1967-06-27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, instead of putting a question of international importance I am asking the Minister of National Defence why it is that the highland pipe band is not appearing in the changing of the guard ceremony. Are they going to appear shortly or is that music, the finest this side of heaven, to be denied those attending this ceremony?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Well, I will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I must agree with my right hon. friend that the bagpipes make very fine music, particularly since last Robbie Burns day when the pipers were put on a basis of equality with musicians in the Canadian Armed Forces. I also suggest to him that if he has not had a chance to hear the wonderful display of the bagpipes in the Canadian Armed Forces tattoo, he should do so because it would thrill Scotsmen of any national origin.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see the note of reform in the minister indicated by this recognition, but I am asking about the changing of the guard on parliament hill. I am wondering whether the unification policy that the minister brought into effect has eliminated the highland band from the ceremony.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all I can reassure the right hon. gentleman that the kilts and pipers are not affected by the unification policy in any respect.


John George Diefenbaker: Why are they not here, then?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So far as the reason no pipe band is on the hill at the moment is concerned, I will have to take that question as notice. I cannot answer it without finding out
the facts.


Mr. MacEwan:: A supplementary question to the minister. Now that the pipers are on an equal basis with other musicians, when is the minister going to allow them to play?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask them whether they have received the statement which has just been released by three distinguished gen-telmen who were formerly associated with the Department of External Affairs, Mr. D. V. LePan, former assistant under secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. A. F. W. Plumptre, who was assistant deputy minister of finance for international affairs, and Mr. Escott Reid, who has long been associated with the Department of External Affairs and was formerly high commissioner to India and Canadian ambassador to Germany.
The statement they have issued, Mr. Speaker, points out that although the primary objective of the government of the United States may have been the maintenance of freedom and self determination, they are convinced that this objective cannot now be reached by the means that are being employed. They ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. gentleman kindly ask his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to remind the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs of the nature of the request that has been made. May I sum it up by saying they are asking that the Canadian government take a lead in soliciting other countries to make an appeal for a cease fire in Viet Nam in the hope that this will be the first step-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman should ask his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the Prime Minister or Secretary of State for External Affairs what reply is being made to this request, and whether the Canadian government is prepared seriously to undertake a solicitation of other governments who may be interested in an attempt to bring an end to the war in Viet Nam.

June 27. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I may even take as long to answer this question as the hon. gentleman took to ask it. I have received the communication, Mr. Speaker; as a matter of fact I received it this morning. Indeed, I have already talked to Mr. Escott Reid about it, as he happened to be in Ottawa today.
As my hon. friend knows, the communication welcomes the government's efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in Viet Nam and is intended to reinforce these efforts. As I understand the proposals Mr. Speaker, they take for their starting point the need for negotiations on a cease fire and a peaceful settlement. To bring this about they look to a cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam coupled, if that were possible, with the cessation of infiltration by North Viet Nam and a cessation of the build-up of the forces of South Viet Nam's allies.
These proposals do not in any way conflict with government thinking. We have always made it clear that we wanted to see the bombing stopped, but that we also wanted to see, the infiltration stopped and negotiations started. I should remind the house, however, that proposals very much like these were made by President Johnson in his message of February 7 to President Ho Chi Minh. They were turned down by President Ho Chi Minh oh February 15, on the familiar ground that an unconditional cessation of the bombing and all other acts of war against North Viet Nam would have to precede any talks between the two sides.
I want to assure the hon. member and the house that the government is not losing sight of the need to set in train the process of negotiation in Viet Nam. Nor will the house need to be reminded of the key importance which the government attaches to a halt in the bombing in paving the way for such negotiation. This will be clear from the proposal we advanced on April 11 and which we still see as offering a valid approach to a reversal of the course of events in Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the statement of the three gentlemen in question differs from President Johnson's proposal in that it suggests an unconditional cessation of the bombing, and that the United States should express the hope that the North Vietnamese will stop its military build up in return for the assurance that the United States and its allies will act similarly, is the government of Canada prepared to give the lead to other

countries which are also interested in trying to get a group of countries in the world to support a declaration asking for an unconditional cessation of the bombing in the hope that negotiations and a peaceful settlement will follow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have already, I think, indicated our position in this matter, most recently at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization council meeting a few weeks ago. I would, however, point out to my hon. friend that even an unconditional cessation of bombing has now been linked by the authorities of North Viet Nam, in certain of their more recent statements, with the withdrawal of United States forces as well, before negotiations can begin. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not continue to have this escalation in demands on the side of the north.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a related question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has relied heavily on the international control commission for information from South Viet Nam. Can the minister tell us whether that commission is likely to produce a report in the near future, as it has not made a formal report for two years?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I do not expect that in the foreseeable future there will be a report by the commission that will be unanimously concurred in.


Mr. Starr:: Will there be any kind of report?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As King Hussein of Jordan has spoken not only before the general assembly but has also consulted with the President of the United States, are there plans for the Canadian government or the right hon. Prime Minister to discuss with him the refugee problem and the general Middle East situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to ascertain the plans of the King of Jordan. If it were possible to have an exchange of views with him I should welcome that on behalf of the government. We are trying to ascertain what his plans are and how long he expects to remain on this side.
June 27. 1967


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which arises, from the report in today's Globe and Mail of the speech he made at Jasper. Can the minister confirm that he indicated that certain industries might have difficulty as a result of the recent Kennedy round tariff negotiations, but that the government was prepared to give assistance to those industries? Can the minister say what categories of industries he has in mind and what sort of measures will be introduced to take care of the position of their workers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask questions about speeches made by a minister outside the house unless he asks the Prime Minister whether the alleged or reported statements are government policy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I might be permitted to put the question accordingly, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister reflecting government policy when he made the statement to which I referred? If so, could he indicate the categories of industries which would be affected and the kinds of assistance the government has in mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is still out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could confine my remarks to the first half of the question as I put it the second time.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I have distributed copies of my address. While the words the hon. member has used seem to me to be reasonably accurate, I should not like to be responsible for them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I mean I do not want to be responsible for the interpretation the hon. gentleman places on my words; I prefer my own. However, there will undoubtedly be some difficulties arising out of the Kennedy round, and the government has already stated its intention to introduce legislation to facilitate the adjustment.


Mr. Fulion:: Since the minister has confirmed the general accuracy of my version of his remarks, would he now indicate the kind of thing he has in mind, the type of
Inquiries of the Ministry difficulty he thinks may be encountered and particularly the type of measure the government has in mind to deal with the situation, because this matter is of increasing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question is too general in nature to be asked at this time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that Bill No. C-170, an act respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada, was proclaimed on March 13, three and a half months ago, would the minister inform the house what steps the government has taken to establish special mechanisms and procedures to deal with salaries and other terms and conditions of employment of personnel excluded from bargaining units, as recommended by the special joint committee on the public service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked by the hon. member for York South is of the same nature as the one asked by the hon, member for Kamloops which was ruled out of order. I do not think it can be asked at this time.


David Lewis: On a point of order, perhaps I did not put my question in such a way that it was clear to Your Honour. There was a recommendation by the special joint committee on the public service that a committee such as I described, or machinery of the kind I mentioned, be set up by the government within a certain limited period-six months, if my memory serves me correctly. My question was directed to finding out from the minister whether any steps have been taken to fulfil the recommendation made by the joint committee. It was not based on a newspaper report; it was based on a recommendation to parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the point made by the hon. member, but it still appears to the Chair that this is not a matter of urgency to the extent that the question should be allowed at this time. In addition, the question appears to be of a general nature. The hon. member has himself referred to the fact that there is a period of six months within which certain action has to commence; and unless

June 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry that period has expired or is about to expire it is difficult to see how there is such urgency that the question should be allowed now.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a different question, one which I tried to avoid lor reasons which will become obvious. Is the minister aware that officials of his department are alleged to have stated that nothing will be done about the setting up of such machinery. If so, can he inform the house whether those statements are correct?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: The statements are not correct. We made an undertaking to form a committee similar to the Frank committee, and we are proceeding to fulfil this undertaking. I can assure the hon. member it will be done well before the six months limit referred to.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Canada will entertain the Queen in Ottawa on July 1, will the minister advise us whether there is to be any special celebration at Expo to commemorate the 100th anniversary of confederation and, if so, will any representatives of the cabinet be attending?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be some special events at Expo in Montreal on July 1. During the morning celebrations there my colleagues and I will be detained in Ottawa because of the visit of Her Majesty, and the government will be represented by Hon. Lionel Chevrier. At the evening celebrations the government will be represented by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which is supplementary to that put by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace a few moments ago.

In view of the fact that the government has decided to be represented by one of Canada's most worthy citizens, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, in Montreal on July 1 would it be possible to know whether the government is making every effort to ensure that its representative will be identified as such, in the different ceremonies?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a recent report on world affairs published by the general council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association it was stated that in February the South African government invited all the diplomatic missions at Pretoria to visit South-West Africa in order to see for themselves the situation in that area. Was such an invitation received by the Canadian representative, and was it declined?


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



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a telegram from the officers and membership of the Canadian Brotherhood of Rail, Transport and General Workers in New Waterford, Nova Scotia, representing the salaried shot firers and deputy mine examiners employed at Dominion Coal Company Limited and Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, regarding the closure of the McBean colliery. Is consideration being given to the inclusion of that colliery under the provisions of the Cape Breton Development Corporation bill, and will the Prime Minister say whether the request of these representatives for a meeting with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Premier Stanfield and the officers of the United Mine Workers, district 26, is acceptable to the government?
June 27. 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that telegram was received and I think it has been answered. I shall check as soon as I get back to my office. Meanwhile the position of the government is as put forward the other day by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That remains our position.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that regardless of objections the McBean colliery will not be included under the Cape Breton development corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. All relevant
matters were taken into consideration before that decision was made.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has received a telegram from another branch of the same union, local 510A of Thorbum; and if he will not include this mine under the terms of the legislation, will he give some kind of commitment as to the future of the mine in order to clarify the situation for these people?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I made such a statement during the debate on the bill. As a matter of fact in answering these telegrams I also forwarded copies of Hansard. I have said we regretted it but that because of other circumstances we could not include that mine under the bill; however, we will do everything in our power to help if it is to be closed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the right hon. Prime Minister whether they have received a request from the board of trade of Louisbourg asking that the railroad from Broughton Junction to Louisbourg be included in the legislation covering the Cape Breton development corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to say that this third question, or second supplementary, cannot be asked. I wonder whether it would be in order to have too many members rising at this time to ask whether certain specific telegrams have been received. I would doubt whether this is in order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised last week.
Inquiries of the Ministry The government took it as notice, and it was stated that a statement would be made some time this week as to whether this part of the railroad was going to be included or whether it was going to be abandoned.


Mr. Speaker:: I might suggest to the hon. member that in view of the fact that the bill will be before the house for consideration later this afternoon, the question might be asked and answered at that time.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would now ask him would he agree to meet with a delegation from the U.M.W. so as to clarify the statement which he says is recorded in Hansard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is awfully clear in Hansard, and I could not add anything to it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister meet with the union representatives?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already said I would, but the bill must be approved first, and we cannot change the principle that the McBean colliery cannot be included in the legislation; because if we were to do so the federal government would be in the business of closing mines all over Canada when they have come to their natural end.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would ask the minister one further supplementary. What is the difference between changing the principle of what is in the bill and changing the principle of the policy announcement already made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question might also be asked when we resume consideration of the bill.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last Thursday I asked the minister whether he would investigate a reported offer by TransAir Limited to Air Canada and the Air Transport Board of five new fully manned passenger jets. Can the minister now

June 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry tell the house what will be done about this offer?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As a result of such investigations as I have been able to make it appears there is no such offer. Therefore there is not much I can do about it.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister not aware that TransAir has made application to purchase five new fully manned passenger jets and is backed in this undertaking by R. W. Press-prich and Company of New York, and that the jets are on order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister make inquiries of the president of Canadian National Railways with respect to complaints concerning the over-selling of seats on trains between Toronto and Montreal, also the sale of seats which are non-existent. This situation is causing a serious danger to the health of the elderly people and children who are involved in these complaints.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation, but I doubt that it is a matter which should be raised in the form of a question at this time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has proclaimed July 3 as a legal holiday, and in view of the fact that parliament itself is going to take that day off, will the Prime Minister look into the request of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that the operating staff of the post office also have a holiday on that day?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My impression, Mr. Speaker, is that they do have that day as a holiday.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the discriminatory directive which permits Canadian film to be processed in the United States and admitted to Canada duty free while Canadian film processors must pay duty on processing equipment, chemicals and supplies entering Canada, thus making it impossible for Canadian film processors to compete with United States prices, is the Canadian government considering changing the regulations to correct this discriminatory practice so that in this centennial year Canadians will be able to compete in respect of the large photographic business resulting from Expo and the centennial?


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


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that Canadian film processors are having difficulty now because of the centennial year business. July 1 is only a few days away and they are faced with this type of thing from the United States, which even contains an Expo symbol on the United States document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that if I am in error on the question of urgency, the matter can be taken up within a few hours.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but in his absence perhaps I may be permitted to direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the many representations which have been made in respect of help for dependants of veterans who were not included in the last pension increase, would the Prime Minister now tell the house that something will be done? This is a matter which has been the subject of many complaints over the last three months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to take up this matter with the minister right away.
June 27, 1967



COMMONS DEBATES COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker I should like to address a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister. Her Majesty the Queen will be here very soon, and I think she deserves a warm welcome. The only regret I have is that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) wants to abolish the royal prerogative of dissolution.
My question is as follows. Does the Prime Minister intend to propose to Her Majesty the creation of a commonwealth citizenship from which all inhabitants in that organization would benefit, and which would mean the end of the subject status?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much that this question is in order at this time.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Queen does not come to Canada very often. Second, I think that if there is some uneasiness in Canada it is due to a rather widespread failure to give a Canadian look to Canada, and that is why I think that it is a very timely and very urgent question, because the Queen will not stay long in Canada.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the intervention this afternoon by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), whose views on the monarchy seem to have undergone a complete change, does the Prime Minister intend to have the hon. member for Lotbiniere accompany Her Majesty the Queen during her trip to Expo in Montreal?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which is most justified.
I have not changed my mind in the least; on the contrary, I am merely asking whether Her Majesty will be asked, on the occasion of the centennial confederation, to abolish the status of British subject, because we are proud to be Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that can be considered as a question of privilege.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say, in the light of his own statement of May 10 that constitutional studies are being undertaken by the government as a basis for consultation with parliament, whether the Minister of Justice was speaking for the government when, as I am informed, this morning he told the committee on justice and legal affairs that the constitutional studies which are being prepared for the government would not be submitted to that committee or to any other committee of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not try to create a difficulty like that between myself and the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: You should read some of his speeches.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question. Has the government changed the policy which has been stated from time to time by the Prime Minister, that in due course the question of constitutional change will be referred to a committee of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; in due course that will be done.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could the minister inform the house whether the principles he outlined before the parliamentary committee are now being applied in respect of the processing of immigration cases, or will such application depend upon the passage of special legislation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: June 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that he could deal with some of the discriminatory aspects by order in council without a change in the regulations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the right hon. the Prime Minister. Is he going to ask leave of the house to revert to motions to allow him to make a statement on the question of the stockpiling of steel at the Dosco steel plant at Sydney?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think it will be necessary to revert to motions, because shortly we will be discussing the bill. I believe that during the discussion in respect of clause 22 it would be a very good time to make a statement on this matter, which could be a little longer than any statement which might be made on motions.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated that when we are discussing that bill we can discuss steel, but I fail to find anything in the bill which concerns itself directly with the steel question or the policy statement which was promised to the delegation which came here from Cape Breton. This statement was promised for today, and in Cape Breton the people are patiently waiting for the result of that promise.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be made today. However, I think during the discussion of the bill would be the proper time to make a statement, because the bill is very much related to the direct question.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON GENEVA TARIFF AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforfh (Kent (Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since it has been intimated to the house that we will be sitting during the second week of July, I wonder whether the government will be able to bring to this house a report on the recent agreements at Geneva.


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is yes.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has received any complaints about the occupational training plan for adults from the manpower centres or individuals, particularly having regard to the inadequacy of this program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally received any complaints but I have heard of some which have been referred to in the department. I cannot be more precise than that.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask whether the minister has signed the agreement with the province of Ontario in relation to this act.


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. We are still discussing the regulations, and I hope this agreement will be signed soon.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question regarding the same subject. Will the minister check with Mr. Stewart, his regional director for the maritimes at Halifax? I am sure he will find he has received numerous complaints.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday we asked a number of questions of both the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister in an attempt to gain some satisfaction on this question of an increase in transportation rates in respect of the province of Prince Edward Island. At that time the Prime Minister agreed to consult with the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that this increase is scheduled to come into effect on July 1, a significant date, I

June 27, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	1991
wonder whether the minister can now give us some satisfactory information.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether our consultations have reached the point that the minister is ready to report. If he is not ready now I hope he will be ready tomorrow.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the learned and reasonable Minister of Transport. Will he before this consultation has concluded give consideration to delaying this increase until those organizations and individuals which indicated their intention to appear before the commission of inquiry, which has now been abandoned, have a chance to give him their views?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consider very carefully the question of the honourable and, in the proper sense of the word, learned gentleman. I will, of course, give his question all the consideration it merits.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, having in mind the recommendation of the Canadian Automobile Association, an organization with close to a million members, calling for the establishment of mandatory breath tests for all drinking drivers. Will the minister indicate whether we may expect a decision on this matter before the end of the present year?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The question has been processed by my department, and this matter is scheduled to come up for legislation after the summer recess.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the serious pollution of our rivers, has the government any active plans for studying methods of eliminating pollution from our navigable 27053-1271
Canadian Citizenship Act streams which come under federal jurisdiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lisgar is reiterating a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for New Westminster. At the time the suggestion was made that it be placed on the order paper.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may rephrase my question. Has the federal government any plan to co-operate with the provinces in the elimination of pollution from our streams?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must reach the same conclusion in spite of the hon. member's rephrasing of the question.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 31, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-4, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee arose on May 31, clause 1 was under discussion.
On clause 1.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that neither the minister nor I had an opportunity the other day to make any statement about this bill, and in view of the complaints of some members in this regard, I should like the permission of the committee to make a short statement.
My remarks on the introduction of this bill need not be very long because the amendments proposed to the Citizenship Act are of a kind with which I am confident we can all agree, and which in our centennial year seem to me, at any rate, to be especially appropriate. Basically they are designed to remove grounds of discrimination which exist between natural born and other Canadians; to relax the language requirements for applicants who because of their age have difficulty in learning a new language; to provide flexibility in the requirements concerning residence in Canada before a person applies for citizenship, and to provide for a citizenship appeal court. In addition there are a number of amendments of a technical nature relating to persons of Newfoundland origin and with regard to procedures, the regulation-making power and the penalty provisions.
June 27, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act
With regard to the matter of discrimination, I am recommending that the provision in the act whereby other than natural born Canadians lose their citizenship on residence for ten years or more outside of Canada be eliminated.
Several members, I am sure, have come across cases of people who have been granted citizenship, who live outside of Canada for good and sufficient reasons, and who suddenly find they have lost their citizenship. While it has been possible to allow them to resume their status, the confusion, the problems and even hardship which this provision has created seem to me quite unnecessary, and the provision has been discriminatory. Also on the point of discrimination, natural born citizens are not liable to loss of citizenship by reason of failure to return to Canada to face charges of treason under the Criminal Code or offences under the Official Secrets Act. This amendment will place other than natural born Canadians on the same footing in this connection as their fellow citizens who have natural born status.
Having regard to residence, under the act as it now stands an applicant must have "acquired Canadian domicile" and have resided in Canada for one year immediately preceding the date of his application. Canadian domicile is defined by reference to the Immigration Act, and means that a person acquires Canadian domicile when he has his place of domicile in Canada for at least five years after having landed in Canada.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The amendments the bill is suggesting will do away with this concept as a requirement for becoming a citizen. In its place there will be a requirement that a person must be a landed immigrant and have resided in Canada for five out of the eight years prior to his application. Generally speaking, this means immigrants will be eligible for citizenship five years after landing. However, we are proposing an important additional change by providing that a person who has resided in Canada before becoming a landed immigrant may count half that period toward the residence required after being landed. There will also be provided an additional element of flexibility in that the requirement of residence for one year immediately prior to application will be changed to a period of 12 months in the 18 months before application.
Amongst the requirements on which an applicant for citizenship must satisfy a court is that of language. He must have an adequate
[Mr. Bechard.l
knowledge of either of our official languages or, if not, have resided continuously in Canada for more than 20 years. The courts have been reasonable in the interpretation of this provision and generally speaking they consider persons qualified in this respect if their knowledge of one of our languages is adequate to their particular circumstances whatever they may be. Nevertheless there are cases particularly of older people, who find it quite difficult to learn one of our languages and they cannot therefore satisfy a court on this point. They do not have to if they have resided in Canada for 20 years. This bill recommends that the period be reduced to ten years in the case of a person who immigrated to Canada at the age of 40 or over. We are also proposing that the language requirement be waived if an applicant is the spouse, widow or widower of a Canadian citizen.
Suggestions have been made from time to time that when a person's application for citizenship has been refused by a court there should be an opportunity for him to appeal to a higher court to prove that he does possess the required qualifications and is a fit and proper person to be granted citizenship. While there have been only a few such cases in recent years, the government nevertheless agrees with this view. Accordingly, we are proposing the establishment of a citizenship appeal court consisting of a judge of the exchequer court to hear appeals from negative decisions of citizenship courts. The citizenship appeal court will be a court of record and will, as I have indicated, be empowered to hear and determine all appeals from final decisions of courts that an applicant is not a fit and proper person to be granted citizenship. It will also be empowered to hear appeals at any place in the country.
I should note at this point that the discretion to grant citizenship will still remain with the minister. Citizenship has always been a privilege bestowed by a country, and not a right of the person who seeks it. Let me say at once, however, that we are very glad to have persons become citizens of this country, to do what we can to facilitate in every possible way the granting of citizenship to those who apply and are qualified for it, and particularly to ensure that those who apply are heard fairly and their eases considered carefully.
The remaining provisions of the bill are of a technical nature and relate largely to procedures on which explanation, if members wish it, will be dealt with in committee where we now are. I should perhaps mention one matter
June 27, 1S67

