we need is some assistance so far as the administration of our offices is concerned. I do not believe we should have an assistant for each member. I think at first this would not be acceptable, but we could have a pool of assistants, and members wanting to use them could use them. This is not a plan to hire people to do our legitimate work. It is a plan to make members more productive; and if we are more productive, then the country as a whole benefits. I believe this plan should be tried, and if it does not work it can be discarded.
It is an old axiom that the ordinary member is here merely to vote and look after his riding. This indictment is only partially true. I submit that ordinary members can be very influential concerning government policy. I believe they could participate in the debates in this chamber to a greater extent than at present. They can participate in caucus and on committees. They can participate in debates during private members hour.
DEBATES	813
Suggested Internship Program
Under the present system, however, I believe the private members hour to be a Model T in the jet age. We are supposed to have five hours for private members business each week. This is fine in theory, but the time in practice is reduced drastically. It is reduced during the budget debate, during supply debate, and during debate on the speech from the throne. At present, private members resolutions occupy two hours each week, and this leaves only one hour a week on Friday afternoon for private members public bills. I believe that private bills which deal chiefly with corporation matters should be eliminated from the private members hour. They have no place in the House of Commons.
We were able to eliminate divorce bills from the private members hour, and this was a very salutary step. They are now handled much more expeditiously in the Senate and everybody is quite relieved. The next logical step should be to transfer all private bills out of the house to some department such as the Department of the Secretary of State. In this way the applicant would receive a better and more prompt hearing, and there would be more time for private members business in this house.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Sometimes the whole concept of the private members hour is queried. Sometimes it is suggested that we do not need it at all. I think we need it, and for many reasons. The first basic reason is that it gives every member an opportunity to speak in this house, and that is something that is not easy to do. It is a rather intimidating place.
In the first place, all the members of this house travel across the country. They become acquainted with the needs, aspirations and feelings of the people of this land. They can interpret the mood and the temper of this nation. Of course, some of the bills which are presented are neither logical nor well thought out. Some of the ideas are good, some are bad, and some of them are indifferent; but at least the attitudes of this nation are crystallized and held up to public debate and scrutiny. I think this is a very fine thing.
The two reasons which have been advanced for the retention of the private members hour are to a certain extent most helpful, but the basic reason I believe is that it can be used as a vehicle to translate these ideas into legislation. At the present time about 100 per cent of the bills are talked out. They literally die, without having the remotest chance of being passed. I believe this is wrong. In my view
May 31, 1967

Suggested Internship Program every bill should be voted upon before six o'clock. If it were accepted, then it could be sent to a committee for examination. If it should have merit, then it could be referred back to the house for possible legislation. This would enhance the role of the private member. This is what we are interested in.
This motion refers to parliamentary reform. I spoke on this subject previously. Because of antiquated procedures the average person has a very poor concept of parliament. In the eyes of the people, we are bumbling, ineffective and impotent; we are paralysed by stifling time consuming procedures. The danger in this attitude is very evident.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I suggest to him the remarks he is now making are not very closely related to the resolution which is before the house. In view of the fact there are several other members who would like to speak, I ask the hon. member to confine himself as closely as possible to the resolution which is being considered.


Donald Ross Tolmie: In summary, may I say that the motion pertains to certain parliamentary life and parliamentary procedure. I feel that this is of the utmost importance. I agree in principle with the point enunciated by the hon. member. I feel, however, that more emphasis should be placed on actual assistance to the members themselves. I believe that if this bill and the other hon. members's bill were sent to a committee and studied, it would be beneficial to this parliament and to the nation.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because time is running out and I do support this resolution. I should like to make just a few observations. So explosive and indeed so intensive is our development and awareness of knowledge, and so rapidly does knowledge change today that it occurs to me that certainty of knowledge is an obsolete term. I think we are all quite familiar with this as a concept. If youth today has a policy, it perhaps could be described as idealism. This has not changed. If youth has an ideal, at the very least it is pragmatic. If youth today seeks and desires a more convenient vehicle for the expression of this, it turns to professionalism.
It is because of these two points that I make my third observation; that is, if the resolution is meritorious-and I happen to believe it is-I would commend it to the

members of the house and urge that they give very careful consideration to the matter of referring it to a committee.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, this motion has received support from all corners of the house. As a freshman member I am aware, as are many of my fellows, of two things. First, there are many able members in this house who do not perform in the most productive fashion possibly because of the variety of the tasks imposed upon them and, second, the young people of Canada are not sufficiently involved in the work of parliament to assure us that there will be a supply of able parliamentarians for this second century of Canada.
I am encouraged by the motion of the hon. member. I believe there is much in it which should be considered by the members of this house. I hope that this motion, motion No. 6 on the order paper under the name of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), and another somewhat similar motion on the order paper will be considered by a committee of this house.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer):
That the said proposed motion be deemed to have been withdrawn and that the special committee on procedure of the house be empowered to consider and report upon the provisions thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Thursday, I hope to call as the first item of business the second reading of Bill No. S-6, the Interpretation Act. If that should be disposed of before six o'clock, we would begin consideration of the estimates of the Postmaster General. At eight o'clock of course there will be the budget address.
On Friday we would continue with the consideration of the estimates of the Postmaster General, to be followed by the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. On Monday we would begin with the Department of Fisheries and then the Department of National Health and Welfare. On Tuesday next week, in any event, we would resume the adjourned debate on the budget. I propose, after spokesmen
May 31, 1967

from each of the parties in opposition have been heard, to move the adjournment of the debate on the budget. We would then consider the estimates of the department of the Solicitor General and continue them on the following day, Wednesday. I hope it will be unnecessary to make any further announcement about the business of the house until next Wednesday night.
Business of the House
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is it assumed that after we complete second reading of Bill No. S-6 tomorrow, we would continue with that bill in committee of the whole?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 1, 1967