of special interest to Newfoundlanders. After Newfoundland came into confederation the Canadian Citizenship Act was changed with the intention that the full terms of the act be extended to Newfoundland in accordance with the terms of union. However, despite the fact that the authorities at the time thought they were extending the complete terms of the act to cover people of Newfoundland origin, doubt was raised that this intention was in fact carried out. We are therefore including amendments in this bill which we are assured by the lawyers will indeed make certain that the complete provisions of the citizenship act cover people of Newfoundland origin.
The minister has not long had the responsibility for the administration of the citizenship act, but one thing she has discovered since she has had this responsibility is that it is an extremely complex law of a rather esoteric nature. The amendments we are recommending will result in considerable improvements, but we must remember it is 20 years since the law was first put on the statute books and it has been amended from time to time to fill gaps. Therefore, if the house approves this measure the minister will ask her officials to stand back and take a searching look at our citizenship concepts as embodied in the act and regulations, and as they have come down from previous naturalization laws, with a view to seeing whether the whole scheme should be revised to meet modern circumstances and conditions. Because this is a com-lex subject and because the status and rights of individuals are involved, we doubt that this can be done quickly, but the minister intends to spur the project on.
Mr. Chairman, I wish at this moment to try to reply to questions asked by hon. members the last time we studied this bill in committee. The hon. member for Royal dealt with the registration of births abroad; he was concerned about that matter. I dealt with this problem when a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Carleton was studied by the house. I wish only to emphasize at this point that registration not only serves a useful administrative purpose but it is also very much in the interest of the person himself. Such registration provides clear evidence to that person that he is a Canadian. It assists him to enter Canada easily and it enables him to identify himself in the future to Canadian authorities abroad should he ever need to do so. From the administrative point of view, it quickly enables a Canadian official to identify a person who is a Canadian and
Canadian Citizenship Act thus perform any services which are requested of him.
This is not to say that the present system is perfect and might not be improved. However, there are implications for other departments as well as this one and these would have to be taken into account in proposing any changes. I can assure the hon. member that this matter will be reviewed promptly.
The hon. member for Royal also dealt with the matter of the revision and consolidation of regulations. The minister and the department recognize the validity of the point made that the regulations need revision and tidying up. We are giving priority to this task and hope to have results in the relatively near future.
With regard to the humanitarian interpretation of the act, which matter was also raised by the hon. member for Royal, I agree with him in this respect and the minister proposes to bring to the attention of the courts the remarks made on the matter in this debate.
Several hon. members referred to booklets which have been published for the instruction of new citizens. These booklets are not produced, by the way, in the citizenship registration branch but in the citizenship branch of the department. A number of them are made available to prospective citizens when they call at the court offices. We are glad to have hon. members' views on them. Perhaps I should say that the booklets seem to appeal to a significant portion of the public, because aside from the free distribution to newcomers they are offered for sale at a nominal cost of from 35 cents to 50 cents by the Queen's printer and have consistently rated high on the Queen's printer's best seller list.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
With regard to the guide to Canadian citizenship which was specifically mentioned, I should emphasize that a judge may ask any questions he likes when examining an applicant. This booklet is, as it says, only a guide. It was produced several years ago and I believe the time has arrived when consideration should be given to whether any booklet at all is required or if the text of the existing one should be substantially revised. In any event,
I want to assure hon. members that we will be glad to reconsider and review the whole matter and undertake to do so.
The hon. member for Norfolk referred specifically to the new booklet for the use of
1994	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship Act immigrants. This is to be a presentation booklet to people who have recently become Canadians. I am glad to say this booklet has been completed and has been distributed either yesterday or today.
The suggestion was made by the hon. member tor Oxford that a booklet should be prepared on the operations of parliament, which seems to me to be a good suggestion. It may be that some work in this area has already been done in the Speaker's office. In any event, I intend to ask the officials of the department to study this possibility.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Chairman, our centennial of confederation is but five days away. How fitting and appropriate, therefore, it is that this afternoon we should be discussing Canadian citizenship. I had hoped that the proposals of the government in the citizenship bill would have been imaginative and vigorous, a genuine call to arms for the Canadian nation. Instead, this afternoon what we have before us rather than a full revision of the Canadian Citizenship Act is a patchwork bill, a most pedestrian measure. It is an ad hoc bill, an improvisation in every particular. I suggest that by this timorous and uncertain legislation the Secretary of State has lost a tremendous opportunity to speak out for Canada on the eve of the centennial. Missed opportunities are seldom recaptured. I regret especially the failure of the government to seize this special opportunity to express our pride in Canadian citizenship.
The parliamentary secretary has laboured hard this afternoon to clothe this bill with a distinction it assuredly does not possess. Today it is hardly fashionable to talk of citizenship or nationality. Allegedly sophisticated people do not believe in it. I am sufficiently old fashioned, sir, to have great pride in nationality and in citizenship. I like the words which the Minister of Transport used in his address at Memorial University on May 19, 1967. I put them aside for just such an occasion, and although I would rarely quote the Minister of Transport I want to do so on this occasion:
In many quarters today, pride of nationality is no longer fashionable. Nationalism is called an evil thing. There are many who say, and perhaps more who think, we should cast aside all local or national ties and become "citizens of the world". I agree with those who say that the only hope for humanity is that all or most of the inhabitants of the globe should learn to be citizens of the world, with a sense of responsibility to all their fellow human beings. But I do not believe that to become a good citizen of the world, one has to give up narrower loyalties. No one seriously argues that the world
[Mr. Bechard.l
DEBATES	June 27, 1967
would be a better place if all men and women lost their distinctive individual personalities and became indistinguishable one from another. Nationality is nothing more than the collective personality of a group of people. I am convinced that collective personalities, both national and local, are just as essential to human happiness and a good life as individual personalities. In my view, nationalism, which is the sense of common nationality, is harmful only when it is directed to harmful ends like the promotion of racial hatred and aggression against other nations.
I believe these are wise words from the Minister of Transport. They reflect completely my view of citizenship and nationality. I believe they are totally in character with the first speech from the throne delivered in this parliament by Lord Monck on November 7, 1867. I want to take a moment to read the second paragraph of that speech from the throne:
I congratulate you on the legislative sanction which has been given by the Imperial Parliament to the Act of Union, under the provisions of which we are now assembled and which has laid the foundation of a new nationality, that I trust and believe will, ere long, extend its bounds from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean.
Who wrote those words, "a new nationality"? Those were the words of Thomas D'Arcy McGee. They were adopted by Sir John A. Macdonald and they were put in the first speech from the throne. Those words were approved by the first cabinet, a cabinet which consisted of many of the fathers of confederation, the architects of this nation. They were men of French heritage, of Scotch, Irish and English heritage. What they said, and what they sought for this nation, was a new nationality, a nationality not French, not Anglo-Saxon, not Scotch, not Irish, not Welsh and not of any other old land, but one which bore proudly and uniquely the name "Canadian".
This is the approach I take to this bill and that is where I think the deficiency of this bill lies, that on the eve of confederation there is not the inspiration in the bill that is needed in these particular circumstances. I confess to some of my friends who are of other national backgrounds than mine that what irritates me most is that French speaking Canadians lump me in as Anglo-Saxon when my heritage is Irish and my people were Irish rebels long before the French ever stirred from the sleep of medievalism.
If I may use the words of Frank Underhill, the new nationality was to "include and transcend the two groups of English speaking and French speaking Canadians." I believe a reiteration of some of the words Underhill used
June 27, 1967

in the Massey Lectures of 1963 on "The Image of Confederation" would be useful at this time:
The experiment of the new nationality that they thus proclaimed was of a nationality that should link together a variety of rather isolated, little colonial communities scattered across the northern half of the continent, and that, in particular, should include and transcend the two groups of English speaking and French speaking Canadians, divided though they were in race, language, and religion.
I underline the words "include and transcend".
That is, it was a complex nationality; and they were well aware of their own boldness in the initiation of this experiment.
This, sir, is the type of boldness I wish we had demonstrated in this bill this afternoon. I wish it really represented a leap forward into that new nationality contemplated and forecast in the first speech from the throne.
I should like to congratulate the officials of the department upon the new booklet which was d.stributed yesterday to members of parliament and which is to be distributed to new citizens hereafter. I believe it is an excellent production. I think it is exceedingly worth while. I believe it will give that feeling of unity which all new citizens should have, that feeling of belonging which is so important to someone who has just taken the oath of allegiance.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I hope that when these presentations are made, judges of the citizenship court will fully appreciate the responsibilities which are theirs. I have spoken of this before in the house, and the hon. member for Royal spoke of it the other day. I do not think there are any officials in our country who have a heavier responsibility to display human, warm understanding of the problems of the people who are before them than the citizenship court judges. They can and ought to convey a real welcome to those who have done our country the honour of accepting our citizenship, we having given them the privilege of being citizens of this nation.
I have heard many complaints about a very few of the judges of the citizenship court. There is one citizenship court the judge of which I should have fired when I was minister of citizenship and immigration, and I still say he should be fired. In this locality this man is doing damage to the whole image of Canadian citizenship, and I hope he can either be properly disciplined or else his services
Canadian Citizenship Act properly dispensed with by the governor in council.
The parliamentary secretary said that this bill had four purposes. I think it is more noteworthy for its omissions than for what it does. I think the most significant omission is with respect to the lack of provisions relating to the citizenship of children of Canadian citizens born outside Canada. Again I venture to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary Bill No. C-2 which I introduced and which has been commented upon favourably by literally hundreds of persons in the armed forces and the diplomatic service. This bill deals with the question of children bom outside Canada.
As the committee knows, at the present time a child born outside of Canada of a member of Canada's armed forces or a member of the diplomatic or other public service or the representative or employee of a Canadian firm or organization serving or engaged outside Canada will lose his citizenship unless two things are done. The first is that the birth has to be registered at a Canadian office abroad within two years. Second, between the ages of 21 and 24 that person must file a declaration of retention of Canadian citizenship.
There are today many thousands of Canadians serving or engaged outside of Canada, and I believe there are many children born out of this country who are likely to lose their Canadian citizenship unwittingly. I think that to place the children of Canadian citizens who are serving their country abroad either in the armed forces or diplomatic service in a different category from children of Canadians serving or engaged at home is discriminatory and a genuine hardship both to parents and children. I have had many descriptions of such hardship from members of the diplomatic service and armed forces who have told me that child No. 1 was born in Canada, that child No. 2 was born outside of Canada, that child No. 3 was born in Canada, that child No. 4 was bom outside of Canada, and so on. Some of these children have one type of status as Canadian citizens and others a different status. I just do not believe that this is good enough.
When we come to the question of the repeal of section 18, Mr. Chairman, I may have something further to say about the grounds of discrimination because I do not think that in this particular the government has gone far enough.

June 27, 1967
Canadian Citizenship Act
I should like to speak for a moment or two about the citizenship appeal court. The provision for appeal is, of course, an advance, but I wish that the Secretary of State had gone the full distance as did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with respect to the immigration appeal board. What you will note here in respect to the citizenship appeal court, sir, is that there is no interference whatever with the discretion vested in the minister. Therefore the principal problem, which is that of security, is not touched on by this bill.
The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane has spent agonizing hours, as I have, in dealing with these very difficult security cases which come before the minister. Personally I do not think the bill in its present form is adequate; it provides simply for an appeal from the court, leaving the final discretion to the minister. This is exactly the opposite of what was done with the immigration appeal board, and I venture to suggest that the model of the immigration appeal board should be incorporated in this bill.
I wish only to reiterate that I am sorry there is not in this bill that clarion call to pride in Canadianism that I think there ought to have been today, five days before our confederation celebration. What I do not understand is why Canadian history and tradition are so badly taught in this country. Why are they not taught with that sense of drama and colour that I believe is so important in creating a genuine nation? Why do we as Canadians undersell our own history? I venture to suggest that it is as exciting, as dramatic, as full of courage as is to be found anywhere in the world. The story of our explorers is far more noteworthy and inspirational than the similar story in the United States, Australia or other countries of the world.
What we are not doing in this country is getting this story across to our younger generation. We are not teaching our youngsters to take a real, genuine pride in citizenship. I do not speak of chauvinism; I have no use for that. But I do believe in love for the soil of the nation, and this is what I think we should get across.
Recently I had a conversation with one of the senior ambassadors to Canada, and perhaps I am identifying him when I say that he knows Canada better than most Canadians. After all his travels around the world and across Canada he came to this conclusion. He said that if the full, exciting, dramatic story of Canada were told in all its colour, it would go further than anything to explain the

French to the English, each to the other, and Canada to the world. That, sir, is the type of clarion call that I think should be contained within the bill. That is the type of pride in our nationhood that I hope we can express on the first of July, one hundred years after our confederation.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take advantage of clause 1 for a moment to pose a question which the parliamentary secretary will have a chance to think about and perhaps discuss with his officials before we reach the clause that I have in mind. My question has to do with the clause setting up the citizenship court of appeal. When we get to that clause I would appreciate some explanation of how this court of appeal is to operate. I am very anxious to know whether persons appearing before the citizenship court of appeal will be given the reason if their applications for citizenship have been refused. I take it for granted that these persons can be represented by counsel, but it would seem to me that counsel would be completely in the dark if he were not given the reason for refusal of citizenship in the first instance.
I notice that in the clause setting up the citizenship court of appeal there is a subclause which provides that, subject to the approval of the governor in council, the court can establish its own rules and procedure. I am not going to say that the court of appeal will be useless unless the point I have just made is accepted, but in many cases, particularly those involving security, unless the lawyer or person appealing knows the reason for refusing the citizenship application there will be little point in appealing. I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Carleton about the minister's discretion. That is another matter. But when we come to the appropriate clause I should like to hear some explanation from the parliamentary secretary of how the citizenship court of appeal is to operate and whether the appellant will have the right to know why his citizenship application was refused in the first instance.
a (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on this bill, particularly in response to the admonition of the hon. member for Carleton that Canadians are not proud of Canada and have no justifiable pride in Canadian history and traditions. I say to him that in western Canada we have a deep sense of pride in our Canadian history and traditions and in the contribution that western Canadian pioneers have made to this great
June 27. 1967	COMMONS
country of ours. I am somewhat disturbed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton that there is a deficiency in the pride of Canadians in Canada as a nation. I do not accept his admonition or the premise on which it is based.
The people of southern Alberta whom I represent have a deep sense of pride in Canada. We regard our history, albeit short, as being as significant and thrilling, as colourful and exciting, as the history of any part of the world. The traditions we have developed in our short history are important to our young and to those who first settled the area. The people of Alberta, particularly those of southern Alberta, feel gratitude toward and are proud of the pioneers who came to southern Alberta 70, 80 or 90 years ago to work the land and create the communities, cities, towns, in fact, the province, that we have today.
Alberta is an important part of Canada. I listened to the hon. member and tried to determine why he spoke as he did. Perhaps one reason is that we in western Canada recognized Canada as a nation a long time ago while other parts of Canada still considered this country a colony. Perhaps these other parts of the country are finally realizing that Canada is a great nation with a proud history and proud traditions and with a pride in its pioneers equalled by no country in the world.
I will not go into the details of the bill but I should be remiss in my duty if I did not answer the charge, if one wishes to call it such, that Canadians are less than full citizens with something less than the full pride that goes with being Canadians. In that part of Canada from which I come there is no deficiency of pride in this country nor in its history, traditions and the achievements of its pioneers.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Obviously the hon. gentleman has totally misunderstood the tenor and purpose of my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not at all.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Look in Hansard and read what the hon. gentleman said.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was last before the house I had the privilege of speaking generally in support of its provisions to strengthen the concept of Canadian
DEBATES	1997
Canadian Citizenship Act citizenship as a major effort of the government during this, our centennial year. I wish to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, however, that in his remarks he did not deal with the point I raised concerning what I consider to be a possible omission in the bill. I pointed out that the bill did not make clear that a person whose conscience called upon him to do so could affirm rather than take an oath. I must say that personally I would have no objection to swearing an oath, but there are people in this country whose religious beliefs are such that they prefer to affirm rather than to swear a solemn oath.
This matter was dealt with in the courts of this country after an embarrassing incident involving some people of Dutch origin, I believe, in the Hamilton area. In spite of the possible reassurance provided by the court decision in this question, I would think that for greater clarity and greater certainty it would be consistent with our Canadian traditions of human rights that this be spelled out very clearly in the bill so that people whose religious beliefs do not permit them to take an oath in the form acceptable to most of us may be permitted solemnly to affirm rather than to take an oath. There is provision for affirmation, I believe, in the Interpretation Act. I hope we will have some answer on this point from the parliamentary secretary.
I would also like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary and the committee the fact that in spite of his comments about the importance of the booklets produced by the government to inform prospective Canadian citizens and Canadian citizens generally about our system and form of government, several booklets are presently being sold-in fact they are sold right here in the parliament buildings-that have certain rather serious defects. These booklets, I would gather, are being made available not only to tourists who pass through these buildings and to people who purchase them from the Queen's printer's book stores but obviously to people who are preparing themselves to take the examination for Canadian citizenship.
Just as this debate began I went to the foyer where there is a small counter selling a number of booklets about Canada-an excellent idea-and I purchased two of them. One is entitled: "How Parliament Works. An Examination of the Functioning of the Parliament of Canada." It is written by Mr. Hopkins, law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the Senate of Canada.

June 27, 1967
Canadian Citizenship Act
I say at the outset, that this booklet, in spite of the comments I am going to make about it, is in my opinion generally the best short treatment of the technique or form in which parliament conducts its business. My complaint is that in spite of the very important changes which have taken place in our rules over the past several years we have not seen fit to make it possible for this book to be revised since 1957. It has been reprinted a number of times, the latest reprinting having been in 1966. But according to what is printed right at the beginning it was last revised in 1957. It is rather interesting to note the words in the foreword indicating that the original brochure was first published in 1953:
The original brochure is not only out of print, but since the first printing two factors have combined to render it somewhat out of date. In the first place, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, is now the reigning monarch of Canada. Secondly, in 1955 the House of Commons adopted by unanimous vote the most important set of procedural reforms since confederation.
Since there has been no revision of this book of any kind since that time in 1957 there is, of course, no reference to the changes which have taken place since 1957. The book, for example, speaks of private members' days rather than private members' hours. It refers to the standing committees under their old names before the rules were revised about two years ago.
I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the efforts of the learned counsel and law clerk of the Senate of Canada. I say that this is perhaps the best short treatment I have seen about the technique or operation of parliament. But criticism has to be advanced to some extent based on the fact that permission has been given for thousands of copies of this book to be sold across Canada through the Queen's printer and in this very House of Commons to visitors and to people from other countries, the result being that they obtain an impression of the technique of parliament which is not consistent with what is really happening.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I recognize that this booklet published by the Queen's printer may not come strictly within the jurisdiction of the citizenship branch, but I would be very surprised if it were not used in helping people prepare for their Canadian citizenship test. We are certainly justified in complaining about the way in which the history of this country and our system of government are taught in schools across Canada. For obvious constitutional reasons we may not have the control over this

situation that we might like to have. But this is something we ourselves can deal with. I hope my words here will be brought to the attention of the proper quarters so that this book may be revised immediately and those purchasing it may be able to get an idea of the actual rules under which the house operates at the present time. Again let me mention that generally speaking the discussion in Mr. Hopkins' booklet of the flow of legislation through the house, the three readings and so on, is accurate and up to date and it is a very clear, short statement of this procedure.
I wish to conclude my remarks by bringing to the attention of the committee something even more closely related to the working of the citizenship branch. I also purchased at the bookstore in the foyer a booklet entitled "Our System Of Government". It is part of the Canadian citizenship series and this edition, first published in 1948, has been revised to October, 1966. My comment with respect to this booklet is that while what I am about to quote may be correct in a narrow technical sense, these extracts could give a misleading impression to someone relying on this book, which I think is obviously designed for the training or I should say for the preparation of those about to take their citizenship tests, from looking at the questions and answers at the back.
Briefly, I wish to direct the attention of the committee to these comments in the booklet, first with reference to the cabinet. It says:
The cabinet is, in fact, a committee of the Privy Council which is provided for in the British North America Act. Privy Councillors are chosen and summoned by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. Cabinet ministers are selected from among the members of the Privy Council and they head the various departments of government. It is the normal practice for ministers to have a seat in the House of Commons in order that they may report directly to the members of the House.
I suppose this is technically correct but it would seem to me that it should be rewritten to make more clear the fact that it is only on very rare occasions that cabinet ministers are not either members to this house to start with or are obliged to become so in very short order. As far as I am aware, and I obviously have not had the opportunity to examine this point closely, the swearing in of these individuals as members of the Privy Council is almost contemporaneous with their assumption of duties as members of the government.
I might point out that on page 22 in relation to provincial cabinets there is no indication at all that the members of those cabinets
June 27, 1967

are almost invariably elected members ol the provincial legislatures. On page 17 of this booklet there is a brief discussion of the way in which legislation goes through this house, and it says:
The main discussion or debate takes place during the second reading at which time all members are given an opportunity to voice their opinions on the content of a bill.
There is no reference of any kind in this portion of the booklet to committees of the house, not even to the committee of the whole in which consideration of the bill before us is now going on. Yet this is obviously a book designed to inform new Canadians about the methods and operations of our government.
Finally I wish to draw the attention of the committee to an interesting paragraph also on page 17 under the heading "The Civil Service". It reads:
As is apparent from the above outline, members of the House of Commons are holding office as representatives of the people on a temporary basis. At every election the voters have an opportunity of changing their representatives. It is possible, therefore, that after an election there may be a new Prime Minister, new cabinet ministers, and a large number of new members in the house.
We cannot quarrel with that. We have all experienced that situation.
To provide for a continuous handling of public business, an organization known as the "Civil Service" has developed. The members of the Civil Service are professional public servants who are paid to carry out the routine business of government in the respective departments as directed by the ministers. The operations of the various departments may be questioned and examined by members in the House of Commons and the minister of a department called upon to report on any matter concerning his department.
Then there is some discussion of the important individual known as a deputy minister. The text continues:
It thus becomes apparent that through the civil service the work of government is dealt with on a continuous basis, although there may be changes of cabinet and membership in the House of Commons from time to time as a result of elections.
There is no reference whatsoever to the role of parliament and those composing it in creating policy and in overseeing its implementation and administration. It may well be that in the eyes of the civil service generally this is the actual position we hold. If in fact we have seen ourselves reduced to this position I think it is time we took action not only to correct this booklet but, more important, to correct this situation.
I therefore suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he undertake at the very least
Canadian Citizenship Act to have this booklet revised forthwith so as to give a better idea of the operation of our system of government. While the words used here may be technically correct in a narrow sense, since our system is based on constitutional convention and understanding they should be modified in a way which brings a more realistic and accurate concept to those who would use this booklet about the operation of the system.

Before closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman,
I should like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his efforts on introducing this most important bill.
To my mind, it is symbolic that this bill should be introduced to the House of Commons by someone who speaks French. It shows that the concept of Canadian citizenship is not something narrow, that it does not tie in with a certain group in our country, but rather that the concept of Canadian citizenship is very broad, very important, indeed as important as our great country which is celebrating its centennial this year.

I think, as I said earlier, that the symbolism linked in having the parliamentary secretary to the minister present this bill to us exists in the fact that it demonstrates how today the concept of Canadian citizenship is not a narrow one linked with a particular group of a particular origin but has come to involve people of every origin who are willing to assume and share the burdens, the responsibilities and the privileges of Canadian citizenship.
I commend the parliamentary secretary for his efforts and I think, as I said the first time I spoke, that this legislation is a most fitting project for the parliament of Canada during our centenary year.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
[DOT] (4:10 p.ra.)
On clause 5-Revocation of Canadian citizenship.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I
confess to some concern about the phrase in section (l)(a) of new section 19 "by concealment of material circumstances." This is a very broad phrase and I wonder whether the net result of this clause is really to put naturalized Canadians on the same basis as natural bom Canadians. Are we not still leaving
June 27, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act the door wide open for the cancellation of certificates of Canadian citizenship for some comparatively minor matter like concealment of age? This is the type of thing that occurs to me. It would also cover unintentional error by a person filling out an immigration form when he arrives in Canada.
I go further and say there ought to be a time limit in relation to this provision. So far as I know, the provisions of the Criminal Code would not apply to this new section. Therefore there is an unlimited period of time during which there might be cancellation for the reasons given here. Is that good enough? Personally I think the chances of offence under new subsection (1) (a) are really so remote that I would prefer that it be done away with.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the remarks just made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) about the present section 19, subparagraph (a) again undoubtedly concern the matter of security.
But any newcomer who wants to become a Canadian citizen has the right to be heard by the citizenship court and if, because of this "concealment of material circumstances", his application is refused, he will have the right to be heard once again by the appeal court which will be established by passing this bill. He will be able then to be represented by a counsel who will plead his case before a judge of the Exchequer Court.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary did not understand what was said by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).

The proposed new section does not deal with the rejection of an application. It deals with one who is already a citizen and who is having his citizenship revoked.


Richard Albert Bell: The parliamentary secretary put my point in reverse.


Albert Béchard: Revocation of citizenship can only take place on order of the governor in council after the person involved has been given an opportunity to have his case referred for judicial inquiry.


Richard Albert Bell: The parliamentary secretary still has not grasped my point in this connection, namely, the breadth of the term "concealment of material circumstances." Let us take the situation where a

man does not disclose the fact that he is married at the time he makes his application for citizenship and 40 years later somebody comes along and says, "Oh, you concealed a material circumstance. Therefore your citizenship should be revoked." If there is no limitation period and no definition of what we mean by material circumstance, the legislation will continue to be defective. Despite the fact that this is the existing legislation I really think we are not updating it in the manner in which we should. When he sat on this side of the chamber the Minister of Transport made most eloquent speeches about what was going to be done to put those who were not natural born and those who were natural born in precisely the same situation. This clause does not fulfil the commitments which were made by that minister when he sat on this side.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the benefit of the advice of the officials which the parliamentary secretary is getting, but may I make a suggestion to the hon. member for Carleton. It could well be argued, if this clause ever came to be tested in the courts, that since the phrase "concealment of material circumstances" follows the words "obtained Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud" the so-called ejusdem generis rule would apply and this would limit the breadth of the term "material circumstances."
It seems to me that a clause of this type should remain in the new section because otherwise, possibly through some inadvertence by our immigration officials in the initial security screening, someone could come to this country who was a second world war criminal and would be in a position to continue to claim Canadian citizenship after it was granted to him simply because he was able to conceal his earlier history. I am sure the hon. member for Carleton would not want to see such an extreme situation permitted, even though he shares the views of the majority of members that so far as possible people who are not born here should be put on the same footing as those who are.


Richard Albert Bell: May I suggest to the hon. member for Essex West that this is not a matter which could ever be tested in the courts because it involves the discretion of the governor in council. The hon. gentleman has sufficient legal experience to know he would not take action in the courts to test a discretion so completely vested in the governor in council as is provided by this new
June 27, 1967

section. It is just because it is at the discretion of the governor in council and because the language is so broad that I am raising the point. The provision is not in complaince with or in fulfilment of what hon. gentlemen opposite have said under other circumstances. I think the provision could only be justified if a time limit were placed on it, say three years from the date of the concealment. We should not leave a person for the rest of time under the possibility that some comparatively minor concealment might lead to an unenlightened governor in council using this discretion to revoke his citizenship.


Mr, Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in the debate and am not very conversant with all the provisions of the bill, but may I suggest that the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton seem to be valid so far as the wording of this new section is concerned. Would the parliamentary secretary and his officials consider adding something to the new clause such as, "by concealment of material circumstances affecting the safety or security of Canada"? I would even be suspicious of that kind of provision but the new section would be less objectionable if there were some clarification of that sort.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I will try to clarify that problem, if possible. Of course, if a fact, as pointed out earlier to the committee by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), is known and was not disclosed by the applicant when he appeared before the citizenship court, fifteen or twenty years later the governor in council will not revoke ipso facto that person's certificate of citizenship.
The governor in council will act only after the applicant or the person implicated has been heard by a judicial commission. It is only in such a case that the governor in council will be able to revoke the certificate of citizenship granted to a new citizen.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall
clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to
Canadian Citizenship Act
On clause 7-Copy of decision transmitted to minister.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, during my remarks earlier in the afternoon I mentioned that there is a problem here in that this clause is not in accordance with the precedent which was set by the government itself during the last session in respect of the immigration appeal board. This simply provides for an appeal from the judge. There is no technique here whereby the minister's discretion is in any sense reviewed. There is no provision whatever to deal with the troublesome and agonizing security cases.
I appreciate that this latter is a matter which is under consideration by the royal commission on security and personally I intend to make some representations before that commission concerning the techniques of handling the particular citizenship applications which are turned down on the ground of security. I venture to suggest to the parliamentary secretary that even at this late stage the government should turn back and adopt the principle it has in respect of the immigration appeal board which would make the ministerial discretion subject to appeal.


Robert William Prittie: Now that we are on clause 7, Mr. Chairman, is the parliamentary secretary prepared to make any comment on the question I raised earlier about whether an appellant who appears before the citizenship appeal board will know the reasons for the refusal of his application in the first instance or whether his counsel will have the opportunity to have that information? It seems to me it would be very difficult for an appeal to be conducted by counsel if the reasons were not given.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), that anyone whose application has been rejected by the citizenship court will also be advised by the minister of the reasons for refusal of his request at the time of his appearance before the citizenship court.
Moreover, he may appeal this ruling and avail himself of the services of a counsel.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I was practising my French and not using the simultaneous translation system, but if I understood the parliamentary secretary correctly he said that the person appealing would receive from the minister the reasons for the refusal. If this is
June 27, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act so, it will be a change from the procedure of the past. As it stands now, if a person is refused for some security or alleged security reason he is not told the reason.


Thomas Miller Bell: He will not be under this bill either.


Robert William Prittie: Then the information just given by the parliamentary secretary is incorrect. At the present time he is simply told that he is refused citizenship and is not given the reason.


Albert Béchard: To clarify things further, let us say that the applicant will be advised of the rejection of his application by the citizenship court and that he will have a right to appeal.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, but if I were appearing for such a person before a court of appeal I would not know what to do other than perhaps present character references on the person's behalf, because I would not know the reason the person was being denied Canadian citizenship.
I should like to raise some other points on this general subject. Earlier the parliamentary secretary said that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. I agree with that point. I said some of these same things when the estimates of the Secretary of State were before the house about two weeks ago. I referred particularly to people who have been in Canada for a long time, who were admitted as immigrants and who have lived here for 20, 30 or 40 years. There has been no reason to deport these people but at present they are being denied Canadian citizenship. It would seem to me that a person who has lived in Canada for such a period of time should have built up some rights and should be given citizenship if there is no reason that it should not be granted.
At that time I mentioned the very peculiar case of a young man in my constituency who came from another Commonwealth country. He would be one of the British subjects whom the hon. member for Lotbiniere was speaking about earlier today. He can vote and can be elected to parliament but he can be refused Canadian citizenship. This would seem to be a very strange situation. I will be interested to hear any remarks the hon. member for Carleton may make in respect of how counsel could effectively present the case for a person who has been refused Canadian citizenship when he does not know the reason.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect of this matter which I think is included within the general point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. The parliamentary secretary has pointed out already that the citizenship judge can ask any questions he likes. Apparently there is nothing in the act which provides for any limitation in respect of this right or privilege which the citizenship court judge has.
This problem does not exist in respect of the court for the London district which includes Windsor. I believe the last time this matter was before the house a number of very laudatory statements were made by members on both sides of the house about the present incumbent of the position of citizenship court judge there. But there are other areas in which complaints are being raised and have been raised concerning the totally unreasonable questions which have been directed to applicants for citizenship by various citizenship court judges. Some of these questions could not be answered either by members of this house or by any Canadian no matter what his education or length of stay in this country might be.
I think some format should be laid down which a citizenship court judge would have to follow when asking questions. This could be set out in the regulations or in the administrative procedures of the department. I believe that when the broadest latitude is allowed in respect of questions there is some opportunity for abuse, especially when the judge is not required to give reasons for refusal of the application.
I recognize the problems which might be created in cases where the refusal is based on security reasons. However, refusals are also sometimes based on the fact that an applicant has not correctly guessed the name of the longest river in Canada or perhaps did not answer to the satisfaction of the judge, for example, a question concerning the name of the grandfather of the present Queen. By the way, this question could be answered incorrectly no matter what answer might be given, because it would depend on whether the judge considered that the person should give the name of the grandfather on the mother's side or on the father's side of the family, and so on. While I think there should be some direction in this regard, if wide latitude is to be given to the judge in respect of these questions, then certainly there should be a requirement that the reasons for refusal be given to unsuccessful applicants so that these people will know what to put forward at the
June 27, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	2003
appeal court. With a great deal of respect to the parliamentary secretary, this is the reason that I say this matter has not been dealt with in as complete a way as I think it should have been.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are two distinct issues involved here. The first is whether the citizenship court judge and subsequently the citizenship appeal court should be required to give reasons for refusal. Personally I think they ought to be. I believe an appeal is meaningless if the reasons for the refusal of citizenship are not given, whether or not an appeal is launched. I believe there should be a provision in this bill which would require the citizenship court judge to give his reasons for refusal so that the person will know precisely where he stands and so he will know what he is appealing against.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The issue of security does not come up at that stage. The issue of security is not an issue before the citizenship court judge and will not be an issue before the citizenship appeal court. This is a matter which is in issue when the minister exercises discretion later. We are going to have a situation under this bill where an individual is refused citizenship by the citizenship court judge on some ground, shall we say, such as not knowing who the Queen's grandfather was. It may be that the citizenship appeal court then would recommend that citizenship be granted. When the matter comes before the minister there may be a report indicating that the individual subscribes to some foreign newspaper which happens to be the only one of its kind in Canada through which the individual can get news of his home land. The minister may reach the conclusion on the basis of that fact that this individual is a security risk although he belongs to a party which is legal in Canada. The individual will be deprived of Canadian citizenship.
I confess this is one thing I could not understand and would have changed had I remained in the portfolio for any length of time. How is it that a person can belong to a party which is legal in Canada and yet be deprived of citizenship on that account? That is beyond my comprehension.
There are two distinct issues which ought to be reconsidered. There should be different provisions in relation to security. This bill is totally silent on that subject and we are going to have the same back-door methods we have
Canadian Citizenship Act used all along which I deplored when I was a minister and deplore even more now.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I want to support what has been said by the hon. members for Burnaby-Richmond, Essex West and Carleton. Let me urge the parliamentary secretary to have the minister's advisers look into this situation. I rise at this time merely to support what has already been said.
Some time ago I became aware of a problem facing a Canadian resident from a part of Canada which I do not represent in parliament whose application for citizenship had been rejected on a number of occasions. That person had tried over a period of years without success to obtain citizenship status. When I went into the matter I learned that the individual was and had been a high school teacher for many years. She was prevented from becoming a citizen for security reasons. If there was anything in the security risk reason at all it was entirely based on alleged subversion in respect of the young people whom that person was teaching in school.
It is this kind of silly inconsistency that arises time and time again which should be corrected. All that person would have obtained as a result of receiving citizenship, in addition to the pride of being a Canadian citizen to which I will refer in a moment, would have been the ability to obtain a passport and the protection which goes with it if that person went to a foreign country. That person could carry on any activity in Canada without being a citizen, including the activity of teaching Canadian youngsters in high school over a number of years. She was anxious to become a citizen for no other reason than because of her pride in the country. When she first brought this matter to my attention she was in tears every minute of the tune that she spoke to me about it. Having been here practically all her life she wanted to be a Canadian citizen. I have never been able to learn what the reasons were, and the department finally was persuaded to give her citizenship, but there must have been some reason somewhere in the files for suspicion about that person's security.
It seems to me that there may be some other comments about clause 7. This subject is of such importance it deserves further consideration by the department, the minister and his advisers so that we can get away from the silly idea that a person can teach in high schools in Canada for 20 years and be

June 27, 1967
Canadian Citizenship Act judged fit to bring up our young in the democratic processes and a democratic understanding of our country but unfit to get a certificate which would entitle him or her to very few practical things in addition to the satisfaction of being recognized as a citizen. I have personally felt as a result of my limited experience in this field that if a person is admitted to residence and given immigrant status the withholding of citizenship ought not to take place except on very clear grounds affecting the security of Canada.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) made some comments on the grounds for denial of Canadian citizenship to an applicant, invoked by the citizenship courts.
The hon. member said that the judges should give the reasons for their refusal and he is right in saying that, at this stage of the proceedings, the question of security is not raised.
On the other hand, I believe that these reasons should not be disclosed in the very interest of the applicant himself. Since it is said that it is so ridiculous to ask such questions as: what is the largest river in Canada? What is the name of the deputy minister of National Revenue in Canada? If that is so ridiculous, and if a new citizen is unable to answer these questions and if he is refused on that account, it is in his interest, I think, not to make any publicity on these questions. As for the questions in the booklet given every new citizen to help him prepare for the examination, I believe, after what we have been told, that in several citizenship courts, the judges use their judgment.
At this stage, I should like to pay homage to several of these judges. I realize that there may be grievances against these people in certain areas, but during the winter, I visited at least three of these citizenship courts, and I was very impressed not only by the ceremony of presentation of citizenship certificates to new Canadians but also by the procedure and by the manner in which the judges of such courts pay homage to these new Canadian citizens and tell them of the grandeur of our country and how their taking the oath of allegiance is something significant not only for them, but for all Canada because as Canadian citizens they will henceforth share in the greatness of our country.
I think it is unflattering not only for the minister now responsible for the citizenship division but for all his predecessors to say

that the minister will refuse citizenship to a newcomer because he has learned something of the reputation of some John Doe through the newspapers.
I think the hon. member for Carleton, who is experienced in this field, cannot make this claim which is not to his great advantage, because I am sure he has considered the reasons for the rejection of certain applications for security reasons.
I admit with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that this security question is rather intriguing and that the case he has mentioned is even more so. He knows that a royal commission has been appointed to inquire into these security cases and that the officials of the citizenship department have been approached and have even offered their services to this commission. I presume that when the report of the commission is presented to parliament, the government will see to it that, if necessary, the legislation is amended in the light of this definite information.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, clause 7 of the bill, which amends section 31 of the act, provides as follows:
When a court decides that an applicant for a certificate of citizenship Is a fit and proper person to be granted such a certificate, or the citizenship appeal court reverses the decision of a court in respect of an application, a certificate of citizenship may, in the discretion of the minister, be granted to the applicant-
We in this party believe there should be no discretion in the minister once the citizenship appeal court has decided that an applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted such a certificate. Therefore I move:
That section 31 of the act as amended by clause 7 of Bill S-4 be further amended by striking out in the fifth line thereof the word "may" and substituting the word "shall" and striking out the following words "in the discretion of the minister," so that section 31 would read:
"31. When a court decides that an applicant for a certificate of citizenship is a fit and proper person to be granted such a certificate, or the citizenship appeal court reverses the decision of a court in respect of an application, a certificate of citizenship shall be granted to the applicant and the certificate shall be delivered to the applicant and the oath of allegiance taken by him as prescribed by regulation."


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, a number of times during the course of the discussion on this bill hon. members have raised questions regarding security. It should be noted that the effect of the amendment proposed by my hon.
June 27. 1967

friend would be that there would, of course, be no discretion at all. I do not know whether my hon. friend realizes that in many cases where an investigation has disclosed that there is a security reason for barring citizenship the investigation and the evidence, is in the public interest, cannot be made public because it may lead to an exposure of certain police contacts and things of that kind. It is for this type of case in particular that discretion is retained in the amendment now before the committee.
Security matters, as my parliamentary secretary has said, are being discussed at the present time, but in the few months since last fall in which I have been responsible for exercising ministerial discretion in citizenship matters the whole question of security and the exercise of discretion has been one to which I have particularly addressed myself. I have here a statement with respect to the whole field of security which hon. members would perhaps like to hear at this time.
I should like to say as a preliminary that I heard the last few remarks of the hon. member for York South and I must point out that there is a different responsibility upon those who accept an individual as a landed immigrant, which in effect gives the individual a chance to begin to prove himself in this country, from the responsibility that lies upon school boards and trustees who select teachers for our youth. There is a different responsibility resting on these people from that which lies upon a minister of citizenship.
Discretion is only as good, of course, as the person who exercises it. I think all hon. members, no matter where they sit in the house, would agree that the preservation of Canada and its security must necessarily be of overriding interest to any minister who is called upon to review a case. I think that too often hon. members are of the opinion that there is a sort of routine turn-down in some cases. But that certainly has not been the experience I have had nor, as is obvious from the files, has it been the practice of ministers in the past.
Each case is reviewed by the minister. I cannot find any record of any minister who blithely accepted representations without satisfying himself or herself about the validity of the representations made. No minister that I know of has ever out of hand rejected anyone unless there appeared to be a valid reason for that minister to exercise discretion.
The other day the hon. member for Winnipeg North indicated that he was aware of

Canadian Citizenship Act the difficulties that were apparent in dealing with questions of security. I am sure that any member of the house who ever comes close to the question is aware that it is a precarious one. After all, it is basic to the way in which we live and in which we structure our society that there be wherever possible the utmost publicity cast upon any process through which a person may be deprived of either a right or a special privilege which is ordinarily available.
I agree with the suggestion which has frequently been put forward that normally the most open kind of procedure is the best. One would reasonably suppose this might be achieved through the courts, but for the reason I expressed earlier all of the matters are not always placed before the courts. Hon. members will remember the case of Spencer where, notwithstanding the fact that considerable suspicion was aroused in the beginning because the process did not appear to be completely open, the circumstances when laid bare indicated that there was a very good reason for this, that it was a matter of security and that any apparent deprivation of right without recourse to the courts did not in fact exist.
I do not know that there is a way that the courts or parliament, the highest court in the land, or any group of people beyond one or two at the most that can deal with rights of this kind except in the way in which they are dealt with. As a matter of fact, if government were easily able to structure some new process, past governments would have done so or this government would have done so. That is exactly why there is a commission looking into the matter at the moment. Because the matter is so potentially fraught with peril for the state, great care is being taken.
It has often been said that the granting of citizenship is not a right but a privilege. I think that very often this extremely basic tenet is forgotten or disregarded. I do not know of any modern state which treats it otherwise, notwithstanding the fact that we in Canada, whatever our function may be, are anxious to receive good citizens and welcome them among us.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In order that we can have an inflow of potentially good citizens we keep a relatively short list of qualifications which one has to meet. Notwithstanding this fact, there are individuals from time to time who, having obtained landed immigrant status, do not appear to be ones who in the future should become

June 27. 1967
Canadian Citizenship Act Canadian citizens. Hon. members are aware that the applicant has to satisfy the citizenship court with respect to these qualifications. Most courts, as has been admitted, are rather humane and understanding when interrogating persons who come before them to become Canadians. It is after the court has been satisfied, and only in that case, that the minister is called upon to exercise her judgment and decide whether citizenship should be granted.
If X am to exercise my discretion I have to be satisfied that the individual is apt to be a good, loyal citizen. I have to decide whether that person, having careful regard to his behaviour and his activities, is apt to be loyal to Canada. If you want to put it another way, I have to decide whether he is likely to comply with the terms of the oath of allegiance which he is to take. Perhaps I should remind hon. members that the oath reads as follows:
I, John Doe, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second, her heirs and successors, according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. So help me God.
Those who wish to affirm may do so.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May I ask the minister a question? Can she give me the statutory authority for a person to affirm? I have raised this question on a number of occasions and, with all due respect, I do not feel that I have the answer. This bill does not seem to change the existing situation and does not permit affirmation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is my understanding, by virtue of information from the Department of Justice, that where general legislation refers to the taking of an oath that reference is read to include the making of an affirmation.
Now, it has been said that citizenship courts being satisfied should be good enough. As I said, sometimes there is information which is available only to the minister or the department and only on a confidential basis which has to be considered in connection with these applications. I have indicated already that I have never found a case where such a confidential memorandum or confidential representations were accepted without investigation as to their verity so far as possible.
One hon. member suggested that there are very few tangible rights to citizenship and there are many good reasons for becoming a citizen. One of the advantages is that we allow people to enter Canada without any question once they are citizens. There are some advantages, therefore, in connection

with immigration. There are some advantages in the matter of employment in various places.
Probably the most practical, tangible result from obtaining citizenship is the securing of a Canadian passport. Under present law, once an individual becomes a citizen it is not easy, and surely not desirable either, to take away that status or to revoke the passport. Hon. members do not need to have had very much experience in public affairs in the last few years to have some awareness of the benefits which an unscrupulous individual may gain from carrying a valid Canadian passport. We do not like the idea of revoking citizenship once granted. As will be seen from the provisions of this bill, citizenship will not be able to be revoked except in cases of fraud. There will still be other cases in which revocation will be possible, just as there are at present, such as a person who acquires citizenship of another country while in Canada. The last time we discussed this matter reference was made in this connection to Lord Thomson of Fleet and what he appeared to have done. Revocation is possible also when a citizen declares allegiance to a foreign country or when a person renounces his Canadian nationality.
It should be remembered that it is not the minister but the governor in council who can order that a person lose his citizenship. However, this can only be done after the person involved, has requested a judicial inquiry. Most important, after this bill is passed, one will not be able to lose citizenship by reason of residence outside of Canada.
If information comes to me which is based on security or criminal intelligence in respect of a particular case, I have to consider it carefully. At this point the minister is the only person who stands on guard, as it were, for the country. This responsibility is there by statute. The minister must decide whether this individual shall have that magic weapon put into his or her hands, a valid Canadian passport, which is granted along with Canadian citizenship. In every such case the eligibility of the person for citizenship is examined minutely on its own merits in the light of that intelligence.
The inference of some of the comments which I have heard was that decisions were taken without any regard to the current situation. In other words, one might have had a report about the early years before coming to Canada or even the quite early years after coming and that one neither took cognizance of the changes in the life of the individual up
June 27, 1967

to the time of the application or indeed of the changes in society. I said before that I can only assure the committee that is not the case with this minister, nor have I seen any evidence that it has been the case with any prior minister.
Perhaps this is the point where it would be desirable to clear up some misunderstanding about the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the whole matter, since more than one reference has been made to the force in this debate. In obtaining an adequate basis for exercising his judgment the minister may be supplied with information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Such information is sent to his department in the form of a factual report, evaluated only as to the reliability of the sources of information. This information, together with other information which may be provided to the department and can be satisfactorily evaluated, is assessed at a senior level and advice is provided to the minister with regard to the exercise of discretion in granting or denying citizenship.
I should like to stress the fact that the mounted police do not judge applications or make recommendations to the department or to the minister about citizenship cases.
In the first discussion on the bill the hon. member for Royal drew attention to what he considered to be contradictions in policy between the provisions in the new measure to establish an immigration appeal board and this measure. He drew attention to the fact that the courts would be sitting prior to the final grant of discretion by the minister. He is right, but these are two different procedures. The immigration appeal board is not empowered to exercise its discretion, if I remember correctly, if the minister and the Solicitor General certify to the board that in their opinion, based upon security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, it would be contrary to the national interest for the board to take certain actions which they are empowered to do.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The court mentioned in section 31, that is, the citizenship appeal court, is one which hears appeals from negative decisions of the lower citizenship court or judge sitting as a citizenship court. With respect to some of the cases which hon. members have mentioned and which I in the last analysis have to decide, this court is not going to be available. But I will examine any and all cases which come before me, and I have already had
Canadian Citizenship Act many cases referred to me by hon. members. In some instances I have reversed what prior ministers have said; in other cases I have followed their decisions.
I find it rather hard to believe, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned, that it would be possible to have an appeal court composed of distinguished citizens who could be given a statement of reasons for refusal of citizenship in a particular case. The hon. member also says that there is nothing in the bill which gives the right to a person whose application is turned down to receive a bill of particulars or even general knowledge concerning the particulars in order that he can answer or explain any charges that are made to clear his name. Certainly in the cases I have dealt with the applicant knows why he is being turned down. He knows what the record is. In some cases he has done his best to hide it; in other cases the applicant makes clear what his record is. I have seen nothing in the files that I have looked at which indicates that there was ever any question in the mind either of the hon. member who brought forward the application or of the applicant himself as to why the minister turned down the case in question.
There is, of course, no question of a charge being made against any person whose application for citizenship has been refused. It is perfectly true that we do not say in the letter to the applicant or to the member, why the application for citizenship is being refused. These reasons are not made public; they are not put in written form precisely because we do not want to identify publicly an individual whose application has been refused and thus perhaps damage his reputation.
There are many individuals who should not be carrying Canadian passports around the world which identify them as Canadian citizens, with the entree that this gives them, but who otherwise conduct themselves in a very proper and reasonable way most of the time within Canada. I do not think anyone wants to see a minister publicly brand an individual by giving reasons for refusing citizenship, nor indeed give any publicity to the fact that the citizenship application of a particular individual has been refused.
The security problems which affect the operation of one particular department cannot be considered in isolation from those which apply to other departments. I should not like to change the arrangements in one department without taking into account other arrangements in the government as a whole. We

June 27, 1967
Canadian Citizenship Act
have but one force which does some investigation work and channels information and that is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They operate through their own sources, not in a vacuum or in a particular niche for the department. So any exposure which is made of what has been said, or why, is quite likely to harm the whole structure of the security of the state.
I devoutly hope that the royal commission on security will be able to make some recommendations in the citizenship area in relation to the totality of all the recommendations that it is making with regard to security. However, I should like to say that I have refused, and it appears that my predecessors also have refused, citizenship only for the most serious reasons in cases where the minister genuinely believes there is a basis upon which an individual applicant does not appear to be a good candidate for citizenship, does not appear to be prepared to be loyal to the state, does not appear to be the kind of person who should be carrying a Canadian passport and appearing before the rest of the world as a Canadian.
Each case, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, has to be painstakingly reviewed before it is put to the minister. This review is carried out by senior public officials who are not simply working with a barrel of red tape beside them, nor trying to cause difficulties for individuals. These people have long experience in these matters and they give the best advice they can in the interest of the public.
I am very willing, Mr. Chairman, to look at all cases at which a member asks me to look. Sometimes I feel I should like to say publicly why in a particular case I am not granting citizenship. I look at hon. members opposite and think of particular files that I have. One in particular I find extremely difficult because it relates to a young man who has lived most of his life in this country and appears to be a very bright young man.
A responsibility is laid upon a minister who accepts the portfolio of citizenship which cannot simply be laid aside. It may be tough to take decisions, and the decisions which are made may in the last analysis be wrong. But while there is placed before the minister the goal of the security of the state, I suggest to the members of the committee that at least until we receive the report of the royal commission on security such cases should be left to the discretion of the minister. Perhaps the most useful thing that the members of this house could do is to utter a silent prayer from

time to time that the minister will exercise her discretion in the true interest of the state.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a brief comment having heard the minister's remarks. I do not know whether she was in the house when the hon. member for Carleton spoke but the hon. member is a former minister of citizenship and immigration.
The minister said that she goes into all of these cases most carefully and that no one has his citizenship application rejected on flimsy grounds. I should like to paraphrase what the hon. member for Carleton said; he can correct me if I am wrong. He said that he was most uncomfortable in some cases in accepting the advice of officials to turn down an application for citizenship on the ground, for example, of the kind of ethnic newspaper to which the applicant has subscribed in the past. Perhaps it was of the wrong political persuasion. The hon. member referred to matters of that sort. It seems to me that this is not a very substantial reason for turning down an application. From what the hon. member said it appears to me that officials have given ministers advice with that kind of reason in the background. As I say, I do not think that is a very substantial reason for refusing citizenship.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any misunderstanding of the situation but I used that only as an illustration of purported evidence of membership in an allegedly subversive organization. I went on to say that I was never able to see why membership in a party which is totally within the law of this country should be a ground for refusal of citizenship.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment places us in a situation where there are two currents of opinions. The first, that has prompted this amendment, I think, is that Canada should not be deprived, of course, of those immigrants who could be an asset to our country. It is not wished therefore, to treat unfairly an immigrant who could be qualified and to make quite sure that no injustice is done, it is intended to make known all the facts that concern him.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that another concern should come before that, which even transcends that one, and it is to protect our country from every threat of subversion. I agree with the minister that the security measures should be applied. I believe this represents the
June 27, 1967	COMMONS
common good and that it is superior, or in a word, that it transcends the private good.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that even if injustice should be done an immigrant, because there is a doubt-it is only a doubt, there is no certainty, but a doubt-that he could be a security risk for the country, the government or the minister concerned must have discretion to protect the country against such dangerous influence. In fact, the benefit of the doubt must be in favour of the country, not in favour of the immigrant.
It is, indeed, worthy of praise to be concerned about not committing any injustice, so that every human being desirous of becoming a Canadian citizen might be able to do so. Nevertheless, there will always be border-line cases. I say that, even in those border-line cases, the minister should be fully authorized to act without having to publish his reasons, which, in many cases, should be confidential. Indeed, in doubtful cases, he should exercise his authority in such a way as to protect the commonweal.
Mr. Chairman, that is why it seems obvious to me that we should not vote for this amendment. The good of all takes precedence of the good of the individual.
I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that no minister of immigration, under this government or any other, would be so irresponsible as to exercise lightly the authority entrusted to them. They will surely exercise it only in cases of reasonable doubt. They will do so conscientiously, telling themselves that their first concern must be to protect the state, to protect the country.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Gilbert) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 36.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 7 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary or the minister can give a further explanation on how the reasons of citizenship courts for refusal of applications in areas such as the one that precipitated this amendment will be presented to people who want to appeal to the new appeal court so they will know what type of case will be made and what type of argument will be put forward.
DEBATES	2009
Canadian Citizenship Act


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the introduction of Bill No. S-4 which, when approved, will enable the minister to appoint an appeal board in cases where discrimination appears to be evident. I wish to congratulate the minister for bringing this measure forward at this time. However, I want to bring one aspect of the Canadian Citizenship Act which is closely allied to the Immigration Act to the attention of the minister. As a matter of fact, both acts are related to each other.
There is no question about the need for a change in the Immigration Act which would remove the section that authorizes the minister to issue a deportation order against a legally entered immigrant if the said immigrant should have the misfortune to enter a mental institution. Under the act, upon admission to a mental hospital an immigrant is immediately placed under a deportation order which is not removed even after the patient is discharged from the hospital and enjoys good health. He cannot enjoy the status of landed immigrant and though he may live an honourable life until old age he cannot qualify for citizenship because the act does not give the minister power to remove the deportation order.
This is a situation where the minister has the power to issue a deportation order which, though usually never acted upon, he does not have the power to remove. There are cases of unfortunate individuals with families, individuals directing their own businesses, employers of labour, who because of a nervous breakdown have been admitted to a mental hospital for a period of months, were then discharged as cured and have never had a recurrence of the disease but because of this monstrous section of the act they are unable to qualify for Canadian citizenship. This bill is designed, partially, to correct this situation through an appeal board.
May I take the liberty of reading one letter which is addressed to me. It was written by an individual who has been affected by the particular section of the act to which I refer and it reads as follows:
I wish to thank you for your letters of February 10th and February 12th, and for the interest you have shown in my case.
In regard to the misunderstanding of my name, I am glad you have already clarified that. I would like to add that in 1956, when I filed the application for citizenship, I used Agostino Salvatore Caccamo, omitting the name Mario, by which I have always been called and generally known. Considering unnecessary, never taught to include it in the application.
June 27, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act
As far as the order of deportation, this has been issued in 1954, two and a half years after my arrival in Canada and the reason was because late in 1953, I personally mentioned it to you, I was confined in the Ontario Hospital for a period of about two months, following a nervous breakdown,
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
At this point I would like to clarify that this type of nervous breakdown in Italy is called "esaurimento nervoso" and does not constitute a mental case, and it is very common among students and professional people who attempt to work too hard.
At the time I had this nervous breakdown I was working for the Canada Car Company and returned to work immediately after my discharge from the hospital. Since then I worked with the company until 1957, and from 1957 to 1961 I have been with the Marathon Corporation of Canada, Marine Division, in Marathon, except for short periods: in 1959 while I was with Canada Life Assurance Company as sales representative, and in 1960 with the Lakehead Motors, as a car salesman.
In 1961 I started my own business, the America Travel Agency, holding now I.A.T.A. and steamship appointments. I am also an authorized agent for the French National Railroads, Canadian National and Pacific railroads; the Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford, Connecticut, TJ.S.A., and sales representative for the Dominion Automobile Association. At the present time I am operating my business successfully, in the good consideration of the population of both cities.
I am a member of the St. Dominic Catholic Church and the Society Principe di Piemonte.
From the CFPA radio station I broadcast a weekly program and take active part in social and sport associations such as the Y.M.C.A. and soccer club.
I have never been charged or convicted of any offence, except for a couple of parking tickets.
I am married with a child and live in the respect of the people obeying in full the Canadian law.
The only crime, if crime it can be called, was when in 1953 following a period of long working hours and study of the English language, I consulted a doctor who advised me to be recovered in the Ontario Hospital.
I understand mine has been considered a mental case. In my opinion it was only a little ''esaurimento nervoso" if you forgive my use of this Italian expression. What I needed was some rest and as soon as I had it I got well.
My activities in these last ten years can speak for themselves and my employers can corroborate it.
Mr. Badanai, the reason I am detailing all this is to draw a picture of myself so that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration would see in the daylight the man against whom an order of deportation was issued.
Did I do anything wrong which is considered against the law in Canada? Are people allowed to get sick wherever they are? Now I admit I got sick, and without any arguing in regard to the diagnosis of my sickness, under any .law of any country I suppose it has been a natural thing which could have happened to anyone, Canadian or not Canadian.
Did I ever before and after my confinement in the hospital show any sign of insanity by acting

as a mental case? My life's record does not show any of that.
I have been living in Canada for the past 13 years and have always tried to be a good citizen, governing myself according to the Canadian law. I like this country, the way of living, the people, the law; I enjoy every bit of the Canadian freedom and I feel and consider myself a new Canadian.
What I am asking is to be officially recognized as such, so I do not have to feel as being one man too many in Canada, waiting to be sent away without, pardon me, any good reason.
Shall I just wait to be deported or continue my activities as a good Canadian citizen? I have a family, I own property and feel ashamed not being able to be considered a man with a right to vote and take an active part as a Canadian citizen in political life.
If the department considers that I am not a good man, an insane man, I would ask the minister to act accordingly in my regard. But if you, Mr. Badanai, and the minister of citizenship and immigration would consider a review of my case, cancel the order of deportation and grant me the citizenship of this country, I am willing and ready to assume officially the full responsibility of a good Canadian citizen.
It is a long letter and I am grateful to hon. members for allowing me to read it all and for listening to it. But I think it was worth while reading because this is not the only case of its kind. There are others. Many forms of mental illness appear now to be as curable as are certain types of physical ailments. The present Immigration Act was formulated before these important advances in medical knowledge were achieved and it is widely considered that the provisions of section 5 in relation to previous insanity are altogether unrealistic.
It seems to me that the scope of this bill should be increased so as to include a clause which would take care of specific cases such as the one I have just cited. Epilepsy is another affliction which has responded favourably to new treatments and medical techniques. Indeed, modern drugs may so control the disease that afflicted persons may suffer few, if any, symptoms, and live quite normal lives. I would like to have dealt with both these afflictions, insanity and epilepsy, at greater length but I do not wish to take advantage unduly of the indulgence of the committee. It is true that in many cases sufferers are allowed to remain in this country, but there is no way in which they can acquire Canadian citizenship.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings of this bill I am very happy to support it. I do feel, however, that the minister should seek to change the legislation so as to deal with the particular aspect I have drawn to his attention and bring its provisions into conformity
June 27. 1967

with the capacity of mental patients for rehabilitation.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I listened as carefully as I could to the statement made by the Secretary of State in connection with the amendment recently disposed of by the committee. She gave me at least the impression that the only occasion on which the minister would exercise the power of discretion would be when either the security of the state or criminal activity was involved. If this is indeed the case, and if its the hon. lady's view that this is the ground upon which previous ministers have acted, then it seems to me we are reaching the point at which, for practical purposes at least, the grounds for the rejection of applications for citizenship are being clarified and defined. But this is not what the legislation says. As it stands, the law gives unlimited power of discretion to the minister to reject an application on any ground as may appear to be desirable or necessary from time to time.
I must say I have had no occasion to approach the present minister in connection with any case in which an application for citizenship has been refused. But I think most hon. members over a period of years have had cases brought to their attention in which applications have been rejected for unknown reasons. These were cases in which by no stretch of the imagination, since the applicants were well known in the communities where they lived, was it possible to see how either the security of the state or criminal activity could enter into the picture. It occurs to me that the minister, by virtue of the position she is now taking, is herself suggesting in effect that the procedure which was established in connection with the immigration appeal board is one that could be considered in these circumstances. In other words, it should be clearly understood that one or other of these grounds applies. The minister has virtually said so. She has said that these are the only grounds which she will consider for rejection. This means that as long as she remains in her present portfolio an application will not be rejected except for one or other of these reasons. If this is going to be the basis of administration then it seems to me desirable that it should be the basis of the law so that people will know why they are being rejected.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This may be the case so far as the applications with which the minister has dealt are concerned, but I have a vivid recollection of a
Canadian Citizenship Act case which happened quite a number of years ago. It involved a young married woman from what is now Yugoslavia before that country became Yugoslavia. Her husband preceded her to Canada. Later she found herself in the position that her husband was a naturalized citizen, all but one of her children were born in Canada, she herself was the grandmother of Canadians, but for some reason she was the only member of her family who could not become a citizen. That case puzzled hon. members and unless my judgment was wrong it puzzled the woman in question. This kind of situation should not be repeated and perpetuated.
The minister's statement, apart from some minor variations, was the same as statements I have listened to ad nauseam from ministers holding that portfolio since I first entered the house quite a number of years ago. It is a portfolio that has had many ministers in charge of it. Some former ministers have admitted to me that it is a thankless task in some aspects, and that may be one of the reasons why there have been so many ministers over the years.
A former minister, the hon. member for Carleton, indicated that he hoped to implement some changes. In view of the fact that the present minister was not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview, I ask her to consider redefining this discretionary power so that it will be understood it will only be exercised in respect of the reasons which she has said this afternoon would justify withholding citizenship from a legally landed immigrant who has met the residence qualifications.
We have heard it repeated time and time again that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. But those of us who are natural born citizens are increasingly coming to question whether this concept is one that should be perpetuated forever. We are coming to believe that a legally admitted landed immigrant who has been in this country a reasonable period of time should acquire the right to become a citizen.


Mr. Lambert:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I hear the hon. member for Edmonton West oh-ohing.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Where does he get the right?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am suggesting that this artificial distinction of a right which exists by virtue of birth in Canada as against birth somewhere else on this small planet is one
2012	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship Act that should be examined. I am not saying the person should be entitled to become a Canadian citizen the day after he arrives in this country as a landed immigrant, but I am saying that the concept that certain things are a matter of right and certain things are a matter of privilege is one which we are increasingly questioning in this country. I am applying this to the discretionary power in the hands of the minister to reject an application for citizenship on one or two grounds.
If the minister means what she says about the grounds on which she would act, then consideration might well be given to defining that concept within the law itself. To that extent it would give people an assurance that they were not being subjected merely to ministerial or bureaucratic whimsy if their citizenship applications were rejected.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not find that a bad suggestion at all. So far as I can recall those are the only two bases upon which I have seen any cases rejected. However, the most senior representatives are not here today from the department. I have not had a chance to talk to them, or even to some of my colleagues, and the principle of starting to cut ministerial discretion to a narrow basis is one they would be interested in because of the threat there may be to discretion which resides in their various departments.
I was very hopeful that we would have a new citizenship act this year. For several years when I was in opposition I heard the hon. member for Carleton talking about the new bill that his government was going to introduce, but it never materialized. It has not materialized yet under this government even though we hoped to have it for centennial year. The legislative program was such that it was hopeless to expect we could introduce it earlier this year. But these other problems are becoming a little hoary. They have been mentioned a number of times in throne speeches. Action to deal with them was promised a number of times but was always held up. Accordingly we decided to proceed with this solution.
The whole question of security covered by ministerial discretion is one of the things that is going to be looked into in the new act. I have made many sweeping recommendations to my colleagues with respect to the new act. I am not normally a cautious conservative but, although the hon. member's suggestion appeals to me, while I am still a novice in this matter of having ministerial discretion I will have to reserve my opinion and wait until the

DEBATES	June 27. 1967
new act is produced. I think no one will suffer as a result of that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The remarks of the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni have prompted me to participate in this debate. From the minister's concluding remarks it is clear that having assumed ministerial responsibility she recognizes this is a very difficult area. It is very easy to talk airily about it until one actually has to accept the responsibility. This has been recognized by a goodly number of members. The minister is joining a number of other ministers who have all had the same aspirations but who have all had to come up against this problem. I have never been connected with the department but I have come in contact with situations involving some very tough cases. I think we recognize that this is an area which is fraught with peril.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like to come back to the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I do not feel that any person who comes to this country has the inalienable right to claim citizenship. If a person coming to this country has that right, then I as a Canadian have the right to go to another country and claim the right of citizenship there. There must be reciprocity; there must be the right of the individual. What the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is doing is asserting the right of an individual to citizenship in the country of his choice. If this is valid in the case of some person who is a native of another land, that is, that he can come to Canada and assert his right to citizenship in Canada, then it is my inalienable right as an individual in the same way to move to another country and claim the right of citizenship in that country.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: You would go as a landed immigrant.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is so; I would go there as an immigrant. However, the fact that I am accepted as an immigrant does not, ipso facto, say that I have an inalienable right to be a citizen. I suggest that the hon. member should think about this situation a little more deeply. He is asserting the right of the individual to citizenship on behalf of the stranger who is admitted to this country as a landed immigrant. I have a great deal of sympathy for the right of the individual, but it is the right of Canada and the right of Canadians to say to strangers; "We will admit you; we will admit
June 27. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	2013
you to the society of citizenship in this country, but it has privileges and it has responsibilities. We are the judges." I would not say to the government of the home land of any individual that I have the absolute right to determine whether I shall be admitted as an immigrant to that land and whether I shall be admitted to the rights of citizenship. It is not for me to say. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
If we should go further, however, I would say that once we have granted the right of citizenship it cannot be removed except in the most exceptional cases. I can conceive of the case of an individual who seeks the haven of Canadian citizenship and then goes off to another land. For all practical purposes he has abandoned Canadian citizenship, or perhaps he has returned to his original land and has abandoned it. I believe this is part of the responsibility of citizenship. After all, it is not only up to the state to protect the status of citizenship. It is up to the individual to protect his own citizenship and that includes compliance with the reasonable requirements of citizenship in Canada or in any other land.
We are dealing with Canadian citizenship. It is within the rights of the Canadian nation to say, "We are accepting you as Canadian citizens but there are certain responsibilities therewith and one of them is that it is your duty to protect the right of citizenship." I would limit revocation to the most exceptional cases. If there were to be revocation, it would have to be on the basis of clearcut evidence of overt acts on the part of the individual concerned. There must be something which flows from it.
One might say to a person if he becomes a Canadian citizen, having been born a citizen of another land, that if he should leave Canada for ten years, fail to report back, fail to reside again in Canada, or fail to register he will lose his Canadian citizenship. This, I believe, is what the act now provides. There would be, however, certain involuntary conditions which might be involved. One would be incarceration in another country for political offences where there really is no guilt. Another would be the question of poverty or illness and therefore the inability to return. True enough, one might say that a person could register at a Canadian consulate abroad. However, human nature being what it is I would say that it must involve much more than mere neglect. It would require an overt act on the part of the individual if he were to be deprived of his Canadian citizenship.
Canadian Citizenship Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why in such circumstances should there be any difference between the citizen who was by law made a citizen because he was born here and the citizen who by law was made a citizen through naturalization? Both became citizens one way or another by law. Why should there be any difference between the two?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think this is one of the responsibilities of acquisition of citizenship. A distinction is made the world over between a person who was born and brought up as a United States citizen and a person who was born and brought up as a Canadian citizen. I use those merely as examples. I still feel there is a distinction. There must be a distinction between a natural born citizen and a person who has acquired citizenship. The person who has acquired citizenship can, by an overt act, be deemed to have renounced his citizenship. It must be because of an overt act. After all, the Canadian citizen has to carry out an overt act before he can be deprived of his citizenship. Therefore the person who has acquired Canadian citizenship is in no different position from another Canadian who can divest himself of his citizenship by an overt act. This is all I am saying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member now seems to be agreeing with me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, there still is a distinction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If citizenship is a valuable thing, an important thing, and if it is to be respected, why should its rights and responsibilities not be equal for the person who receives it because he was born here and the person who chooses it and receives it by law?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I still insist upon the fact that a Canadian citizen can live for 50 years in Timbuktu and never divest himself of Canadian citizenship but a person who has acquired Canadian citizenship cannot go and live for 50 years in Timbuktu without divesting himself of Canadian citizenship.


Richard Albert Bell: That is not the case under this legislation and that is exactly what we are trying to remedy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest to my colleague, the hon. member for Carleton, that he may be

June 27, 1967
Canadian Citizenship Act right in his view, but I still have the right to dissent in this regard and therefore I am expressing my opinion just like anyone else. That is as far as I will go with the matter.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have been prompted to take part in this interesting discussion because I heartily support the hon. member for Carleton's view that citizenship should be granted in many cases to those persons who have been denied citizenship because of their political beliefs. These persons would be entitled by our laws to sit in this house if they could get elected. I know of numerous cases of this type, although the number has been decreasing as the years go by. I know of persons with long residence in Canada who belong to certain groups, but because of gossip and certain information which has been spread they have been denied Canadian citizenship. In some cases they have even served in the defence of this country. I give the government credit because these matters are being reviewed from time to time and there has been improvement as the years have gone by.
I have listened carefully to the very interesting discussion that has been taking place and I should like to refer to something that happened in 1954 regarding my opposition to the granting of unlimited powers to the minister not only to keep people out but to bring people in against the advice of the immigration board. Let me quote a few lines in this respect, and this is a little difficult because I must quote myself from Hansard of June 26, 1954. At that time I was dealing with the case of five individuals who had been residents of Canada for six years. At that time they applied for citizenship and I had been informed that the board had ruled against their applications. As recorded at page 6808 of Hansard for June 26 of that year I said:
Earlier in the session the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked certain questions in the house-
The then hon. member for Winnipeg North wanted to know about certain French nationals who had arrived in Canada as landed immigrants and had been in this country for six years. The questions were answered and the answers indicated that some of them had been guilty of murder and had been sentenced by French courts. In this regard I had this to say:
In view of the law we cannot understand how these people were permitted to stay in Canada and how they were granted Canadian citizenship. We have in our possession copies of the judgments of the French courts, which were sent to us from

Paris. I am not reading the judgments, but I am going to read a couple of lines with respect to the sentences in each case.
Mr. Harris, the minister of citizenship and immigration at that time asked which case it was. I went on to state:
In fairness, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before,
I do not want to give the names. I will send the minister my slip when I am through.
This is what I read, and I will give one or two examples. In one case the individual was sentenced to death in absentia while he was in Canada, for dealing in time of war with a foreign power with a view to encourage that power against France. That was Inspector Waffen of the S.S., a branch of the Gestapo. In another case the individual was sentenced to death and the forfeiture of all his property for treason.
At that time the French ambassador was very disturbed about the matter and went to visit the minister and other members of the cabinet. He also came to see some members of this group and presented these documents from the French courts which clearly proved that these men, having committed murder and assisted the German state against the state of France during time of war, entered Canada under false names with false passports and were provided with false visas. As recorded on the same page I had this to say:
I might say that a high French government official stated they belonged to an organization who murdered the French minister, Georges Mandel, in the forest of Fontainebleau, massacred resisters, and betrayed allied parachutists who were hidden by brave Frenchmen who were shot. Some of these parachutists may have been some of our own men.
Regardless of this evidence these men were granted citizenship. This is another danger in giving unlimited responsibility to the minister in relation to granting citizenship under certain circumstances. Can anyone say why these men, who had been landed immigrants for six years, were entitled to Canadian citizenship? Certainly they were not because they had entered Canada with false documents and were proven by evidence and French court documents to have been guilty of various crimes and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. This is one objection I have to putting unlimited responsibility in the hands of the minister, not only in respect of keeping people out but also under certain circumstances of letting them in against the advice provided by responsible authorities. I have a great deal of correspondence regarding these cases in my office, but I do not intend to deal with it further at this time. This information came
June 27, 1967	COMMONS
from the French ambassador who was highly indignant about the situation.
We must be very careful in these matters, and I am more inclined to delve into the character of these people than the skills they may possess. I know of a chap who came here in 1956. He was a criminal in the country from which he came. He moved to the interior of British Columbia and it was not long before he committed another offence and was jailed. I went into this matter very carefully with other persons who had been associated with him and it turned out he was a very poor character indeed. Could anyone say that this man, after having been sentenced to jail in this country, should be entitled to Canadian citizenship? I was told not long ago that he was back in jail again. Would he have any right to Canadian citizenship? That man is a Canadian citizen today.
I took this matter up with the minister at the time and he said there was an agreement not to send persons back behind the Iron Curtain. I should like to know with whom that agreement was made because if I had anything to do with that type of man he would have been sent back long ago.
We are very fortunate in our part of the country in having an excellent county court judge who goes through these applications and records very carefully. I know of another individual who came here as an immigrant with a criminal record. Less than a year ago he applied to the county court judge for citizenship but was rejected on the basis of evidence provided by the chief of the Nelson city police. That man had been in quite a bit of trouble and it was very fortunate that his application was rejected. At the present time he is in penitentiary.
I know of another chap who arrived here six months ago on an assisted passage from a country in Europe. He had only been in the Kootenays for five months when he visited a doctor friend of mine, pulled out a long knife and stabbed him five times. It was only because of the courage of the doctor's female secretary that he escaped when she jumped on top of this assailant. This man was sent to a mental hospital from which he escaped quite recently. The police have had to place a guard on the doctor because the man is mentally deranged. The latest information I have is that he left Vancouver on a Spanish ship and I suppose has gone back to where he came from. We are "out" the amount of the assisted passage.
DEBATES	2015
Canadian Citizenship Act
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I am sure that all of us want all persons of good character who will make good Canadian citizens to come to this country. Personally, I value more highly a person being of good character than his lacking a few skills. I believe we must be more careful in some cases than we have been in the past. I am one of those who believe that Canadian citizenship, under the circumstances I have mentioned, is not a right. It is a right when a person has landed in this country as an immigrant and has proved the right to citizenship by good character and good behaviour.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote the words of a former secretary of state. I shall read a portion of his speech as recorded in Hansard of April 2, 1946, at page 505. The then secretary of state said:
But there Is no finer club in the world so far as we are concerned than the club that I would characterize as the Canadian family. We should want, therefore, to impress on new Canadians whom we shall welcome and want to share in our national endeavours that they are joining no mean society but a society that will give them freedom and an opportunity perhaps that they have not had in other lands, and at the same time to point out to them the nature of the obligation undertaken-
They accept obligations and responsibilities.
-and tell them something of the kind of country and the kind of general political basis of the Canadian society itself.
I wholeheartedly support the words of the former secretary of state on that occasion. Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I simply say, let us welcome to this country all people of good character but let us make certain we do not in a few cases take into this country unwelcome landed immigrants.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Just one second. I think all members of this house, whatever side they may be on, have a right to speak. In fact those members of the party forming the government have a particular responsibility in this regard because they may be judged more severely than other members by the public in respect of what happens in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Richard Albert Bell: I think we should proceed with the other business, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
2016	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the matters to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are the following: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Prime Minister-Inquiry as to bonuses for bilingual personnel; the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), Labour Conditions-Closing of the C.I.P. plant at Calumet, Quebec; the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), Industry-Request for assistance for Canadian film processors.
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of the government we would be prepared to give consent to continuing with the legislation before us.


Mr. MacEachen:: It is quite agreeable on this side of the house to continue with government business, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Lincoln wishes to move two motions.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon):
That the minutes of proceedings and the evidence taken during the past session before the standing committee on justice and legal affairs in relation to Bill C-192, an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of criminal records), be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs and become part of the records of that committee when it is considering the subject matter of Bill C-115, an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of criminal records).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move, seconded by
(The Assistant Deputy Chairman.)
DEBATES	June 27, 1967
the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon):
That the orders for the second reading of Bill C-122, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion) and Bill C-123, an act to amend the Criminal Code (birth control), being orders Nos. 108 and 109 respectively under the heading "Public Bills" on today's order paper, be discharged and that the subject matters of the said bills be referred to the standing committee on health and welfare.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. S-4, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 7-Copy of decision transmitted to minister.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I did not raise this point when I spoke earlier in the debate because I feel this clause is almost an omnibus one covering a number of different areas. I want to draw the attention of the committee to what appears to me to be a conflict in drafting between the amended section 31, which is the last portion of clause 7 of the bill before us, and amended section 12 which is referred to in clause 3 of the bill.
When you look at the citizenship act itself, part II, you see that section 10 (1) provides that if a person satisfies the citizenship court of certain matters, his knowledge of English, that he is of good character, is a fit and proper person to be a Canadian citizen, and so on, the minister may grant a certificate of ciizenship. Section 12, which is referred to in clause 3 of the bill and is found in part II of the act, provides:
A certificate of citizenship granted to any person under this part, other than to a minor under the age of 14 years, shall not take effect unless that person has taken the oath of allegiance set forth in the second schedule, and that person shall become a Canadian citizen upon the granting to him of the certificate of citizenship or on his taking the oath of allegiance, whichever later occurs.
If you look at part VI of the act, under the heading "Procedure and Evidence" it gives the procedure to be followed by the court in considering the application of a person for Canadian citizenship under section 10 (1).
June 27, 1967

However, section 31, which is one of the concluding portions of part VI headed "Procedure and Evidence" and is amended by the bill before us, provides in the last part:
-a certificate of citizenship may, in the discretion of the minister, be granted to the applicant and the certificate shall be delivered to the applicant and the oath of allegiance taken by him as prescribed by regulation.
It would seem to me there is some kind of conflict here. Section 12, to which I have referred, seems to call rather specifically for the person granted the certificate to take a specific oath in a specific form referred to in a schedule to the act before he can become a citizen. Section 31, in the last portion of clause 7 which we are about to dispose of, would appear to say that an oath of allegiance is to be taken under exactly the same circumstances but it can be prescribed by regulation.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
This may be only an apparent conflict which can be explained by the parliamentary secretary or the minister after receiving appropriate advice. However, I feel it should be dealt with, particularly since the minister in answer to a question of mine said that in spite of the seemingly specific requirement that a person becoming a citizen must swear allegiance through an oath to the crown and the country he can affirm if the taking of the oath is against his religious beliefs. The basis of that answer was an opinion given by the Department of Justice.
I realize there are various procedural inhibitions with respect to references in this house to the exact terms of an opinion by the Department of Justice. However, I am rather doubtful that a specific reference in legislation calling for the taking of an oath in exact words can be overridden by an opinion by the Department of Justice. To help expedite the completion of consideration of this bill I would be willing, at least on an interim basis, to accept the minister's assurance on this point. However, since the citizenship act, as amended by the proposals before us today, will form the basis for the granting of Canadian citizenship for some time to come because of the delays to which the minister has referred in preparing a completely new act, I believe we should have some reassurance, first, as to what is involved in this apparent conflict between the wording of the sections which mention the form of oath and, second, what appears to me to be the clear wording in the act that oath of allegiance must be taken by persons who wish to

Canadian Citizenship Act become citizens of this country and the minister's statement that they can do this either by oath or affirmation.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) seems to think there is a certain conflict between Section 12 of the Canadian Citizenship Act and Clause 31 of the bill now under consideration. Section 12 of the act stipulates that:

A certificate of citizenship granted to any person under this part, other than to a minor under the age of fourteen years, shall not take effect unless that person has taken the oath of allegiance set forth in the second schedule-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the oath-


Albert Béchard: Pardon me?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the oath involved is required by the act.


Albert Béchard: Yes, and the hon. member for Essex West says there seems to be conflict between the two


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, I agree.


Albert Béchard: -and the clause in the bill which is substituted to section 13 of the act stipulates:
-unless the person is under oath-
And, here, it says, "until the applicant"- [English]
-until the applicant has taken the oath. [Translation]
And section 12 says: unless that person has taken the oath with regard to an application. An oath had to be sworn by the applicants, and that is in order not to confuse the oath sworn when the person was making an application, either for himself or for someone else, with the oath of citizenship which is sworn when the person is granted the certificate of citizenship.


Mr. Lamberi:: But would not the parliamentary secretary share the views of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), as well as mine, to the effect that there might be a difference between the oath of allegiance set forth in the second schedule of the act and that which is prescribed by regulation as indicated in section 31? We are told: The oath of allegiance is required by the act, in the second schedule, according to section 12, but

June 27, 1967
Canadian Citizenship Act it is said in section 31 that an oath of allegiance is prescribed by regulation. That does not make sense.


Albert Béchard: Section 31 refers to the oath of allegiance to be taken by any citizen granted the Canadian citizenship.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Are you satisfied that there is no doubt that the oath of allegiance referred to in section 31 is exactly the same as the one set forth in the second schedule, as prescribed by section 12.


Albert Béchard: I am informed that the department and the minister are satisfied as far as the meaning of the bill is concerned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. It might well be that the person who drafted the act, or some unskilful person, has created a doubt here because when one refers to the English version-

-and the oath of allegiance taken by him as prescribed by regulation. Do the words "as prescribed by regulation" apply to the form of the oath of allegiance or to the form of taking the oath? I know the hon. member for Essex West has some doubt, as I have. If it is clearly indicated in the proposed section 31 that there is no difference in the form of the oath of allegiance, then I am satisfied, but at the present time there is that doubt in my mind.


Albert Béchard: There is no change in the form. The oath of allegiance is in the same form as in the act which we are amending. The bill is not amending the manner of taking an oath; it simply refers to the oath which new Canadians who have just been granted a certificate of citizenship must normally take.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Perhaps We may have to wait until we get a new citizenship act to have this point resolved. I certainly accept the good will of the parliamentary secretary in trying to give an explanation. It may well be that the conflict is more apparent than real. Before we leave this clause I wonder whether he might give some explanation as to why the department is relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice with respect to the right of a person to affirm rather than take an oath, rather than have a specific provision in the citizenship act in this regard, thereby having an even greater impedance to something which is fundamental to all of us in this

country, something that is linked to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, as the minister mentioned, and as I mentioned myself at the beginning of this study this afternoon, consideration is being given to making an over-all revision of the citizenship act, which will be a wonderful opportunity to satisfy the requests of the hon. member and of other members of the house in this field.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have but one rather short comment to make on the exchange which took place a few moments ago between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I found it fantastic that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should ask the hon. member for Edmonton West: Why is there a difference between a native-born Canadian citizen and a Canadian naturalized under the Immigration Act?
That is self-evident. Such a question is so naive that it is almost incomprehensible, for after all, Mr. Chairman, there are natural laws against which nothing can be done. Take for example the case of a son or daughter of a family, born in that family, a natural child-in the non-pejorative sense of the word-who has ties of blood with his parents and natural rights which do not need to be conferred upon him. Suppose that, in the same family, the father and mother decide to adopt a child. The adopted child may enjoy the same privileges as the other children, because they have been granted him, because he benefits from the privileges of the sons born to that family. Nonetheless, there will be no ties of blood in the second case, and the adopted child will only become a member of the family through the generosity of the parents! who decided to adopt him.
It is the same thing, I think, for an immigrant who wants to become a Canadian citizen. If the country decides to grant him the favour of adopting him then, I think, he will be given the same privileges as others, but until the title of Canadian citizen has been granted to him, until he has taken the oath required in the circumstances, he is not entitled to demand it. It is a gift. But those who were born in this country have a natural right, they are natural members of the family, they are kith and kin, and nothing holds
June 27, 1967

against that. That is natural law, Mr. Chairman.
That is why I find fantastic the claim of those who say that immigrants coming here should have the right to demand Canadian citizenship, to be treated like the others. I do not think it is reasonable to ask this. They are already given much by being accepted and adopted here in the country, so let them meet the conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the title carry?
On the title-


Thomas Miller Bell: Before the title carries, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Secretary of State would indicate if she would consider some further amendment which would deal with the question of children born abroad of Canadian citizens. This is, as she knows, a matter which was debated on Bill No. C-2 during private members' hour. Would she be ready to consider that bill or would she give some commitment that she would give urgent and early study to it?


Albert Béchard: In answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, at the request of the minister may 1 assure the hon. member that a few days or weeks ago the Secretary of State agreed with the point raised by the hon. member for Carleton when he presented his bill to the house. Actually the trouble is the battle that the minister has with the department.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary the reason for that clause 13. I apologize if I sound a little simple-minded, but I simply cannot see why we have changed the text of the legislation which said:
"vingt annees avant"
to say now
"vingt annees imm^diatement avant".
There must be a reason for that, and that is what I should like to know.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, it is simply to correct a deficiency of the French text which
Canadian Citizenship Act does not agree with the English text. In English, it is mentioned:
"immediately before"
and, in French:
"vingt annees avant."


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, instead of changing the French text, why not change the English text? What I want to know is the reason for saying:
"vingt annees immediatement avant".
apart from making the texts agree? We could make them agree the other way also by changing the English text. There must be a reason which requires that it be:
"vingt annees immediatement avant".
and there is no intermittence.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is speaking of two completely different things. The act says:
-vingt annees immediatement avant-
And the hon. member would like to have this expression replaced by the following: vingt annees avant.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest that these words should be replaced, but I wonder why it must be:
-immediatement avant-


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, why does the hon. member want the word:
avant
to replace the words: immediatement avant.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty as to what the house wishes to do at this time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion to make to the house. If the house wishes we can continue with government
June 27, 1967
2020	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation business and call the Cape Breton Development Corporation bill which is the next item. If hon. members are willing we can carry on with government business until seven.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-135, to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation-Mr. Pepin-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Tuesday, June 20, clause 19 was under consideration, clauses 2 to 18 having been agreed to.
On clause 19-Payments by Minister of Finance.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing clause 19 1 brought to the attention of the committee the appointment of an auditor for the corporation. I would be prepared to hold my amendment until we reach clause 33 on page 16 of the bill as I think it would fit in there better than under clause 19.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It also concerns clause 31.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
On clause 22-Objects.
Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that members from the east are looking forward to the statement which the Prime Minister promised this afternoon would be made by the minister of mines in connection with whether the government had made a decision on the stockpiling of steel at the Dosco plant at Sydney to alleviate the very serious unemployment situation there.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, we are facing the same situation that my hon. friend faced the other night when we resumed study of the bill rather prematurely. The Minister of Industry is not available at this moment and he was going to make a statement on this subject. Could we stand clause 22 and continue?


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I understand the situation that the minister is in. There are times when things move a little faster than might be expected and then you find yourself involved in committee meetings, as perhaps the minister is. Undoubtedly he is busy at the moment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is on his way down.


Robert Muir: I had hoped to say a few words on clause 22, Mr. Chairman, and to deal with a number of matters with particular reference to Dosco. I wanted to point out to the government and particularly to the minister that there have been difficulties with this company previously at a time when he was not a member of this house. However, before going into this matter, which is rather involved, I had hoped there would be an opportunity to hear the statement. I could reserve my rather extended comments until the statement is made.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I see the minister entering the chamber. We welcome him. I understand that the Minister of Industry is to make a statement about stockpiling. We see his smiling face as he walks through the house and I trust that we shall continue smiling after he has made a statement.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, may I commend the committee on the rapid progress it has made. May I thank the hon. member for his words of welcome. I hope that the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria will be equally commendatory when I have finished my statement.
On June 22 the Prime Minister undertook that a statement would be made this week on steel producing operations in the Sydney area of Cape Breton. We have been giving this matter consideration for some time because we realize the importance of this industry to the local economy.
It would appear that the problem in Sydney arises from a number of factors, including some softening in the market not only in Canada but in most countries for some of the kinds of steel which Dosco Steel Limited produces. Because the Sydney plant is at a considerable distance from the main Canadian markets for steel, the company faces keen competition from most other domestic producers who are closer to these markets. The company reports that it has been rationalizing its operations in order to improve its ability to meet increased competition from Canadian
June 27, 1967	COMMONS
and other producers, and this also has affected the situation.
Furthermore, faced with increasing competition and declining prices in its main marketing areas the company says it has taken steps to improve the productivity of its operations at Sydney which have resulted in some curtailment of the numbers employed.
In addition, there is a world-wide overcapacity of steelmaking facilities, and imports of certain steel products into the areas of Canada which are readily accessible by sea have been increasing. These areas are also the main markets in which products made from Sydney steel are sold. It has been said by Dosco that some of the imports may involve dumping and the Department of National Revenue has been asked to undertake an appropriate investigation as quickly as possible.
It is evident from these facts that the problem in Sydney relates not only to general market factors, but equally it relates to special problems for this company. In these circumstances, the government has come to the view that stockpiling of Sydney steel does not provide a solution to either of these problems. Moreover it would not be an appropriate measure for the federal government to initiate in these circumstances.
We do not believe, however, that there is a long term general problem in Canada affecting the steel industry as a whole. Rather, the problems affecting the steel operations in Sydney, although aggravated by the current market situation, appear to be of a special nature.
Because of the complexity of the problem it would seem to me that if a thorough study of the steel industry in Cape Breton were available, this would make it easier for the responsible authorities to examine the problem in a more informed way.
It is of course recognized that the government of Nova Scotia has the prime responsibility for the special problems of industry within that province, but if it were the wish of the government of Nova Scotia to undertake a study with respect to the steel industry the Department of Industry would be ready to co-operate. In fact the government of Nova Scotia, working in co-operation with various federal departments and agencies and the company, has already done some work in this field.
I should report, Mr. Chairman, that a number of federal activities have already helped to bring new industries to Cape Breton. Under the federal area development program, 27053-129
DEBATES	2021
Cape Breton Development Corporation applications have been approved involving new investment in manufacturing industry of some $132 million. These facilities will create new jobs in Cape Breton. Among the new plants is a new heavy water installation, plus an expansion of the existing heavy water plant even before it went into production.
A motorcar assembly plant is nearing completion and is scheduled to have the first cars come off the assembly line in September.
There have been a series of discussions between federal representatives and British American Oil Limited which have resulted in the company announcing that it plans to establish a refinery in Cape Breton. Also a large chemical producer has stated that it intends to establish a $7 million chemical plant in the area.
The bill we are now debating will have, as one of its main objectives, the establishment in Cape Breton of efficient and viable industries to provide new jobs in that community. I hope the house will pass this bill as quickly as possible so that the corporation may get on with the important task of developing in that region industries capable of competing in Canada and abroad.
I need not remind hon. members that, in the meantime, the activities of the corporation will be assisted by the very extensive programs for training and retraining and other activities to stimulate employment.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the minister's statement I cannot say that we shall continue smiling, but I realize that the government has had, and still has, a difficult situation to face. There was a hard decision to be made. The minister realizes, I think, that the presentations of those of us from Sydney, in the opposition, were with a view to seeing what we could do to alleviate the situation in the short term.
I noted the minister's comments. He spoke of the reasons for slackness at this moment in that industry. He referred to the softening in the market, to the keen competition, to the fact that the company is rationalizing its operations. He said that there has been curtailment in the numbers of those who are employed.
As will be evident if one reads statements and replies to questions of the Minister of Industry, on different occasions he has tried, to minimize the numbers who have been laid off and have become unemployed. The unemployed are numerous.
2022	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation
He said that stockpiling will not bring about a solution to the area's difficulties, and we understand that. It will not bring about a solution; yet we thought it would provide some short term solution which was necessary to get the men who have been laid oil back to work. I am encouraged by the minister's statement that the federal government, in conjunction with the province, is willing to undertake a study of the steel industry in Nova Scotia. For some weeks, inside the house and outside, I have been urging the government to do that, to inquire into the steel industry, to look into the whole situation with which we are now confronted and which has confronted us for some years. Only last Friday in the house I called on the government to appoint a royal commission to look into the steel industry in Nova Scotia.
Someone has said that royal commissions take a long time to bring in recommendations.
I felt that something had to be done. The government will agree, as will the minister I hope, that something does need to be done. Certainly, we should take the initiative and take steps to find out what may be done with regard to the steel industry in Nova Scotia.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We are pleased that certain corporations have seen fit to come into the area. I have no doubt arrangements for this were worked out through co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. I would point out, however, that the incentives which have been provided by the federal government are no greater in the Atlantic provinces than they are in other parts of Canada, and I suggest this means that in fact it was because of the encouragement given by Industrial Estates of Nova Scotia that these firms decided to locate in Nova Scotia rather than in Ontario and other places where there are designated areas.
With reference to the passage of this bill through the house, the minister will find, if he checks Hansard, that at least on one or two occasions, if not on several occasions, we suggested that debate should be continued after ten o'clock. There have been other matters which have prevented our getting ahead with this legislation. At any rate we are honoured this evening, and I hope that before ten o'clock comes it will have been possible to pass the bill.
The minister mentioned training. This again is an important item. We in Nova Scotia are confronted with difficulties in this connection because there has been so great an influx of unemployed people on to the labour

DEBATES	June 27, 19G7
market, people looking for training, that the facilities now available are apparently taxed to capacity. I must say that since April 1 when the Department of Manpower and Immigration became responsible for the federal side of this operation we have not had the same degree of co-operation with regard to getting people into training as I believe we should receive. This was mentioned only today during the question period, and only recently I had occasion to write a letter to the regional director in the maritimes drawing attention to the number of people who are waiting for training and were unable to find, out just what had happened to their applications for training. It is true the department has not been set up for very long, and there may be a need for better liaison between Ottawa and the regional and local offices. I would urge the minister to expedite action in connection with applications for training wherever possible in co-operation with the provincial authorities; I think the term used by the Department of Manpower and Immigration is "buying training" for those concerned.
That is all I have to say with regard to the minister's statement. We are of course disappointed that the government has not seen fit to stockpile steel as was recommended. At the same time, I can understand that the government had a difficult decision to make in this connection. I am pleased the minister has agreed to a study being made. I hope contact will be made between his department and the provincial authorities, including the premier of Nova Scotia, and that we may go ahead post haste with this study of the steel industry.
With reference to clause 22 itself, perhaps I might put the wording on record at this point
The objects of the corporation in relation to the Industrial Development Division are to promote and assist, either alone or in conjunction with any person or the government of Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of such governments, the financing and development of industry on the Island of Cape Breton, to provide employment outside the coal producing industry and to broaden the base of the economy of the island.
The term "industry" would, I presume, mean any industry, and of course the steel industry would be involved. Quite apart from the study which is to be made I hope that when the corporation is set up there will be no need to await the complete results of such an inquiry, but that efforts will be made by the corporation to go ahead with the provision of any assistance they can possibly give
June 27, 1967	COMMONS
We have tried to improve the legislation by the inclusion of the McBean mine, which was mentioned again in the house today. These efforts have been spearheaded in a very capable manner by the hon. member for Pictou. We have not been successful. In dealing with other clauses we have referred to the question of pensions for retired coal miners who are now living on mere pittances from the Dosco Corporation. I hope the minister is listening very carefully to the pleas.
We have discussed the question of alternative employment with the object of ensuring that it would be provided much earlier than is foreseen in the bill. The minister has assured us that everything possible will be done in this direction. With regard to the McBean mine he has told us that a comprehensive and generous attitude will be adopted. In this connection, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, says:
Mines Minister Pepin told the Commons yesterday the federal government intended to "take a comprehensive and generous attitude" concerning McBean colliery in Thorburn without including it in Ottawa's take-over of the Dosco pits in Nova Scotia.
In the course of this debate we sought to emphasize the importance of the steel industry and the reasons we felt it should be included among the undertakings for which the Cape Breton Development Corporation will be responsible. But the minister and the government felt otherwise. The impression which some of us on this side have gathered, namely that steel might be included, had its origin in a statement which was made in January last by the Prime Minister himself. This statement was reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of January 13 under the headline "Ottawa Prepared to Consider Total Dosco Take-over-P.M.". I should like to read this report into the record for the information of the committee and of the country in general. Under the subheading "Inclusion of Steel Possible", it states:
Prime Minister Pearson indicated to the Commons yesterday that the federal government is prepared to consider bringing the whole or part of the Dominion Steel Coal Corporation Ltd., rather than merely its coal operations, under public ownership.
Answering a question from Donald Maclnnis (PC- Cape Breton South) on whether the present plans for taking over the company's collieries could be extended to include its steel production assets as well, Mr. Pearson told the House: "This will be one of the aspects of the question that will be considered" when the entire matter is brought before the House soon for a special debate.
The prime minister did not make it clear he was referring to Dosco's Cape Breton assets only, or whether the government was also prepared to consider pubic acquisition of the company's 27053-1298
DEBATES	2023
Cape Breton Development Corporation
mainland operations, which include the Halifax Shipyards, the Trenton steel fabrication plants, and a steel rolling mill at Contrecoeur, Que.
Later, when pressed by N.D.P. Leader Douglas and Robert Muir (PC-Cape Breton North and Victoria) for a more specific statement, the Prime Minister added:
"Any program of industrial development will include the whole area and all industry, and any discussion of this matter would naturally include discussion of economic and industrial development generally ... the program that I have been talking about deals primarily with the coal industry and industrial and economic development in the area, and all factors that concern economic and industrial development will be under consideration."
From this, Mr. Chairman, you will see that if we, as members, got a wrong impression we were not alone in this respect; it was shared by writers in newspapers who obtained the same impression. It may be a matter of semantics, or otherwise. We now realize that the government has not seen fit to include steel in the legislation, and we hope other steps will be taken, as already mentioned by the minister.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Because the minister was not in the house when the events I am about to relate took place, I should like to place on the record, for his information and that of the members of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, an account of the attitude of the Hawker-Siddeley group when they acquired control of Dosco interests in 1957. I have here a photostat copy of the Cape Breton Post of Wednesday, October 30, 1957, which has a report headed "Expansion Planned-Roe Out to Make Dosco No. One Steel Producer". The report reads in part as follows:
Sir Roy Dobson, board chairman of A. V. Roe Canada Ltd., said Tuesday his firm would do its best to make the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation the top producer in Canada.
"We are determined to do whatever we can to raise the status of Dosco which has slipped to third position in Canada," Sir Roy said.
"We want to see this company in first place and I see no reason why it should not be in that position. You have a good plant here, a good working force and yet something is holding things back. If it's money you need, show us that the money is necessary and it will be forthcoming."
Sir Roy spoke at an informal noon luncheon at the Isle Royale Hotel at which Roy Duchemin, publisher of the Cape Breton Post, was host. In attendance were community, civic, union and government leaders___
Sir Roy, who speaks in the salty manner of the working man from Lancashire, promised his company would strive for immediate expansion of Dosco's facilities.
"Expansion can be achieved with the united support of the workers in the steel industry and the officials in charge of operations. The 'men in the grease' will have as much to do as management."
2024	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation
President Crawford Gordon said that as far as expanding Dosco is concerned "everything will be done that can be done." "Dosco presented a challenge and we accepted it," he said. "We came here in a spirit of co-operation to help your great enterprise."
The Hoe group, whose decisions now will affect one out of every five persons in the Atlantic provinces, made no elaborate promises. No concrete policy details were released but it was learned that the basic policy will be laid down at a meeting of the Dosco board of directors in Montreal Friday.
The meeting has been called to elect a new board. It was learned that R. A. Jodrey, the Hants-port industrialist who led a fight against Roe's acquisition of Dosco, will be removed from the board.
I can only say, Mr. Chairman, it is most regrettable that Mr. Jodrey was not successful in preventing the Roe group from getting hold of Dosco.
I quote further from the report:
The Dosco management tendered the visitors a reception at the Isle Royale in the evening. It was at this gathering that Sir Roy Dobson laid it on the line.
"We are not financiers," he said. "We are just ordinary engineers who started by pushing a file on a bench. We are not here as part of any financial racket. If we can't do some good for Dosco or the community we don't want to be here."
He said he was convinced Roe could help Dosco in all its operations.
"We will extend markets and facilities and give Dosco the equipment it needs."
In the ten years of operation by Sir Roy apparently the facilities have not been given and the equipment has not been provided. The equipment has been allowed to deteriorate. Everything has been allowed to run down.
I continue the quotation:
"We will ask the heads of departments for their opinions. We need your guidance and loyal support. If this is coming you won't be sorry you joined our company."
Regrettably many who joined the company have been worried, and many excellent men have left the corporation to find employment elsewhere, where they felt they had a future.
I continue quoting from the report:
He emphasized this point:
"You are dealing with practical people. We expect a day's work for a day's pay.
It is interesting that in ten short years the enthusiasm which these people had has disappeared. They have not lived up to their commitments. They have not by any means lived up to their grandiose promises. Therefore, as I said the other day, I feel there should be a
[Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) .1
DEBATES	June 27. 1967
study or an inquiry made by a royal commission, or at least some action taken by both the federal and provincial governments to find out what these people are going to do. Are they going to use the inhabitants of Cape Breton as pawns and suit themselves in whatever they want to do? Are they interested in taking the best out of the industry, not putting anything back into it, and then getting out?
These people have a social responsibility. They have a moral responsibility to the people of the area, and to governments. To my mind the former federal government and the present one have on occasion been more than generous in trying to assist this corporation. All the people of the area are asking for is a fair deal. As I said the other day, they cannot get information from the company. We have the president of Dosco making one statement, and the Minister of Industry making another, contradicting it. Apparently there is not good communication between the government and the corporation. Therefore some good would come out of the study I have suggested.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Pursuant to standing order 6(2) the committee is suspended until eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-135, an act to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation. When the committee rose at seven o'clock clause 22 was being considered.
Shall clause 22 carry?


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, prior to the dinner adjournment we were dealing with clause 22 and I felt, since the word "industry" appeared in this clause, that this would be a good time to deal with the steel industry and to place on the record statements which had been made by Sir Roy Dobson of the Hawker Siddeley group, and others, because when they came into the province of Nova Scotia in 1957 they had such wonderful statements to make concerning the steel industry in the maritime provinces and particularly in Sydney, Nova Scotia, where Dosco has its operations.
In the past ten years there has been no similarity between the statements they made,
June 27. 1967

and their actions. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I felt that these statements should he placed on the record for the benefit of the committee, the government and the people of the country in general so that they would have a little understanding of the reason we feel rather resentful with regard to the actions of this corporation.
Instead of Sydney being made the Pittsburgh of Canada, as was suggested on one occasion the working force in Sydney has been continually declining, and some of the operations have been removed from the steel plant at Sydney to other parts of Canada. There has been a steady deterioration in the operations. At one time this steel plant employed slightly over 5,000 people. Within the past year, or less, we have seen the work force reduced from over 3,000 to now a little over 2,000, with the most recent lay-offs.
Before the dinner hour we had the announcement from the Minister of Industry with reference to the question of stock-piling. We had been pressing for action in this regard, and in addition representations had been made by a delegation from the steel industry in the city of Sydney and surrounding district. The government has refused to take the action we requested. However, they have decided to initiate a study of the steel industry in conjunction with the provincial government.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Chairman, to continue to give a little more of the background of this corporation, I should like at this time to place on the record a quotation from Hansard of January 23, 1959. Of course I will find it necessary to quote myself and, like the hon. member for Kootenay West who apologized when speaking this afternoon on another subject, I should like to apologize to the committee. 1 feel that the speech which I made at that time, eight years ago when the party which I support was in government, is as apropos the situation today as it was at that time. The part I wish to quote begins at page 284 of Hansard of January 23, 1959. I had been dealing with difficulties in the transportation field in moving goods from the Atlantic provinces to central Canada, and I said this:
We need government action to help to alleviate these problems but by the same token I feel that we should have the utmost co-operation from those who are involved In our industrial life. I repeat that we should have the utmost co-operation from those who are involved in our industrial life.
I stated on Tuesday last that to my mind the actions of the A. V. Roe company since acquiring control of Dosco last year were questionable, and
DEBATES	2025
Cape Breton Development Corporation at this time I should like to elaborate on why I made a statement of that nature and why I should have these convictions. I feel that there are many thousands like me in Nova Scotia who hold the same convictions because of the action, or should I say lack of action, on the part of the new controllers of our destiny. There are 150,000 people in Nova Scotia-
This says in Nova Scotia, but it should say in Cape Breton. It continues:
-dependant on this great corporation even for their very livelihood. It came to Nova Scotia with the deed of ownership to Dosco securely tucked in its pocket, with promises and assurances of better days. There were fears expressed in many quarters that the coal, steel, shipbuilding and railway car manufacturing industries would be carted off to the central provinces as has happened before under new ownership in the case of our industries. But Avro spokesmen said that this was an unwarranted fear. In one of his official press releases Avro president Crawford Gordon said:
"We have but one aim, to expand this Canadian enterprise so that it will be stronger, more enduring and more profitable to its shareholders and employees and, at the same time, contribute something strong, solid and substantial to the development of the Atlantic provinces and their people."
These are very fine words. This statement prompted Nova Scotia premier Robert L. Stanfield, after Avro's campaign for Dosco control had succeeded, to state:
"You have stated your confidence in this area and your intention to develop Dosco as a maritime enterprise. We accept your assurances and we look forward to a happy association which will be beneficial to us and profitable to you. You realize, I am sure, that Dosco is not just an industry in the ordinary sense; it is the staff of life for many communities in Nova Scotia. It is something much more than just a matter of dollars and cents. I am sure that in assuming control of Dosco you have accepted in full the major responsibilities that go with that control."
I am very sorry to say that this corporation has not accepted the major responsibilities that went with its acquisition of the control of Dosco. I then stated:
But what have we found since that time? Despite its avowed policy of getting out and selling coal, enforced holidays were imposed on our miners last year. This came after a series of denials by company officials that any cut-backs would be necessary. The miners were asked to boost their production. This they did. What did they get in reward? Lay-offs. Is it not a strange coincidence that these lay-offs should occur right in the midst of the wage negotiations now going on?
At this point I should like to refer to the cooperation that has come from the coal miners of Nova Scotia. There has not been one strike in the coal mining fields of Nova Scotia since 1947.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.
2026	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee give its unanimous consent to the hon. gentleman continuing.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Who is continuing, Muir or Stanfield?


An hon. Member:: It does not matter, it has the same effect.


Robert Muir: I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for allowing me extra time. Of course no one ever listens to the hon. member for Rosedale, not even members of his own party, so I will ignore what he has said.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Even fewer listen to you.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister had better put the run on you if he wants any co-operation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I had better not heckle the young man, he is so sensitive.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting the juvenile member for Rosedale in his place. I appreciate that and thank you very much.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member is very sensitive, Mr. Chairman, so I will leave him alone.


Malcolm MacInnis: You had
better put your foot on him, Pepin. Put your foot on him now.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, let me continue the quotation from Hansard of January 23. I was referring to the co-operation that had come from the coal miners, and had referred to the fact that there had not been a strike since 1947. I then said:
As I have said, the coal miners have co-operated in every way possible. They have maintained a hold-the-line policy as far as wages are concerned. They have certainly done their part.
To return to the corporation, despite its fervent pledge to contribute something strong, solid and substantial to the development of the Atlantic provinces and their people, Avro took a decision to erect a $20 million steel plant outside Montreal.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	June 27. 1967
What about its Sydney steel plant? We are told that it will benefit in that it will be asked to supply the raw steel for the finishing plant in Montreal. But will the Sydney plant be called upon to supply that raw steel or will it be acquired from other steel mills closer to the plant at Montreal? 1 have reason to believe it will be some time after the Montreal mill is opened, a long time at that, before Sydney's plant will supply the new gigantic mill in Montreal.
Now we are faced with another lay-off in our coal industry. This seems to Nova Scotians to be out of keeping with the professed determination of Avro to contribute something strong, solid and substantial to the development of the Atlantic provinces and their people.
Mr. Speaker, Avros spokesmen have been dealing Nova Scotians a continuous hand of conflicting statements.
Mr. Chairman, I may say they are still dealing a hand of conflicting statements at this time, ten years after those words were spoken. The quotation then reads:
"We want to progress", they say, and then they lay off our workers. "We will not do anything to hurt the maritime economy", they say, and then they shift the heart of their steel-making industry from Sydney to Montreal. Nova Scotians have begun to hold new fears and doubts about the intentions of the Avro organization. The only expansion proposed by this company is a cold rolling mill near Montreal.
In addition to this, a series of company statements issued in recent months make it apparent that the company entertains long range plans for a basic steel plant on adjacent property. If this comes to pass, then the future of Sydney as a major steel production centre will not be bright. When blast furnaces join the Montreal units to provide fully integrated operations in central Canada, what will happen to Sydney?
That is the question we are asking today everywhere in Nova Scotia and other parts of the maritimes. What is going to happen to Sydney? Let me continue with the quotation:
The Avro organization was born and has been nurtured on government contracts. The company has grown as a result of these government orders to become one of the giants of Canadian industry. Is it reasonable, then, to expect that such a company should be among the first to gear its productive power to the wishes of the government and the public? Is it unreasonable to ask Avro to develop maritime economy and contribute towards the decentralization of industry?
It is my view, and one that is shared by many Nova Scotians, that the government has a right to expect co-operation from Avro and other companies that have thrived on government work. Since this government took office in 1957 it has offered material assistance to Avro and its subsidiary, Dosco.
I made this statement when we were in office, but I have no doubt that the present government has offered and continues to offer some type of assistance to the corporation. I hope that as a result of a study of this matter we can get to the bottom of the problems, and
June 27. 1967

find out what is to happen at Sydney. Let me finish the quotation in this way:
In conclusion, I should like to refer to the statement of Sir Thomas Sopwith, chairman of the Hawker Siddeley group which controls Avro, made at the annual meeting. I quote:
"One final word on Canada. Your interests there are in good hands, with the company being well and efficiently managed by a team of energetic young and capable Canadians. The future of Canada is bright and glowing with promise. Because of the spread and the diversification of our holdings in Canada, it is our belief that your company is well placed to grow and to prosper with Canada itself."
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
If you read that statement, Mr. Chairman, it looks so wonderful. It sets out all the things they were going to do with reference to steel and their holdings when they acquired control of Dosco. But I regret that these things have not happened. We have seen lay-off after lay-off and the removal of equipment from their plants to central Canada. I continue quoting from my speech:
Does this mean that we in the maritimes will share in this growth and prosperity to which he refers, or does it mean more closed mines and possibly a closed steel plant?
These words were spoken ten years ago. I continue:
Does this mean a new series of conflicting statements which are damaging to the morale of the people who live in the maritimes? Does this mean that their boasting in a recent issue of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald about their assets really indicates that Dosco is going bankrupt? Does this mean that the company will encourage its salesmen to get out and try to sell more coal, or does it mean we will be importing American coal into the maritimes to the very back door of our own coal mines? Does it mean perhaps that the proposed march on Ottawa by the coal miners of Nova Scotia should be diverted to the company's head office in Montreal or even to London-although I thought we were no longer colonials? Does this mean that despite the utmost government co-operation which has been forthcoming Avro will continue to mislead many breadwinners who are dependant on the company for a livelihood? Does it mean that, at long last, the people of Nova Scotia can rely on the word of this gigantic corporation and place their faith in it? We must remember that faith without works is dead. We have not seen much evidence of the work, so it is rather difficult for the people of the maritimes to have faith.
This gigantic corporation has the future destiny of Nova Scotians in the palm of its hand. It is gigantic. It appears that the more gigantic a corporation becomes, the more ruthless it can be. I am sure that all members in this house and all Canadians who contribute through taxation to the development of industry are awaiting the answers to these and many other questions.
Those words were spoken in this house ten years ago. They are as apropos today as they were at that time. We still have not been able
DEBATES	2027
Cape Breton Development Corporation to find out what this gigantic corporation is going to do with reference to its workers and the economy of the Atlantic region. I sincerely believe the corporation has a moral and social obligation in this regard. After making that speech in the house I received a letter from the then public relations officer of the corporation, now, by the way, a member of the Atlantic Development Board. At that time he said he was greatly shocked, and that the corporation was hurt and injured that I should say such things about them in the House of Commons.
But what can one do in these circumstances, Mr. Chairman? You have to make statements that set out the facts. What I have said is the truth. Over the past few months we have again found it necessary to resort to making the type of statements that we are making, which are in accordance with the facts. Some time later I received a letter from the office of the president of A. V. Roe Canada Limited, 170 University Avenue, Toronto, dated March 16, 1962. The letter is addressed to Mr. R. Muir, M.P., House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario. Before reading it I should inform the committee that members of parliament and senators from the maritimes, of all parties, received an invitation to go to the Chateau Laurier to attend a dinner and have a general discussion on problems. Following that dinner and discussion I received this letter:
Dear Mr. Muir:
It was most kind of you to take a few hours out of your busy life to join me at dinner on Wednesday evening in Ottawa.
I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to exchange views on activities in the Atlantic provinces. We all have a common aim-the progress and development of that worthy part of Canada. You have my assurance I will be "pulling my weight" at all times.
We must arrange to meet again in the near future. In the meantime I want you to know how much I appreciated the occasion.
Sincerely yours,
T. J. Emmert
As I said, he is president of the corporation. I have not seen Mr. Emmert from that day to this. I have not seen him pulling his weight or the corporation indicating that they are even attempting to pull their weight, as far as the progress of the Atlantic provinces is concerned. I put these statements on the record, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was not in the house on that occasion. I put them on the record for the benefit of the yet to be
2028	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation named members of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, so they will know something of the past history of this matter and what has taken place since this corporation took hold of Dosco. During the dinner hour I picked up the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, for today, Tuesday, June 27, 1967. This article is headed "Gloom in Provincial Circles" and says:
The crisis regarding the future of the Sydney steel plant has caused gloom in provincial government circles. There is no easy answer apparent, and though top officials hope optimistically, their faces show pessimism.
There has been no single measure which has brought on the current crisis. It started several years back with the announcement Dosco was about to construct a rod and bar mill, with rolled steel facilities, at Contrecoeur, Quebec.
This was the handwriting on the wall for many operations at the Sydney plant. The Quebec plant, with a capital cost of $70 million, was to be built close to the major market area of the country, ostensibly so transportation costs of finished materials would be on a competitive footing with those from such areas as Hamilton.
In a last ditch effort in 1963, the Nova Scotia government asked Dosco to reconsider its decision to establish in Quebec and expand its Sydney operations. To make the proposal attractive the Nova Scotia government held out a strong hint that if these wishes were acceded to, it would build the new rod and bar mill with its own money.
Dosco refused flatly. The reason chairman T. J. Emmert gave last year was the company could not afford to have its hands tied by politics, as a new government might alter the whole situation.
The article continues, but I shall not read the rest of it. I suggest that Mr. Emmert refused because the Hawker-Siddeley group wants to get out of steel in Sydney. Therefore we welcome the study, announced this afternoon by the Minister of Industry, of the steel industry in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more I can say at the moment other than to express the wish that the minister and the government will be quite careful in all their dealings with Dosco, and more particularly the head of Dosco, the Hawker Siddeley group, because we have found we cannot rely on their statements. We have found they are quite prepared to accept assistance from governments without showing any indication that they are prepared to try and do what they can for their workers and for the economy of the maritime provinces.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that I was not here between six and seven o'clock to hear the announcement of the Minister of Industry on the question of the unemployment in the steel plant at Sydney. I

DEBATES	June 27, 1967
left the chamber at about a minute or two minutes to six o'clock with the impression that we would go into private members hour. Apparently that was not the case. However I have received a very full report of what the minister said. If I in any way misrepresent what he said, I am sure there are members in the house, particularly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who will correct me, and I shall be glad to be corrected.
In order to make sure that I am speaking with relevance to what was said, it is my understanding that the Minister of Industry announced that the government had decided not to stockpile any steel, and he gave various reasons for the difficulties in the Sydney plant relating to the drop in the general requirements for steel, and similar reasons.
I heard the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria say that the minister announced a study of the steel industry in Nova Scotia. The information I was given was that the minister said a study should be made and that if the Nova Scotia government was prepared to undertake one, the federal government would be glad to co-operate with it. I understand that is a more accurate summary of what was said. I take the liberty of saying to the government that it has miserably failed the people of Sydney, and particularly the steel workers of that city, that it has ignored a problem which daily has got worse, and that it is making it impossible for some years to come for the corporation, whose establishment we are now studying, to make real progress in dealing with the situation of employment in Cape Breton.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
If I remember the date correctly it was on May 30 that there was a provincial election in Nova Scotia. On May 27 the Cape Breton Post reported the Minister of National Health and Welfare as having said this:
"The new and improved facilities should significantly reduce handling costs and improve the competitive position of the Sydney steel industry," he said.
"And with this government assistance, it is expected that additional company capital will be freed to completely modernize the Sydney steel plant itself and bring its operating costs closer to those of other Canadian steel companies."
Mr. MacEachen said that in terms of employment he is "extremely optimistic" that these developments will be beneficial over the long term.
That was on May 27, and since then in the month of June alone there have been further lay-offs totalling almost 1,000 from the steel plant at Sydney. The situation, instead of
June 27, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	2023
even improving slightly, has actually deteriorated. When I say there have been lay-offs of almost 1,000 you must remember, Mr. Chairman, that around the beginning of June there were only about 3,500 in the work force at the Sydney plant, including office workers; so that a lay-off of 1,000 since June, or 900 to be more accurate, is equivalent to a lay-off of 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the work force in a period of four weeks
Then the government solemnly considers the representations about stockpiling steel, and after weeks of questioning by members of the official opposition and members of our party, and weeks of promise of consideration, the Minister of Industry comes in and says, "We cannot stockpile steel. That is unrealistic. The general steel market does not permit it. Anyway, it is a particular problem of Cape Breton. We do not have very much responsibility. If the provincial government will undertake a study we will be glad to take part in it."
I have not been a member of this house long, Mr. Chairman, but I have been in political activities for a long time, and since the 1930's I do not recall such callous disregard of a problem that kicks the government in the teeth, and it refuses to do anything about it. If stockpiling steel is not reasonable or practicable, then come up with some other solution, make some other suggestion that will solve the problem. But instead of that there is a long string of excuses for the situation, ending up in the suggestion that a study be made.
The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria said he welcomed this study, and of course I welcome it too. Studies are always useful if one learns more; but I say there is no need for any further study now. The area of Cape Breton has been studied to distraction. There have been studies upon studies upon studies in the last three decades, and if the government does not yet know what the problem is in Cape Breton, no new study will enlighten it.
The problem of the Sydney steel plant is not terribly difficult even for the layman to understand. The simple proposition is that Dosco and the Hawker Siddeley group have decided that from the point of view of the profitability of the corporation it is more profitable to build a steel complex in Con-trecoeur, 40 miles from Montreal, than to modernize the plant at Sydney. It is just as simple as that. So they have gradually taken away parts of the operation in the Sydney plant to Contrecoeur, and threaten to take
Cape Breton Development Corporation away even the basic steel production from Sydney to Contrecoeur within a few years.
Obviously if they are going to have all the secondary and processing plants at Contrecoeur, it will be a great deal cheaper and more economical for the corporation to have the production of basic steel located where the manufacturing and processing operations are carried on. This is what faces this government, the government of Nova Scotia and the people of Cape Breton.
Over the past decade there has been, not a gradual but a precipitous reduction in the operations of the steel plant at Sydney. Despite the promises made by the heads of Dosco and A. V. Roe, to which the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria referred, the fact is that they have ignored the needs of Cape Breton. They are like all corporations. I am not blaming the corporation. They are not in Cape Breton for philanthropic purposes. They went there in order to build an industry that was going to pay them dividends and profits, and when the industry could not do so they moved elsewhere.
I am not blaming the corporation at all; but I am blaming the government in the strongest possible language for its lack of courage, lack of vision and of a simple sense of public responsibility in replying to this dire, serious situation by saying, "There will be no stockpiling. There will be another study so that we can have another volume to put on some shelf or under some desk."
There was the statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare just one month ago today, on May 27, that because of certain things done the outlook for employment was going to improve. But now his government sits here, with a thousand more people off work than there were a month ago, and there is not a single suggestion of what should be done. This brings me back to what I have said on two or three occasions, and what other hon. gentlemen have supported.
The situation in Cape Breton steel means that the government should have taken over the steel plant as well as the coal mining operations on that island, because there is no other way in which the economic problem of that island can be solved, or can even be attacked intelligently. Why is the government ready to take over the coal operation? It is because over a long number of years Dosco has been reducing coal production, threatening to stop it completely and get out because of the uneconomic character of those operations. For years the federal government has
June 27. 1967

Cape Breton Development Corporation paid subventions-and I am not being critical of that at all-in order to maintain the industry at some level. But despite those subventions the industry kept going down and so, following the Dr. Donald report, the government has decided to take over the coal operations.
Exactly how long do the people of Cape Breton have to suffer before this self-righteous, absolutely callous government realizes that action has to be taken because precisely the same thing has happened with steel as has happened with coal? The operations are reducing week by week, month by month, year by year; men are being thrown out in the street, and women too from the offices of the company. There is no hope whatever that this company will do anything to modernize, rationalize and diversify its steel operation in Sydney. These are the only solutions-to modernize, to rationalize and to diversify, or to introduce the production of construction steel, as advocated by experts, particularly the standard sizes, designs and forms of construction steel for use in the Atlantic provinces and for export, particularly to the new nations of the world which have a great demand for that kind of product.


Robert Muir: Diversification.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: 
Howard Russell MacEwan: 
Malcolm MacInnis: My remarks this evening are prompted by answers given in the house this afternoon by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Before continuing, I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for York South, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria and the hon. member for Pictou.
In dealing with this legislation we are confronted by a dilemma. On one hand we realise that the $25 million allocated to assist the mines is very much needed, and that it is needed as quickly as we can get it. On the other hand we are faced with deviations from policy statements and promises made by the government. I recall that some time ago, I think it was last September, the Minister of Transport dealing with another matter found it necessary to turn to the Prime Minister and say in this house: "The Prime Minister, as usual, will have to backtrack." Backtracking has become a habit with this government. I have any number of references here with regard to promises made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and other members of the government associated with this particular piece of legislation.
I believe the Minister of Industry cannot consider this question in a fair and equitable manner. I say this because of his known association with certain persons in Dosco. I am not saying this because I feel he would be unfair to the miners and steelworkers concerned, but I do not think he can look at these things as fairly as other members who are not so closely associated.
Last September the Minister of Transport told the Prime Minister he would have to backtrack. We saw some backtracking again this afternoon. A question was put to the Prime Minister with respect to the promised policy statement on stockpiling steel and the representations made by the committee from Cape Breton in this connection. He said this would be more appropriately dealt with during the debate on this legislation. Yet throughout the debate on this legislation hon. gentlemen opposite have emphasized that the
2034	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation bill deals with coal only and has nothing to do with steel. Why then did the Prime Minister suggest this afternoon that we should deal with this stockpiling question tonight?
What about the statement itself? What about the study? What is there in fact to study? All the figures with respect to the steel industry are at the government's disposal any time it wishes to call for them; the minister need only get in touch with the research department of the steel union and the figures will be provided-all the facts which would have to be dug up by any study group. I for one go along with the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria, that if any study is to be made it should be a study of Dosco, and Dosco's policy since taking over this industry in 1957.
The government continues to backtrack on this question of steel. They say, now, it is not to be included. I could refer to many answers to questions which have been given in this house. The hon. member for York South has already referred to one. The Prime Minister was questioned on steel and his answer to me at that time was: "This will be one of the aspects of the question that will be considered." Those are the Prime Minister's words as recorded in Hansard. This would be one of the aspects to be considered. What is happening, now?
The minister tells us he does not want to get away from the principle of the bill. What about the principle of the policy statement which was made? And touching on the point raised by the hon. member for Pictou, what about the 400 or 500 men who will be thrown out cf work at the McBean colliery? Principle? What principle? There has been none shown. We have been waiting for the fulfilment of promises made on the eve of the 1965 election. Part of it is here. It is a part I am interested in getting right now. But the government is placing every member of the house on the spot by saying: You will get what we promised in 1965, provided you adopt the callous approach of throwing 500 men out of work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I hear some interjections from the other side. The support for this legislation seems to be coming only from this side of the house. All we get from the other side is broken promises and interjections. I think members on that side should get up and review the policy statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Energy,

DEBATES	June 27. 1967
Mines and Resources, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport. They are all involved. They are all tied to these promises.
Before the provincial election in Nova Scotia on May 30 the Minister of National Health and Welfare had some encouraging things to say about steel. Since then he has backtracked. The Minister of Industry has expressed concern about the employment situation in Cape Breton. I have a desk full of such references if they should be needed. Here is what the hon. gentleman said back in February:


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 
Robert Muir: The member sitting behind the hon. member for Westmorland is interjecting.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps we had better let him cool off. We do not even know who he is, we see him so seldom. Perhaps there is a stranger in the house. If that is the only contribution he can make to a serious problem it is not worth mentioning.
June 27, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	2035
Cape Breton Development Corporation Mr. Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):	Health and Welfare has stopped. They are
Perhaps we should identify him.	saying, vote the 400 or 500 men out of work
and we will give you what we promised in Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South): He is 1935. sitting in the last row behind the hon. memher for Westmorland.	Mr. Gordon: Is he against liquor, too?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I could talk here for the next three hours referring to date after date upon which answers were given to particular problems with which we were faced in Cape Breton. I could refer also to answers and assurance given by this government in respect of unemployment, coal and steel. I repeat that part of the promises made in Halifax by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he was minister of labour are being fulfilled. I am most anxious to see the money provided to mechanize the mines and set up new mines. I am convinced also that once this is done mining will be with us for a long time.
I am sure that the minister of mines, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are well aware of the representations coming from Nova Scotia these days. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is aware of the objections to the government's approach, by which in order to keep part of the promises he made prior to the 1965 election he is now asking the members of this house to vote for this measure which will put 400 or 500 men out of their jobs. The argument used in this respect is ridiculous. They say that economic conditions around Pictou are improving, and they have been greatly improved in recent years through the efforts of the government of Nova Scotia. This government has not been doing a great deal. In fact, they are not doing half the amount they are claiming in respect of development in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I can
play the waiting game with the Liberals, Mr. Chairman, if that is what they want. If there are any of them who wish to put their remarks on the record I would be glad to yield the floor. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that they keep quiet. If they wish to interfere with the representations being made from this side of the house, they would do themselves and the house a favour by going out behind the curtain and having a smoke, unless this is something else the Minister of National


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion Souih):: There is the writer of the Gordon report intervening.


Robert Muir: Is he still here?


Donald MacInnis: He is
still around. He does not have the decency to get up and make a statement in the house. He will run behind the Prime Minister's back and the party's back and make all the statements in the world. Now he comes into this house and starts interjecting. I recall when this same gentleman considered that if he gave wrong advice or did something wrong he should get out of the cabinet. He did get out once, so why does he not do us all a favour and get out again. This man was the author of a lot of the problems of the maritimes, yet he dares to interject in this house at this time, and especially in the light of the way the people in the maritimes think of him, after the report he wrote. I feel the minister ought to be ashamed to take his seat in the house, after the uproar he caused in his own cabinet. He should not come in here and interject when hon. members are considering a matter which is so vital to their area. It is vital to Cape Breton, and if it is good for Cape Breton it is good for the rest of the country. The minister who wrote the Gordon report is the last person in the world who should open his mouth in this house at the moment. At least, we stand up and say what we have to say. We will say it in front of the members in the house and say it for the written record. We do not go out behind the back of the Prime Minister and say things, as the minister has done. I suggest that he keep quiet until this particular piece of legislation is passed.


Mr.   Fairweat@: Next question.


Donald MacInnis: member lor Vancouver Quadra. I cannot understand how he can have the nerve to interject in a situation like this, after having been caught in the act of lying to this house. Then there is the Minister of Finance. He, too, should be ashamed to show his face and interject here, when someone is dealing with a matter as vital as this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, before I get swinging away too hard at some of the interjections made on the other side of the house, probably I should defer some of my remarks, because it is my hope that this legislation will get speedy passage. However, it is difficult to defer my remarks after some of the answers we received this afternoon from the minister concerned, and from the Prime Minister who, for some devious reason, said that we could deal with the steel question tonight. I say to you, examine the legislation and tell me where it deals with steel. This afternoon the Prime Minister invited us to get up this evening and tie in with this legislation what was supposed to be an announcement in respect of steel. Why did he run away from this question this afternoon; why did he backtrack? Mr. Chairman, the best way to sum up the actions of this government in their deviations from statements made in the house is to quote the statement the Minister of Transport made last September in respect of the Prime Minister. He said that the Prime Minister as usual will have to backtrack. With a backtracking Prime Minister we have a backtracking cabinet which does nothing about the lay-offs in Sydney and the impending problem in the coal mines. All they do is break policy statements and promises made prior to an election.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 22 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 23-Powers.
David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have read and reread clause 23, particularly subclause (l)(a). It seems to me that it lacks one important power that the corporation ought to have. As I read it, in subclause (l)(a) the corporation is given the power to lend money with or without interest. It is given the power to make grants to any company or person carrying on or proposing to carry on a business or enterprise. I am not reading this word for word. Then it is given the power to invest in the shares or securities of any such company or person and to hold or sell or otherwise dispose of such shares or securities.
Unless I am mistaken-and if I am I shall be grateful to the minister if he will correct
DEBATES	2037
Cape Breton Development Corporation
me-what this clause does is give the corporation power to invest in the shares or securities of some other corporation or person. I appreciate-as I believe I said during an earlier discussion of this bill-that they could invest in 100 per cent of the shares or securities of such a company. However, what this clause does not give this corporation the power to do is to initiate and establish a business or enterprise from the bottom up, even if there is no other company in the field or no other person or company interested in starting a business or enterprise in Cape Breton Island.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I do not know whether that omission was deliberate or, if I am right in my interpretation, merely an oversight; but in my estimation it is a very serious omission. Before I indicate why I think it is so serious, let me say to anyone who might suggest that paragraph (f) does the job-and I refer to the part which says that the corporation has the right to do all other things as it deems incidental or conducive to the attainment of its objective-that I respectfully disagree that this gives the specific power the corporation would need. I am quite certain in my mind that (f) would not have enough scope to give the corporation the specific power it would need to start a business on its own with the funds of the corporation. Aside and apart from the legal considerations there seems to be the common sense fact that this parliament ought to give the corporation the kind of guidance which would make clear to the corporation what we wanted it to do.
It is clear that this omission is important enough to take a very few minutes of the committee's time to deal with it, and to move an amendment. There are obviously three ways that the corporation could function in Cape Breton Island in so far as ownership of a business is concerned. It could, as it no doubt will, use the various powers in clause 23 to seek to attract private enterprise by providing grants of money, lands and business incentives. That is one way. It could also seek to operate as a partner in a private enterprise. That is, it could enter into a partnership arrangement between the public corporation which this bill sets up and private companies or persons interested in coming to establish or carry on the right kind of business or enterprise. The corporation ought to have the authority, as well, to initiate a publicly owned business, not for the purpose of operating it itself, but for the purpose of
June 27. 1967
2038	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation establishing an industry which in its opinion and the opinion of its advisors, or advisors of other agencies, is necessary but cannot be established by attracting private enterprise. This public corporation ought to have the authority to do this itself.
I think if I took any longer in explaining my point I would merely be repeating myself.
I ought not do that when we are anxious to get on with the legislation. I therefore move:
That paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 23 be amended by deleting the semicolon at the end thereof and substituting a comma therefor, and by adding the following thereto:
"or itself establish a business or enterprise owned wholly or partly by the corporation."
It could do so in partnership or otherwise. I have not an extra copy of this. May I conclude by saying that if I have read the proposed clause wrongly I will be glad to be corrected, and if the minister and his advisors think what I have in mind can be done in a better way I will be glad to have my amendment put aside and give preference to any improved language which the minister may suggest.
What I am interested in is that this legislation should make it clear that parliament is giving the corporation the power to initiate and establish a business or enterprise which might be found useful and necessary for the development of Cape Breton.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we have not received copies of the proposed amendment, but on the basis of what I have heard I should like to argue its irregularity.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair would be happy now to listen to arguments for or against the validity of the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in essence my argument is that the amendment proposed by the hon. member would confer powers upon the corporation which are far beyond the powers conferred by the terms of the resolution which was introduced prior to the introduction of the bill. That resolution was strict in the sense that it gave the corporation authority to own and operate the coal mines. That was specific and explicit in the resolution. As I recall the resolution it also gave the corporation the authority to develop and promote other industry.
What the hon. member seeks to do is empower the corporation to own and operate industries other than coal mining undertakings in Cape Breton. I suggest that this amendment is irregular and out of order. The


committee would require a royal recommendation and a new resolution before it could entertain the objective of this amendment, which is beyond the scope and terms of the original resolution.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, with great respect I cannot follow the minister's argument. I am looking at the text of the resolution which appears at page 1550 of Hansard, so there is no need to rely on one's memory. In the opening part it deals with the acquisition and reorganization of coal mining works and undertakings, and to conduct coal mining operations in the Sydney coal field. Then it goes on to state:
-and to promote and assist the development of industry on Cape Breton Island to provide employment outside the coal producing industry and to broaden the base of the islands' economy;-
If those words are not wide enough to enable the legislation to specify that the corporation may promote and assist the development of industry on the island by setting up a business or enterprise itself, then I respectfully submit that the clause of the legislation now before us is equally beyond the terms of the resolution. That is why I press this point and invite you to see whether what I am saying is logical. This clause in paragraph (a) gives the corporation the power to own industry. It gives the corporation the power to invest in the shares or securities of a company or person. This obviously means it has the power to own industry in part or wholly. It does not say it can invest in only a part of the shares of a company or person. Obviously it can invest to the extent of 100 per cent of the shares. It is therefore given the authority to take over in total a company which already exists.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If the resolution is sufficiently wide to support the powers which the government proposes in the bill before us, the power to own a company which was formerly owned by someone else, why is not the resolution wide enough to enable the corporation to own a company that was not formerly owned by somebody else? I should like someone to tell me what the logic is in that proposal.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is in the resolution.


David Lewis: The resolution does not give that power. Outside the acquisition of coal mines, the resolution makes no mention of the corporation having the right to have ownership in a company other than the general
June 27, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	2039
reference to "promote and assist the development of industry" and "to broaden the base of the island's economy." The only specific reference to acquisition is with reference to coal mines.
I repeat that if the resolution is held to be wide enough to enable the corporation to own a company which was formerly owned by someone else, surely it is wide enough to enable the corporation to own a company that was not formerly owned by somebody else. The same language that supports the present clause supports the amendment which I moved. I simply cannot follow at all the logic of the minister's argument.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the terms of the resolution, for which a royal recommendation is necessary, are clear. The first part of the resolution empowers the corporation to acquire, own and operate coal mines, and nothing else. In no other part of the resolution is there a clause of a permissive character to own outright and operate outright other industries. That power is confined exclusively to the coal industry. The role of the corporation is to assist and promote. The effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member is to empower the corporation to own outright and operate outright, from the ground up, any industry.
Surely that is beyond the scope of the resolution that was adopted by the house. If the house adopted the kind of resolution suggested by the hon. member, it is a surprise to us. The hon. gentleman refers to the clause in the bill which empowers the corporation to invest. That is of course there, and it presupposes the operation and existence of a corporation that is not the direct and the sole instrument of the crown corporation. It is a developing and promoting aspect of a corporation that is not wholly, and is not intended to be wholly owned or wholly operated by the crown corporation.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? Will he inform the committee, and of course you, Mr. Chairman, where in this clause there is anything in the language that would prevent the corporation from buying up 100 per cent of the shares or securities of any company or person. Where is there here anything to justify the minister's statement that there is nothing in the language that would enable the corporation itself to own the whole of a company?
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, if what the hon. gentleman says is correct, his amendment can only bear one interpretation, that it is his intention to empower the corporation to establish industries from the ground up.


David Lewis: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not the intention of the bill or of the clause, which implies the investment in a pre-existing corporation or organization. I am at a great disadvantage, as the committee must be, in dealing with an amendment which I have not seen and have only heard read. I find it very difficult to carry on the argument or indeed to understand how the committee can vote when we have not copies of this important amendment. From what has been said I think it is obvious that if the hon. member's amendment is declared to be in order, it clearly indicates that the power of the corporation is not only to acquire and operate coal mines but to build, from the ground up, a whole variety of industries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That certainly is not the
intention of the bill. It may be a desirable objective from the point of view of some hon. members opposite, but the house in adopting this resolution did not intend to turn Cape Breton into a socialist island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is a very good example of a capitalist island right now.


An hon. Member:: It is not like Saskatchewan was when you were there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the last part of the argument put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is very interesting. In fact perhaps it is an admission on his part that the bill does not go far enough. But you, sir, have to be concerned with the proposed amendment in relation to the point the Minister of National Health and Welfare has raised, namely whether it comes within the scope of the resolution that was passed before the bill was introduced?
The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that the resolution is quite clear. I am not so sure that it is as clear as he thinks it is. If one reads it through carefully, one sees that it goes back and forth. The fact is that it refers first to the coal operation, then to the development of other industry, back again to coal, back again to other industry,
June 27. 1367
2040	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation back again to coal and back again to other industry. So I submit that the prior resolution does authorize a bill that in the main enters into two fields; on the one hand, taking over the coal industry and on the other promoting and assisting in the development of industry on the island of Cape Breton.
The hon. member for York South drew your attention, sir, to the words "and to promote and assist the development of industry on Cape Breton Island" early in the resolution. I draw your attention to a reference to "initial financial and operating capital requirements" in the middle of the resolution, and then I draw your attention, sir, to the last few words of the resolution which refer to the provision of the sum of $20 million "for the purpose of promoting and assisting the development of industry on the island".
It may well be that the amount of money is not enough for a project such as my colleague might have in mind, but the principle is there in the resolution, namely that the bill to be introduced may deal with two things; it may deal with the taking over of the existing coal industry, and it may deal with the promotion of and assistance to other industry as referred to at least three times in the resolution. I submit therefore that it is quite in order for an amendment to be moved which clarifies or spells out a right that is contained in the resolution itself. I submit that the bill has not gone as far as the resolution permitted, and that my colleague's amendment is one that simply seeks to do what was suggested as a possibility in the resolution, and therefore is in order.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
To recapitulate, the resolution says that there can be the promotion of other industry. It says money is being made available for the promotion, assistance and development of other industry, and my colleague's amendment is in line with that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Can the hon. member find in the resolution authority for the conducting of any operation other than the operation of a coal mine? There is authority to promote and develop as an investor or shareholder, but the only authority as a proprietor and an operator is confined exclusively to coal mining operations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is going to be that narrow in his interpretation of words, then the government's own proposal contained in this clause is wrong because it goes beyond the resolution. However, I suggest
fMr. Knowles.]

that the word promote does not merely mean to encourage somebody else to do something, but that a promotor can promote his own operation. We are suggesting that the authority of the corporation to promote and develop other industry implies that the corporation can promote that industry itself. My hon. friends seem terribly worried about the socialist implications of this. As a matter of fact the legislation would be a lot better if we were facing the problem as one of the whole area and had a T.V.A. type project for the whole island.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, my colleague is right about promoting and assisting. With the exception of what it will do in the coal mining field, the corporation will simply "promote and assist." This is the spirit of the legislation. It will not be doing other things all by itself like building industrial plants from first floor to last floor roof. Why? The answer is from common sense. The people appointed to the corporation will be essentially people with a coal and a general industrial background. They will specialize in operating the mines and in attracting other industries to Cape Breton Island to help in the broadening of the local economic base. If the other industry, for example, were to be a silk stocking factory, obviously there will not be the expertise in the new corporation to undertake such a venture. If the other industry were a peanut butter factory, the corporation would not have the necessary expertise in the peanut butter making industry.
The purpose of the corporation is simply to promote, to take shares, to lend the capital necessary to attract other industry. It is like the Canadian Development Corporation will be when it is created. That corporation will not be expected to take over all Canadian industries. It will simply be promoting and assisting in the development of Canadian industry. The Cape Breton Development Corporation is the Canada Development Corporation for Cape Breton Island, and it will operate in the same way.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I would not want to be rude, but is it possible the minister is not familiar with the connotation of the English word promoter in connection with business promotion? Is he unfamiliar with that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I presume there are some subtleties in this case, as in the case of subsidies and subventions, but so far as I am concerned promoting means an endeavour to attract
June 27. 1967

people to establish industry. In common English the expression "a promotional job" is often used. It does not refer to the building of an industry from bottom to top.


Colin Cameron: In English the word promoter in connection with business enterprise means someone who develops an industry and runs it, as well as promotes other things. If the minister does not know that, he had better study his English.


Malcolm MacInnis: Several remarks have been made to which I take exception. One was the reference by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to silk stockings as something that could not be associated with the corporation. Is the minister not aware that stockings have been manufactured from coal? If he does a little research he will find that this is done in Germany. So his reference there was not a very bright one.
I would also ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who saw fit to enter the debate to discourage what we are trying to do to improve the legislation, what he meant by referring to the word explicit with reference to coal, in the terms of the resolution? Does this include the McBean mine, from which the government has backed away? According to the minister's interpretation of promoting and assisting, there is absolutely no need to have the word promoting in the resolution. To promote means to originate, or to assist somebody else who originated something, and to develop it. The idea of promoting an industry can mean the taking over of it or the complete undertaking of it. The minister's interpretation of the word promote is not in line with my acceptance of the meaning of that word.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I quote from the Oxford dictionary? I know it is not recognized all over Canada. I pride myself on knowing a little bit of English, although I confess it is not as good as the French of the hon. member for York South. According to the Oxford dictionary "promote" means to "help forward, encourage. . .support actively of passing of . .. take necessary steps for passing of ... publicize and sell" and so on. This is exactly the meaning given to it in the present biU.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have the same dictionary, and the minister left out some of the things
Cape Breton Development Corporation that were in parenthesis. One of those phrases that he left out was "support actively the passing of (law), take necessary steps for passing of (local or private act of parliament)". In other words, there is nothing in the definition of the word promote as given there which relates to the promotion of business. But if the minister will look at the next word, promoter, he will see "one who promotes formation of joint stock company".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that if all that was meant by the resolution was to assist, then assist was the only word that was necessary; but the resolution says there shall be authority to promote and assist. I submit that assisting is helping someone else to do it, but promoting can mean encouraging someone else to do it and it can also mean the promoting by the entity itself of other industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: It was not my intention to get into this part of the debate, which has attracted some very learned gentlemen, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the hon. member for York South who originated it. However, I find it rather unusual and disturbing, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South says, that here we are trying to improve this legislation to the point where it will be of great assistance, and the minister from Cape Breton Island is the first to jump to his feet and object and reject, and find all kinds of excuses why we should not-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order. I do not object to the hon. member arguing the point of order which is before the committee now, namely whether the amendment meets the requirements of the royal recommendation and is within the confines of the resolution. I am arguing that it is not, and that is all. If the hon. member wants to argue the other side of that proposition he is quite free to do so, but I object very strongly to this kind of unpleasant and unnecessary insinuation. What is necessary at this moment is to get this bill passed. That is the quickest way to help the miners and the steelworkers on the island of Cape Breton. Let us pass the bill.
Some horn. Members: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: 
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Robert Muir: I am shocked that he of all people would do such a thing.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the question before the committee now is not the bill itself but the validity of an amendment. If the committee is going to continue and the hon. member wishes to speak, I will only be able to accept remarks relating to the point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to qualify something he said. He stated that when the amendment was introduced he did not have a written copy before him and therefore could not argue it properly. If he recalls what he said, one interpretation that can be placed on his remarks is that the crown corporation would not be able, as the minister put it, in any way, shape or form to build from the ground up a new mine at Lingan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The resolution empowers the corporation to operate and open a new mine in Cape Breton if it so desires. I take the stand of the premier of Nova Scotia, that nationalization of the steel industry is not an appropriate function of the government of Canada.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister has brought up the question of nationalization, but I think the members of this committee are labouring under an illusion. This is not nationalization as nationalization is generally understood. This bill is to set up a corporation to take over the coal industry, with the express purpose of doing away with it. The minister makes it sound very enticing when he says that the quickest way to help the miners and steelworkers of Cape Breton is to rush this legislation through. We want to see it go through, but we want it to go through in an improved form.
May I hark back to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.
(Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).]
DEBATES	June 27, 1967


Malcolm MacInnis: What has this legislation got to do with steel?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton South will agree with me that the problem we now have to decide is not the effect of the legislation, but whether or not the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South is in order. That is the only argument that the Chair will permit at this particular time.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would just ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to indicate to me and to other members of the committee where there is any help for the steelworkers in this legislation. We are trying to inject some help for them into the bill, and this is what the minister is refusing, at the same time telling us to pass the legislation because it will help the steelworkers. Will the minister indicate where this legislation helps the steelworkers?


David Lewis: The Minister of National Health and Welfare has tried to argue the point of order by throwing in words which he thinks are pejorative, such as socialism, or nationalization, asking everybody else to deal merely with the point of order and taking unto himself the liberty to make statements about merits and philosophy. This is not unusual, Mr. Chairman, and it does not surprise me, but I do want to repeat in all earnestness what I said before.
If it is within the resolution for the legislation to give this corporation the power to invest in the shares or securities of any existing company without limit, so that it may buy up, as far as the language of the clause before the committee is concerned, 100 per cent of the shares or securities of a company or person carrying on a business or enterprise which the corporation thinks is necessary and desirable-if legislation saying that is within the confines of the resolution, then I submit that the minister is, in logic, absolutely wrong in suggesting that the corporation cannot invest in an enterprise which it itself establishes, promotes, or whatever word one may wish to use in that connection.
The argument of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the corporation, as it will be set up initially, will not have the personnel to run this or that business- whether it is engaged in making socks from steel or peanut butter from coal-is irrelevant to the point of order and to the general situation before us.
June 27, 1967	COMMONS
The minister, I am sure, knows at least as much about business as I know; he knows that there are many holding corporations that do not, themselves, have the expertise to carry on a particular business, but which own that business that is being carried on by experts whom the corporation hires for that purpose.
If my amendment is out of order, then the provision in the clause before us for the corporation to have authority to invest in the shares or securities of a company is equally out of order. If one is in order, then logically the other is in order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee wish me to make a ruling now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair paid great attention to this resolution when it was before the committee on June 15, as it was necessary, I think, for the Chair to do, to be able to relate the bill which would follow to the resolution being discussed at that time.
The amendment of the hon. member for York South does not deal with the first part of the resolution but deals particularly with the matter of setting up businesses outside the coal industry. The Chair, here, is being asked to decide the meaning of words. We have had considerable argument about the meaning of "promoting". The last part of the resolution uses the phrase, "for the purpose of promoting and assisting the development of industry".
I recognize the validity of the argument which has been advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare but I recognize, too, that deciding a question like this is drawing a fine line between the meaning of words. That is difficult for the Chair to do.
I shall accept the amendment and ask the committee to decide. Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: yeas, 27; nays, 61.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Robert Muir: I presume we are now continuing our discussion on clause 23. Now that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has won the day by destroying an amendment which we thought might be of benefit in establishing new industries, let me put a question to the minister of mines. A few moments ago, his colleague the Minister of National Health and
DEBATES	2043
Cape Breton Development Corporation Welfare said there was great urgency attached to the passage of this bill. Well, we tried to get the house to sit after ten o'clock one night some time ago but the house did not see fit to do so. But the minister did say he wanted to get this legislation through in order to assist coal and steel. Would the minister of mines advise the house what clause 23 will' do to assist the steel industry. Let him spell it out to us in a few words.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have said on a number of occasions that it is only indirectly that the corporation would be helping the steel industry. By promoting industrial development in the area it would be doing so.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for that reply. May I ask him whether it is provided that the Industrial Development Corporation may lend money either with or without security at such rates of interest as the corporation considers proper, or without interest. If so, would this include the lending of money, with or without interest, to the Dosco corporation to assist steel?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The language is certainly broad enough to allow that. It would become a matter of policy for the corporation to decide whether this is the kind of venture they feel they should indulge in.


Mr. Fairweather:: Would the lending of money under this clause fulfil the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on May 27 in connection with the modernization of the Sydney enterprise?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Reference has been made already to that statement. It was an announcement with respect to a joint project supported by the provincial government on one side, and the Atlantic Development Board on the other, having to do with the provision of capital for bulk handling facilities in connection with the steel operations in Sydney. It is not related in any way to the main operation. The work and the research in connection with this particular grant were under way long before this bill came into the house.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What would be the point of the Atlantic Development Board and the provincial government lending money for the modernization of steel handling facilities if the future of Dosco in Cape Breton were uncertain?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to that question is, of course, that if Dosco as a steel operator is to become more efficient, to
June 27, 1967
2044	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation become more competitive, or even to maintain its position at all, these bulk handling facilities are required. These arrangements were worked out with Dosco long before the current lay-offs took place. It is true that this announcement was made in May. I understand that the hon. member for York South has referred to a press statement. There was a press announcement and I made a statement, both of which related to the impact that this would have on helping to stabilize the steel industry. Neither at that point in time nor at this point in time, do I look to the total elimination of the industry, which seems to be the implication of the question. Just a day or so before the provincial election, the premier of Nova Scotia stated that there would be no lay-offs in the foreseeable future in the steel industry. He has since explained that at the time he made this statement in good faith. I do not dispute that. But I do object to having aspersions cast on the announcement which I made, quite unrelated to lay-offs, but simply for the effect of making a contribution to the steel industry through the Atlantic Development Board.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I cast no aspersions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I was not referring to my hon. friend.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not really care anyway, because that does not matter. Then we are back to where we started, that under section 23(1) (a), the infusion of capital that Dosco receives will undoubtedly improve the efficiency of its operations. If it would, then this corporation would be prepared to make it, is that correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the resolution stage of this bill, I referred to the potential relationship between the steel industry and the operations of this future corporation. If parliament passes this bill, it will vest within the corporation very wide powers to promote and assist industrial development on the island of Cape Breton. I am not, nor is any member of the government, dictating to the corporation. However, there is nothing within the terms of this bill to prevent the corporation, if it so desires, from assisting any industry on the island of Cape Breton, including the steel industry. This was clear and has been clear from the very beginning. All that has been asked in the debate so far that is not contained in this bill, is a request that the corporation own outright the steel mill in Sydney. This is what we are objecting to because we 

do not believe it is a proper function for this corporation.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words on this clause and also to ask the minister a question with regard to the last part of subclause 2. When I moved the amendment which the committee defeated a few minutes ago, I thought I was merely pointing out an omission which I hoped was not deliberate. Obviously it was, and I am grateful, as a member of this house, although I am very unhappy at the same time, to have that clarification as to what the government intends to do with this legislation. I have this clarification from the mouths of the two ministers who spoke. All we have in this legislation, so far as the industrial development division is concerned, is not an industrial development organization at all but another agency to get other people to do the job that needs to be done.
I can see no difference, except for the difference in the structure and financial arrangement, between this corporation and the Atlantic Development Board. So we have two agencies with exactly the same power and exactly the same purposes. We have the Atlantic Development Board which is to promote-to use the word in the sense in which the ministers opposite used it-industrial development in the Atlantic region, including of course Cape Breton Island. Then we have the Cape Breton Development Corporation to do exactly the same thing within Cape Breton. Then there is the provincial Industrial Estates organization under the provincial government which is doing exactly the same thing for the province of Nova Scotia including, of course, the island of Cape Breton. How absurd can we become?
# (10:20 p.m.)
' There was value in this corporation and in this set-up on the assumption that the corporation would have additional powers and would itself be capable of taking steps to develop industry in Cape Breton Island, and not merely invite private corporations to do it when the corporation itself decides not to do it.
This was not merely an adjunct to the Atlantic Development Board, but when the corporation is limited merely to provide for somebody else to do the job, when the corporation itself cannot undertake anything, then no progress is made at all over and above the agencies you already have both in the federal and provincial field. If this is what this government intended-to get half a job done in
June 27, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	2045
Cape Breton Development Corporation
desperation-then the desperation in a situation like this is emphasized and re-emphasized ten thousand times. It I am proven to be wrong, then I and my colleagues will be the first to delight if this corporation does succeed in making of Cape Breton Island the kind of lively and hopeful community that the people there have a right to expect.
I must say, however, with the interpretation the government has given to the powers of this corporation and the limitations it has placed around it, as well as the fact that the question of steel is not included, that I would be the most surprised man in Canada if this corporation accomplishes the purpose we all hoped in less than half a century-and I will not be here to know the results of that accomplishment. I say that not in any spirit other than frustration about a government which looks at a crucial situation and acts in respect of every step it takes with conservatism and lack of imagination. When I said "conservatism" I meant conservatism with a small "c". Let no hon. member on my right feel at all hurt. Compared to the hon. gentlemen opposite, even the party which is the official opposition is by comparison a group of roaring bolsheviks.
The last words in subclause 2 of clause 23 ask the corporation to consult and co-operate with the various agencies. The end of that clause says that the corporation shall not undertake any action in relation to such objects if that action can be more appropriately carried out under any other assistance program.
I do not know what programs the drafters of the legislation may have had in mind, but I think one might be the ARDA program. I suppose the designated area program may come in somewhere, and obviously the manpower training program would come in. The corporation is asked not to undertake such programs. Of course I see the sense in this. Then it goes on to say:
-or can reasonably be carried out without the assistance of the corporation.
I do not know what that means. What concerns me is, who is to decide this, and how will the decision be made? I should like to know what machinery the minister and his advisers have in mind for ascertaining and determining whether a certain action can be undertaken by some other agency without the assistance of the corporation. Is it the corporation which will make the decision, or who will make that decision?


Malcolm MacInnis: This point can be found at the bottom of page 23
where it is said "if a committee to co-ordinate economic development," is set up.


David Lewis: Would it be the committee or the corporation who will make that kind of
decision?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It would be made by the committee, which is defined in clause 2 of the agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia. I am quite aware of the problems to which the hon. member has referred. It is not easy to make the distinction between the Atlantic Development Board, ARDA and this Cape Breton corporation. Obviously they might at some times tend to do the same things, but generally speaking the Atlantic Development Board will work mainly at setting up what is needed to attract industry. I have a list in my hand of things they have done in the Cape Breton area. Let me give you an example or two. This board has established bulk handling facilities at Point Edward, provided additional water supply for Point Edward and established a sewage treatment plant for Point Edward.
As opposed to this, the Cape Breton corporation will do some industrial promotion. I will admit that at times the Atlantic Development Board has done some of the things the corporation will now be doing. There is another advantage in having both the A.D.B. and the corporation in that the corporation will concentrate more on Cape Breton than any other existing organization of the federal or provincial government. The answer to the question raised is that the committee will be the body to bring together all these agencies in an attempt to avoid duplication.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I only pointed out the reference to the committee to show that it does not say there is to be a committee, but refers only conditionally to a committee being established. There is nothing here that sets up the committee or gives authority for setting up a committee. The reference is, if there is a committee to co-ordinate economic development, but nothing is said about its being set up.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The agreement was prepared at a certain time, as was the bill, so we were not in a position to know during preparation which would come first.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is nonsense.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry, but that is the way it was. The hon. member may disagree with some things other people do, but they are not
2046	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation necessarily nonsensical because of that. Some of them make good sense.


Malcolm MacInnis: Am I
to understand that the minister is saying that the bill and the agreement were set up at the same time but that it was not known what was in each? Could efforts not be co-ordinated a little better than that, rather than putting in the legislation the word "if"?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We tried to do as well as humanly possible. An agreement between Nova Scotia and Canada is a two-sided affair, and we could not presume an agreement existed before it was signed. In any event the agreement was made and the "if" in the bill is now in fact a "when".


Malcolm MacInnis: Let
me draw the minister's attention to the fact that the agreement was signed on June 13 and the bill was printed and available for first reading on June 15, two days later. There were two days available for co-ordination of efforts.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We apologize for not bringing into this matter the kind of efficiency the hon. member would have, had he been on this side.


Robert Muir: I just want to refer briefly to the exchange that took place between the Minister of National Health of Welfare and the member for Royal. A few days ago in this house I did read into Hansard a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare prior to the last provincial election. I also referred to a statement made by Premier Stanfield prior to the last election. If the minister will check Hansard he will note that I said I had no doubt whatsoever that both statements were made in good faith. I still have no doubt that both statements were made in good faith.
The point I want to make is that since Mr. Stanfield made his statement and the minister made his statement, the president of Dosco, Mr. C. H. Drury, issued a statement that he had provided the premier of the province with information to the effect that there were no lay-offs expected in the foreseeable future.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
This is why I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Industry say in the house tonight that he was quite willing to instigate a study of the operations of Dosco. I make this point because I ask: Who can believe what is said to either federal or provincial officials by this

DEBATES	June 27, 1967
corporation? This has been the case down through the years.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 30-Officers and employees not servants of Her Majesty.
Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could explain the reference to the Aeronautics Act in subclause 2 of clause 30.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, this is apparently a clause that is found in all federal government legislation dealing with agencies. It deals with the application of a flying accidents compensation order. I understand it is a precautionary measure more than anything else.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister one short question? Will the president and all those holding senior positions be covered by insurance, and to what extent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: What kind of insurance does the hon. member have in mind?


Robert Muir: Life, accident, sickness.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether there is a policy at the moment. I will try to find out and inform my hon. friend privately.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 31-Corporation a proprietary corporation.
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, in respect of developments the corporation may bring about-I refer here to payments in lieu of taxes-will the corporation in any way be told, instructed or advised that in view of the fact that the mining towns will be vitally affected under this program, any development they can promote shall be carried out within the mining towns that will suffer as a result of phasing-out?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that municipalities now receiving land taxes from the company shall not suffer through the loss of tax revenues. But I do not think I can give the assurance that the municipalities which receive taxes from the company now will go on receiving them at the same level under the
June 27, 1967

corporation if the taxes are related to coal mining.


Malcolm MacInnis: Do I
correctly interpret what the minister has said as meaning that the corporation will pay to the town of Glace Bay, the town of New Waterford, the municipality of Pictou, Sydney Mines, or wherever a mine is phased out, a sum of money to compensate for the loss of industrial taxes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think that is the popular understanding. When the corporation ceases to produce coal I do not think it will go on paying taxes on coal. This would not apply to the company as it exists now, and I do not think it would apply to the new corporation, except with respect to real estate taxes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 31 carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the anxiety of the Chair in trying to rush this through when we are not getting full answers from the minister to the questions we ask. I have asked the minister whether this will be interpreted as meaning that the corporation, in setting up and assisting industries, will do so in the towns *where mines are being phased out, or is it the intention of the government to centralize new developments in an industrial park?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The simple answer is to say that clause 31 makes the crown corporation the same as a private company when it comes to paying taxes to municipalities.


Malcolm MacInnis: I understand that, but apparently the minister does not understand the question I put to him. Because of the phasing out operations, the towns where coal mines are located stand to lose quite a lot of industrial assessment. Will any developments that the crown corporation assists be located in these towns so as to alleviate their loss? In other words, will the corporation direct that new plants be built in towns which are losing mines.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think we can give this assurance.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then does the minister realize that not only will the individual miners lose, but also the towns? For instance the town of New Waterford depends greatly on the assessment of Dominion Coal Company property. If the mine is phased out in that town, and the corporation makes no effort to replace it 27053-1301
DEBATES	2047
Cape Breton Development Corporation with some industrial development, the town as a whole is going to suffer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is exactly why we are providing millions of dollars to help develop the industrial bases of these towns.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 32-General expenditures.
David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I did not get into the chamber soon enough to ask this question when clause 24 was under discussion. I imagine that clause 32 as well as the bottom part of clause 24 contemplate parliament making appropriations to meet the policy which the Prime Minister set out in his statement on December 29, 1966, and which has been repeated a number of times during this debate, namely that the government expects there will be progressive savings in the subsidies which heretofore have been paid to the coal producing companies, and that the money thus saved will be made available to the funds of the development division of the new corporation.
In his statement the Prime Minister put it
this way:
Although it is anticipated that the operating losses in the first year alone will be in the order of $25 million-
And presumably that too is contemplated to be appropriated by parliament.
-the mining program will progressively reduce these annual losses, and, hence, the federal funds required. From these annual savings in subsidies, money will become available to augment the economic development fund.
Later on in his statement the Prime Minister said:
To further this objective-
That is the objective of developing industry on the island.
-the government of Canada will augment its initial $20 million economic development contribution to the crown corporation from expected savings in federal subsidies.
We want to know from the government, through the minister, whether the government has given any thought to the way in which it will calculate the savings from the subsidies, and whether the amount of money to be voted will be exactly what its calculation of the savings comes to, or whether the calculation of subsidy savings will merely be a guide as to the amounts the government may ask parliament to appropriate for the purpose of augmenting the funds of the crown corporation.
June 27, 1967
2048	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation [DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
I think we ought to know in more precise terms what the Prime Minister means. A spokesman for the government and articles in the press, if I remember correctly, talked of $400 million eventually being appropriated for development purposes. If this is so, over what period of years does the government foresee this expenditure?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, on this subject I can be very clear on general policies but not too clear on specifics. The quotation of the Prime Minister already given by the hon. member for York South is the statement of policy. There is a relationship between the amount of money saved and the amount of money to be invested by way of economic development. It might be less; it might be more. That is why the legislation could not tie the government to any specific calculation, such as saying that every $2 saved means there will be $1.79 spent. If I am any judge of the past the house will always be willing to do its utmost to help the people of Cape Breton, and especially to help the promotion of industrial development in that area. I do not think it could do better than that.


David Lewis: May I follow that up for the moment. I could not expect the minister to give me figures, and I appreciate that it would not be an exact dollar for dollar relationship, but a guide, as I suggested in putting my question. However, one of the matters I have tried to understand is an obvious one. When the subsidies or subventions are related, as they have been, to the volume of production of coal, if there is an intention to phase out coal the volume will naturally decrease. Therefore the subventions that might have been paid will decrease.
I am sure that other members and the people of Cape Breton are equally as interested as I am in the magnitude of the expenditures that we are talking about. We know there is $20 million to start with. What order of magnitude of expenditure are we talking about over the next decade, for example, in connection with the fund to attract the development of industry on Cape Breton Island?


Jean-Luc Pepin: If I recall correctly, in his report Dr. Donald talks about $150 million for industrial development over the whole period. It is very difficult to be more specific because it all depends on the rhythm of phasing out of the coal industry. The government will probably have to advance money, as we are in this ease. The $20 million we are putting in will


help planning, and two or three years from now another infusion say, of the same amount may be needed before there is a saving of, say, $10 million on the coal side. I hope this is not the case but it is possible. That is why it is difficult to tie the government to a rhythm of money saved-money allocated.


David Lewis: The minister should know that you cannot be an economics accountant on the rhythm method.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
On clause 34-Surplus Crown Assets Act does not apply.
Donald MacInnis: On
clause 34 I would again draw to the minister's attention that portion of the railway between Broughton Junction and Louisbourg which is causing considerable concern in the town of Louisbourg. Representations have been made to a number of members of the house including the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the N.D.P. and others. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should be interested in this matter because most of the line is in his constituency.
Can the minister not tell the house what the board of trade of Louisbourg was told about why the line would be cancelled? Possibly the Minister of National Health and Welfare could tell the committee about that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I gave a lengthy answer to this question at page 1696 of Hansard, last week. The short answer is that this railway is not useful or valuable for the continuing operation of the coal mine. The business activity on the railway is extremely low. Last year it took in about $18,000 in revenue and expended about $50,000, if my memory serves me well. There is no interest, so far as the coal mining operation is concerned, in this railway.


Donald MacInnis: The
railway may not be of interest to the coal operation, but my question involved the municipalities of Louisbourg and Broughton. I want to know what was said to the board of trade of Louisbourg about the cancellation of this portion of line. I realize that the rolling stock on this line belongs to Dominion Coal and that the corporation will take it over. The line itself is useless without the rolling stock. Could not the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in whose constituency Louisburg is situated, answer my
June 27, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	2049
question? What has been said so far is not a reasonable explanation.


David Lewis: May I follow the hon. member's remarks with another question. If I remember correctly, as I visited the area some time ago, there is a fish plant there. Is it the intention that the line between Broughton Junction and Louisbourg be torn up completely? I understand that the entire line is not to be taken up. The line is to be dug up between Broughton and Glenville. What will happen to the line between Broughton and Louisbourg? What alternate transportation for the fish plant in Louisbourg will there be? I know that the business on the line is very small, but cannot one of the ministers concerned say what is to happen to the fish plant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: An application to abandon the line is before the Board of Transport Commissioners. Also, as the fishing operation requires only one carload per week, or something like that, I presume that a couple of trucks would do the same job.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister is confusing matters when he says that the Board of Transport Commissioners is involved. We know that there have been hearings in Cape Breton on this matter, but is the minister prejudging the board's decision? What is the use of a railway without rolling stock-rolling stock which the corporation will take over. The Board of Transport Commissioners may rule that the line must remain in service. That ruling would be absolutely useless if no rolling stock is available. The corporation will have to service the line between Broughton Junction and Louisbourg.
Here we have a bill, then an agreement, and now the transport board is involved with a decision which has not been handed down. The corporation which removes the rolling stock will have to serve that line.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: I apologize for the first part of the answer which was straight information. The second part is the real answer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 35

Works and undertakings declared to be for general advantage of Canada.
Robert Muir: The committee will remember that previously we did change the wording in different portions to read "island" and I wonder whether the committee would entertain a similar amendment at this time.
Cape Breton Development Corporation
I move:
That in clause 35, line 3, the word "county" be changed to "island" and that in line 5 the word "county" be also changed to read 'island".


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 36-Commencement.
Malcolm MacInnis: I was
about to remark that despite what may have appeared to be some delay, the minister did get this legislation through rather quickly having regard to the complex nature of the bill and what he is asking of members of parliament.
I would only ask in connection with clause 36 when it is the intention of the government to have this bill proclaimed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: As soon as possible.


Malcolm MacInnis: I
should like to have a more definite answer than that. "As soon as possible" is a phrase which has been used by the government for three years. It was used three years ago in connection with something which has still not come about. Can the minister tell us whether this bill will be proclaimed in time to permit some activity by the crown corporation this summer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Immediately after it has been approved by the Senate and given royal assent.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Howard Russell MacEwan: I wonder whether the minister in a few well chosen words can advise me when he may issue a statement clarifying the position with regard to the McBean mine and the workers and communities in that area. Now that this bill is just about through the committee stage, can he give us some idea when he might look into this and issue a statement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will try to move as quickly as I can. I have already dealt with the subject at some length, as reported at page 1673 of Hansard. In the course of that statement I made five main points. First, I explained why we could not include the mine in the legislation. I think this is now understood. Second, I pointed out that the mines were reaching a state of natural exhaustion. Third, I explained that we had made an offer to Dosco to continue subsidies at the present level. We have not received any official response to this offer. The fourth point I made was that a
June 27, 1967
2050	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation private operator might want to take over the mine. I agreed this might happen, but I do not know if it will.
The fifth point was the most important. We shall bring in all possible federal and provincial support to soften the blow if the mine has to be closed. I cannot say yet whether it will have to be closed. I concluded by saying that the money saved, if the mine is closed more rapidly than is anticipated, will be a consideration to be borne in mind by the cabinet in deciding what most favourable terms shall be given to McBean. I do not think I can be more specific at this point. As soon as I can I will go down there to discuss the matter with the people in the area and learn what their views are. I hope they will not simply tell me to ask the corporation to take it over. I hope they will have some progressive ideas to offer.
I can only say what I attempted to say the other day when the Speaker stopped me, that is what has been done in Pictou county. The Atlantic Development Board has invested $14 million in the area in the last two years. The area development agency has provided $7 million in the form of grants to 11 projects in Pictou, bringing in a total investment of $58 million in this area, again in the last two years. About 1,400 new jobs have been created. This is probably still not enough, and I can only say we will try, as a government, to do more of the same.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I thank the minister for this statement. Earlier in the debate I stated that the $12 million for a new thermo power plant should be considered in the light of the fact that you have a mine within ten miles which could provide 400,000 tons of coal for the expansion of this plant to 150 killowatts. This does not seem to make too much sense. I intend to put a question on the order paper forthwith with regard to the 11 projects the minister mentioned. Probably the Minister of Industry will say the information is confidential.
I think we should know about these projects. Perhaps the minister could provide answers in written form at some time. However, I intend to find out about them. I welcome the fact the minister said he would be willing to meet with the people from the area, the mine workers, civic officials and representatives of the provincial government, at an early date. Certainly what he has said has not been clear. I am glad that he finds it quite funny that there are 400 people in the county of Pictou who have sent telegrams, and who do not find this situation funny.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I apologize at having to correct the hon. member. I do not find it funny at all. I just mentioned to some of my neighbours that they will be coming with me, and they were pleased to know that.


Howard Russell MacEwan: We will welcome any members of the cabinet, if they care to be enlightened and leave their ivory towers in Ottawa. We will give them a Scottish welcome, and perhaps open their eyes. I am glad to hear the minister say that he will come down to that area, and I hope it will not be next year.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Since we are members here representing not only particular areas but the whole country, I want to include an invitation to the minister to make a detour during his visit to Nova Scotia into the constituency of Royal and the Minto-Chipman area. There are some 1,500 people in that area either directly or indirectly involved in coal mining, who are extremely apprehensive about the future of the industry there. I cannot promise the minister a Scottish welcome but I can promise him a straightforward welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Today the Minister of National Defence became involved in Scottish origin, and it is getting very late for that. Seriously, the people in our area are apprehensive about the future. They would like to be assured that if the technique involved in this new crown corporation is a viable one, the government would consider the same sort of thing for that area where the miners face, to say the least, an uncertain future.
I am sorry to have to make these remarks at eleven o'clock, but I have been waiting some time for clause 1 so I could be in order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thank the hon. member for making this point. It illustrates how difficult it is to do something for one area without all the other areas of Canada, some of which have difficulties too, trying to get the same advantage. I point out this particular aspect of the problem to the hon. member for Pictou, and I am sure he understands it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The answer is no.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


Robert Muir: I have just one final word before the minister says his prayers and goes to bed. I am wondering if he is aware of this fact? If drastic
June 27, 1967

changes do not take place in the steel industry in Nova Scotia, then mark my words this 27th day of June, the next bill that will be introduced in this house will be one to take over the steel industry, because this is the course which will have to be followed if changes do not take place so far as the corporation is concerned.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: the third reading of the biU.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, even at this late hour I should like to ask the indulgence of members so that I may be permitted to revert to motions to present the report of the special joint committee on divorce.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How long will it take?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have permission to revert to motions at this time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have gone on for an extra hour now. I should like to know what urgency there is about this matter tonight. Could it not be dealt with on motions tomorrow?


Alan John Patrick Cameron: The understanding I had with the joint chairman of the committee was that it would be presented tonight at eight o'clock. Since the Speaker was not in the chair until now, I waited until this time, because I had told the joint chairman that it would be presented tonight. That is the urgency so far as I am concerned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is there anything wrong with it being presented tomorrow; is there anything which might happen to the report in the interval?


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I thought that my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre
Divorce
(Mr. Churchill) would agree. It will only take about 30 seconds.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was my original question. I asked how long it would take and it has taken you about three minutes to tell me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave of the house to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DIVORCE


Alan John Patrick Cameron: presented the second report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on divorce.
He said: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move:
-that the second report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on divorce tabled this day be appended to today's Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: While the motion presented by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) is not in the usual form, I will allow it to be presented to the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the
house at this time to proceed with the adjournment proceedings or to suspend them on this particular occasion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Suspend them.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we suspend them on this particular occasion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Regimbal:: Proceed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us suspend the questions, for the sake of the staff.


Roger E. Régimbal: I cannot agree, sir. There are people here who have come from Calumet to back up this representation, and it would be unfair to suspend the questions at their expense. We have been patient and we have not said a word.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
June 27, 1967
2052	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-CALUMET. QUE.- CLOSING OF C.I.P. PLANT

Roger E. Régimbal: 
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), I am quite sorry to learn that the Canadian International Paper Co. is going to close down the sawmill at Calumet.
I am prepared-although I cannot offer industries, since I do not have them in my pockets-to make an effort and provide the co-operation of my department in looking for contractors who might be interested to go and settle in Calumet. I know that the Calumet area has lately been recognized as a designated area, and that may attract or influence some contractors to go and settle there.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I can offer my help and my sympathy to the townspeople and as I said before, like everyone of us, including the hon. members here in this house, we regret the closing down of that sawmill.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]



INDUSTRY-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR CANADIAN FILM PROCESSORS

Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for keeping the minister a little later on this late, late show, but my remarks will take only a few moments. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister something about which he may not be aware, and which I think is very important.
There is currently being distributed throughout Canada a promotional envelope soliciting photo-finishing at American mail order prices. The address to which the films are to be mailed for processing is the capital of the film world, Hollywood, California, U.S.A. The prices advertised are considerably lower than Canadian prices for similar processing. This in itself is all right. There is nothing wrong with competition in business as long as it is fair competition. But the question here is whether this is fair competition.
If we look at the facts we see first that the processing procedures for film are fairly well standardized in the United States and Canada. The equipment is identical in most instances. However, Canadian film processors in the photographic industry obtain most of their equipment from the United States. This is also true of photographic chemicals and other supplies of that nature entering this country. And here we have the first snag: Present government policy dictates that Canadian film processors must pay duty on all equipment, chemicals and supplies entering this country. Thus the cost of all photographic supplies in Canada is much higher than in the United States largely due to our Canadian duties and taxes.
In addition, still looking at the facts, Canadian processors add to the general economy of the country, as the minister knows, by paying income taxes and other taxes incidental to their Canadian citizenship. About this they do not complain unduly, since they are as willing as any other Canadians to undertake their obligations of citizenship. However, when they see competition from the United States threatening their livelihood because of arbitrary decision by government, or government directive, they are understandably disturbed.
What is this arbitrary, bureaucratic directive? It is that although Canadian processors must pay taxes and duty, instead of helping them by lowering these taxes and duties the government has seen fit to try the hands
June 27, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion across the border routine, and has permitted Canadian photo processing to be done in the United States and returned to this country duty free. I would submit to the minister that this is discrimination. Perhaps the minister is not aware that this sort of thing is going on. Certainly our American friends are aware of the situation and have been quick to seize on the excellent business afforded by our centennial year and by Expo, and have not hesitated to exploit the Canadian photo processing business for their own monetary advantage.
The industry is not asking for any special favour, but only for fair treatment. Either duty should be charged on the incoming processed film, or the photographic equipment, chemicals and other supplies used by our photographic industry should be duty free on entering this country. After all, our labour costs are somewhat lower here than they are in Hollywood and our industry could compete favourably with the United States industry if some of these arbitrary barriers to such competition were removed.
I would ask the minister to consider doing something about this. As he knows, this is a seasonal business, mainly conducted in the summer months. It is very important to our photo processors that something be done to help them in what is certainly their time of need. It does not help when they see envelopes like the one I now hold in my hand coming from Hollywood with the Canadian centennial emblem on them, giving a quasiofficial stamp of Canadian approval to this method of soliciting business. I am sure the minister does not approve of this. Perhaps he will have some way to relieve this undue or unfair competition to the Canadian photo processing industry.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has asked me to answer this question for him tonight, and so I regret the disappointment occasioned the hon. member for Saskatoon. However, I hope the information I have for him will be acceptable.
In answering the question I should first point out that the importations of which he speaks are not commercial importations, but are importations made by individual amateur photographers which consist of film exposed by them while abroad or at home in Canada. Much of this film was purchased by them at "process included" prices and returned for processing to the film manufacturer's processing plant.

An exposed or processed film has for years been considered as being of no commercial value when imported for personal use and not for resale. Over the last year or so film processors in Canada have expressed views similar to those expressed by the hon. member. As a result, investigations were made to establish the validity of their claims. At that time little or no evidentiary support was available to uphold these claims or warrant a change in the non-commercial classification given to processed film imported by individuals for personal use and not for resale.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
Recently the department entered into consultation with the Department of the Registrar General, who had requested that consideration be given in this matter to the consumer interests involved. At present the two departments are studying the price structure and other characteristics of the industry, taking into consideration the representations of the industry as well as those of the consumers.
I am advised that the results of these joint discussions may be expected in the near future.



HOUSE OF COMMONS-APPLICATION TO STAFF OF BILINGUAL BONUS

Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, on April 6, 1966, the Prime Minister announced in the house his policy on bilingualism.
It will be recalled that these new methods of encouraging bilingualism will touch, in the first place, the positions requiring university training, second, executive and administrative positions and, finally, clerical and secretarial positions.
In the case of clerks and secretaries, a bonus will be paid in respect of clerical and secretarial positions in which there is a requirement for a knowledge of both official languages, provided the incumbents of such positions shall meet standards of competence established by the Public Service Commission.
In addition, the government was to take a certain number of general measures that would solidly establish bilingualism in the public service and in the federal capital.
This policy announced on April 6, 1966, Mr. Speaker, indicated and revealed a certain ment although, at the time, this policy seemed effort in the right direction by the govern-
June 27, 1967	COMMONS
quite timid and overly gradual, as emphasized to me by some members, by many newspaper commentators and by other Canadian citizens.
That policy, also set forth on April 6, contained certain deficiencies. Right then, a true statute of bilingualism should have been defined and the criteria whereby bilingualism fills a need should have been determined, rather than leaving the decision to the fancy of the new secretariat within the Privy Council. In addition, the creation of a protective and arbitration organization to settle grievances which would unavoidably arise was then overlooked.
It is to be wondered today, after this new policy on bilingualism has been in force for 15 months, exactly what progress has been made with regard to the positions then to be considered, first office clerks and secretaries, and also in the spirit that prompted the very statement of the Prime Minister, who was anxious to introduce bilingualism as soon as possible within the public service in the national capital. This measure seemed to be appropriate, in view of the following year, that is the present centennial year.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems now that this policy has not been followed according to the announcement then made. Apparently, a bonus of 7 per cent has been granted to certain classes of civil servants, that is to the clerks or secretaries, but according to some rumours, it seems that several of these classes have not yet benefited by this bonus for bilingual employees.
Naturally, there is some talk of not disturbing employees of long standing who are not bilingual and more or less interested in learning other languages. The point must be taken into consideration. Although we must not hurt employees of long standing who, particularly in the national capital, did not see the need of learning both of the official languages of Canada, believing the country to be unilingual, or thought it sufficient to speak only one language, we must also remember bilingual Canadians, found mostly and in great majority among the French Canadians.
I am proud to say that we French Canadians understood the bilingual and bicultural nature of our country, and that our contribution in this respect has been great, although a certain discrimination is practised against several thousand civil servants who are apparently bilingual and competent, and who do 10 per cent of their work in the other official Canadian language.
DEBATES	2055
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We should therefore like to know from the government to what extent that policy has been implemented, and just how far the secretariat set up within the Privy Council has progressed with its work.
May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to ask the government not to let another hundred years go by, not to let another generation die, before implementing bilingualism somewhat intelligently and rapidly. Because most of the bilingual people are French Canadians, they should not continue to be discriminated against through slow implementation of the program.
That is why I wish to point out to the government how important it is to extend rapidly the bilingual standards advocated by the April 6 policy, to implement that policy in the federal capital, to extend the premium for bilingualism to the secretaries of the members, who are extremely competent, to the messengers, to the members of the parliament security service, to the employees of the various divisions of the house. I appeal, particularly, to the Speaker to kindly go along with this policy on bilingualism. We have bilingual constables. We would like to have more who would be able to answer the people who come here in the two official languages.
Several of the pages are bilingual as well and would deserve this bonus which is a token of competence and enrichment for any Canadian.
That is why we would also agree to an extension of bilingualism, and this bonus be granted to the employees of crown corporations, the armed forces, the R.C.M.P. and also the small wage-earners of the public service, just as in the case of government employees.
I am making this appeal because this is the best time to do so. By the way, July 1 and July 3 are not far away. July 3 is Confederation Day. It would be a good time to announce such a generous, liberal and Canadian policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the public service generally, I think most hon. members will know that the 7 per cent bonus for bilingual personnel has already been implemented for employees in the secretarial, stenographic and typing occupational group and that plans are proceeding as quickly as possible to extend it to other occupational groups.
June 27, 1967
2056	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
Before an employee may receive the bonus, two conditions must be met. First, he must demonstrate a satisfactory degree of language proficiency by passing a test administered by the Public Service Commission. Second, the deputy head of the department in which the employee is working must make a determination that the second language in question

must be used at least 10 per cent of the time in the performance of the employee's regular duties. With respect to the officers and secretaries of the House of Commons, this is a matter to be considered by the Commissioners of Internal Economy who will, I understand, be meeting again shortly.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.30 p.m.

Wednesday, June 28, 1967